A Note of Apology

[Torie]

No need to apologize anvi, and I am sorry that you are burned out. Perhaps you had unrealistic expectations about the political class. Most politicians are in it for themselves, and nothing else. Far too many are simply not prepared to handle or understand complex issues, and just accept representations from others. Part of the problem is that the medical subsidies issue requires actions that will prove to be very unpopular in the end (to wit, cuts). But there  is no escape. Hopefully it won't take a fiscal collapse to get there.

Anyway, the important thing to do is what you enjoy doing of course. I hope that we can stay in touch. And hopefully if you are lurking and feel moved to say something, or say hi, or whatever, you will do so.

Best, Steve

[Torie]

who don't know don't know how to pick up a woman so they turn gay to compensate

wat

Sam is an open homophobe.

To whom was Sam Spade referring? 

[Torie]

What is wrong with private insurers competing for business, with subsidies on a means tested basis for the premiums? 

[Torie]

Because if you then mandate people buy from those private companies, they tend to get pissed off. And then the wonderful supreme court rules it unconstitutional!

You forgot about the Torie finesse already?  Given that memory is the second thing to go, unless you are on the Torie regimen (which I assure you "works"), you are in trouble man. Seek help! 

[Torie]

Well, with the Torie finesse having been available, one cannot blame SCOTUS for shutting down the concept of mandatory insurance (effectively). Congress gets the blame for going the disingenuous route for marketing purposes, in order to claim that no "taxes" were involved. Obamacare ironically was packaged as a cost saving measure. Who knew?

Don't be sad however. This issue has to be fixed. There is no other option to avoid the abyss. Be patient (quoted from Sam without copyright permission).   One thing that will force the issue is that I don't think the Medicaid all or nothing part of Obamacare packcage vis a vis the states getting Fed money will be struck down (if it is, that would indeed be a case of SCOTUS gone activist and rogue). That provision alone should cause enough fiscal chaos to get the ball moving again - in a hurry.

[Torie]

I didn't write the Constitution, and I am not the one who has much if any interest in states rights anyway really anvi. But I am a lawyer, and I think per the law, SCOTUS really should strike down the mandate. Otherwise, the interstate commerce clause for the reasons I have outlined, has swallowed federalism alive (of which I approve as a policy matter), but that is not the job of SCOTUS. For that, one needs a Constitutional amendment - which I would support. So there you go.

[Torie]

Well in the sense it is not obvious what the interstate commerce clause means exactly in a modern complex interconnected world economically and every other way, that often requires common rules that "require" coverage of a larger and larger swath of this planet, anvi, sure, informed opinions can differ. But with the cross subsidy aspect of the mandate, and a lack of a clear limiting principle as to that piece, upholding the mandate would effectively gut federalism, and the notion that states can do some things the feds cannot.  That is a pretty big step - and an unnecessary one given the readily available finesse. Why should SCOTUS wrench and stretch the Constitution when the proponents of something just don't have the votes to do it right?

Anyway, that is why the mandate is one legal life support at the moment, with the real prospect that the plug will soon be pulled.