This wouldn’t be an overreach ... would it?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by citizenzen, Sep 27, 2017.

  1. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    Please tell me this is fake news.

    Most likely, it’s just trump trolling as usual. In two weeks he’ll have no memory of such a statement.

    And neither will his supporters.
  2. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Feb 2, 2009
    Toronto, Ontario
    He's been working with Rand Paul on this according to Rand. Actually I see Rand was mentioned so probably the same soundbite I heard.
  3. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Sep 10, 2009
    Sometimes I wonder if he even understands the very basic principles of how our government works.
  4. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
  5. oneMadRssn macrumors 601


    Sep 8, 2011
    New England
    I can't believe how obvious it is that trump has never read the Constitution.

    "The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States ... ."

    It really can't be any clearer.
  6. rjohnstone macrumors 68040


    Dec 28, 2007
    PHX, AZ.
    Congress can eliminate any legal barriers for interstate insurance plans, but state regulations are so varied that it's still all but impossible to make it happen.
    New York is one of the most difficult to work with when it comes insurance regulations.
  7. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502


    Nov 6, 2016
  8. poloponies Suspended

    May 3, 2010
    Balloon animals for when you get sick.
  9. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    'This wouldn’t be an overreach ... would it?'

    Trump's tweet wouldn't be English, would it? I haven't a clue what he's trying to say.
  10. Huntn macrumors P6


    May 5, 2008
    The Misty Mountains
    I believe this would exceed the authority of his office. Trump uses EOs as a means of stating what he wants to happen without a care for the reality or the existence of the other two branches of the Federal Government or state governments.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2017 ---
    Are you saying this is typical Trump BS? Shocking. :rolleyes:
  11. oneMadRssn macrumors 601


    Sep 8, 2011
    New England
    True. But Congress can preempt the whole thing by passing a comprehensive healthcare law. So, probably never going to happen.
  12. tgara macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2012
    Connecticut, USA
    We will have to wait and see what his EO says. As a general matter, the scope of any EO must be limited to within (1) the powers the Executive already has (e.g., Commander in Chief, etc.), or (2) within the scope given to him by Congress in a piece of legislation (e.g., enforcement of immigration laws, etc.). More to the point of your statement, this is where Obama got in trouble because he routinely exceeded the authority given to him by Congress on matters such as DACA. Obama even said so, and he got slapped down by SCOTUS a couple times for it.

    Now, here's the brilliance: When devising the ACA, Congress gave a lot of power to the Executive (more specifically to the Secretary of HHS) to implement rules, procedures, etc. in order to make ACA work. This gives Trump a lot of flexibility to implement certain rules and procedures that would benefit patients and perhaps stop this death spiral that the ACA is causing now. Again, we will have to see what the EO says and how far it goes, but it could help things a great deal.
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    Sort of right.

    The 2012 DACA was not legally challenged during the Obama administration.

    The expanded form of DACA created in 2014, along with DAPA, was held up by a federal judge in Texas, however, the actually legality of the president's executive order was never decided. SCOTUS deadlocked 4-4 on the ruling of the Fifth Circuit to not remove the injunction.

    "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court," was the court's terse message.

    However, there was never a ruling about whether the president could invoke DACA and DAPA.

    Under the Trump administration, the AG refused to press the case for the government, so the case was never decided in Hanen's court, much less the rest of the judicial branch. Arguably, the checkers-paying dimwits at Justice didn't understand that a win on this case would give Trump more leeway to guide immigration law through Executive Orders, because they so terrified of defending DACA in court.
  14. ItnStln Suspended

    Aug 29, 2017
    Were you saying that when the previous president was signing all of those executive orders?
  15. Peace macrumors Core


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier

    Be specific.

    There's a difference between executive orders and doing the job of the legislative branch of government.
  16. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    The same question could be asked of our conservative members, as they were the ones complaining vehemently about Obama's use of Executive Orders while remaining eerily silent about trump's.

    (and just fyi, I wouldn't use the R-word unless you're looking for a timeout.)
  17. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Jun 13, 2015
    Or alternatively, to **** **** up, and make liberals cry.
  18. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    If trump "**** **** up" regarding healthcare, it's not just the liberals who'll be crying.
  19. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a


    Aug 26, 2009
    I want to comment on the subject matter, but his use of superlatives is tiring. Does he talk in everyday life like this?
    --- Post Merged, Sep 28, 2017 ---
    I don’t know why anyone would cry over an executive order that doesn’t do anything. Leave the ACA in place and let him do this, fine plan by me.

    If people could afford their own healthcare, you wouldn’t need the ACA. Every insurer could charge what they do now. If you can save $10 a month on the same plan in another state, you’re not the person the ACA was trying to help.
  20. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Sep 10, 2009
    Apart from your flagrant use of idiotic language, as stated above, do you have any specifics in mind? Ones that wouldn't be equivocal in nature to previous POTUSs or the current one?
  21. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Jan 31, 2010
    Midlife, Midwest
    If you think all politics is local, health care is even more so.

    There are very good reasons it doesn't (under the current system) make sense to buy health insurance "across state lines". Starting with the fact that insurers have a pretty good idea of the costs they'll be reimbursing from local doctors. They have no idea what they might be hundreds, if not thousands of miles from you.

    I could probably sell a very affordable comprehensive health insurance plan, provided people were willing to get their services from a clinic or hospital located in South Africa or Cuba. But that's probably not going to be terribly convenient for most Americans. Is it?

    More practically, crossing state lines to buy health insurance really is going to do nothing to change the cost of providing those services. And I think most sensible people know that.
  22. ItnStln, Sep 29, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2017

    ItnStln Suspended

    Aug 29, 2017
    My language wasn't idiotic because it was fitting
  23. citizenzen thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mar 22, 2010
    You need to crack open a thesaurus more often.

    Dictionaries label the term you used as, "Slang: Disparaging and Offensive."

    Offensive language leads to timeouts and bans, so you'd be well advised to widen your vocabulary.
  24. ItnStln Suspended

    Aug 29, 2017
    You must be reading the wrong dictionaries because it's not in mine. Therefore, you are wrong. If you can't afford a good dictionary I'll be more than happy to send you one.
  25. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Sep 10, 2009
    Still avoiding the question. If your language was fitting, it wouldn't have been edited.

Share This Page

45 September 27, 2017