My friend and I played some cards last night. We started with a game both of us knew well - Big 2 or Chinese poker, which is popular in south China and here in the US. A few rounds later, I proposed the Russian game of Durak, translated into "Stupid" or "Fool" in English. I learned Durak while growing up in New York with Russian friends and schoolmates. During middle school, we often played Durak over lunch and enjoyed the fun, the challenge, and the company. There, I became quite good at it and learned all its intricacies. Essentially, Durak is a kind of beating and trump-suit game, but with a lot of strategy and takes much skill to master. I especially like that the game can be both tactical and strategic, and the loser (who is called the fool or Durak, and hence the name of the game - which my friends and I called "Stupid" in translation) is teased for his loss, at least until the next game finishes and there is a new loser.
My friend and I switched to Durak after a few rounds of Big 2 and totally played it for the remainder of the evening. I haven't played it in a while and our games rekindled my love for the game. Do I think it's the best card game out there? Probably. It's hard to think of any that tops Durak, especially in terms of balancing skill, strategy and with multiple people, teamwork. Luck obviously plays a role but the fool is usually a fool and is usually a fool. My friend caught on quickly and played aggressively too. To my embarrassment, I lost several times in a row. Eventually, order was restored at the end and I finished with a flourish. But the memories and company of playing Durak last night remain invigorating.
For rules of Durak: http://www.pagat.com/beating/durak.html
Sunday 8 July 2012
Sunday 1 July 2012
The Supreme Court's Health Care Decision - Making Sense of It
Disclaimer: the statements below are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of any other person or organization.
The debates and discussions about the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act will continue for a long while. The politicians, health industry, and public will focus on the policy debates behind the ACA and whether it should continue or be repealed. November 6 may well settle that question. Legal scholars and lawyers, on the other hand, will parse through the interesting mix of opinions and what they mean for constitutional law. Both are important but neither is easy.
1. Impact on Politics - a clear winner is Barack Obama and the Democrats who pushed ACA through Congress. The ACA is Obama's signature legislative achievement and having it upheld, or at least mostly upheld, is necessary for Obama to win reelection. How much of a boost it provides his election prospects is uncertain - I still think the economy will be more important. As for Republicans and Mitt Romney, they will redouble their efforts to defeat Obama in November and amass enough political capital to repeal the ACA. The decision may light a fire in their constituency, but they would need a strong majority and the right circumstances come January to repeal the ACA.
2. Impact on Businesses and the Health Industry - for them, they can rest easy because they above all needed certainty. The health industry and other affected businesses have spent two years preparing for the implementation of the ACA. I know CMS has issued a number of rules implementing the law and for the law to be gutted would have undone the industry's expensive preparations. The impact of the ACA on the health industry is complex and long, and providers, insurers, other businesses are mixed about the ACA but at least they know it is the law of the land and must be complied with.
3. Impact on Federal Power - the constitutional challenges to the ACA were about the limits of federal power, specifically under the Commerce and Tax and Spending Clauses in the Constitution. The decision was a loss for proponents of strong federal power in several ways. First, Roberts and his conservative colleagues in dissent all agree that Congress's power under the Commerce Clause are subject to further limits, specifically that inactivity is outside the scope. Although the individual mandate may be a special case and Robert's discussion may be dictum, courts look more carefully at Congress's assertion of power under the Commerce Clause. I doubt that the various civil rights, environmental, and other social welfare laws are in jeopardy since existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence, even with the new inactivity limitation, sufficiently supports them.
The limitation on the Spending Clause power and the application of the coercion theory will also affect Congress's power to induce states through federal money. The Court did not fully enunciate what constitutes coercion, but they provided a concrete example of coercion (penalizing through withdrawing all Medicaid funds if a state refused to accept the ACA's reforms). That was the first major Spending Power limitation for almost a century. Overall, while the preexisting broad federal powers under the Commerce and Spending Clauses remain unchanged, the decision will likely lead to more stringent policing by the courts.
4. Impact on the Supreme Court - perhaps the biggest winner is the Supreme Court and the rule of law. Facing charges that the Court is a politicized branch and no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, John Roberts helped stem that tide and restore the Court's image as a legal institution. Many have welcomed the change and pointed to the whole October 2011 Term, which is less "conservative" and ideologically-divided than many past terms, while others have been more cynical and point to Roberts delivering a political victory to Obama while saving the legal victory for the challengers. Nonetheless, I think the Supreme Court has enhanced its stature in public eyes as a court of law, not a court of politics in disguise. How that carries on next term with affirmative action and gay marriage remains to be seen.
The public debate about the ACA and future of health reform will not die down soon. America needs health reform and innovative ways to solve the crises in our health care system. The decision puts the issue back to the election spotlight and to the people, where it should be, not with the courts. As for the law, the decision opens up debates about the expanse and limits of federal power, which will take years of litigation to define. Lawyers and law professors may be fascinated, but perhaps not so their clients and the law students.
The debates and discussions about the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act will continue for a long while. The politicians, health industry, and public will focus on the policy debates behind the ACA and whether it should continue or be repealed. November 6 may well settle that question. Legal scholars and lawyers, on the other hand, will parse through the interesting mix of opinions and what they mean for constitutional law. Both are important but neither is easy.
1. Impact on Politics - a clear winner is Barack Obama and the Democrats who pushed ACA through Congress. The ACA is Obama's signature legislative achievement and having it upheld, or at least mostly upheld, is necessary for Obama to win reelection. How much of a boost it provides his election prospects is uncertain - I still think the economy will be more important. As for Republicans and Mitt Romney, they will redouble their efforts to defeat Obama in November and amass enough political capital to repeal the ACA. The decision may light a fire in their constituency, but they would need a strong majority and the right circumstances come January to repeal the ACA.
2. Impact on Businesses and the Health Industry - for them, they can rest easy because they above all needed certainty. The health industry and other affected businesses have spent two years preparing for the implementation of the ACA. I know CMS has issued a number of rules implementing the law and for the law to be gutted would have undone the industry's expensive preparations. The impact of the ACA on the health industry is complex and long, and providers, insurers, other businesses are mixed about the ACA but at least they know it is the law of the land and must be complied with.
3. Impact on Federal Power - the constitutional challenges to the ACA were about the limits of federal power, specifically under the Commerce and Tax and Spending Clauses in the Constitution. The decision was a loss for proponents of strong federal power in several ways. First, Roberts and his conservative colleagues in dissent all agree that Congress's power under the Commerce Clause are subject to further limits, specifically that inactivity is outside the scope. Although the individual mandate may be a special case and Robert's discussion may be dictum, courts look more carefully at Congress's assertion of power under the Commerce Clause. I doubt that the various civil rights, environmental, and other social welfare laws are in jeopardy since existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence, even with the new inactivity limitation, sufficiently supports them.
The limitation on the Spending Clause power and the application of the coercion theory will also affect Congress's power to induce states through federal money. The Court did not fully enunciate what constitutes coercion, but they provided a concrete example of coercion (penalizing through withdrawing all Medicaid funds if a state refused to accept the ACA's reforms). That was the first major Spending Power limitation for almost a century. Overall, while the preexisting broad federal powers under the Commerce and Spending Clauses remain unchanged, the decision will likely lead to more stringent policing by the courts.
4. Impact on the Supreme Court - perhaps the biggest winner is the Supreme Court and the rule of law. Facing charges that the Court is a politicized branch and no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, John Roberts helped stem that tide and restore the Court's image as a legal institution. Many have welcomed the change and pointed to the whole October 2011 Term, which is less "conservative" and ideologically-divided than many past terms, while others have been more cynical and point to Roberts delivering a political victory to Obama while saving the legal victory for the challengers. Nonetheless, I think the Supreme Court has enhanced its stature in public eyes as a court of law, not a court of politics in disguise. How that carries on next term with affirmative action and gay marriage remains to be seen.
The public debate about the ACA and future of health reform will not die down soon. America needs health reform and innovative ways to solve the crises in our health care system. The decision puts the issue back to the election spotlight and to the people, where it should be, not with the courts. As for the law, the decision opens up debates about the expanse and limits of federal power, which will take years of litigation to define. Lawyers and law professors may be fascinated, but perhaps not so their clients and the law students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)