A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate'

[aubiefifty 18,231]

Yahoo

Alexander NazaryanNational Correspondent Sat, September 19, 2020, 1:47 PM CDT

14-18 minutes

---

A Ginsburg replacement is 'worth the White House and Senate': Why, and how, Republicans will push through Trump’s Supreme Court nominee

 

 

WASHINGTON — Even before the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday night, November’s presidential election was shaping up to be the most consequential in modern American history. President Trump said so himself, as did his Democratic rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. A procession of crises — the coronavirus pandemic, protests and urban unrest, rampant wildfires — only heightened the sense that, come Nov. 3, voters would choose not merely a president but a direction for the country.

Then, on Friday, came the announcement that Bader Ginsburg had died at the age of 87 of pancreatic cancer. It was her fourth battle with cancer, one she had only recently been optimistic she would win. Aware, as she was dying, that her passing would almost certainly become a political fight, Ginsburg told her granddaughter, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

But only someone utterly unfamiliar with how Washington works could believe that wish would be heeded.

“I think a 6-3 court is worth the White House and Senate,” one communications director for a Republican member of the Senate told Yahoo News. “The pro-life community has been waiting on this forever. There has to be a vote.”

In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, tributes filled social media and cable news. These invariably noted that Ginsburg was a supremely gifted jurist. And as only the second woman to ever don the robes of a Supreme Court justice, she inspired a generation of female jurists. There are now more women than men attending law school, thanks in part to Ginsburg and pioneering women like her.

But those tributes obscure intense maneuvering by both Democrats and Republicans seeking to gain advantage on a narrowly divided court. Now in control of both the White House and Senate, Republicans want badly to nominate and confirm a justice within a matter of weeks. That justice, the third appointed by President Trump, would tip the court decisively to the right, softening conservatives’ disappointment with Chief Justice John Roberts, who has generally driven in the center lane.

Democrats have one goal, and one goal only: to honor Ginsburg’s dying wish and keep her seat open until January 20, 2021. On that day, they believe, Biden will be sworn in as the next president of the United States. But even getting to Election Day without a new Supreme Court nominee will be a challenge. Then will come the “lame duck” congressional session of November, December and January, with its own weird political calculus. And the entire battle will take place in the middle of a pandemic, as Congress also fiercely debates a new coronavirus relief package.

“This will be a campaign of relentless organizing until the next president is in office,” Ben Jealous, president of the progressive group People for the American Way told Yahoo News. “We are building a coalition like never before.”

In other words, a heated election has been doused with gasoline and lit with a flamethrower.

In largely speculative conversations on Friday night, political aides, judicial activists and legal scholars told Yahoo News there was little Democrats could do to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell from quickly nominating and confirming a justice. At the same time, some predicted that would prove a Pyrrhic victory for Republicans, earning them a coveted high-court seat but leading to lasting political damage.

McConnell indicated that there will be a vote, and soon. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement that instantly outraged progressives. Not only because the grieving over Ginsburg’s passing had barely commenced but because the brutal calculus of Capitol Hill suggests McConnell’s prediction will come to pass.

“Today, we mourn. Tomorrow, we fight,” went the message from the Stonewall Democratic Club, a queer activist group in Ginsburg’s native New York.

History haunts the moment. In 1987, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden led the successful charge against Robert Bork, whom Ronald Reagan had nominated to the Supreme Court. Bork was the nominee who utterly transformed the nomination process, and not for the better, ushering in what Orrin Hatch, then a Republican senator from Utah, would later describe as “a sea change to the confirmation process, with character assassination, shameless misrepresentations of the nominee’s record and partisan warfare.”

More than 30 years later, those remain the hallmarks of high-stakes judicial nominations.

Biden was also central to the successful 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas, shepherding the nominee through despite seemingly credible allegations of sexual impropriety leveled against the judge by Anita Hill. Biden would ultimately vote against Thomas, but his role in that confirmation has continued to follow him during the current campaign.

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell. (AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Then there was the seat left vacant by the unexpected 2016 passing of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative stalwart who had an unlikely friendship with the staunchly liberal Ginsburg (the two shared a love of opera and are, in fact, the subjects of one). President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a respected jurist on the D.C. Circuit Court. McConnell, however, refused to grant Garland a hearing, arguing that Obama had no business nominating a new justice with the presidential election looming.

Then, as now, progressives were infuriated and conservatives were energized. That energy likely translated into support for Trump that November. And if he has failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act or build a border wall with Mexico, he has accomplished the rightward shift of the judiciary conservatives have sought since the 1970s, when “judicial activism” first became a Republican rallying cry.

In all, Trump has appointed 216 federal judges, according to the Heritage Foundation’s judicial tracker. Obama, by contrast, appointed 158 judges — in twice the time. But all those district and circuit court judgeships awarded to young conservative jurists (most of them white males) pale in comparison to the plum prize of an open Supreme Court seat.

Much as he has already done on the judicial front, conservatives need him to deliver once more. “This nomination is why Donald Trump was elected,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., told Sean Hannity of Fox News on Friday evening. A graduate of Harvard Law School whose name was on a recent list of potential Trump nominees to the Supreme Court, Cruz urged Trump to nominate the justice next week and confirm him or her before the presidential election on Nov. 3.

That would make for the speediest nomination-to-confirmation process in American history. A 2018 analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that the first hearing for a Supreme Court nominee occurred 40 days after the formal nomination.

Obama nominated Garland with 237 days before the 2016 election. Now the 2020 presidential election is 45 days away, and in some states, people have already begun to vote. Trump will still have more than two months after Nov. 3 to govern, even if he loses, but that day’s results could complicate things if Biden is elected or the Senate flips to the Democrats. Either of those developments could rob Republicans of the mandate they believe they currently have.

Speculation about Ginsburg’s health has been rampant in conservative judicial circles for years, stoked by recent trips to the hospital for treatment related to her recurring cancer. Only last week, Trump released an expanded list of potential Supreme Court nominees in what seemed at the time like a ploy to stoke conservative enthusiasm and remind his supporters of why they voted for him in the first place. Now that list will serve as a road map for the weeks ahead.

Mark Meadows, the president’s chief of staff, is expected to lead the process. Though well-liked on Capitol Hill, Meadows, a former House member, doesn’t have experience dealing with the Senate confirmation process. Meadows’s negotiations with House Democrats over coronavirus relief measures do not suggest exceptional skill in either pressuring or persuading legislators, and both those attributes will figure into the fight over Ginsburg’s seat.

Joshua Geltzer, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and is now a professor at Georgetown Law, believes that there might be just enough of a gap between McConnell and Trump for Democrats to exploit.

“As a pure political calculation, I think Senate Majority Leader McConnell and President Trump might actually be in different camps here,” Geltzer explained to Yahoo News. “McConnell might be inclined to rush a nominee through the Senate before Election Day, despite the obvious hypocrisy with how he handled the Garland nomination in 2016, because the court is a genuine high priority for him.”

People gather at the Supreme Court the morning after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. (AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

For a president steeped in reality television, however, the promise of a conservative Supreme Court justice, much like the promise of a coronavirus vaccine, could be more useful than that promise actually fulfilled. That, Geltzer believes, could lead Trump to “nominate a justice before Election Day but see the vote delayed till afterward, to make it an election issue.”

Trump tweeted on Saturday morning that he would nominate someone “without delay.” He made similar promises after first entering the Oval Office, setting the Affordable Care Act in his sights. The lack of coordination with McConnell was one of several factors that doomed that effort. Another was intense organizing from progressives who flooded congressional offices with calls and protests.

The signature Obama health law is among the many issues before the Supreme Court. “This is the ACA fight,” says Jealous, the People for the American Way president, who was formerly the head of the NAACP.

It could be that no Democratic threat or maneuver is as effective as the plain calculus of reelection. “Watch the R’s,” counseled a staffer to a Democrat who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I don’t think it’s a done deal at all,” says Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice, a progressive group that has consistently opposed Trump’s judicial nominees. “Republicans have to realize they’ll pay a price at the polls this November if they go ahead with this.”

Many of the same Republicans who ultimately voted for Brett Kavanaugh are facing exceptionally close election contests this year. Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Thom Tillis of North Carolina all voted in 2018 to confirm Kavanaugh despite sexual assault allegations leveled against the nominee. The anger back then was exceptionally high; it could be even higher if they vote for a Trump nominee next month.

Then there is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham. It was Graham’s furious tirade during the Kavanaugh hearing that, in many ways, rescued the embattled nominee’s prospects — but also made many observers wonder what had happened to the onetime Trump critic and proponent of political compromise.

In 2016, Graham was unambiguous in his view of how the Senate should act if a Supreme Court vacancy comes up at the end of a presidential term. “I want you to use my words against me,” he said at the time. “If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”

President Trump talks to reporters about the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after a rally in Bemidji, Minn. (AP/Evan Vucci)

Today Graham is facing an exceptionally difficult challenge for his seat in South Carolina from Jaime Harrison, a Yale-educated Black centrist who has beaten Graham in fundraising and tied him in the polls.

“If he goes with Trump, he shows every voter in South Carolina he has no backbone,” says Jealous.

Of course, not voting on a Trump nominee could cause Republican senators to lose support from conservatives, whom they need in November as much as they need centrists. That is why some are speculating that McConnell will hold a hearing on the nominee before Nov. 3 but will not hold a Senate vote until after the election, thus insulating Collins, Gardner and others to a degree (progressive groups, meanwhile, will try to force those senators to commit one way or another well before then, robbing them of the protection a late-November vote would seemingly offer).

The nominee is also likely to be a woman, blunting at least some of the impact of a third Trump pick to the Supreme Court. To be sure, that woman is bound to be as staunchly conservative as her male counterparts. The current frontrunner appears to be Amy Coney Barrett, a Seventh Circuit judge who progressives believe will undermine reproductive rights and gun-control legislation.

In short, while Democrats do have parliamentary tactics and political pressure points at their disposal, it is unlikely to be enough.

“There are a few ways in which they can throw up roadblocks and delay, but if McConnell has 50 votes, he can get this done,” says Norman J. Ornstein, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. “The only question is whether he decides to wait until after the election because some of those Republicans up this time want more cover. But the odds are he will jam this through in October,” Ornstein speculates. That appears to be the consensus forming among Republicans in Washington, who are quietly confident that the seat is theirs.

“Democrats are angry and frustrated, but not as energized as the Republicans,” says Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of political science at Princeton and the author of a new book on Newt Gingrich, the combative former House Speaker whose legacy of choosing combat over compromise continues to inform virtually every order of business on Capitol Hill.

“Historically, Republicans are more focused on this when it comes to elections,” Zelizer said, referencing longstanding efforts by conservative judicial groups like the Federalist Society. “Moreover, in many ways, Democrats have already lost. The court will have shifted and there won’t be much a Biden presidency will be able to do. Not that it won’t matter, but I think the side that will feel most energized and mobilized will be the GOP.”

[aubiefifty 18,231]

another huge thing that scares me altho i have blue cross and medicare which i pay dearly for is this. it could well spell the end of obama care. trump would finally get to trash obama care although he has NO health insurance coverage for those left hanging in the breeze. he destroys anything obama he can and he has been trying to get rid of preexisting conditions for a while now. and when i googled some of this humana and others claim they have trump care starting at sixtynine dollars a month. hell i pay out about four bills a month. has anyone heard of trump care or is this a marketing ploy to sell insurance?

[wdefromtx 3,610]

59 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

another huge thing that scares me altho i have blue cross and medicare which i pay dearly for is this. it could well spell the end of obama care. trump would finally get to trash obama care although he has NO health insurance coverage for those left hanging in the breeze. he destroys anything obama he can and he has been trying to get rid of preexisting conditions for a while now. and when i googled some of this humana and others claim they have trump care starting at sixtynine dollars a month. hell i pay out about four bills a month. has anyone heard of trump care or is this a marketing ploy to sell insurance?

Don’t know about Trump care. The only thing good about Obamacare was the preexisting condition coverage in my opinion. Keep that and ditch and revamp the rest. Rest of it is garbage that favors insurance companies and left many people with s**t coverage at outrageous premiums. 

[aubiefifty 18,231]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Don’t know about Trump care. The only thing good about Obamacare was the preexisting condition coverage in my opinion. Keep that and ditch and revamp the rest. Rest of it is garbage that favors insurance companies and left many people with s**t coverage at outrageous premiums. 

well maybe some one will come along and enlighten us. lol i want to know about trump care and can only hope it is not like trump uni. plus trump waqnts to do away with coverage preexisting coverages.

[Leftfield 3,366]

Considering his proclivity to name everything after himself or with some flashy title I'd be surprised if he's released something and we haven't heard about it. Surely the media would have picked up on "TRUMP'S SUPER-DUPER AMAZEBALLS HEALTHCARE!!!"

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

another huge thing that scares me altho i have blue cross and medicare which i pay dearly for is this. it could well spell the end of obama care. trump would finally get to trash obama care although he has NO health insurance coverage for those left hanging in the breeze. he destroys anything obama he can and he has been trying to get rid of preexisting conditions for a while now. and when i googled some of this humana and others claim they have trump care starting at sixtynine dollars a month. hell i pay out about four bills a month. has anyone heard of trump care or is this a marketing ploy to sell insurance?

I assure you pre-existing conditions will be covered if Obamacare is replaced. 

[IronMan70 3,322]

23 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

well maybe some one will come along and enlighten us. lol i want to know about trump care and can only hope it is not like trump uni. plus trump wants to do away with coverage preexisting coverages.

Where did you get that from ? He supports just the opposite of that. 

[IronMan70 3,322]

The reporter tried to cover every angle on the Ginsburg seat. But the bottom line is the Constitution calls for the President to nominate a person for the vacant seat and that is exactly what POTUS will do. What the Senate does is up to them but, according to McConnell, it appears there will be a floor vote.

[aubiefifty 18,231]

31 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

Where did you get that from ? He supports just the opposite of that. 

Trump seeks to undo protections for pre-existing conditions, despite tweets

WASHINGTON — President Trump has misrepresented his position on pre-existing conditions protections in the past, but even by previous standards his tweet on Monday stands out by falsely taking credit for the protections existing in the first place, saying he “saved” them, while actively trying to remove them. 

The current pre-existing protections were enacted under the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed in 2010 while Trump was a private citizen.

Trump's Justice Department is currently backing a lawsuit by Republican state officials to throw out the entire law — including those protections. The president has also previously urged Congress to pass a bill that would roll back some of the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions and his administration has expanded access to plans that do not cover pre-existing conditions, which critics deride as “junk insurance.” 

If the courts agree with the White House’s legal arguments, the lawsuit would end the ACA’s landmark requirement that insurance companies take on all customers regardless of any pre-existing conditions and charge them the same premiums as healthy customers.

That change would not be incidental to the White House’s broader objection to the health care law. In fact, it’s central to their case: The Trump administration’s initial legal position directly targeted the law’s protection for patients with pre-existing conditions, arguing they should be removed while most of the law remained. Only later did they expand their legal argument to demand the entire law be thrown out. 

There’s a real chance the lawsuit succeeds. The case is currently pending after a Texas judge ruled the entire law unconstitutional in December 2018. Last month, the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court issued an opinion that supported the judge’s underlying argument, but sent the case back for further review as to which parts of the law should stand. 

The Supreme Court is expected to eventually weigh in, but the White House is asking them to delay a request by Democratic state officials for an expedited ruling. If the White House argument holds, the decision will likely occur after the presidential election. That means the courts could potentially throw out protections for pre-existing conditions after the president campaigned for re-election on championing them. 

Democrats made the lawsuit, along with Republican efforts in Congress to undo some of the ACA’s protections, a central part of their 2018 midterm campaigns. 

In response, Trump and a number of GOP candidates said they would maintain some protections for pre-existing conditions if the lawsuit succeeded, but there is no party consensus as to what would replace them and many existing proposals still contain fewer protections coverage than current law.  

Key conservative lawmakers object to the current protections for pre-existing conditions on ideological and policy grounds and Republican leaders and the White House sided with their demands to loosen them in their attempt to repeal and replace the ACA. 

Had the House repeal bill backed by Trump become law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that “less healthy individuals (including those with pre-existing or newly acquired medical conditions) would be unable to purchase comprehensive coverage with premiums close to those under current law and might not be able to purchase coverage at all.” 

There are longstanding policy debates surrounding all these issues. Critics of the law’s protections for pre-existing conditions argue that they drive up premiums too high for healthier customers and there are potentially other ways to provide sicker patients health care, though none of the Trump-backed legislative proposals have been found by the CBO and other independent analysts to cover nearly as many people. 

But Trump’s statements largely ignore that debate. Instead he’s asked his supporters, many of whom have expressed concern in polls about the issue, to believe he holds a position in direct opposition to his actual policy.

 

[aubiefifty 18,231]

Trump Misleads on Preexisting Conditions

By Lori Robertson

Posted on October 2, 2018

---

• 8.6K
•  
•  
•  

The Department of Justice is siding with plaintiffs in a lawsuit that it said, if successful, would end Affordable Care Act protections for those with preexisting conditions. Yet, President Donald Trump claimed that “preexisting conditions are safe” and that he “will always fight for … patients with preexisting conditions.”

The president made his comments during a rally in West Virginia to back the Republican Senate candidate, Patrick Morrisey, who is running against Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin. Morrisey, the state’s attorney general, is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit concerning the ACA.

Trump, Sept. 29: I will always fight for, and always protect, patients with preexisting conditions. You have to do it. You have to do it. Some people think that’s not a Republican thing to do. I don’t care, and I’ll tell you what. All of the Republicans are coming in to that position now. All of them. And we’ll do it the right way too. Preexisting conditions are safe. OK? Just remember that. Preexisting — tell that to the fake news media when they write. Fakers.

Trump’s comments contradict the Justice Department’s actions, which Trump approved, according to a June letter from the Justice Department to Congress on this lawsuit. We asked the White House press office for an explanation of the president’s remarks, but we have not yet received a response.

As we’ve explained before, the suit was filed in District Court in Texas in February by 20 states (including West Virginia). It argues that because Congress eliminated the tax penalty associated with the ACA’s individual mandate — which is the requirement to have insurance — the mandate itself is now unconstitutional. And without the mandate, the entire health care law “must also fall.”

The suit points to the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision that found the mandate was lawful under Congress’ power to tax. The elimination of the associated tax, the suit maintains, “renders legally impossible the Supreme Court’s prior savings construction of the Affordable Care Act’s core provision.” And, therefore it says, “the Court should hold that the ACA is unlawful.”

In June, the Department of Justice said this was a “rare case” where it would not defend the federal government in the lawsuit. Instead, the DOJ largely agreed with the plaintiffs.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in a June 7 letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan that he had made this decision “[a]fter careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States.”

Sessions explained that the administration didn’t agree that the entire ACA would have to be eliminated if the individual mandate provision is found to be unconstitutional. But it said two provisions would need to be eliminated: those guaranteeing that people can’t be denied coverage by insurers or charged more based on certain factors.

Those provisions protect those with preexisting conditions from being denied a policy or charged higher premiums. Before the ACA instituted these protections, insurers could deny coverage, or charge more, based on health status on the individual market, where those without employer-based plans or public coverage buy their own insurance. Employer plans, pre-ACA, couldn’t deny plans to new employees, but they could exclude coverage for a particular preexisting condition for a limited period if the new employee had a gap in coverage. (See our July story on this issue for more on the pre-ACA protections.)

The court in the Northern District of Texas allowed Democratic attorneys general from 16 states and Washington, D.C., to intervene in the case and defend the ACA. In early September, the judge in the case heard oral arguments on a preliminary injunction against the ACA requested by the plaintiffs.

In late August, 14 Republican senators signed on to a GOP bill that would preserve protections against denial of coverage or higher premiums on the individual market by amending HIPAA, the law that granted such protections in the employer-based insurance market pre-ACA. Morrisey issued a statement to the Hill supporting the measure, saying: “We all agree pre-existing conditions need to be covered and I’m glad to see Congress doing its job to protect those who need it most.”

No hearings have been held on the bill, and there is no indication if Trump supports it.

We can’t predict what future steps the administration might take if the plaintiffs are successful in the Texas case. But it’s disingenuous for the president to say he “will always fight for, and always protect, patients with preexisting conditions,” when his Justice Department, with his approval, has decided not to fight — and instead side with the plaintiffs — in a lawsuit that could end such patient protections.

Share the Facts

FactCheck.org Rating:

Misleading

[IronMan70 3,322]

You can argue about the ACA all you want but the fact is that the requirement that everyone was forced to buy health insurance, including a huge fine if they didn't, was unconstitutional on it's face. The elimination of that part rendered the funding mechanism for the ACA unsustainable. The rest of the law would already be invalidated if not for Justice Roberts twisting himself into a pretzel to decide calling a tax, a fee, is all it takes to circumvent the funding requirement of the Constitution.

This was in spite of the fact the defenders had argued it was a tax in other proceedings. The attempt by your authors to frame the argument as the ACA's pre-existing conditions or nothing, as if no other law can cover that, is an attempt to keep alive an already gutted law and ignores the fact it has to be replaced. So not withstanding the opinion of your authors, on that main issue POTUS has stated on numerous occasions that pre-existing conditions must be protected in a new replacement plan.

[aubiefifty 18,231]

8 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

You can argue about the ACA all you want but the fact is that the requirement that everyone was forced to buy health insurance, including a huge fine if they didn't, was unconstitutional on it's face. The elimination of that part rendered the funding mechanism for the ACA unsustainable. The rest of the law would already be invalidated if not for Justice Roberts twisting himself into a pretzel to decide calling a tax, a fee, is all it takes to circumvent the funding requirement of the Constitution.

This was in spite of the fact the defenders had argued it was a tax in other proceedings. The attempt by your authors to frame the argument as the ACA's pre-existing conditions or nothing, as if no other law can cover that, is an attempt to keep alive an already gutted law and ignores the fact it has to be replaced. So not withstanding the opinion of your authors, on that main issue POTUS has stated on numerous occasions that pre-existing conditions must be protected in a new replacement plan.

well trump lies a lot as well and changes his mind a lot.

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

well trump lies a lot as well and changes his mind a lot.

He also keeps lots of promises he has made to his supporters.  The biggest liar as it relates to healthcare is clearly Obama. He promised a reduction of $2500 on average and that everyone could keep their plan if they so desired. Obama knowingly lied. Getting rid of pre-existing condition protections would cost anyone against it too many votes at the polls. This is clearly a scare tactic by Dems and the left leaning media who push this narrative. 

[TexasTiger 14,291]

19 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Don’t know about Trump care. The only thing good about Obamacare was the preexisting condition coverage in my opinion. Keep that and ditch and revamp the rest. Rest of it is garbage that favors insurance companies and left many people with s**t coverage at outrageous premiums. 

Most people don’t understand the most valuable feature of Obamacare— did away with the lifetime cap. If your kid gets cancer, before Obamacare their lifetime coverage could be gone in less than a year. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 hours ago, IronMan70 said:

You can argue about the ACA all you want but the fact is that the requirement that everyone was forced to buy health insurance, including a huge fine if they didn't, was unconstitutional on it's face. The elimination of that part rendered the funding mechanism for the ACA unsustainable. The rest of the law would already be invalidated if not for Justice Roberts twisting himself into a pretzel to decide calling a tax, a fee, is all it takes to circumvent the funding requirement of the Constitution.

This was in spite of the fact the defenders had argued it was a tax in other proceedings. The attempt by your authors to frame the argument as the ACA's pre-existing conditions or nothing, as if no other law can cover that, is an attempt to keep alive an already gutted law and ignores the fact it has to be replaced. So not withstanding the opinion of your authors, on that main issue POTUS has stated on numerous occasions that pre-existing conditions must be protected in a new replacement plan.

Except his DOJ is literally fighting to eliminate that clause in court right now.  Say it all he wants, but the actions are quite different.

[TexasTiger 14,291]

40 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

He also keeps lots of promises he has made to his supporters.  The biggest liar as it relates to healthcare is clearly Obama. He promised a reduction of $2500 on average and that everyone could keep their plan if they so desired. Obama knowingly lied. Getting rid of pre-existing condition protections would cost anyone against it too many votes at the polls. This is clearly a scare tactic by Dems and the left leaning media who push this narrative. 

🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️ yes, Obama was the real liar! 🙄🙄🙄🤦‍♂️ he makes Trump look downright honest!

[wdefromtx 3,610]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Most people don’t understand the most valuable feature of Obamacare— did away with the lifetime cap. If your kid gets cancer, before Obamacare their lifetime coverage could be gone in less than a year. 

Add that to the preexisting conditions to keep. 
 

The whole thing was done poorly and the idiot republicans didn’t even try to make an effort to come up with something that benefitted the masses. While many  people got benefits from these coverages, many others especially in the middle class, and ones that were small business owners.  My dad had preexisting heart condition from a heart attack and he didn’t have an issue getting insured using the state pool before Obamacare. Once Obamacare came into play, his premiums went through the roof his coverage went to crap. His experience was widespread, and not an isolated incident. Thankfully he hit the age where he is on Medicare now. 
 

Hence why I think ACA was crap, I’m for some coverage...but ACA just made politicians richer as well as the insurance companies. 

[IronMan70 3,322]

5 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

well trump lies a lot as well and changes his mind a lot.

The biggest lies were "you can keep your doctor" and the ever popular "the ACA is self sustaining". Obama told those whoppers just to get it passed.  

[IronMan70 3,322]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Except his DOJ is literally fighting to eliminate that clause in court right now.  Say it all he wants, but the actions are quite different.

Does it not make sense to you that what is left of the carcass of the ACA needs to be eliminated and a constitutional law passed to replace it ? Obviously there would have to be interim provisions made to cover a transition period, including those for pre-existing conditions. The ACA is only around now because, instead of the fees, the taxpayer has been stuck with paying the majority of the funding for the remnants of the law.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

21 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

Does it not make sense to you that what is left of the carcass of the ACA needs to be eliminated and a constitutional law passed to replace it ? Obviously there would have to be interim provisions made to cover a transition period, including those for pre-existing conditions. The ACA is only around now because, instead of the fees, the taxpayer has been stuck with paying the majority of the funding for the remnants of the law.  

Here's the problem with your assertion.  There is no plan from the Republicans to replace it.   They've had years to put one in front of the nation.  It hasn't happened.  The fact you think a replacement is readily available is laughable and thus, that pre-existing condition provision would be gone quickly for people who desperately need it.

[IronMan70 3,322]

21 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Add that to the preexisting conditions to keep. 
 

The whole thing was done poorly and the idiot republicans didn’t even try to make an effort to come up with something that benefitted the masses. While many  people got benefits from these coverages, many others especially in the middle class, and ones that were small business owners.  My dad had preexisting heart condition from a heart attack and he didn’t have an issue getting insured using the state pool before Obamacare. Once Obamacare came into play, his premiums went through the roof his coverage went to crap. His experience was widespread, and not an isolated incident. Thankfully he hit the age where he is on Medicare now. 
 

Hence why I think ACA was crap, I’m for some coverage...but ACA just made politicians richer as well as the insurance companies. 

I agree 100% with your post except the part about an alternative GOP plan. If you'll recall they did have one, but McCain stabbed the GOP in the back and gave the thumbs down with his vote on the final passage of their plan. He did this after he gave his word to McConnell, that very day, that he was a "yes" vote. Of course McCain campaigned against Obamacare for years and was a strong proponent of replacing Obama care, until it finally came time to vote on it. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

I agree 100% with your post except the part about an alternative GOP plan. If you'll recall they did have one, but McCain stabbed the GOP in the back and gave the thumbs down with his vote on the final passage of their plan. He did this after he gave his word to McConnell, that very day, that he was a "yes" vote. Of course McCain campaigned against Obamacare for years and was a strong proponent of replacing Obama care, until it finally came time to vote on it. 

Bull crap.  McCain's vote was against repealing the law.  There was not a vote on the floor for an alternative plan not was one ever presented.  You're using revisionist history.

[IronMan70 3,322]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Bull crap.  McCain's vote was against repealing the law.  There was not a vote on the floor for an alternative plan not was one ever presented.  You're using revisionist history.

Yes there was a plan, in fact more than one, which would have been open to bi-partisan amendments. It was a 2 step process. McCain voted against the "skinny" repeal which ended it. 

[IronMan70 3,322]

41 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Here's the problem with your assertion.  There is no plan from the Republicans to replace it.   They've had years to put one in front of the nation.  It hasn't happened.  The fact you think a replacement is readily available is laughable and thus, that pre-existing condition provision would be gone quickly for people who desperately need it.

A law covering the transition period from the ACA to a new healthcare law would have to include coverage for pre-existing conditions. If it didn't, it would not be passed and more importantly, it would not be signed by the POTUS. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, IronMan70 said:

Yes there was a plan, in fact more than one, which would have been open to bi-partisan amendments. It was a 2 step process. McCain voted against the "skinny" repeal which ended it. 

Funny how no one has ever seen that plan put forward over the course of the last four years.

Your assertion is still wrong though.  McCain didn't vote against a replacement bill.  He voted against the repeal BECAUSE a plan hadn't been put forward with input from both sides first.

Read his entire floor speech if you need a refresher.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/343694-full-speech-john-mccain-on-key-senate-healthcare-vote