Trump on Obamacare: Go make it better, somehow.

So as perhaps the first major policy step for his Presidency, Trump has signed an executive order that does... something... to the Affordable Care Act. As far as I can see, he hasn't given any details about it in his own public addresses, but then of course he is notoriously reticent to speak up. The Washington Post describes it this way:

(Source)

So does anyone have any idea what this means, practically?

Procedurally, I guess it tells us that the best way to tackle major policy issues is through executive orders and that the best way to find out what a national healthcare measure contains is to pass it and then see what happens, so at least Trump has learned from Obama and Pelosi, whom I am sure he respects greatly. But what does it mean for actual healthcare?

Who cares? Action, action, action! Destruction is easier than years and years of boring negotiations.

He also created a holiday to himself on day 1.

It means @garamet is going to mental ward at the old folks home.

Volunteering to visit your folks because you can't be fucked is not a bad thing.

So, what do you think the executive order does?

Looks like some kind of tax relief and possibly is a work around the individual mandate. If that's the case then it's the first nail or two in the coffin of the ACA. I was one of the people who warned others who were all too eager to praise Obama's executive orders on things like immigration and now the tables have turned.

Obama, of course, used Executive Orders less than most other Presidents, but naturally FF is going to ignore that.

It's not the amount that's a problem, Bush could sign 1,000 executive orders saying we need more pencils at the Pentagon, it's how they are used, or should I say, abused. Obama used them as legislation by fiat.

All excecutive orders are legislation by fiat, you cockwomble.

Oh, but according to the top person responsible for the original ACA law, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Without restraint, and usurping the legislative function and purpose. And it's gonna cost him by seeing nearly all of it unraveled.

Yeah? What kind?

Is it?

Nope, 30 fewer than Bush Senior and over a hundred less than Reagan. Fewer than Bill C too, and we heard no moaning about his orders (just moaning).

Nope, they are meant to be used for administrative purposes. You know, execute the various operations in the various departments under the executive branch. They are not to be used to circumvent Congress, established law or legislation. In other words, the President can't just say, "this is what I want to happen, so I'm signing an executive order to do what I want."

According to you. According to the law, not so much.

Nope, not according to me.
United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

What law?

There is no constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order[/quote]

So how do you do that and simultaneously "grant relief to all constituencies affected by the sprawling 2010 health-care law: consumers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, states and others"?

In other words, where does the revenue come from?

Don't even try to answer; you've got less of a clue than Donnie-boy.

The answer is probably "magic" or - hey, I know - YUGE tolls and gas taxes.

After all, you guys are always saying nobody needs a car.

That I doubt.

Revenue? When have liberals ever cared about revenue? We all know we can never pay down the debt or the deficit and the amount of taxes it would take would put us all in the poor house, but hey, at least we'll all be equal. Nope, we're just going to eventually default and press the reset button.

Ok, I was wrong.

So we can just borrow to no end?

No, and you can't press the reset button.

What do you think is going to happen, will we not have to default? I don't see any option and if that happens then that is a huge reset button.

I don't know if you'll have to default, but you seem to be thinking of defaulting as a one-time event that somehow, well, as you say, resets things. That is true of people like Trump when they default on a debt, but not of most people, and not of countries.

See? I told you you couldn't answer it.

Well we could ease ourselves back onto a combination of silver and gold standard and use the gold in Fort Knox to pay down some of it, but we'd also need to raise interest rates to say 18% which is where it should probably be anyway. Also, when the next financial crisis happens we let them fail. Yes a lot of people will suffer in the short term, but in the long term it will restore us economically. It's better than keep kicking the can down the road because eventually it lead to a shit storm twice as bad as the great depression.

I gave you an answer, sorry it's not the one you wanted.

Then the law is that there is no prohibition, and thus EOs are legal, you twat.

The same way that the fact there is no statute against posting on the internet whilst possessed of an IQ that could be bettered by a mollusc means you aren't breaking the law right now.

Those are questions - rhetorical ones at that. You’re doing something known as “magical thinking,” which most kids grow out of by the time they’re in kindergarten. Thanks for playing.

Republicans have had 6 years to come up with an alternative to ACA. So far, they have nothing. By this point, too many people rely on ACA (Democrat and Republican alike) to get rid of it without replacing it.

I see three possible scenarios:

1. Republicans leave ACA in place with some amendments to it (best case scenario, depending on the extent of the amendments)
2. Republicans repeal ACA and replace it with legislation that is more or less the same (second best case scenario--though, if they come up with something way better than ACA that would be ideal, but I doubt they will)
3. Republicans repeal ACA, fail to replace it, and slowly lose control of Congress over the next 2-6 years and the White House over the next 4-8 years. (worst case scenario, but it will ultimately be replaced after the GOP commits political suicide).

Like it or not, it's helped millions of Americans. It has helped far more people than it is alleged to have harmed. It is likely here to stay in one form or another.