Home / General / “It is hard to substantiate or refute this, because it is not even an English sentence…”

“It is hard to substantiate or refute this, because it is not even an English sentence…”

Comments
/
/
/
1876 Views

Stephen Moore’s hilariously inept would-be ACA takedown might have the highest words-to-facts ratio since Christopher Caldwell’s would-be Obama takedown.

Evidently, the utter botch of facts is instructive but not surprising — it’s Stephen Moore. Perhaps the even more important point is that Moore seems honestly unable to understand when the ACA is intended to accomplish. This is one reason that so many Republicans jumped on board the Moops-inavaded-Spain train despite the transparent falsity of the argument. It’s easier to understand how false the argument is when you understand not only what Congress was trying to accomplish in this case but how New Deal/Great Society cooperative federalism works in general. When a contemporary reactionary tries to explain this, it’s like listening to someone trying to read words in a language they’ve never encountered phonetically.

In related news, Nicholas Bagley has a good summary of the standing issues in King v. Burwell and urges the Court to ask for supplemental briefing. The plaintiffs might be able to get by legally, with the one who hasn’t been conclusively proven to lack standing making up for the 3 (including the lead plaintiff) who pretty clearly don’t have standing. But it remains striking to me how much trouble the very well-funded anti-ACA fanatics had coming up with someone who can actually claim a direct injury from the ACA. It’s instructive for critics of the ACA from both the right and the left that they weren’t able to find anyone who would actually have to buy insurance from the exchanges willing to bring a lawsuit to wreck them. Oddly, it seems as if “better you go without health insurance than anybody make a profit selling you insurance” is an argument with considerably more appeal to people already getting good (probably for-profit) coverage from their employer than to people dependent on the exchanges for obtaining insurance.

…via Erik, this SCORCHING HOT TAKE makes it even harder to explain why the ACA troofers are having so much trouble rounding up plaintiffs with actual standing. Why, the sheeple want to be subject to the concentration camp of health insurance coverage!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text