354
"Skeptical of arguments"
Now I'm no lawyer and I can see how the details of this makes it seem like a complex issue, but my gut reaction was that it should be unconstitutional first and foremost for one group to be able to through their religious beliefs deny basic well being for others, especially in such a broad manner.
And my first response days ago before even seeing the specifics of this case was "the best way to topple ACA is and always has been to propose something better". Almost 20 years later and this has never been a route the Republicans have tried.
Of course they haven't. The ACA was their healthcare plan. Nearly everything the Dems originally wanted was stripped by the time it was passed. It's an almost copy-paste of Romneycare just on a national scale.
I hadn't really thought about how this move by Obama may have unwittingly pushed the Overton window way to the right...
Republicans were in the throes of racist rage during Obama's tenure, and they hated everything he proposed and defined themselves by opposing everything he wanted to do.
Obama, being clever, takes the GOP's own health care plan, and turns around and sells it to them.
If it were president Mitt Romney that proposed it, it would have gotten support. Hell, even if it were a Democratic white dude, it would have been doable.
But because it came from Obama, they had to define themselves by their opposition to their own plan. Pushing them (permanently, it seems) further right on the topic of health care.
For the modern conservative - any money not spent on public services is "something better"
Honestly, and my guess is you already know this (and others I see beat me to it), American Conservatives mostly haven’t proposed anything else because the ACA was a conservative policy and was implemented first by Governor Romney in Massachusetts.
It’s hard to get more conservative than policy written by Heritage Foundation economist and implemented by a Mormon Vulture Capitalist.
Also the mask is off now. These mother fuckers don’t give a shit about policy anymore. They’re not passing any laws. Like I see 34 bills passed in 2023 and a handful of them were fluff—what the fuck?
Anyway I agree with you. It’s also very tough to get justices to not vote religiously—sorry I mean with “historical accuracy” in mind.
This was really an administrative law case. The Biden administration was defending against a claim that the taskforce that decides which things should be covered was unconstitutional. Now the Trump admin has taken up the case and is arguing that the taskforce is constitutional, but because the secretary of hhs has final rule making authority and can actively override the taskforce. The supreme Court seems to be agreeing with that interpretation. Meaning that the brain worm will get more power to be able to decide which drugs should and should not be covered....so not a great result overall.
This is the analysis I had as well. Anything trump wants, we don't.
So next to nothing is better than nothing? Stop pretending that for-profit "health insurance" is anything other than gambling over when you'll die
this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2025
354 points (100.0% liked)
News
36043 readers
2534 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS