No first year lawyer would let a client sign a contract or agreement without a severability clause, I am puzzled at how this legislation was passed apparently without that language.
Judge William Conley struck down some key provisions of Scott Walker’s notorious anti-public sector union Act 10 in Wisconson. He noted that Governor Walker does not have the right to treat unions that supported him differently from those that did not.
Will be interesting to see how the appeals progress alongside a recall election now scheduled for June 5.
Digby points us to an amazingly clueless video presentation from the geniuses at Reason TV. As near as I can make out the argument they are making, apparently the market based libertarian solution to healthcare requires me to know enough about my own medical risks to buy only the coverage I need.
This story from the LA times documents new precautions NATO are undertaking to try to control incidents of fratricide by Afghan security forces. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/western-troops-in-afghanistan-take-steps-to-avoid-fratricidal-attacks-.html
Money quote may be in the last graf: “…the U.S. believes that the majority of the attacks are committed by Afghan troops who are “gradually self-radicalized,” not by Taliban infiltrators.”
Talk about burying the lede…
And it’s one two three what are we fightin for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn Next stop Afghanistan…
Unless the counterparty to that contract has a history of severing those parts of the deal that no longer were needed to concessions to get an overall deal. We could take as an example the legislation that established across the board sequestration of spending across domestic and military categories should the budget commission negotiations fail. Given that Boehner is now branzenly repudiating any idea of the actually legislated military cuts and Ryan is fulminating that the military brass are lying through their teeth and that national security requires actual INCREASES in spending in that category thus showing Republicans are totally untrustworthy dealing with even a negotiated and legislated omnibus approach, setting up the ACA so that R’s could just excise the portion they didn’t like while cherry picking the politically popular pieces for retention would have guaranteed their preferred outcome. Which they may get anyway. But without the cover of those pretty cherries like extended coverage to age 26 for children and perhaps the pre-existing conditions clause.
You would have to be a pretty dumb first year student to let general rules of contract writing to swamp the political realities that were apparent throughout the Health Care Bill process. As it is Republicans (and or the conservative majority on the Supremes, to the degree there is a difference) are not free to throw out the dishwater while retaining the cute bouncing babies and then rebuking Dems for hating on babies because their ‘dishwater’ was our ‘near universal affordable coverage’.
Non-severability was clearly intended to impose a price on opponents of ACA. If they want a clear victory over ‘Obamacare’ they have to accept throwing out the universally popular parts and then seeing how that plays out for them.
Your puzzlement stems from our bill writers cleverness. Having been burned by the Republican trick of asserting that Democratic acquiescence of the Republican part of whatever compromise was reached to pass a particular piece of legislation meant that they obviously approved of that part in principle and so were bare faced liars for rejecting subsequent Republican attempts to pass just those Republican portions and discarding the Dem pieces (“But you agreed that we should cut top rates! So obviously that is acceptable even if we abandon your own priorities!”)
It is not like the R’s haven’t played this bait and switch game over and over for years and even in the face of actual legislation on sequestration are doing it again openly and blatently. Their motto may as well be “Heads we win, tails you lose. Plus we get to blame you for being obstructionists and four-flushers if you dare go for a win or even draw.”
As a bonus I just moved back to the home town of Country Joe, what we fondly know as ‘Berzerkely California’ (Joe’s Mom was elected to the City Council even AFTER her son got famous, and in fact he kinda got his rebellious nature from her to start with).
Well said Bruce. I had never considered the strategery of ensuring opponents didn’t get to cherry pick their favorite (or their lobbyists favorite you pickem) provisions in the ACA.
I don’t think Obama understands the concept of severability. He keeps offering the Repubs Social Security… here take my daughters and do what you will with them… in return for a few tax raises on the rich.
He does not seem to realize that it will be much easier to cut those tax raises next year than it will be to put Social Security back together again.
do you know enough about insurance to buy a policy from the people we have been calling the bad guys for ever so long, now the good buys because Obama says so. You know, that Obama who has been trying to sell Social Security to the Republicans and finally turned it into welfare with the blessing of all the democrats and liberal pundits.
It took me a little while to figure out what bothered me the most about that video. Finally realized last night that this tool isn’t talking about health insurance at all, at least not the way most of us understand it.
Health insurance as most of us would define it is a way to pool risk. Paying for insurance (however it happens) means I am sheltered from the risk of some catastrophic health issues, at least financially.
The scheme this con artist is selling actually inverts that model. He apparently believes it’s more efficient to take on more of the risks of disease and injury himself via a bizarre casino type model….
“Hrm should I put 2 chips on the rectal cancer square? Or maybe I should just put one on that one and place a big fat bet on heart disease… Gee i love sweets so I better save a pile of chips for that diabetes square… “
“Sorry amateur but if you’re going to use a chainsaw in your backyard you really should have had some chips on the severed hand square. Here’s some more insulin though good luck with that…”
“Wow did you see what the liver transplant lotto jackpot got to? We should start a pool in the office and pick up a bunch of tickets, maybe one of us will win and we can split it…. No wait…”
Don’t underestimate what it is that Obama realizes or understands. He is a Chicago politician where compromise comes before principles. He’s always looking for an end result disregarding the adequacy, inadequacy is the more appropriate word, of the details. Some would call that governing by incremental improvement. If that were to be the end result it might be acceptable, but to date we’re only experiencing the inadequacies of his many compromises. Worse yet the alternatives must be in collusion to present the most radical departure from goverening as the promise of what we can expect if a Republican takes his place.
he is a chicago politician whose campaign costs are paid by Goldman-Sachs, which is also where his financial advisers come from.
but compromise has such a reasonable sound to it.
but have no fear. the supremes have decided that strip searches are okay for people arrested for traffic fines. it’s because of all the policemen killed in the police station every year by traffic violators who have guns concealed in their underwear.
hey, and the supremes have also discovered that SS is a violation of your freedom because it requires you to buy something you may not want, or actually need this month.
who says alzheimers is not a threat to national security.
i wouldn’t want to alarm you all, but with the rich running the country… after all, we voted for them… we can expect to see “security” taking a higher priority than human rights, not to say financial security for poor people.
there is nothing new about this. but given the arts of public persuasion (lying) and crowd control, i think we are in for a long, bad time.
oh, and of course, if SS forces you to buy something you don’t want, then all taxes are a violation of your pfreedom. and of course since a mandate forces you to buy something you don’t want, then a mandate is exactly the same as a tax.
No first year lawyer would let a client sign a contract or agreement without a severability clause, I am puzzled at how this legislation was passed apparently without that language.
Judge William Conley struck down some key provisions of Scott Walker’s notorious anti-public sector union Act 10 in Wisconson. He noted that Governor Walker does not have the right to treat unions that supported him differently from those that did not.
Will be interesting to see how the appeals progress alongside a recall election now scheduled for June 5.
Any links for context guys?
Mark Thoma has a decision tree flow chart up about PPACA and Scotus.
Will look for a detailed discussion on severability.
from a legal publisher
http://health.wolterskluwerlb.com/2012/03/ppaca-amicus-brief-rundown-severability/
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-court-strikes-down-parts-of-collective-bargaining-law/article_562c581e-7a9f-11e1-9aea-0019bb2963f4.html
Digby points us to an amazingly clueless video presentation from the geniuses at Reason TV. As near as I can make out the argument they are making, apparently the market based libertarian solution to healthcare requires me to know enough about my own medical risks to buy only the coverage I need.
http://youtu.be/Cdfn0Wiywk4
The whole thing is so willfully incoherent it makes me wonder if they are trying to make it impossible to parody. As Digby pointed out in her summary:
“They quite clearly don’t understand how insurance or markets work which is odd since they worship them as avatars of their “freedom.”
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/pre-existing-pizza-toppings.html
This story from the LA times documents new precautions NATO are undertaking to try to control incidents of fratricide by Afghan security forces. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/western-troops-in-afghanistan-take-steps-to-avoid-fratricidal-attacks-.html
Money quote may be in the last graf: “…the U.S. believes that the majority of the attacks are committed by Afghan troops who are “gradually self-radicalized,” not by Taliban infiltrators.”
Talk about burying the lede…
And it’s one two three
what are we fightin for?
Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn
Next stop Afghanistan…
Unless the counterparty to that contract has a history of severing those parts of the deal that no longer were needed to concessions to get an overall deal. We could take as an example the legislation that established across the board sequestration of spending across domestic and military categories should the budget commission negotiations fail. Given that Boehner is now branzenly repudiating any idea of the actually legislated military cuts and Ryan is fulminating that the military brass are lying through their teeth and that national security requires actual INCREASES in spending in that category thus showing Republicans are totally untrustworthy dealing with even a negotiated and legislated omnibus approach, setting up the ACA so that R’s could just excise the portion they didn’t like while cherry picking the politically popular pieces for retention would have guaranteed their preferred outcome. Which they may get anyway. But without the cover of those pretty cherries like extended coverage to age 26 for children and perhaps the pre-existing conditions clause.
You would have to be a pretty dumb first year student to let general rules of contract writing to swamp the political realities that were apparent throughout the Health Care Bill process. As it is Republicans (and or the conservative majority on the Supremes, to the degree there is a difference) are not free to throw out the dishwater while retaining the cute bouncing babies and then rebuking Dems for hating on babies because their ‘dishwater’ was our ‘near universal affordable coverage’.
Non-severability was clearly intended to impose a price on opponents of ACA. If they want a clear victory over ‘Obamacare’ they have to accept throwing out the universally popular parts and then seeing how that plays out for them.
Your puzzlement stems from our bill writers cleverness. Having been burned by the Republican trick of asserting that Democratic acquiescence of the Republican part of whatever compromise was reached to pass a particular piece of legislation meant that they obviously approved of that part in principle and so were bare faced liars for rejecting subsequent Republican attempts to pass just those Republican portions and discarding the Dem pieces (“But you agreed that we should cut top rates! So obviously that is acceptable even if we abandon your own priorities!”)
It is not like the R’s haven’t played this bait and switch game over and over for years and even in the face of actual legislation on sequestration are doing it again openly and blatently. Their motto may as well be “Heads we win, tails you lose. Plus we get to blame you for being obstructionists and four-flushers if you dare go for a win or even draw.”
Gimme a fish!
As a bonus I just moved back to the home town of Country Joe, what we fondly know as ‘Berzerkely California’ (Joe’s Mom was elected to the City Council even AFTER her son got famous, and in fact he kinda got his rebellious nature from her to start with).
Well said Bruce. I had never considered the strategery of ensuring opponents didn’t get to cherry pick their favorite (or their lobbyists favorite you pickem) provisions in the ACA.
I don’t think Obama understands the concept of severability. He keeps offering the Repubs Social Security… here take my daughters and do what you will with them… in return for a few tax raises on the rich.
He does not seem to realize that it will be much easier to cut those tax raises next year than it will be to put Social Security back together again.
Bruce
That’s right! Just blame the mother! You kids today ain’t got no respect. 😉 NancyO
gee i dunno amsoc
do you know enough about insurance to buy a policy from the people we have been calling the bad guys for ever so long, now the good buys because Obama says so. You know, that Obama who has been trying to sell Social Security to the Republicans and finally turned it into welfare with the blessing of all the democrats and liberal pundits.
It took me a little while to figure out what bothered me the most about that video. Finally realized last night that this tool isn’t talking about health insurance at all, at least not the way most of us understand it.
Health insurance as most of us would define it is a way to pool risk. Paying for insurance (however it happens) means I am sheltered from the risk of some catastrophic health issues, at least financially.
The scheme this con artist is selling actually inverts that model. He apparently believes it’s more efficient to take on more of the risks of disease and injury himself via a bizarre casino type model….
“Hrm should I put 2 chips on the rectal cancer square? Or maybe I should just put one on that one and place a big fat bet on heart disease… Gee i love sweets so I better save a pile of chips for that diabetes square… “
“Sorry amateur but if you’re going to use a chainsaw in your backyard you really should have had some chips on the severed hand square. Here’s some more insulin though good luck with that…”
“Wow did you see what the liver transplant lotto jackpot got to? We should start a pool in the office and pick up a bunch of tickets, maybe one of us will win and we can split it…. No wait…”
“Look at those horrible dentistry keno payouts. Might be better to just buy that food processor and puree everything after my teeth are gone… ”
etc.
Don’t underestimate what it is that Obama realizes or understands. He is a Chicago politician where compromise comes before principles. He’s always looking for an end result disregarding the adequacy, inadequacy is the more appropriate word, of the details. Some would call that governing by incremental improvement. If that were to be the end result it might be acceptable, but to date we’re only experiencing the inadequacies of his many compromises. Worse yet the alternatives must be in collusion to present the most radical departure from goverening as the promise of what we can expect if a Republican takes his place.
Jack
he is a chicago politician whose campaign costs are paid by Goldman-Sachs, which is also where his financial advisers come from.
but compromise has such a reasonable sound to it.
but have no fear. the supremes have decided that strip searches are okay for people arrested for traffic fines. it’s because of all the policemen killed in the police station every year by traffic violators who have guns concealed in their underwear.
hey, and the supremes have also discovered that SS is a violation of your freedom because it requires you to buy something you may not want, or actually need this month.
who says alzheimers is not a threat to national security.
i wouldn’t want to alarm you all, but with the rich running the country… after all, we voted for them… we can expect to see “security” taking a higher priority than human rights, not to say financial security for poor people.
there is nothing new about this. but given the arts of public persuasion (lying) and crowd control, i think we are in for a long, bad time.
oh, and of course, if SS forces you to buy something you don’t want, then all taxes are a violation of your pfreedom. and of course since a mandate forces you to buy something you don’t want, then a mandate is exactly the same as a tax.
i knew you’d understand.
see, a mandate forces you to pay
the rich guy directly. no need to launder it through the tax system… i mean, what would be the profit in that?