4 ms·

Maybe the next Democratic president will use the newly confirmed limitless executive power to reshape our healthcare system. Remove limits on creating new hosp

Maybe the next Democratic president will use the newly confirmed limitless executive power to reshape our healthcare system. Remove limits on creating new hospitals, eliminate the AMA, add in a public option for insurance, drop the age limit for Medicare to 0, etc. There are plenty of opportunities to use the power for something good.

richwater 1y ago
> Maybe the next Democratic president As opposed to the 12 years of democratic presidents in the past 2 decades?
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  The supreme court has created functionally a despot recently. Imagine if Obama had this power. We’d all have universal healthcare already.
  - munificent 1y ago
    If Obama was in office the conservative Supreme Court would backtrack instantly and claw their power back.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      Supreme Court gave POTUS the power to use seal team 6 to assassinate his political rivals. SCOTUS doesn't have the power to claw back their power.
paxys 1y ago
Why are you assuming the next democratic president (or really any president not called Trump) will have this power?
- ModernMech 1y ago
  Because the myth is gone. Presidents have always been restrained by their own willingness not to abuse their power. This willingness was based on two beliefs that Trump has proven mistaken over the last 10 years: 1) Congress will come together to impeach and remove a rogue president, even if he is from their party. This is not true anymore, the impeachment clause is inoperable due to party polarization. 2) The President is liable for any crimes committed in office after he leaves. Merrick Garland proved this wrong after he failed to prosecute Trump for the crime of fomenting insurrection, and then SCOTUS gave Trump and all future presidents an almost impossible shield for future prosecutors to overcome in the form of "presidential immunity". So unless something changes, the next and all future presidents will have carte blanche to wield the DOJ and FBI to attack his personal political rivals. He can impound and reallocate any Congressionally allocated funds toward implementing his ideological goals, and he can defund any programs he doesn't personally like. He can withhold funding and clearances for companies, lawfirms, and universities unless they implement his agenda. He can send the US army into US states to enforce his agenda. He can withhold disaster relief from areas he deems not politically loyal enough. He can take huge equity stakes of companies he deems nationally critical. These are all powers POTUS has now, and they will remain powers POTUS until he's prevented from using them.
  - paxys 1y ago
    Again, you are assuming that Congress and SCOTUS will stay consistent in their behavior when there's a new President. The exact same Senate and House that exists today will impeach the next Democratic President in seconds should he/she repeat 1% of what Trump has done since taking office. And every executive action of theirs will be blocked by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote.
    - ModernMech 1y ago
      I don't think so, I think I'm accounting for the recent shift in realpolitik. Why would future Democrats impeach their own POTUS for using the DOJ and FBI to arrest their political enemies? The Democratic party as you knew it is dead; it died in 2024, just as the Republican party as your knew it died in 2020. The Republican party has been reformed into the MAGA party, which bears no resemblance to the neocon Republicans of the 2000s. Just the same, the Democratic party will reform but they will not resemble the party of Clinton/Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Schumer. They are done as a political force. Moreover, why wouldn't a future POTUS start off by arresting the current conservative SCOTUS judges? Decide on the arrest, make up a pretext, if US attorneys don't comply just fire them until you find one that does, like what they're doing to Comey right now. Make some vacancies and then appoint his own court. Or, just ignore them entirely, there are no consequences for not following their orders.
insane_dreamer 1y ago
Obama couldn’t manage to get that passed through congress and had to settle for the AMA as compromise/step-1 except the other steps were dead in the water.
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Hence the comment about the supreme court. The game has changed if you haven’t been paying attention.
- wpasc 1y ago
  Any chance you mean the ACA? (affordable care act). GP I think is talking about the AMA as a body that artificially constrains the supply of dr's (at least that is my guess as GP also mentions reducing limits on building hospitals). IMO the GP is touching on removing regulatory burdens (more traditionally republican/conservative ideas) and adding in funding/care via medicare for all etc (democrat position). the combination of reducing/improving/simplifying regulatory burdens while increasing government spending seems to be a combination of ideas that hasn't been winning enough support. afaik, Ezra Klein in his book Abundance is one of the only voices trying to push this balance.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    Yes, I meant to write ACA and that's what I (mis-)understood OP was talking about.
lkey 1y ago
While I agree it would be a wonderful thing to stop connecting private equity and profit generally to lifesaving care. It won't be an establishment Democrat that does this. They wanted this current system, and they still want it, just softened. Gesturing at a public option during campaigns is just part of the performance. (Excepting Sanders and perhaps Warren) I'd be so so happy to be wrong about this.

richwater 1y ago

> Maybe the next Democratic president As opposed to the 12 years of democratic presidents in the past 2 decades?

kjkjadksj 1y ago
The supreme court has created functionally a despot recently. Imagine if Obama had this power. We’d all have universal healthcare already.
- munificent 1y ago
  If Obama was in office the conservative Supreme Court would backtrack instantly and claw their power back.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    Supreme Court gave POTUS the power to use seal team 6 to assassinate his political rivals. SCOTUS doesn't have the power to claw back their power.

paxys 1y ago

Why are you assuming the next democratic president (or really any president not called Trump) will have this power?

ModernMech 1y ago
Because the myth is gone. Presidents have always been restrained by their own willingness not to abuse their power. This willingness was based on two beliefs that Trump has proven mistaken over the last 10 years: 1) Congress will come together to impeach and remove a rogue president, even if he is from their party. This is not true anymore, the impeachment clause is inoperable due to party polarization. 2) The President is liable for any crimes committed in office after he leaves. Merrick Garland proved this wrong after he failed to prosecute Trump for the crime of fomenting insurrection, and then SCOTUS gave Trump and all future presidents an almost impossible shield for future prosecutors to overcome in the form of "presidential immunity". So unless something changes, the next and all future presidents will have carte blanche to wield the DOJ and FBI to attack his personal political rivals. He can impound and reallocate any Congressionally allocated funds toward implementing his ideological goals, and he can defund any programs he doesn't personally like. He can withhold funding and clearances for companies, lawfirms, and universities unless they implement his agenda. He can send the US army into US states to enforce his agenda. He can withhold disaster relief from areas he deems not politically loyal enough. He can take huge equity stakes of companies he deems nationally critical. These are all powers POTUS has now, and they will remain powers POTUS until he's prevented from using them.
- paxys 1y ago
  Again, you are assuming that Congress and SCOTUS will stay consistent in their behavior when there's a new President. The exact same Senate and House that exists today will impeach the next Democratic President in seconds should he/she repeat 1% of what Trump has done since taking office. And every executive action of theirs will be blocked by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    I don't think so, I think I'm accounting for the recent shift in realpolitik. Why would future Democrats impeach their own POTUS for using the DOJ and FBI to arrest their political enemies? The Democratic party as you knew it is dead; it died in 2024, just as the Republican party as your knew it died in 2020. The Republican party has been reformed into the MAGA party, which bears no resemblance to the neocon Republicans of the 2000s. Just the same, the Democratic party will reform but they will not resemble the party of Clinton/Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Schumer. They are done as a political force. Moreover, why wouldn't a future POTUS start off by arresting the current conservative SCOTUS judges? Decide on the arrest, make up a pretext, if US attorneys don't comply just fire them until you find one that does, like what they're doing to Comey right now. Make some vacancies and then appoint his own court. Or, just ignore them entirely, there are no consequences for not following their orders.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

Obama couldn’t manage to get that passed through congress and had to settle for the AMA as compromise/step-1 except the other steps were dead in the water.

kjkjadksj 1y ago
Hence the comment about the supreme court. The game has changed if you haven’t been paying attention.
wpasc 1y ago
Any chance you mean the ACA? (affordable care act). GP I think is talking about the AMA as a body that artificially constrains the supply of dr's (at least that is my guess as GP also mentions reducing limits on building hospitals). IMO the GP is touching on removing regulatory burdens (more traditionally republican/conservative ideas) and adding in funding/care via medicare for all etc (democrat position). the combination of reducing/improving/simplifying regulatory burdens while increasing government spending seems to be a combination of ideas that hasn't been winning enough support. afaik, Ezra Klein in his book Abundance is one of the only voices trying to push this balance.
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Yes, I meant to write ACA and that's what I (mis-)understood OP was talking about.

lkey 1y ago

While I agree it would be a wonderful thing to stop connecting private equity and profit generally to lifesaving care. It won't be an establishment Democrat that does this. They wanted this current system, and they still want it, just softened. Gesturing at a public option during campaigns is just part of the performance. (Excepting Sanders and perhaps Warren) I'd be so so happy to be wrong about this.