Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 02:13 PM Dec 2019

Pelosi Can Save Obamacare With a One-Line Amendment

By Jon Walker


On Wednesday, two conservative justices on the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals came to a truly insane ruling that could undermine the entire Affordable Care Act. The case involves the now-toothless individual mandate. Explaining all the ways this ruling is a shockingly bad-faith assault on the basic idea of constitutional governance would take too long, so I will leave that for others. The crux of the decision is this: Since Republicans lowered the individual mandate penalty to zero dollars, it is no longer constitutional, and that somehow could mean that the entire Affordable Care Act should be unconstitutional. (The Fifth Circuit actually punted on this crucial second step, leaving it to a lower court to decide whether the whole ACA should be thrown out.)

Speaker Nancy Pelosi now needs to step up to end this nonsense.

The decision was written in such a way to draw out appeals for years, giving Republicans hope of replacing one or more of the liberal Supreme Court justices with a radical who would vote for this nonsense sometime after the election. This leaves millions of people and businesses in a weird limbo, not knowing whether the protections they rely on will remain long term.

Democrats have mostly ignored this case, given the baseless logic behind it. But there is an easy solution. The whole legal argument depends on the fact that Republicans used reconciliation to pass the 2017 tax bill through the Senate with a simple majority. Due to the restrictions around reconciliation, Republicans couldn’t technically repeal the mandate in total, instead just lowering the penalty to nothing. The case effectively goes away if Congress either adds back in a penalty (even of just one cent), or just officially repeals the mandate, thereby severing it from the whole health care law.

Read more: https://prospect.org/health/pelosi-can-save-obamacare-with-a-one-line-amendment/
(American Prospect)
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

SCantiGOP

(13,856 posts)
4. Does this story make any sense at all?
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 02:31 PM
Dec 2019

Nancy Pelosi (or, the US House) can now pass legislation?
Any law has to pass the House, and then the Senate and be signed by the President.
Am I missing something, or is the writer a moron?

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
7. The article recognizes the fact that the Senate also has to pass the legislation.
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 02:46 PM
Dec 2019

You'll need to click the link as to the strategy behind the wisdom of such a move.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
6. This headline is very misleading
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 02:33 PM
Dec 2019

Pelosi can't do anything simply by adding an amendment.

This article says she should add an amendment to a must pass spending bill and "dare Republicans to oppose it" or else provoke a shutdown.

In other words, the House can pass a piece of legislation with an amendment and hope the Senate agrees to it.

That's not a new or particularly innovative suggestion.

And it's something very, very different than the headline claims.

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
8. At least I know that you clicked the link to read the entire article.
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 02:48 PM
Dec 2019

The merits of this proposal are a valid topic of discussion.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
9. But in order to discuss it, we need to have accurate information
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 03:43 PM
Dec 2019

This article not only has an inaccurate headline, the story suggests that this proposal is innovative and likely to succeed. I'm sure the Speaker, Democratic leadership, and their lawyers in collaboration with the parties, healthcare activists and experts, are considering all of their options, of which this is one.

And I'm not sure how likely it is to get the Republican Senate to vote for it - too many Republicans don't really care whether the government is shut down.

So, yes - it's worth discussing, but from a reality-based premise.

( I always read linked sources before commenting on them ...)

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
10. OPs are frequently posted that have inaccurate headlines.
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 05:21 PM
Dec 2019

If there was a requirement that every headline and article were to be completely accurate then more than half of the threads would disappear from DU. It's because of members such as yourself that many misconceptions are corrected.

I realize that you are an attorney, but do you know the outcome of every case that you take to trial? If you do, then why do we even bother to have court proceedings--the country could save a lot of money by eliminating the judicial branch and there would be no need for attorneys, judges, or law schools. Think about how many people wouldn't have student debts hanging over them if every legal case was decided before any evidence was even presented?

There is also nothing in the article that claims that the solution being offered is in any way innovative--the closest that I read is that a "unique opportunity" exists because of the annual spending bill and it is the opinion of the author that it could lead to a successful strategy. The author is far from claiming "checkmate," but provides an opinion as to the optics that the public might see depending upon the course of action in the Senate. Those optics are the author's opinion and they are also open for discussion.

I'm not a subject expert on anything. I have a bachelors degree from a private liberal arts university and most people believe I have a reasonably well-rounded education--the 21st century equivalent of jack-of-all-trades, master of none. However, when I registered on DU I wasn't required to provide my academic or public service credentials.

A few weeks ago while I was discussing a topic with my conservative sister, she made a statement that people had to produce their voter registration cards in order to become a member here. They don't even stamp my voter registration card with which primary I voted in like they did in the past. The only things that my registration card indicate are my name, address, precinct number, and which districts that I live in for US House, state Senate, state representative, municipal, and school board races along with the period of time when the card is considered to be valid.

This is a discussion board, not a courtroom where only statements of facts are admissible. Everyone is allowed to argue for or against the opinions presented. When reviewing the other responses in this thread, it look like most of us recognize that Pelosi can't dictate what will occur and fortunately, nobody else can either.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
11. Wow. What an odd reaction to my pointing out that the headline of the article you cited is wrong
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 05:59 PM
Dec 2019

It seems that if you had read the article yourself before posting it, you would have known that the headline was wrong and then you could have just cited the article without repeating the inaccurate headline. But you didn't, so knowing that people might not read the article but assume from the headline claiming that Pelosi has the power to "save Obamacare with a one-line amendment" was accurate, I pointed out the headline isn't true (especially since you didn't quote from the part of the story that explained the process).

Not sure why you took it so personally or felt the need to respond in this way.

TexasTowelie

(111,292 posts)
12. Perhaps it was because I felt you were being condescending
Thu Dec 19, 2019, 06:30 PM
Dec 2019

and you were also telling me what I can or cannot post? As someone who has an occupation that relies on the meaning of the written language, your nuance in the previous response was lacking in my opinion. To provide more clarification--I believe that you were attacking me so yes, I did take it personally.

I usually (but not always) try to use the headline that appears with the articles that I post so that I'm not accused of adding my own editorial spin which is what you apparently want me to do when the first words you begin with are "It seems". I'll make changes to headlines to identify locations (rather than the generic "city" or "state&quot , provide clarification, or eliminate a term that most people might find offensive, but I'm not perfect and I'll miss something occasionally (like an alternate meaning). However, I don't believe that the headline was inaccurate so I didn't alter it in any manner when I made the OP. I don't see any significant difference between "Pelosi Can Save Obamacare" vs. "Pelosi May Save Obamacare" in relation to this article though. YMMV.

If you want to quibble about words, then please take it somewhere else because I'm not interested in continuing this dialogue.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Pelosi Can Save Obamacare...