Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 02, 2018

After congressional Republicans repeatedly failed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump promised to "let Obamacare implode" on its own. A new lawsuit being filed Thursday argues that Trump's efforts to make good on that promise violate the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

About time!

Where is snippy to remind us that the ACA is the Law.

And whether you like it or not as President you have to faithfully enforce the Law!

Or does that only apply to hateful and inhumane immigration laws?

#1 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"cutting funding for "navigators," or those who help individuals enroll in the program"

See, in a single payer system, we wouldn't need navigators, since everyone would just enroll in the same system.

So much of our health care expense is wasted on nonsense like having a system that's so complicated we need navigators just to sign up.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-02 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Where is snippy to remind us that the ACA is the Law"

where is jeffj and his "Constitutional Crisis" screed?

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-02 03:51 PM | Reply

See, in a single payer system, we wouldn't need navigators, since everyone would just enroll in the same system.

#2 | Posted by snoofy

Single payer is unrealistic. Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton say so. We need to run moderate candidates to inspire voters with promises of moderate leadership to maintain the status quo that is obviously working so well for average americans.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-02 03:55 PM | Reply

If this court decides against Trump he will blow a gasket. I think he's pretty close to blowing one now. I wouldn't want to be in a room with him, it could get messy if his head blows.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-02 04:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"Single payer is unrealistic. Paul Ryan and Hillary Clinton say so."

If both parties say it's unrealistic, that probably means it's unrealistic, as in, legislatively unlikely. That is a political problem, caused by money in politics. With health care the single largest sector of the economy, clearly they can afford to buy both parties.

The likely path to Single Payer is Trump breaks Obamacare, the health insurance companies fail, the care delivery system gets overwhelmed and underpaid, so the government steps in as the insurer of last resort. Something like the way the banks failed in 2009 when they ran out of other people's money, which was only supposed to happen under socialism.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-02 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I wouldn't want to be in a room with him, it could get messy if his head blows.

With nothing inside, it should be a relatively clean situation.

#7 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-02 04:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

That's crap.

#8 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-08-02 04:13 PM | Reply

#4 i'm sure america is ready for single payer. very ready.

#9 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-08-02 04:20 PM | Reply

Only if his head is full of it.

#10 | Posted by contrecoup at 2018-08-02 04:20 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sniper get back to flipping burgers......if you managed to keep that job.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-02 04:21 PM | Reply

"I wouldn't want to be in a room with him, it could get messy if his head blows."

Indeed! Very dangerous.

We could ALL be sucked in by the vacuum.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 04:26 PM | Reply

The people who need to be convinced about Medicare for all are the ones who have private insurance through their employers that they like and want to keep. They need to be convinced that the new system will be better for them in the long run.

#13 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-02 04:33 PM | Reply

That's crap.

#8 | Posted by Sniper

WTF? I thought you were all for the Preznit faithfully enforcing the LAW. Because it's the law!

What happened?

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 04:34 PM | Reply

"They need to be convinced that the new system will be better for them in the long run."

Not to mention everybody else, but I doubt appealing to their altruism and sense of compassion for their fellow Americans will be enough to persuade some people who like the insurance they have now and don't want to lose/change it.

#15 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-08-02 04:43 PM | Reply

This falls in nicely with my thread.

www.drudge.com

4% rate drop that could have been 15% drop if not for trumps chubby orange fingers.

#16 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-08-02 04:48 PM | Reply

Studies show that Trump voters don't necessarily mind a safety net with single payer or free tuition... unless it undermines their majority status by also helping minorities. Then it's an abomination.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-08-02 04:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"They need to be convinced that the new system will be better for them in the long run."

There is no way for you to convince me that I will be better off. Even though I am old enough to qualify for Medicare I have much better insurance at my job. However, I would still favor offering Medicare to everyone because I want everyone to have healthcare. Unlike Republicans, I don't necessarily always put my own selfish desires ahead of my actions. Medicare for all would boost the economy so much that everyone would see higher wages and overall healthcare costs would plunge. When "trickle-up" economics are applied we all benefit in indirect ways we might not consider. "Trickle down" economics only the very top few percentage of us benefit.

#18 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-02 05:21 PM | Reply

If both parties say it's unrealistic, that probably means it's unrealistic,

#6 | Posted by snoofy

Both parties don't say it's unrealistic. The republican party does, and "democrats" who take huge bribes from insurance companies do.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-02 05:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The problem with this suit is the law itself says, "HHS Secretary shall...." countless times. A 2700 page bill has spawned over 20,000 pages of regulations. The law itself gave the Executive so much ridiculous power to shape it that I believe this suit gets tossed.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-02 06:58 PM | Reply

The problem with this suit is the law itself says, "HHS Secretary shall...." countless times. A 2700 page bill has spawned over 20,000 pages of regulations. The law itself gave the Executive so much ridiculous power to shape it that I believe this suit gets tossed.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-02 06:58 PM | REPLY

LMFAO You want to take down Obama's legacy at all costs. You're as transparent as muscovite.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-02 07:03 PM | Reply

I'm calling it as I see it, Laura.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-02 07:31 PM | Reply

I believe this suit gets tossed.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

I believe you are wrong. If the President HAS to enforce immigration laws why not the ACA law? If the President has the the power to make executive changes to immigration laws why not the ACA. The intent of the ACA was to provide better access and make it more affordable to everyone.

Republicans have done everything in their power to undermine the Law. They need to be held responsible for their actions. Just as anyone who tries to undermine the law and the intent of the law.

How many regulations are involved is Republican a red herring. Making Health Care affordable and accessible to as many Americans as possible is a very complex process. Especially with Big Pharma and the HMO's and health care providers, etc.

There has to be regulations to cover every detail or else it will be meaningless to health care providers and they will just do whatever is more profitable for them.

#23 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 07:50 PM | Reply

Donner

The problem is written into the law itself. It basically abdicates to HHS and that is the double edged sword we are seeing here.

Unless this suit cites specific statutes being violated, like disbursing subsidies to states that didn't set up their own exchanges, I think this suit fails.

We'll see, I guess. I didnt read the linked article. I'm at Cedar Point and am drive-by blogging.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-02 08:07 PM | Reply

We'll see, I guess. I didnt read the linked article. I'm at Cedar Point and am drive-by blogging.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes, we will see... I am just happy that we are holding Trump responsible for something.

WE need to do that as often as we can.

Someone should also sue him for violating the Constitution with his twitter account.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 08:14 PM | Reply

PS

Have fun on the blue streak Jeffy!

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-02 08:15 PM | Reply

I'm totally down with faithfully executing law. The problem is that deference to ‘Chevron' has made interpretation of laws to be malleable.

Do you really want to rebuke Chevron and de-fang the administrative state?

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-02 08:16 PM | Reply

#26

Thanks, bro!

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-02 08:17 PM | Reply

I'm totally down with faithfully executing law. The problem is that deference to ‘Chevron' has made interpretation of laws to be malleable.
Do you really want to rebuke Chevron and de-fang the administrative state?

#27 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That's for Administrative actions. Not for Congressional or White House actions that come from the top down.

The actions are also required to be "reasonable".

In this case, Chevron probably doesn't apply, but if it did, the deference would be inappropriate since the actions are not reasonable.

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-03 01:19 PM | Reply

Here's how the critters in the swamp pay for their's...

As members of Congress debate whether to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, it seems fair to ask: How much do they pay for health care? The answer is that, while they don't pay nothing for coverage, they don't pay much.

As the myth busting website Snopes points out, "contrary to popular belief, Congressional members do not receive free health care." Instead, they choose a gold-level Obamacare policy and receive federal subsidies that cover 72 percent of the cost of the premiums.

In short, Snopes reports that members of Congress and staff "pay approximately 28 percent of their annual healthcare premiums through pre-tax payroll deductions." They also have access to "free or low-cost care" through the Office of the Attending Physician as well as "free medical outpatient care at military facilities" in the D.C. area.

#30 | Posted by Pegasus at 2018-08-03 05:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Both parties don't say it's unrealistic. The republican party does, and "democrats" who take huge bribes from insurance companies do."

So, what if we raised taxes enough to replace all the healthcare premiums paid by individuals and employers? Wow! that would more than pay for Medicare for all. We would end up paying less money for healthcare than we spend today. Republicans don't like it when we think that way, it challenges one of their cash cows and they don't like it. And that is how they view this issue, it is either profit for them or healthcare for all. They choose profit every time, and by their votes for Donald Trump and George Bush, it is completely fair to challenge their motives, their patriotism, their decency as human beings.

Let's get real in America. Republicans are scumbags who don't care if your child dies. That is who they are, until we ALL recognize that ugly fact we will not fix America.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-04 08:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort