[ SECRET POST #3048 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3048 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 057 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: TW for suicide talk

[(Anonymous)]

The UK and probable NHS fuckery courtesy of the evil overlord, or something else? Either way, that's awful and I'm really sorry.

Re: TW for suicide talk

[(Anonymous)]

Probably the UK election from the sound of it, but those of us here in the US are on pins and needles waiting for a Supreme Court decision that could very well throw out the entirety of Obamacare.

Re: TW for suicide talk

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I don't think that'll happen. There already was a giant court case over PPACA, and the same bench that's there now just moderated it. Is John Roberts (who wrote the middle-of-the-road deciding opinion) really going to go back and say, "No, nevermind, let's gut the whole thing"?

If, somehow, he does, it's going to be an interesting year for the GOP.

Re: TW for suicide talk

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's as impossible as all that.

From a legal point of view, the questions at hand are quite different (NFIB v Sebelius was about Congress' power to mandate purchase of healthcare; King v Burwell is pretty directly about the interpretation of the specific text of the proviso about exchanges). So there's every possibility that someone could rule one way on one case, and the other on the other, and be perfectly fine in terms of legal coherence.

From a strategic point of view (or what we as well call the John Roberts point of view), I have to think that John Roberts would probably like to see Obamacare go away, and I think there are also strategic considerations that could explain his earlier vote - for instance, I have to think he'd be happy about forcing the left wing of the bench to sign on to a decision limiting the power of the Commerce Clause. And I think this is exactly the kind of way that he thinks, strategically speaking.

Finally, from a party political point of view, I'm not sure it's as bad as all that for the GOP. I have to assume that they'd pass some kind of 'fix' bill - one designed to be so repugnant to the left as to force either the Senate to filibuster it or Obama to veto it, you know, a whole industry wishlist, gut a bunch of stuff from the original ACA, etc. And I'm not sure that's really that bad of a narrative politically, if you can say "You had this law, and you wrote it so poorly that millions of people had their healthcare taken away, and we're trying to fix it and you won't even let us do that." I mean, it's still not a great line, but it's not an unmitigated disaster either.

Even with all that, I still think, on balance, they're more likely than not to uphold Obamacare as it stands - at the end of the day, it really is a hell of a lot of people to throw out of the healthcare system on the grounds of a variant reading of a single phrase. But there's cause for concern.