Skip to main content

on Cuomo: The governor is, Mr. Stein said. "somewhere between an astute politician and a thug.” @jdawsey1
Brett Logiurato:
One of the key architects of the Affordable Care Act made little-noticed comments in 2012 that could provide the law's conservative challengers a major boost in the most high-profile, ongoing challenge to undo it.

Earlier this week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the second-most powerful court in the U.S., threw out an IRS regulation that helps the federal government hand out key subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The court sided with plaintiffs, who argued the law specifically only allows states that run their own exchanges to provide subsidies to help lower-income people buy health insurance.

Supporters of the law have called the challenge unserious. But conservatives who support the plaintiffs in the case — Halbig v. Burwell — say one of the men that makes their case is Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was one of the authors of the Massachusetts health law that served as the model for Obamacare.

Late Thursday night, comments from Gruber in 2012 were unearthed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ryan Radia. During a 2012 question-and-answer session following a lecture, he made the same basic argument aboutt the point of the lawsuit.

Nicholas Bagley:
But if you think what Gruber said is some evidence about what the ACA means, you can’t ignore other, similar evidence. That’s cherry-picking. So go ask John McDonough, who was intimately involved in drafting the ACA and is as straight a shooter as there is: “There is not a scintilla of evidence that the Democratic lawmakers who designed the law intended to deny subsidies to any state, regardless of exchange status.” Or ask Senator Max Baucus’s chief health adviser, Liz Fowler. She says the same thing. Or ask Doug Elmendorf, the current CBO Director: “To the best of our recollection, the possibility that those subsidies would only be available in states that created their own exchanges did not arise during the discussions CBO staff had with a wide range of Congressional staff when the legislation was being considered.” Or ask Peter Orszag, then-OMB Director: “[A]s someone who was there, [there is] zero chance this was the intent (as opposed to typo/poor drafting).”

Or ask Jonathan Cohn or Ezra Klein, both of whom followed the deliberations over the ACA closely. Neither heard a whisper about any supposed threat. Or ask Abbe Gluck, a law professor at Yale who details how “a basic understanding of the ACA’s legislative process makes clear that Congress intended for the subsidies to be available on the federal exchanges.” Or ask Aaron, who wonders, if this threat was so clear, why TIE never mentioned it. “Do you think we would have ignored this? We wouldn’t have been concerned?”

Better still, ask the states, which were on the receiving end of the supposed threat.

Fascinating to watch premature victory jigs by conservatives who are working the refs to establish a narrative. Bagley has it right. In any case, we'll talk again after appeal.

More politics and policy below the fold.

Brian Beutler:

When the D.C. Circuit Court ruled this week that the Affordable Care Act unambiguously prohibits subsidizing health plans on federally-run exchanges, raising the possibility that the Supreme Court might gut the law on second pass, I argued that an adverse ruling in Halbig v. Burwell would actually be bad politics for Republicans: that the pressures such a ruling would create might be enough to divide Republicans and force Republican governors and members of Congress to address the resulting inequities.

The good news is, we have a pretty good, recent, real world example of how these pressures work. And it bodes pretty well for supporters of the Affordable Care Act.

It's possible that after an adverse ruling in Halbig, the American health care system would reach quasi-stable equilibrium. Bluer states would reap all of the ACA's benefits, redder states would enjoy none. I examined that possibility here. New York magazine's Annie Lowrey drew a comparison between an adverse Halbig ruling and the Supreme Court's decision to make the ACA's Medicaid expansion optional. As a result of that ruling, nearly two dozen states have declined to expand Medicaid leaving millions of low-income Americans stuck in the coverage gap.

But I don't think Medicaid expansion is the proper analogy.

That's because there's a huge difference between getting something you don't have yet, and taking away something you already have.

More from Dana Houle:

[What] Beutler didn’t discuss was the Democratic response to “Democrats Republicans Divided! (Halbig Edition).” The situation in Michigan suggests that it may be an effort to exploit those Republican divisions. That’s what Mark Totten, Michigan’s Democratic candidate for AG, did with an aggressive op-ed in today’s Detroit News:
A federal court accepted Attorney General Bill Schuette’s argument that hundreds of thousands of Michigan families are ineligible for federal tax credits to purchase health insurance. If the ruling stands, Bill Schuette will have denied working Michigan families tax credits averaging $4,700…Think about that. Michigan’s Attorney General chose to champion a lawsuit to take almost two months’ worth of paychecks from a half million Michigan families.
In 2010, attacking Obamacare helped the GOP win the House. In 2012 Barack Obama didn’t run from Obamacare, but it wasn’t the lynchpin of his campaign. But if Beutler is right about Republican divisions, and Totten’s populist response is the first of many such reactions, 2014 could be marked by a vigorous Obamacare counterattack.
Louise Radnofsky on another angle:
A number of states are scrambling to show that they—not the federal government—are or will soon be operating their insurance exchanges under the 2010 health law, in light of two court decisions this week.

The efforts are aimed at ensuring that millions of consumers who get insurance through the exchanges would be able to retain their federal tax credits if courts ultimately rule against the Obama administration.

David Dow:
Beginnings and endings are not always apparent when they occur. The modern death-penalty era began on July 2, 1976, when the Supreme Court decided the case of Gregg v. Georgia. But we did not actually know it had begun until Jan. 17, 1977, which was the date the State of Utah executed Gary Gilmore by firing squad.

The thing about the firing squad, though, and most all other methods of execution the States adopted—including hanging, the electric chair and the gas chamber—is that they are not the least bit subtle. When you shoot somebody, or hang him, you know you are killing him. The death penalty, however, is the sausage factory of America’s legal system: Nobody wants to know what is actually going on.

So the states eventually embraced lethal injection as the preferred method of killing condemned murderers. Now we could all pretend that the process was nothing more than a sterile implementation of proportional punishment. Sure, we were still killing somebody, but the actual act of killing the condemned looked like something you might see on the medical channel. People sometimes ask me what it is like to witness an execution, and I tell them the most powerful thing about it is walking outside the prison after it is over, into the bright light of day, and seeing that the State has just killed someone, and the citizens don’t have a clue.

We do know, however, when the end of the modern death-penalty era began: April 29, 2014. That was the day we could no longer remain willfully naive. It was the date Oklahoma executed Clayton Lockett.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I wish we had a functioning government. (18+ / 0-)

    More and more, I incline toward a parliamentary system.   Probably time to start rewriting blue state constitutions.  Laboratories of democracy, you know.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:35:24 AM PDT

  •  MFrs have plenty of time to cherry-pick (21+ / 0-)

    to undo anything good for the people, but NO TIME TO GOVERN or HELP THE VETS.
    Pardon my screaming, you can probably hear it from Floriduhhhhh.

    "He went to Harvard, not Hogwarts." ~Wanda Sykes
    Teh Twitterz, I'z awn dem.
    Blessinz of teh Ceiling Cat be apwn yu, srsly.

    by OleHippieChick on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:45:44 AM PDT

  •  This was an interesting, somewhat lengthy, read: (8+ / 0-)

    Lessons From America's War for the Greater Middle East

    Tick off the countries in that region that U.S. forces in recent decades have invaded, occupied, garrisoned, bombed or raided and where American soldiers have killed or been killed. Since 1980, they include Iraq and Afghanistan, of course. But also Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan. The list goes on.  . . .

    Since 1980, back when President Jimmy Carter promulgated the Carter Doctrine, the United States has been engaged in what we should rightfully call America’s War for the Greater Middle East. The premise underlying that war can be simply stated: with disorder, dysfunction and disarray in the Islamic world posing a growing threat to vital U.S. national security interests, the adroit application of hard power would enable the United States to check those tendencies and thereby preserve the American way of life. . . . .

    At the time President Carter declared the Persian Gulf a vital national security interest — that was the literal meaning of the Carter Doctrine — he did not intend to embark upon a war. Nor did he anticipate what course that war was going to follow — its duration, costs and consequences.

    A drowning man can not learn to swim. -- Chris Lonsdale

    by Rikon Snow on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:48:11 AM PDT

  •  I have held several pets as the vet put them down. (19+ / 0-)

    It never failed, was always peaceful and although each one broke my heart I had solace in knowing it was the kindest thing I could do for my best friend.

    How is it then that our veterinarians can perform this procedure on a variety of animals which present a large range of weight, age and size and not botch it and whoever is overseeing lethal injections in our prisons cannot get it right?

    I'm honestly perplexed.

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:51:11 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the roundup, Greg! (17+ / 0-)

    The headlines in the WaPo (my local rag) gloatingly predict the end of ACA and on the editorial page they want Obama to put on armor and land in Gaza with a large supply of weapons.

    Gad, there was a time when newspapers were the conscience of the people. Now they're corporatist shills.

    Oh, well, I'm off to swallow two aspirin and try to forget about the news for a while.

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:56:43 AM PDT

  •  Goopers to run against ACA for 2014? (8+ / 0-)

    Oh please...say ain't so.

  •  Docs vs Glocks Law upheld in Florida (18+ / 0-)

    Federal court upholds Florida's docs vs glocks law

    Disheartening loss.

    The 2011 law, which had become popularly known as "Docs vs. Glocks," was challenged by organizations representing 11,000 state health providers, including the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians

    Doctors who break the law could potentially be fined and lose their licenses.

    By a 2-1 decision, the appeals court upheld the law as a protection of patient privacy rights and said that the limits imposed by it were "incidental."

    "The act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care," states the opinion written by U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat.

    Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, was surprised with Friday's ruling. Simon's organization had filed legal briefs in support of the legal challenge.

    "We are astounded that a court would allow the legislature to override the free speech rights of doctors and medical personnel," Simon said in a statement. "It's a sad day when judges tell doctors what is in the best interest of their patients."

    Seems like there's a lot of that going around these days, eh?

    As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. John F. Kennedy

    by JaxDem on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:03:55 AM PDT

  •  Robert Costa on Kornacki....'It's never enough for (5+ / 0-)

    the House GOP.'.......speaking in reference to the lawsuit....

    Chuck Todd.....'The White House and Democrats are giddy.'

    •  I got a bunch of fundraising emails yesterday, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skillet, wintergreen8694

      all of them talked about the House wanting to impeach Obama.
      I wonder, when Democrats start fundraising over this, whether there are any Republicans thinking "Maybe this impeachment thing is a bad idea?"

      In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

      That's not only an all-time high for Clinton, it also beats the highest approval rating President Ronald Reagan ever had.

      At the same time, the number of Americans with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party has jumped 10 points; less than a third of the country now has a favorable view of the GOP.

      Despite concerns that public calls for Clinton's resignation would rise after his impeachment, the number of Americans who want Clinton to resign has remained statistically unchanged. Only 30 percent want Clinton to resign; only 29 percent want the Senate to convict Clinton and remove him from office.

      If trees gave off WIFi signals, we would probably plant so many trees, we would save the planet. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe.

      by skohayes on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:08:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It reveals a lot to see (10+ / 0-)
    victory jigs by conservatives
    about the ruling.

    But what are they so happy about?  Let's see:

    ~Almost 90 percent of Obamacare enrollees in states with federal marketplaces will lose their tax credits.

    ~Premiums in those states could increase by more than 75 percent.

    ~The average person with the cheapest plan on a federal marketplace would have to spend a quarter of their income on insurance.

    ~The number of uninsured Americans would increase by about 6.5 million.

    That which makes Republicans (and their paid shills in the media) the happiest is the prospect of millions of ordinary Americans (their constituents) suffering, along with the delightful prospect of unnecessary deaths.

    This is what the party of Lincoln has sunk to.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:37:35 AM PDT

  •  Cherry-picking and Congressional Intent (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skohayes, a2nite, Wee Mama

    Focus on the drafters is another form of cherry-picking, btw.

    The idea is to determine the intent of Congress, not the intent of the drafters.  The input of the drafters both useful and powerful in determining the intent of Congress, but it is not dispositive.  

    Passing any law requires 269 votes if everyone in both houses of Congress cast a vote.

    And that's where it gets interesting, especially when you remember that ACA provides its own specific definition of state.

    It's pretty clear (to me, at least) the intent of the drafters, but that definition of state and it's use within the law might have been crucial to getting the votes needed to pass the thing.  if that were true, the intent of Congress might not be so clear, and -- Oh no, Mr. Bill -- We are stuck in Scalia land, with the text of the document.

    Personally, I would hate that. We qualified for some pretty big subsidies this year, and got better than rock-bottom insurance.  We are at peace with the IRS for the first time in a few years, and it would seriously bite to come up a few thousand short at filing time.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:44:17 AM PDT

    •  this one's for you (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes, I love OCD, FogCityJohn
      We already had a murder charge without a body; now we have a smoking gun with all its bullets. I’m sorry. We’re not in the realm of reasonable disagreement. The charitable explanation is that this stuff is pure unmitigated cuckoo cockamamie BS. The cynical explanation, per Sumner:
      BTW, which of the following two statements represents the conservative view on the role of the courts?

      A.  The courts should interpret the laws passed by the duly elected members of Congress, and should not be substituting their own views.  Original intent is what matters.  Unelected judges should not set policy.

      B.  Yay!!  the courts have just gutted the ACA, which was an awful law passed by Congress.

      I used to think it was A; now I wonder if it is B.

      You’ll pardon me if I don’t find this behavior—this abusive legal chicanery—the least bit “conservative.”

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:09:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't you hate that? (0+ / 0-)

        In a world of youtube and google, I'm amazed that people do that as often as they do.

        I'm pleased that you reference an article on The American Conservative, one whose author discusses the findings of another conservative and decries the dishonesty. That is a conservative value.

        I, btw, do not consider Libertarians to be conservatives in any modern sense.  They remind me of pre-American Revolution conservatives, so I sometimes refer to them (and Rush Limbaugh and others) as Tories. They are faux-conservatives in any modern sense and enemies of the values embodied in both the Declaration of Independence and, more weakly, the United States Constitution. They dream of a new aristocracy, composed of - themselves.  In that way, they are much like progressives.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:25:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In what way do progressives favor a "new aristo... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          In what way do progressives favor a "new aristocracy"? They don't, but you do, once again, demonstrate your intellectual laziness by engaging in the most absurd false equivalency.

          •  It's not laziness. He's a Republican. There are a (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, madronagal, FogCityJohn

            handful of them that have been here for years pushing conservative talking points and concern trolling. It's kind of pathetic really.

            Sinbad on dodging sniper fire in Bosnia - "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

            by askew on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 07:23:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not in the same way as the Tories (0+ / 0-)

            Although, I'm sure there is an overlap.  

            One very big difference (I think) is that the Tories have a clear perpetuation mechanism: inherited wealth.  Consistent opposition both to helping children who do not have access to the means to succeed and opposition to inheritance taxes allows creation of a privileged class without regard for the meritocracy they claim to honor.  It's pure social Darwinism they really believe, and that has long been exposed as self-justifying bullshit.

            In a bumper-sticker nutshell,  Progressives love government and hate "the wrong kind" of people.  Mostly working people who don't sound right or think right in their views.

            Progressives are positively medieval in the way they view "others".  In medieval times, felonies were all capital offenses because people were good or evil, and there was nothing you could do about evil people so you might as well kill them.

            Wrong thinkers are never simply wrong.  They are racists, homophobes, morons, misogynists, deniers, bible-thumpers and neo-cons. They are "other", and they are inferior.

            You can see it most plainly in the derision of conservatives.  See how often that it's not about conservative views so much as Wal-Mart style, pickup trucks, NASCAR, etc.  You came a little late for the best examples -- the 2008 Presidential campaign and Sarah Palin, but it pops up on a regular basis.

            There may be perpetuation mechanisms for progressives, too -- progressives can have money, alumni preferences at the "right" schools, friends in the right places, etc, but I haven't really worked that through enough to be sure of its power.  OTOH, it's clearly there for the Kennedies, the Bushes, the Cuomos, and the Daleys.  No reasonable person could claim that Jessie Jackson, jr's pre-convict days didn't benefit from daddy. For that matter, Ron Reagan and Chelsea Clinton.

            But -- it's not so brazen as Libertarians.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:04:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You don't know any working class Progressives? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I know bunches and my family, mostly working class, until the latest generation, were New Deal, Civil Rights, and Great Society believers. the youngsters have college educations and struggle to find work that is worth the efforts and expense of their educations. The good paying blue collar jobs are gone, not an option. And trying to keep from getting trapped in some service industry dead end degrees and all is an effort for them. But most have kept the Union working class outlook and a respect for the Democratic parties New Deal and Great Society accomplishments. Lots of steel workers where I grew up shared all of the Kennedy families views. And they knew the Democratic Parties Liberalism created the prosperity they enjoyed for 30 years until ronnie fucking reagan and corporations gone wild came along.

              The blue collar middle class was and is the nightmare of the financial elites be they conservatives or libertarian shits. And all social/economic/political movements have supporters from poor to rich.

              Just because there are rich Progressives it doesn't follow that Progressive beliefs are only for the rich.

              And mocking the squeals and grunts of a moronic yet very successful grifter like  Palin isn't mocking all working and middle class people. She'd be hooted to silence at any Union meeting I've ever attended.

              •  If you're a progressive, you should be very (0+ / 0-)

                familiar with the notion of self-loathing women for life, self-loathing blacks who oppose affirmative action,etc.

                I don't actually believe in that concept, but I could apply it here.

                Except that it doesn't fit.
                I'm sure there are working class progressives in the sense that you mean it, but I haven't run into them.

                Working class liberals? Sure.  People who believe in -- fight for, even -- social justice? Absolutely.  Many years ago, I used to do a lot of work for the campaign to boycott grapes and lettuce in support of the United Farm Workers.  When folks came out to walk the picket lines with us, I can guarantee you there were more blue collar types than management and professional folk.

                But not the smug and smarmy folks you find calling themselves progressives here.  I sometimes wonder how they can stand to remain Democrats, but, honestly, there's nowhere else for them to go.

                LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 02:25:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow. You lost me with your 1st paragraph. And if (0+ / 0-)

                  you look it up you'll see that FDR encouraged Progressives of his era to re brand themselves Liberals because the always dominant conservative press had pretty much pounded 'Progressive' into a pejorative, as they have Liberal in our time, and he wanted a label for his Progressive policies that was not a punchline for his powerful opponents.  

                  I have never been in a Union drive or worker rights, anti war, or a social justice or environmental action or march that wasn't more effective because of the participation of professionals, in particular teachers and academics.  And successful or not, Union management and leadership have more often than not been useful in any organizing I've been involved in.

                  But whatever.

                  •  Is that because those teachers and academics are (0+ / 0-)

                    so much smarter than the union folks?

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:19:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No dinotrac. I'm saying to you that I have been (0+ / 0-)

                      involved in efforts to create an apprenticeship for forest workers in the state of Oregon and the Labor Studies folks at the university in Eugene, mostly Union pros, were really helpful in getting the apprenticeship registered with the state. And the accompanying effort to create a Forest Workers Union, an unsuccessful effort, got as far as it did because of the assistance of the Carpenters Union folks from Portland. And that any environmental work I've done as a federal employee or working for non-profits was made more effective by the assistance and training provided by botanists, hydrologists, foresters, engineers, and other professionals.

                      I have been in one Industrial Union, steel mills, and one Federal Union, Forest Service, and involved in two Unionization efforts when I was a scenic carpenter doing  theatre sets. I have a GED, an occupational certificate in forestry, and I'm a graduate of heavy equipment operators school, not exactly an elite academic. My experience with Unions is both good and bad and most of my working life I showered in the evening to get the sawdust and dirt off.

                      Liberal or Progressive? How about bullshit trolling as per your usual dino?

                      Why can't I respect and admire good people I agree with and who go to work for good causes regardless of wether they are workers, Grandmas, academics or other professionals?

                      Workers are standing up for themselves again all over the place. Noticed? And whats wrong with an 'all hands on deck' strategy regardless of job or education.


                      •  Outstanding. (2+ / 0-)
                        Why can't I respect and admire good people I agree with and who go to work for good causes regardless of wether they are workers, Grandmas, academics or other professionals?
                        You can, you should, and it appears that you do. You certainly don't seem the type to let the likes of me dissuade you from that.

                        Good for you. You can't hear my applause, but you are getting it.

                        Come to think of it, you are "getting it" in a broader sense as well.

                        We could use more like you.

                        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                        by dinotrac on Sun Jul 27, 2014 at 11:15:26 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  You're a right-wing troll. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Grabber by the Heel

                  This kind of stuff is just plain old, run-of-the-mill, conservative propaganda:

                  In a bumper-sticker nutshell,  Progressives love government and hate "the wrong kind" of people.  Mostly working people who don't sound right or think right in their views.
                  But not the smug and smarmy folks you find calling themselves progressives here.
                  The charges that progressives are "elitist" and that liberals are "eggheads" go way back in American history.  Try reading Richard Hofstadter sometime.

                  But please, don't try and pass this bullshit off as anything other than hackneyed, right-wing messaging.  We've all heard it a million times before.

                  Now go report back to your friends on RedState.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 04:56:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  libertarians don't consider themselves (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          conservatives. Mike Cannon corrected me.

          "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

          by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:04:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I guess they're "lord of the flies" aholes nt (0+ / 0-)

            I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

            by a2nite on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:27:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think they're more properly considered (0+ / 0-)

              Utopians.  I don't think most people would classify them that way,  just as most people wouldn't classify Communists that way, but Libertarianism requires some mighty fine people acting in predictable ways to work as Libertarians claim it will.  Doesn't leave room for real-world differences and disappointments.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  They wanna be free to treat other people badly; (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Grabber by the Heel

                thats not Utopian.

                No taxes but paved roads & running water, their aholes, & can go to the devil. Ronnie's waiting for them.

                I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

                by a2nite on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:18:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  They shouldn't. Bet they don't consider themselves (0+ / 0-)

            Tories, either.  They should.

            LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

            by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 10:05:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  "between an astute politician and a thug" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude, a2nite

    Are you certain there's a difference?

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:49:15 AM PDT

  •  Question? (0+ / 0-)

    Which states are scrambling to set up their own exchanges just in case Halbig is upheld?

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:09:23 AM PDT

    •  from WSJ link (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liberte, DRo, I love OCD
      Among the 36 states, the level of federal involvement varies. That means states see gray areas to work with, if they want to, though the ultimate decision about their status would likely hinge on additional court decisions and determinations by the Obama administration.

      For example, two states, Idaho and New Mexico, had intended to set up their own exchanges but turned to the federal government to handle their technology in May 2013. The Obama administration has described them as "federally supported state-based" exchanges and often issues data on their behalf, in which it groups them with the other 34 states with "federally facilitated" exchanges.

      Two other states, Nevada and Oregon, are currently considered to be among the 14 "state-based" exchanges, but have had technological problems and are now looking to the U.S. to operate their technology for the coming year.

      Idaho, Nevada and Oregon have issued statements in recent days saying they are state-based exchanges, regardless of who operates their technology. New Mexico didn't respond to inquiries.

      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair

      by Greg Dworkin on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 06:19:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I would think (0+ / 0-)

      that all it takes is an agreement between a state and the federal government under which the federal government agrees to provide an exchange that the state can use.  How would that be any different from a state contracting with any other third-party?

      "Well, I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation..."--David St. Hubbins

      by Old Left Good Left on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 11:31:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Manipulative people like to keep you talking (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Grabber by the Heel

    because you can say the same thing 100 times, and then a slightly different variation once, and they'll try to hold you to that one time. When I see people trying that I get really aggressive, dare I say abusive, less then try that line of attack again in the future.

    I'm living in America, and in America you're on your own. America's not a country. It's just a business.

    by CFAmick on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 08:56:05 AM PDT

  •  "The State" can be a national government (0+ / 0-)

    Especially with "the" as definite article, not "a" State .... Many in the Colbert version thread are making the point, "the State" could be interpreted as the nation State, the USA, and not just a "State" of the USA (our traditional terminology is confusing.) I also made the point, that "establishing" need not imply being done all by yourself and/or only at your instigation.

    •  Not in the ACA. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the ACA defines "State" as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

      As the Fourth Circuit said, If Congress had intended to make subsidies applicable to both state and federal exchanges, it would have been easy to say "Exchanges established under this Act" (as the ACA says elsewhere) instead of "Exchanges established by the State under [section] 1311."  

      •  What did the other Federal court rule on the same (0+ / 0-)

        day coffeetalk?

        •  Grabber - coffeetalk was quoting the Appeals Court (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that sided with the administration, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Her point was that even the Court that decided in favor of the administration noted that the Act was drafted in a manner that was unclear, at best. The other Court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, struck down the Act making the point that the black letter law says what it says and it's up to Congress, not the Courts, to fix any sections that are unclear.

          "let's talk about that" uid 92953

          by VClib on Sat Jul 26, 2014 at 05:56:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site