Are you happy about the Supreme Courts decision on King v. Burwell

[Classic Conservative]

What's your opinion on the outcome

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yep. I'm a proud supporter of ObamaCare, and while I would make some changes to the law if I could, I have no qualms with the subsidies or the individual/employer mandates.

[Beet]

Yep. I'm a proud supporter of ObamaCare, and while I would make some changes to the law if I could, I have no qualms with the subsidies or the individual/employer mandates.

[Ebsy]

There was a part of me that secretly hoped that they would rule against it, causing a mad scramble in the Republican Party to save Obamacare. But yeah, I'm happy with the decision.

[Blair]

Yes-if Roberts votes for Gay marriage as well then heck it may outdo the damage he did on Citizens.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yes-if Roberts votes for Gay marriage as well then heck it may outdo the damage he did on Citizens.

I'm pretty confident he won't be in the majority if the decision fully legalizes SSM. However, if the decision is "you must recognize legal SSM from other states but do not have to legalize it within your borders", then he will be in the majority, and there is a slight chance that Alito would be as well.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Of course. Even if you oppose Obamacare the other side prevailing would be disastrous.

[Cryptic]

Yes. Really glad it was a 6-3 decision too. Hope SSM is also 6-3.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Had it been struck down we'd see political crisis and a renewed impetus for single-payer, which both Sanders and Clinton would be agitated to endorse.

[bedstuy]

Had it been struck down we'd see political crisis and a renewed impetus for single-payer, which both Sanders and Clinton would be agitated to endorse.

No.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Had it been struck down we'd see political crisis and a renewed impetus for single-payer, which both Sanders and Clinton would be agitated to endorse.

No.

Single Payer will not pass, ever. No chance at all.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Had it been struck down we'd see political crisis and a renewed impetus for single-payer, which both Sanders and Clinton would be agitated to endorse.

Sanders would support it, but I don't think Clinton would, and there's absolutely zero chance it'd pass this Congress.

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else. 

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

[Skill and Chance]

I am relieved more than anything else. 

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

The GOP can get to 251. Gaining AZ-1, FL-18, NE-2, and CA-7 (Or MN-7 if Peterson retires) is probably the easiest path, and is realistic as well.

[Frodo]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

The GOP can get to 251. Gaining AZ-1, FL-18, NE-2, and CA-7 (Or MN-7 if Peterson retires) is probably the easiest path, and is realistic as well.

Is that accounting for the losses the GOP is likely to suffer next year? 

[Ebsy]

I am relieved more than anything else.  

There are only two major hurdles left until we can be certain that the Affordable Care Act's future is assured for posterity:

1. maintaining continued Democratic control of the White House after Barack Obama leaves -at least for an extra term or two.

2. winning enough seats in the Senate next year to ensure that whatever Republican gains are made in the 2018 midterms won't be enough to overturn a Presidential veto.  

Actually, the house is the greater barrier to enforce a veto.  It's possible to get to 67 in the senate while winning only <55% Obama 2012 states, but getting to 290 in the house would require winning D+10 urban and majority-minority seats.

I know it is, that is why I am focusing on the Senate.  Thanks both to gerrymandering and the natural compact geographic placement of Democratic voters, we will always be at a disadvantage in the House -at least for the foreseeable future.  So long as we hold the line there (preventing the GOP from getting over 250 seats), it will be enough.  Which should be doable -they just about maxed out last year, from what I understand.  

The GOP can get to 251. Gaining AZ-1, FL-18, NE-2, and CA-7 (Or MN-7 if Peterson retires) is probably the easiest path, and is realistic as well.

Is that accounting for the losses the GOP is likely to suffer next year? 

That would require critical thinking.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

On pragmatic grounds when it comes to the subsidies themselves, yes.  I don't have much confidence in Congress and the President in fixing it if it fell apart.

On jurisprudence grounds, no.  States means states.  Congress didn't anticipate that they couldn't force states to set up their own exchanges.   It's not the job of the Executive or the Court to pick up the slack on Congress's lack of foresight and change the bills for them so that they actually work. It's the job of Congress to not pass sloppy legislation.

[bedstuy]

On pragmatic grounds when it comes to the subsidies themselves, yes.  I don't have much confidence in Congress and the President in fixing it if it fell apart.

On jurisprudence grounds, no.  States means states.  Congress didn't anticipate that they couldn't force states to set up their own exchanges.   It's not the job of the Executive or the Court to pick up the slack on Congress's lack of foresight and change the bills for them so that they actually work. It's the job of Congress to not pass sloppy legislation.

Are you serious?  You think that basic logic and the clear intent should be overridden by something that's  basically a typo?

I wonder how you would feel about a typo in a piece of legislation that you support.  And, that's the problem here, it's pure partisanship by the conservative justices.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, I'm quite pleased.  Not only was it the correct decision, but I had zero faith in Congress to pass a viable replacement.

[ShadowRocket]

Yes.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Yes, I don't want millions of people losing their health insurance.  (sane)

[7,052,770]

On jurisprudence grounds, no.  States means states.  Congress didn't anticipate that they couldn't force states to set up their own exchanges.   It's not the job of the Executive or the Court to pick up the slack on Congress's lack of foresight and change the bills for them so that they actually work. It's the job of Congress to not pass sloppy legislation.

If that was Congress's intent all along, then why did literally no Congressman of any party ever speak up and say that that's how the law was intended? Why didn't any state government ever step up and say that's how they thought the law worked?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, I don't want millions of people losing their health insurance.  (sane)