4 ms·
It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. The House concurred, the President signed it, and five supreme court justices repeatedly affirmed
by dangjc 10y ago
It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. The House concurred, the President signed it, and five supreme court justices repeatedly affirmed it. These all reflect different cross sections of voting behaviour. A majority of Congress now wants to repeal it, but that majority is checked and balanced by the need to get the President on board as well. I generally dislike how the system favors the status quo, but I think in many cases, it has helped avoid extreme outcomes.
- humanrebar 10y ago> It actually was a supermajority of 60 senators that passed it. I was talking about popular support. It didn't have 60% approval of the voting public. In fact, that wouldn't have even been possible because it was a monster of a bill they were trying to cram through. It was so haphazard that some Supreme Court decisions were about what to do when the bill itself doesn't make sense. And you mischaracterized the Supreme Court decision. The legal precedent was that an individual tax on not having healthcare is legal as long as it's not too onerous. That was a very odd decision because that tax was not the plan as presented to the American public. The whole process was convoluted, which brings its legitimacy into question. Again, big decisions should have clear support from the American people. Deciding people can be taxed for nothing (not having healthcare) is a change in the rules of the game and should have required an amendment, IMO.