Just to supplement your main point, here are some additional quotes:

Washington: “It is on great occasions only and after time has been given for cool and deliberate reflection that the real voice of the people can be known.”

Madison, explaining why he signed the Second Bank bill after opposing the First Bank:

“It was in conformity with the view here taken of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedent, that the Bank of the United States, though on the original question held [by Madison] to be unconstitutional, received [Madison’s presidential] signature in the year 1817. The act originally establishing a bank had undergone ample discussions in its passage through the several branches of the government. It had been carried into execution through a period of twenty years, with annual legislative recognition ... and with the entire acquiescence of all the local authorities, as well as of the nation at large; to all of which may be added a decreasing prospect of any change in the public opinion adverse to the constitutionality of such an institution. A veto [by Madison], under these circumstances, [especially after having admitted both] the expediency and ... necessity of the measure, would have been a defiance of all the obligations derived from a course of precedents amounting to the requisite evidence of the national judgment and intentions.”

There seems to be a misunderstanding that "precedent" means nothing more than "the stupid thing somebody did before". No. Real precedent in a deliberative republic means something like the following:

1. The issue was of notable importance and widely debated nationwide (see Washington, above).
2. Congressional votes on the issue were considered, deliberate, and reasoned (Madison).
3. The law was reaffirmed over a substantial period of time (25 years in the case of the Bank) by different majorities (Madison).
4. Both the President and the Supreme Court agreed with the law (or at least the Court didn’t disagree) (Madison, Marshall).
5. The law was consistent with the text of the Constitution and settled practices in related areas.
6. State laws were consistent with it.
7. The Congress which passed the law met the fundamental principles of republican government, such that the democratic process itself was fair and fully inclusive.

The ACHA fails to meet several of these principles.
 

I welcome Sandy's diagnosis of the action taken by the House on Trumpcare. And I appreciate Mark's supplement. I'll sleep better tonight because of what they have said. Tomorrow and over the weekend we'll all have the benefit of analysis of the Trumpcare bill and comparison with ACA. But the process in the House was indeed sad.
 

Madison's statement also furthers the "living constitution" argument in which something that he himself and others originally felt was unconstitutional over time, using multiple criteria, was recognized to be constitutional in the course of experience.

Sandy Levinson noted: "every senator must run in a state-wide election eliminates the pernicious consequences of gerrymandering and “the big sort” that make the House of Representatives so stunningly unrepresentative in many important respects." This shows that the 17A by its lonesome did not end protection of federalism in respect to states as states. The argument that the 17A was some remarkable turning point in general there is rather overblown, putting aside it largely put in place what was happening anyway.

Trump after the failure of the first bill noted that ACA took seventeen months to develop, as he often does, by accident telling the truth. It was not "rammed" down our throats. It was a long drawn out procedure with many hearings, CBO rankings, attempts to get bipartisan support etc.

Finally, I appreciate -- especially with how RFRA has been applied these days, it is a tragic overcorrection -- the reference to the Smith/peyote case where a broad 1st Amendment rule was put in place by a misguided activist Supreme Court (with Scalia and Stevens on the same side).
 

An addendum, since I have seen it coming up in response to some judicial rulings, would be compare Madison's discussion with Lincoln's comments on Dred Scott v. Sandford, including on how it did not yet meet the test of time. See also:

https://verdict.justia.com/2017/04/28/president-trumps-unseemly-attacks-federal-judiciary
 

Regarding the question, "what is to be done?", I am cautiously hopeful that Democrats will retake the House in 2018. Republicans insisting on passing this bill are going to have this thing hung around their necks like bags of poo. If they think their town halls were unpleasant before, they will be shocked at what awaits them now. Democrats are slow to anger and act, but this will light a fire across the country.
 

Instead of secession, I recommend expulsion. Let's re-fight Civil War -- and let's lose. Let the south go its own way. The rest of us would be so much better off!
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Sandy:

You are an incredible hypocrite.

In 2009, the Democrats completely erased the widely derided House enacted Obamacare bill and secretly replaced it with over 2,500 pages of mandates and decrees which were released for the first time 72 hours before a midnight Christmas Eve vote. None of the rank and file Democrats were told what was in the bill before that final 72-hours. The Democrat leadership expected them to rubber stamp the bill sight unseen like Politboro expected the Supreme Soviet to rubber stamp their decrees. As Nancy Pelosi infamously quipped to the peasants, er... the American people, you have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

The CBO scoring of Obamacare accepted every Democrat assumption, no matter how facially insane. Unsurprisingly, its projection of cost and added insured were wildly wrong.

You celebrated, I howled.

In 2016, the GOP moved their Obamacare-lite bill through regular order in multiple committees and put it on hold while they negotiated two amendments within the GOP caucus - one allowing the states leeway to modify Obamacare mandates and one creating a $9 billion slush fund to subsidize the insurance for those with preexisting conditions. The GOP caucus was vigorously debating these amendments amongst themselves as the leadership attempted to whip enough votes for passage. The Democrat Congress critters were not included because they had nothing useful to add. The news media widely reported the amendments.

The CBO scoring of the original Obamacare-lite bill was similarly a joke. CBO assumes that no one will buy insurance without an government mandate to do so backed with a hefty fine. Why would the GOP bother going back to CBO for a repeat performance?

Spare us your faux concerns about the procedural niceties of the legislative sausage making process, not to mention the Russians and imaginary gerrymandering. You are pissed because the GOP actually got its act together and partially sh_tcanned your Obamacare train wreck. It is a damned shame the cowardly Elephants broke their promise to repeal the entire train wreck.
 

Sad to say, three words into the headline, I knew it was Sandy. How the mighty have fallen.

And I did want to ask: Sandy, did you contact Take Care? Strikes me you'd be a perfect fit at that site.

Alas.
 

It's obvious Take Care gives Brett a perfect fit. So visit Take Care to learn how Trump's "Forgotten" base that obviously includes Brett has been forgotten by Trump. Does Brett speak for the "Forgotten" with his pre-existing condition?

And SPAM, Brett's "solemate" [sick!] has a short term memory problem. SPAM's "Make America Great Again" cap has as a subtitle: "Bring Back The Gilded Age!"
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I'm not sure who or what has "fallen" here, but it isn't really surprising that a person can determine the writer by a headline. Tends to have a certain feel. Brett's headlines, e.g., might have "the left" in the title & that would be a red flag.

Sandy Levinson and Mark Field used reasoned constitutional analysis, including citation of sources someone who appeals to history should appreciate, and yes, Take Care Blog does that. Michael Dorf of "Dorf on Law" is a participant at times. Marty Lederman is listed as a contributor as well. The name might ring a bell to readers.

Bottom line though at some point it's a matter of raw power, including someone with "the right enemies" in the White House. Sandy Levinson has shown in his life's work a certain for the process though. So, political leanings aside, he has some cred.


 

"Certain concern," I should say.

Those who wrote the Constitution and others continuing until today try to look past raw power (a relevant quote from the Federalist Papers or something can be cited, since Mark Field likes quotes) in our republican system of government.

So, though as a raw matter of power, what happened happened, we can go further. And, should, since as a civilized nation, raw power is a tad bit brutish.
 

I'm quite sincere in thinking that Sandy Levinson would be a good fit at Take Care.

And in thinking it's regrettable that he would. Is this the Sandy Levinson who wrote "The Embarrassing 2nd amendment"? No, sorry, just an embarrassing shade of him. But that doesn't change that he'd probably fit in well there, and might enjoy it.

What happened was no more an exercise of raw power than the original passage of the ACA. In fact, at this point it's less of an exercise in raw power, because it actually DID originate in the House, unlike the ACA.
 

I'm quite sincere in thinking that posts at Take Care give Brett fits. Perhaps Brett wants Sandy to stop posting at this Blog and move over to Take Care. But Mike Dorf, over at Dorf on Law, continues on his own Blog while contributing to Take Care. Sandy might do the same. Brett in comment threads on posts by Sandy demonstrates his pre-existing condition with his comments "concerned" with Sandy's health. Brett fears what Sandy has to say. Brett's pre-existing condition as a "Forgotten" in Trump's voting base who continues to be forgotten by the Trump Administration may prove embarrassing shade of him. Nice try, Hemlock, "quite sincere" indeed.
 

Off topic but appropriate today:


CINCO de MAYO 2017

There has been a stall
With Trump’s border wall;
There’s still life in Nafta,
And ever Trump’s pinata.
So with limes, tequila and salt
We can begin the assault
Fueled with a Trump Wallbanger
With a sliced orange rim hanger:
Enjoy the Cinco de Mayo holiday
Drinking and whacking away.

 

What happened was no more an exercise of raw power than the original passage of the ACA. In fact, at this point it's less of an exercise in raw power, because it actually DID originate in the House, unlike the ACA.

ACA originated in the House too. The Senate replaced it in form of a substitute, as if recall, which might be seen as some sort of trick. But, legislative 'tricks' as much as legal ones weren't a novel thing in 1787. If they wanted to guard against that sort of thing, they could have done so. Words have meanings.

ACA was a result of an extended process not found here in the ways spelled out in the original analysis. Taking everything as a whole, not latching on to one misguided thing helps in my view. Noted on the Take Care point -- SL has popped up at ACS Blog.
 

"ACA originated in the House too."

Oh, BS. You're better than this, I thought. All they did was put a defunct House bill's number on the Senate Bill. By that standard, if I pried the VIN tag off a wrecked Corvette, and superglued it to a Yugo, I'd be riding in style.

"I'm quite sincere in thinking that posts at Take Care give Brett fits."

Nah, I'm a fairly phlegmatic guy. Fits aren't my style. Now, eye rolling, that's another matter.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

So, minus the eye-roll and bad comparison, a bill that originated in the House -- per the requirement -- was replaced in the form of a substitute.

This is not something invented by the left in 2010. Legislative and legal tactics of that nature was around in some form since ancient times. The Founders could have, if desired, added more teeth, but did not. So, as happened before, that was done.*

Meanwhile, as noted and not refuted, as a whole, for the reasons cited by SL and added by MF, in part using history that "the left" allegedly repeatedly ignores, ACA was much better as a matter of procedure than AHCA as a whole.

----

* I think this answers the basic point & is the reason any rule challenge made in Congress [though if it wanted to do so, rules could be set up to enforce it more strictly than presently the case] would not have succeeded though there is more than one ways to address it. A lower court ruling arising from a lawsuit on the point avoided the "revenue" requirement by using the alternative argument stated here:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/does-the-aca-violate-the-origination-clause/
 

Brett goes from "quite sincere" to "I'm a fairly phlegmatic guy," which called for a dictionary search revealing:

***

phlegmatic - First meant "abounding in phlegm" and now more commonly means "not easily excited; lacking enthusiasm; dull, sluggish"—supposedly the type of character one has from having an overabundance of phlegm.

***

Keeping in mind Brett's most recent self-description, read through his comments on the prior thread on Gerard's post and this post of Sandy to judge whether this is yet another pre-existing condition Brett suffers from. Some humors are not funny.
I'm quite sincere in believing that Sandy's posts give Brett fits. Perhaps Sandy should comment on the impact of his posts on Brett's health. If Trumpcare fails Tr/mp's voting core base of the "Forgotten," perhaps that base's remedy is the 2nd A (which would indeed be embarrassing) and/or opiods; but that and diminishing procreation would only accelerate the changing demographics.
 

Joe: So, minus the eye-roll and bad comparison, a bill that originated in the House -- per the requirement -- was replaced in the form of a substitute.

How can a bill which was completely written in the Senate originate in the House as required by the Constitution?

This is not something invented by the left in 2010. Legislative and legal tactics of that nature was around in some form since ancient times.

The only time which matters is the United States under the limits of the current Constitution. Has the Senate ever completely replaced a House bill before?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

ACA's passage as a whole was better on process grounds than AHCA in the House. The specific complaint is refuted as well. More on the same.

United States v. Munoz-Flores addressed the back-up argument cited that this is not a "revenue bill," citing a rule that goes back to Joseph Story at least that "revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue." ACA regulates health insurance in a variety of ways & by this argument is not a "revenue" bill even if that is some aspect of the various things it covered.

As noted, there is at least one lower court opinion that settled this specific issue that way. Two justices in that earlier case argued that Origination Clause disputes largely amount to political questions with the House itself largely having the role in enforcement (as would the POTUS that signs bills). It did not carry the day, but there is to me some bite in the argument. Some constitutional checks are political and check in various ways.

The link in my previous comment provides more detail. Jack Balkin discusses the point here: https://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-new-legal-challenge-to-obamacare.html He argues that original expected application (FWIW!) would be violated but the practice used followed precedents going back a hundred years at least (FWIW!). This would inform "limits" as noted by Mark Field.

But, they even the first part assumes this is a "revenue bill," which itself is unclear. Balkin also cites the 1986 tax bill signed by Ronald Reagan and says there probably are various other examples. See also: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6057&context=law_lawreview

The point I made about how much room the Framers left in respect to the actual text of the provision is noted here: http://federaltaxprocedure.blogspot.com/2012/09/if-its-tax-what-about-origination.html

And, it led to the practice covered above deemed constitutional over time, which was followed here. A bill that "originated" in the House could be "amended," which means to "change or modify." The Constitution at times uses qualifiers (like "absolutely") and could have here. It did not. The loose language simply invites, among the myriad of legislation over the years, something of this character, while providing a general principle that serves as a check of some form.

A stricter rule is quite possible, but it was not provided. Words have meanings and consequences.

 

"This is not something invented by the left in 2010."

Neither was bank robbery, doesn't make it ok.

And, yes, that wasn't the first time it was done. It was a deliberate constitutional violation on every occasion. Just like their practice of conducting business without a quorum...
 

Brett's attempt at logic might suggest his view that McCulloch was incorrectly decided under the Constitution.

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], was bank robbery invented by the right?

Joe has cited situations, with Brett noting that the ACA was not the first time, that" there was a deliberate constitutional violation on every occasion." Is Brett aware of more situations than Joe cited? He might provide cites so there can be an examination of such claimed deliberateness, of course after first clearing his phlegm.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

One of these times maybe a reference to bank robbery will work.

Your say-so doesn't alter my understanding of it not being a violation. It was deliberate. As Madison noted: "conformity with the view here taken of the respect due to deliberate and reiterated precedent." This goes to the process part: following normal processes in place for such a long time is not "raw power."

It is following normal procedures, here over time understood by Congress, the Supreme Court and others as constitutionally acceptable. Like Madison on the bank, in time, experience brought forth this. The quorum business was dealt with in the past and doesn't alter this basic point.

Shag cites McCulloch v. Maryland and some then/now do think it was decided wrongly. Such is the case with various precedents. A Congress that follows precedent shows less "raw power," even if eventually the precedent is deemed wrong. On the merits, however, I don't think either McCulloch or the passage of ACA was wrong.
 

Joe:

The argument Obamacare was not a revenue bill is silly. Obamacare levied $2 trillion dollars in new taxes, fees and fines over its first ten years of operation. The Senate treated Obamacare as a revenue bill for the purposes of its rules.

The argument that an express constitutional limit on government power is a non-justiciable political question is the worst sort of progressive judicial rubber-stamping.
 

It's interesting, and predictable, that what Brett and Bart have here are the morally and intellectually bankrupt argument of tu quoque. It was never about parliamentarian principles when there side gnash end their teeth complaining about 'ramming' through bills, passing them without reading them, procedural irregularity, etc. it was just, what propagandist rhetoric do we find useful to employ right now? Now when the substantive issue has changed, so has their tune.
 

Remember when Bart used to say the ACA was a German style socialistic mass of regulation takeover of a fifth of the economy? Now we know it was just a revenue bill all along...
 

The lower court opinion is Sissel v. HHS.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/sissel-op-below.pdf

The court argued that the "purpose of the ACA was to overhaul the national
healthcare system, not to raise revenue." The large sum of money to obtained over time given the breadth of this purpose doesn't itself change that "the purpose" was not revenue related. The dissent disagreed but not to the overall validity since the Senate amended an actual revenue bill (germane or not) originated in the House.

I would still argue it is an amendment so is okay on that ground as well. Prof. Balkin also reminds us in his magazine piece that the House itself originated the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, a budgetary amendment.

Finally, there are various questions of what is justiciable based on the text of the Constitution, various sides differing on specifics such as the power to "try" impeachments, the case there written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Judicial review itself has been debated; when we move down to the contours of legislative process, at the very least, the long held practice of giving them a lot of discretion is sound.
 

My comments should not be inferred to mean I really disagree with Mr. W.

But, the subject was interesting and do like to try to make objective arguments on the merits of these questions as well.
 

Today isn't there a presumption or norm of good practice that proposed legislation should be available for comment by those affected? According to The Atlantic: "Republican leaders rushed the revised measure to the floor without a final estimate from the CBO and barely half a day after the legislative text of last-minute amendments became public." They held no hearings. This panicky rush has already earned the bill the firm hostility of the disrespected AMA, surely speaking for other medical groups.
 

Mr. W:

German style socialistic masses of regulation take revenue - very large amounts of revenue.


 

Like all reversals of the corporate and individual welfare states, you can be assured those at the government pig trough will be the first and loudest to squeal.
 

Since libertarians don't feed at the pig trough, then, per SPAM, they will not squeal. So if a libertarian is in need of healthcare, he/she has the means to pay full freight with no subsidies. No subsidies? Let me count the ways.
 

It's laughable to talk of a bill that professedly regulates to the point of 'socialism' as primarily a 'revenue bill.' You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
 

Brett, cancer is a pre-existing condition. You are completely fucked if Trumpcare become law.
 

Shag:

Living a libertarian life as a free man or woman requires a limited government and is currently impossible in our former land of the free.

Under our progressive political economy, I am not free to buy the health insurance or health care of my choice. I can only buy the government designed and mandated insurance sold by one of the surviving government directed health insurance companies.
 

Is it a chocolate cake?
 

Mr. W:

Section 7, Article I states in pertinent part: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives..."

The provision does not say: "Only bills used primarily for raising Revenue..."

All bills means all bills.

Of course, applying the the law as it is written is completely alien to progressives.


 

SPAM admits to participating in a healthcare subsidy. But he is being denied his freedom. I'm sure there are many more subsidies that he participates in both privately and personally.
healthcare
Trumpcare will result in loss of insurance/benefits for many of Trump's core voting base of the "Forgotten," for whom Brett is a spokesperson who has a pre-existing condition. Those "Forgotten" include many rurals like SPAM for whom SPAM often serves as a spokesperson. Are these "Forgotten" libertarians? Recall the Tea Partier who demanded that the government keep its hands off his Medicare. The "Forgotten" include many who are opiod addicted. Are these "Forgotten" feeders at the pig trough SPAM referenced? Keep in mind the House Bill was passed by Republicans. If Republicans controlling Congress were libertarians as defined by SPAM, they would have completely repealed ACA without replacing it other than via market forces. SPAM seems to be suggesting that he as a perfect ('Rhoidless) libertarian would have preferred that. But of course the House Bill would not negatively impact Congress except at the ballot box in 2018.

In the meantime, SPAM cannot in America today live a libertarian life by his own admission and so SPAM partakes of the pig trough. While SPAM did not openly support Trump in the general election, I wonder about his view of Trump's "Make America Great Again," as to when he thinks that was. SPAM's:

"Living a libertarian life as a free man or woman requires a limited government and is currently impossible in our former land of the free."

suggests it was before he was born. And that brings up once again past SPAM's claim that the late 19th century The Gilded Age were America's best days.

Let's give Brett equal time to address SPAM's "pig trough" that serves Brett and his fellow "Forgotten."
 

Some judges wanted to hear the Sissel case en banc, but not because they thought the government violated the clause.

No, they argued the the panel had the right result, but got there the wrong way. The dissent argued that the Senate here constitutionally used their amendment power on an existing revenue bill. It didn't originate a revenue bill. And, there was no germaneness requirement when they amended such a bill. Original understanding and precedent was cited. I cited an article making a comparable argument.

What progressive losers supported this approach? Judges Kavanaugh, Henderson, Brown and Griffith. All Bush appointees (mostly the son).
 

Shag: SPAM admits to participating in a healthcare subsidy.

Stop lying about what I post. When Obamacare mandates took away my health insurance and imposed a government designed policy, my out of pocket costs went up 20%. I am among the groups Obamacare was designed to loot to provide subsidies to others.

Trumpcare will result in loss of insurance/benefits for many of Trump's core voting base of the "Forgotten,"

I have no idea what the GOP's Obamacare-lite legislation will end up doing. I do know it ain't the repeal they promised and for which we all voted.

suggests it was before he was born. And that brings up once again past SPAM's claim that the late 19th century The Gilded Age were America's best days.

I was born in 1961 and my parents were able to purchase dirt cheap health insurance for the family. This was long before government mandates and medical malpractice suits.
 

I have no idea what the GOP's Obamacare-lite legislation will end up doing. I do know it ain't the repeal they promised and for which we all voted.

# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:52 PM

um...no. Repeal was polling even worse than Obamacare. You voted for "repeal and replace". Unfortunately, the scumbags that you voted for were lying to you. There is no "replace". There is only a huge tax cut for people a lot wealthier than you. You just get screwed.
 

BREAKING NEWS!!! To update Sandy's claim that Trump is a narcissist, check this site (at Firefox rather than Safari);

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/05/04/trump-malignant-narcissistic-disorder-psychiatry-column/101243584/

for John Gartner's " Donald Trump's malignant narcissism is toxic: Psychologist."

BREAKING WIND!!! SPAM's response at 10:52 PM includes this:

"I was born in 1961 and my parents were able to purchase dirt cheap health insurance for the family. This was long before government mandates and medical malpractice suits."

He seems to have avoided the question as to when he thought America Was Great directly. But he seems to be suggesting that America was great when he was born. Has SPAM given up on the late 19th century The Gilded Age as America's best days? Dirt cheap medical insurance? How much? But track the costs of healthcare insurance from 1961 to pre-ACA. Healthcare insurance was not dirt cheap. And back in 1961 that insurer was surely unaware of SPAM' 'Rhoidless pre-existing condition which leads to libertarianism. And note how SPAM brings in medical malpractice suits, long a talking point of conservatives.

But the give-away of SPAM'S entire response is his: "Stop lying about what I post." I concede that he is second only to Trump in the category of lying but it's clear SPAM lies with each key stroke.

 

Off topic, except that it relates to Trump): Over at Take Care, one of the topics is Conflicts of Interest that pops up frequently at its daily review of topics with links to sites other than Take Care. This brings to mind "Billy Beer" back in the Carter Administration that Republicans got intoxicated with though it involved chump change. But the teetotaler's family (including In-laws) conflicts of interest are sobering. But then of course there are the Revengelicals who want to lord over all.
 

It's stunning to me that someone with a history of cancer would still be supporting Trump. Trumpcare is a disaster for people like that.
 

Perhaps the most interesting element of the GOP bill is the provision allowing states to opt out of portions of the Obamacare mandates. If this provision ever makes it into law, I expect the red states to opt out immediately to lower the cost of health insurance in general and allow insurers to charge the young and healthy less. Hopefully, this will make it economically rational for the young and healthy to re-enter the insurance pool again.

What will be interesting is whether the blue states will follow suit in order to save their government health insurance exchanges.
 

This thread will end tonight, so a couple thoughts:

And do we care if the Court hears careful briefing and argument prior to a decision, or is it enough if a five-justice majority makes strikingly new law, as was the case in the famous Indian peyote case in Smith v. Oregon, without the slightest semblance of briefing and adversarial argument?

I do care. On this subject, see, e.g., Justice Souter's separate opinion in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah. The Supreme Court does reach out sometimes to make new law (to bluntly say what courts do when "interpreting" the law; contra Prof. Segall over at Dorf on Law, I won't say this isn't "judging") as they seem to want to do in this term's Trinity Lutheran case.

Although Hanna Volokh, among others, has suggested that legislators must in effect be responsible for actually reading and understanding the laws they vote for, in the modern world that would be a de facto impossible burden. Yet we would like to think that at least a critical mass of legislators are in fact well informed, and, just as importantly, are trustworthy in describing with some degree of accuracy what is in a bill and answering with relative honesty the questions of potential adversaries of the legislation.

I don't think realistically legislators in this country truly "read and understood" all the laws they voted upon. How could a general practitioner legislator, so to speak, often not a lawyer, truly understand all the various types of legislation they were involved in? Was some gentleman farmer in 1790 really aware of the nuances of the Judiciary Act or did many rely on certain people with expertise in the subjects at hand? Committees etc. are in place to split the work there too.

The second part is more realistic and sound. The bottom line problem here is that the bill was not put to a reasonable level of scrutiny (committee hearings, CBO scoring etc.) over a long enough span of time for a sound judgment. Lawmaking is always an imperfect process, but one can very well compare this to the ACA process, that took place over a year's time. Trump himself noted this: after the failure of the first bill, he noted that ACA took (by his accounting) 17 months.

So, I don't mind if some of the investigation of the bill was done by staffs or whatnot. The bottom line of the post is valid. Pinpoint attacks, which are hard merely to take on face value, like regarding the Origination Clause (discussed) doesn't change this. And, the merits of the bill leave a lot to be desired as well.
 

Joe: I don't think realistically legislators in this country truly "read and understood" all the laws they voted upon.

Legally, there is no way to effectively compel Congress critters to do so.

However, there is no reason Congress critters could not do so if they simply produced less of it.

The morass of federal statute and regulations seeking to direct nearly every facet of our lives has gone far, far beyond what even a legally trained individual can keep up with.

A solution may be to amend the constitution to sunset all statutes and regulations on a regular schedule unless Congress re-enacts them into law.


 

Ok, though it will be a waste of time, allow me to explain this.

Prior to the ACA, I had cancer. After paying my plan's deductable, (The cancer center let me set up a payment plan for it.) my insurance covered 100% of the expense of treatment. Which was a darned good thing, because treating that cancer cost as much as a modest house in this market.

Then along comes the ACA. Obama promises that if I like my health insurance, (I did.) I could keep it. I couldn't.

I now have substantially more expensive insurance, with a comparable deductable, but if I get cancer again I'll likely end up bankrupt, because my new, post-ACA policy only covers about 50% of the treatment cost after the deductible.

Why am I paying more for worse insurance? Because that was the price of other people paying less for better insurance; In order to give some people better insurance than they paid for, I had to get worse insurance than I was paying for.

I supported Trump because, allegedly, he wasn't going to double down on this idiocy like Hillary, but instead repeal it.

Well, allegedly. What a disappointment. But at least he's not doubling down on it, yet.
 

A somewhat related note: Stephen Colbert had a little comic rant in response to something Trump said, which included a couple off-color references in particular. The most blatant one, however, was bleeped out though could be figured out in context. Colbert later said he wasn't sorry though maybe he would have phrase one comment a bit differently.

There has been some concern of reports of the FCC investigating, but personally assume that their rules require that sort of thing. At least, if there were (as here) a certain amount of complaints. So, I am not overall concerned there; they probably "investigate" a range of things with nothing coming from it.

We only know this because of the attention Colbert would likely get normally & conservative backlash including a #FireColbert Twitter tag. If some actual fine etc. arises, then I would be concerned. Otherwise, the "process" would seem to be working here. I guess the public statement reported in the media about the investigation might be a choice on the part of the agency or someone there as well.

Dorf on Law has a piece on political correctness etc. somewhat related.
 

I do not know the particulars of Brett's situation.

I do know people who have had cancer and other costly problems had quite different responses regarding the benefits of ACA, including not latching on to a specific talking point. Likewise, no public policy is going to result in each case a perfect result. The overall judgment of experts and others -- including many Trump voters including if we can judge polling and Republican reactions to removing certain things from the law -- is that ACA improved the situation net. I'm sure the law can be tinkered with in various respects, though even there, there really is a right way to go about it. This is so even if the end result is ill-advised policy-wise.

I find personal shots at people here misguided, particularly since again we really cannot fully judge their situation, not having all the facts. But, you know, it's going to happen, so it goes.
 

Brett:

A Democrat solo attorney I knew voted for Trump specifically because Obamacare made insurance unaffordable for his wife and kids. Surprised me, but it made sense.
 

SPAM in his shallow manner provides an anecdote. Like the master debater advocate SPAM attempts to try to be, the anecdote is about an unidentified "Democrat solo attorney." We don't even know if this "Democrat" voted for Obama in 2008 or in 2012, or if he is still a "Democrat." Perhaps I might counter this anecdote by quoting a Republican solo attorney living in SPAM's mountaintop community who refers to SPAM as "Just another pisshole in the snow." While anecdotes may be the stock in trade for DUI criminal lawyers in rural police courts, they are merely anecdotal and not subjected to cross. Why some of my best friends are Republicans.
 

Maureen Dowd is back from her hiatus wherever and so anxious to be back that she has posted her Sunday NYTimes column earlier than usual: "Trump: Hazardous to Our Health" Brett should read this carefully even if he has to move his lips doing so. Will The Donald's "Forgotten" be "Left Behind" when even the Revengelicals depart Trump? Yes, the "Forgotten" have been trumped by the equivalent of "Fools' Gold." It must have been the glitter that attracted the "Forgotten."
 

" is that ACA improved the situation net."

Depends, of course, on how you weight things. It made a great many people worse off, it made some people better off.

Mind, if you ignore those people's own assessments in favor of your own, you can deflate the first number, and inflate the 2nd. Counting forcing people who didn't want insurance to buy it anyway as an "improvement", for example.
 

Brett's:

"Depends, of course, on how you weight things. It made a great many people worse off, it made some people better off."

attempts to quantify winners and losers without citing any source of support for his claims. "Depend"s on whether the product keeps Brett dry but I suspect he's all wet. And what is Brett's source regarding people being forced to buy insurance? Are Brett's assessments merely anecdotal? Depends.
 

Brett might want to look in the mirror as Mr. W. says when he tosses around "you," again noting that I simply don't have the facts to judge his situation.

Anyway, yes, it is a matter of setting terms. No one is "forced" to buy insurance as compared to various other things one is "forced" to do. For instance, paying a slightly higher tax (if you make enough money, aren't otherwise exempt etc.) is not possible to get away from going to jury duty, send your child to school or a range of things you actually are 'forced' to do as that term is often used.

I don't know the rules for each state, but car insurance also doesn't seem to work that way if it is required to drive. But, whatever, one is required to be insured in that respect. Why? Because not being insured causes various problems, including to third parties. And, you continue to get benefits, including emergency care or treatment that in the long run you won't be able to afford. etc. etc.

We are insured in a variety of ways and the cost is spread in a variety of ways. I cannot opt out, e.g., of the taxes used for "fire insurance," which once upon a time was quite limited. And, this includes health coverage, which in the world today includes some form of national health insurance as a general norm. Including Australia, which apparently is better than us. Single payer would be better here too, but that wasn't in the cards politically especially given you Congress is set up to give conservatives a plus not matched by population.

ACA has been as a whole been judged by experts to be better than the status quo ante & the Republican alternative put forth in the bad fashion set forth in the original post. But, not only that, the people over all agree, including many Trump voters. They support much of ACA and want any replacement to have many of the pieces. Brett's specific alternative view is duly noted.
 

So, being insured is generally rightly in various respects appropriate. If one is not insured, one is rightly penalized as a free rider. This is logical and something conservative plans in the 1990s understood as such.

Meanwhile, people who want insurance now are more able to get it given pre-existing conditions covered, Medicaid expansion, coverage extended on parent's plans, cost controls etc. But, some -- using suspect language -- want to look through the wrong end of the telescope.

This all doesn't change what Sandy Levinson said though. There was a much better way available to chance the system, especially when Republicans control each branch.