|
I'm more thinking of the Republican states where ACA was partially implemented, and the Republicans would, if they prevail in these cases, be directly taking health insurance away from people.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't understand the political endgame here. In those states the Republicans would immediately be blamed for taking away people's health insurance. They wouldn't get blamed. Literally how this would play out is "Those drat Democrats wrote a faulty law!" and their base would eat it the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
It's one thing to not give people health insurance. People who would have gotten medicare didn't get insurance, then get it yanked away. There are a LOT of people in red states that now have insurance that would get taken away, and they'll be much madder and much more vocal about that anger if you take it away from them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's one thing to not give people health insurance. People who would have gotten medicare didn't get insurance, then get it yanked away. There are a LOT of people in red states that now have insurance that would get taken away, and they'll be much madder and much more vocal about that anger if you take it away from them. It almost doesn't matter what the Republicans do or don't do in those states, because the 2010 census gerrymander was comprehensive. The earliest what Republican candidates do will significantly matter to their election chances is 2022 and there's a good chance the fix will still be in even then. The Tea Party wing is not really in a position to campaign against R candidates on a wave of anger about losing healthcare, so all it can reasonably result in is depressed turnout.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:There are a LOT of people in red states that now have insurance that would get taken away, and they'll be much madder and much more vocal about that anger if you take it away from them. Required reminder that as of 2010, a majority of Republicans in Louisiana blame the Hurricane Katrina response on Barack Obama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
UberJew posted:It almost doesn't matter what the Republicans do or don't do in those states, because the 2010 census gerrymander was comprehensive. The earliest what Republican candidates do will significantly matter to their election chances is 2022 and there's a good chance the fix will still be in even then. That ignores the parts of the federal government currently Democrat-controlled (the same parts Republicans are already having a hard time fighting for in 2014 and 2016).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:That ignores the parts of the federal government currently Democrat-controlled (the same parts Republicans are already having a hard time fighting for in 2014 and 2016). Of course, you can't gerrymander senate or presidential elections. The Republicans who are gung ho about destroying Obamacare don't give a poo poo about those elections, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Of course, you can't gerrymander senate or presidential elections. They had better be if they actually want to destroy the ACA rather than continue looking like idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Of course, you can't gerrymander senate or presidential elections. The Constitution gerrymandered the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Required reminder that as of 2010, a majority of Republicans in Louisiana blame the Hurricane Katrina response on Barack Obama. This isn't remotely true though?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's one thing to not give people health insurance. People who would have gotten medicare didn't get insurance, then get it yanked away. There are a LOT of people in red states that now have insurance that would get taken away, and they'll be much madder and much more vocal about that anger if you take it away from them. I don't know what Republicans you've been talking to that aren't going to immediately spin this as "the ACA is a failure; see, your insurance premiums went way up just like we predicted". I know the standard talking point among conservatives here is already "What happened to the 'Affordable' Care Act? I have to pay twice my previous premium now!", regardless of the fact that they either just went from a plan that didn't actually cover anything to one that does, or that their employer just decided to change them all to ridiculously expensive plans that are over the percentage-of-income threshold and thus qualify them for the federal exchange. Also, I wasn't talking about the Medicaid expansion in terms of "taking away insurance" or whatever; I was pointing out that state Republicans are running on the concept of blocking the ACA, and managing to spin the negative repercussions as failures of the law rather than consequences of their actions - which will be no different in this case. I don't think anyone who's not already blaming the GOP for the insurance situation here is going to suddenly decide that now the GOP is acting against their interests. Beamed posted:This isn't remotely true though? You're right, it was only a third of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This isn't remotely true though? http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/21/2503281/louisiana-republicans-blame-president-obama-katrina-response/ Unzip is wrong, it's a plurality, not a majority. Regardless, the idea that the Republican base will ever ground any decision in reason or reality is an utter pipe dream. E: I'm wrong and bad, it's 29% blame Obama, 28% blame Bush, 44% aren't sure who to blame. I should have read this instead of just googling and slam copypasting in my hurry to get back to work. Magres fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Magres posted:http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/08/21/2503281/louisiana-republicans-blame-president-obama-katrina-response/ I'm familiar with the poll, but calling it a plurality at 29% is misleading at best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Oh nurr I should have read my link better, and I haven't read that poll in a while. Sorry, I'm at work and was posting in a hurry. A more accurate phrasing would be a majority of decided respondents. Wasn't trying to be misleading, was just careless. Now that I've actually read it, how the gently caress did Brown criticism Obama for responding "so quickly" to Sandy? Like seriously? "gently caress YOU FOR DOING YOUR JOB QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY OBAMA" Magres fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I'm familiar with the poll, but calling it a plurality at 29% is misleading at best. In this case, the plurality is actually for "unsure who was more responsible", at 44%. You could say that unsure + Obama represent a 44+29=73% majority, since both opinions are similarly ludicrous. You could also say that, among those who aren't unsure, Obama is a majority (29-obama, 28-bush).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
I wish that poll included an extra significant digit, because there's no way I can quote those figures to people without them pointing out those numbers add up to over 100. Nevermind that any statistically significant group answering Obama is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
mortal posted:I wish that poll included an extra significant digit, because there's no way I can quote those figures to people without them pointing out those numbers add up to over 100. Nevermind that any statistically significant group answering Obama is ridiculous. I'm afraid that the sort of person who gets hung up on basic concepts like that is not the sort of person you are going to be swinging with data.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
UberJew posted:It almost doesn't matter what the Republicans do or don't do in those states, because the 2010 census gerrymander was comprehensive. The earliest what Republican candidates do will significantly matter to their election chances is 2022 and there's a good chance the fix will still be in even then. Gerrymanders lose effectiveness over time as people migrate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Beamed posted:This isn't remotely true though? Indeed. The closest is 29% from last year via PPP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
The most charitable interpretation here is that most of that 44% knew drat well the right answer was Bush, didn't want to write down something bad about him, but knew they couldn't blame it on Obama. The "not sure" option gives them an easy out that avoids having to confront the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's one thing to not give people health insurance. People who would have gotten medicare didn't get insurance, then get it yanked away. There are a LOT of people in red states that now have insurance that would get taken away, and they'll be much madder and much more vocal about that anger if you take it away from them. This is the next step of Obama's plan, people! We, the Republican Party, have been trying to warn you for years! Obama has enacted part two, where he LITERALLY STEALS YOUR MONEY WITH OBAMACARE! Vote Romney 2016
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Gerrymanders lose effectiveness over time as people migrate. More than that, gerrymandering makes it easier to lose districts when popular opinion shifts. It's not a magic win button, it's a trick that turns two winning districts and two losing districts into three narrow wins and one big loss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:More than that, gerrymandering makes it easier to lose districts when popular opinion shifts. It's not a magic win button, it's a trick that turns two winning districts and two losing districts into three narrow wins and one big loss. It's nonetheless sufficient to hold until, as mentioned, migration and a new census change the calculus, which will occur at the earliest with the first post-census election in 2022. Some sort of black swan event could shift public opinion dramatically enough to overcome it, but 2012 already saw a solid R victory despite losing the popular vote by several percentage points. Anything capable of making the margin +10 or whatever would be necessary to change things before the census is entirely unpredictable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:More than that, gerrymandering makes it easier to lose districts when popular opinion shifts. It's not a magic win button, it's a trick that turns two winning districts and two losing districts into three narrow wins and one big loss. I don't think gerrymandering is done this way in practice except in places where it makes strategic sense. With a critical density of sympathetic voters, you can gerrymander 3 easily winning districts and one easily losing district out of 4 otherwise competitive districts just fine. itsgotmetoo fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jul 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
UberJew posted:It's nonetheless sufficient to hold until, as mentioned, migration and a new census change the calculus, which will occur at the earliest with the first post-census election in 2022. No, you're missing the point. Migration in the intermittent 10 years (of which we are already through 4 of them) makes the gerrymandered districts not as strong as they were when they were drawn.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:More than that, gerrymandering makes it easier to lose districts when popular opinion shifts. It's not a magic win button, it's a trick that turns two winning districts and two losing districts into three narrow wins and one big loss. That's basically the death spiral California was in for 3 decades until a recent initiative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:That's one method of gerrymandering. Another is incumbent gerrymandering, where 4 competitive districts are turned into 2 giant republican wins and 2 giant democratic wins. The end result of that is the only thing that matters is primary elections, meaning you get nothing but super conservative republicans and super liberal democrats who can't ever agree on anything except approving the next incumbent gerrymander. Tell me more about these super liberal democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Tell me more about these super liberal democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Tell me more about these super liberal democrats. Replace super liberal democrats with "black democrats" and that's how it works in many southern states.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Tell me more about these super liberal democrats. To be fair in CA what happened was the Rs flew right for thirty years until the entire party died on the state level while the Ds only slowly shuffled right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
UberJew posted:It almost doesn't matter what the Republicans do or don't do in those states, because the 2010 census gerrymander was comprehensive. The earliest what Republican candidates do will significantly matter to their election chances is 2022 and there's a good chance the fix will still be in even then. Running an exchange is a purely state-level thing. It doesn't matter how badly the House is gerrymandered: the anger will be on the local politicians. In some states those are gerrymandered as well - but not as well, and the governorship isn't either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
itsgotmetoo posted:I don't think gerrymandering is done this way in practice except in places where it makes strategic sense. With a critical density of sympathetic voters, you can gerrymander 3 easily winning districts and one easily losing district out of 4 otherwise competitive districts just fine. It happens when you've got bigger states and are trying to get like 10 out of 13 seats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Running an exchange is a purely state-level thing. It doesn't matter how badly the House is gerrymandered: the anger will be on the local politicians. In some states those are gerrymandered as well - but not as well, and the governorship isn't either. But the states that elk be impacted by this case, if successful, don't have state-level exchanges in the first place. You're banking on large numbers of people even knowing, let alone caring, that other states have exchanges that are still getting subsidies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
The thing is that the states with functioning exchanges are going to be so much better off...The Republicans must be counting on being in a position to dismantle the rest of the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The thing is that the states with functioning exchanges are going to be so much better off...The Republicans must be counting on being in a position to dismantle the rest of the ACA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Yeah, are there any other challenges to it wending their way through the system? hahahaha- Sorry. According to this document, current as of the first of this month, there are 87 current pending challenges to the ACA. Except not really. According to that document there are 87 current pending cases challenging the birth control coverage benefit alone. These don't appear to include actions by state legislatures, either. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Subsidies may flow through federal exchanges: The IRS issued a rule that allows premium assistance tax credits to be available in federal exchanges although the law only specified that they would be available “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311.” (May 23, 2012) The court case could easily end by saying that the federal government is setting up exchanges on behalf of the states. Many states simply asked the fed to do it for them. Thus satisfying the requirement in the ACA. I could see a special case where the state said no way in hell, and the fed did it anyway. But this is about as silly as the AERO case. They are looking to make a small part of the text into a loophole by saying the state did not want it so you need to take the payments back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
The ACLU (among other groups) has withdrawn it's support for the Employee Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate last summer.ACLU posted:The provision in the current version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that allows religious organizations to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity has long been a source of significant concern to us. Given the types of workplace discrimination we see increasingly against LGBT people, together with the calls for greater permission to discriminate on religious grounds that followed immediately upon the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it has become clear that the inclusion of this provision is no longer tenable. It would prevent ENDA from providing protections that LGBT people desperately need and would make very bad law with potential further negative effects. Therefore, we are announcing our withdrawal of support for the current version of ENDA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/hobby-lobbys-other-problemmotherjones posted:Here's one more reason to worry about the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, which allowed the arts and crafts chain to block insurance coverage of contraception for female employees because of the owners' religious objections: It could screw up corporate law. It would be a great irony (and justice) that if by asserting your personal rights through a corporation that you give up the protections corporations provide. Of course, SCOTUS would never take away those protections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
"Given that BP possesses personhood and is conscious enough to have morals--see Hobby Lobby v. The United States--we hold it legally accountable and try it as an adult for negligent homicide."
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 23:10
|
|
