Healthcare Content (Protest Instructions) >>>>>

[sls.stormyrider]

once again bvaz, I mostly agree. At the time, Mitt claims to have been the driving force. I wasn't in his office, so I don't know, but whether he was the driving force or just merely signed it, he clearly supported it.

Unfortunately, I don't think bipartisanship will be coming any time soon. Reagan and O'Neill drank together. That's not gonna happen now.
I personally consider the Dems inept and the GOP scary, but philosphically I'm kinda left center (ex - voted for Weld; in 1980 voted for Anderson)

The law getting overturned would be bad for Obama politically, yes, in that it would allow the GOP to say "see, we told you so, this guy's outta control." But, to your points above, if he's smart Obama will have ample opportunity to neutralize a lot of the criticism by calling out Republicans who at one point supported, proposed or enacted very similar policies. If Obama were really shrewd he would try and turn this into a chance to paint Republicans as political opportunists who play games with people's healthcare by opposing things just for the sake of defeating him.

Besides, with Mitt as the nominee Obama will throw the Mass. model back in his face at every opportunity, and I think the ability to dodge and weave that comparison will be limited.

yep - I don't think this is the death knell for Ob in November, too much can happen. My guess is he will be voted in or out based on how the economy is doing. He will continune trying to paint the GOP as for the 1% and Mitt as the ultimate flip flopper. I honestly don't want to try to predict who will be sworn in next Jan.

I do think it will be very, very hard to pass another bill that attempts to provide Universal health care in the near future if this bill gets put down.

as an aside, they had a Harvard Con Law prof discuss the proceedings in yesterdays Boston Globe. One of her points, which I agree with based upon what I have read, is that it seems like neither the attorneys arguing on either side or the USSC has a clue of how the health care market works (or doesn't)

[rowjimmy]

I think Obama's willingness to bend over the bargaining table when forging the bill was a pretty strong slice of bipartisanship. Unfortunately it was not a two-way street.


that said, this thing was in trouble the minute he backed off the single-payer plan.

[Hicks]

Obama is criticized from the left for not delivering on his promised agenda and then criticized from the right for being partisan.

Unfortunately the only way to accomplish anything in this political climate is to circle the wagons and torch the other side at every opportunity.

That may not be fair or right but it's the reality.

From my point of view Obama's main mistakes have come from his tendency to compromise too early in the negotiating process.  I hope to see him take more of a hard line approach should he win a second term.

[Hicks]

as an aside, they had a Harvard Con Law prof discuss the proceedings in yesterdays Boston Globe. One of her points, which I agree with based upon what I have read, is that it seems like neither the attorneys arguing on either side or the USSC has a clue of how the health care market works (or doesn't)

Government employees out of touch with the predicaments of the average joe with regards to benefits?

I'm shocked.

[DoW]

Obama is criticized from the left for not delivering on his promised agenda and then criticized from the right for being partisan.

Unfortunately the only way to accomplish anything in this political climate is to circle the wagons and torch the other side at every opportunity.

That may not be fair or right but it's the reality.
From my point of view Obama's main mistakes have come from his tendency to compromise too early in the negotiating process.  I hope to see him take more of a hard line approach should he win a second term.

agreed.

as an aside, they had a Harvard Con Law prof discuss the proceedings in yesterdays Boston Globe. One of her points, which I agree with based upon what I have read, is that it seems like neither the attorneys arguing on either side or the USSC has a clue of how the health care market works (or doesn't)

agreed.  it's complicated.

that said, this thing was in trouble the minute he backed off the single-payer plan.

agreed but single payer would have been a huge disaster imo.  I'm not talking how you feel about it but how it would ahve actually worked (or not worked) in the actual healthcare field.

[twatts]

I think Obama's willingness to bend over the bargaining table when forging the bill was a pretty strong slice of bipartisanship. Unfortunately it was not a two-way street.


that said, this thing was in trouble the minute he backed off the single-payer plan.

Bipartanship only works when your opponents is will to work with you.  When their only goal is to sabotage your aims, why even consider working with them... 

If ACA had to be "forced", IMO it is just as indicative of the GOP's unwillingness to work to tackle one of the greatest issues facing Americans today... 

I wonder, could we next argue about the Constitutionality of Medicare???  I'm tired of paying for old people that were too stupid to save money for their age-related medical issues...

Terry

[runawayjimbo]

The law getting overturned would be bad for Obama politically, yes, in that it would allow the GOP to say "see, we told you so, this guy's outta control." But, to your points above, if he's smart Obama will have ample opportunity to neutralize a lot of the criticism by calling out Republicans who at one point supported, proposed or enacted very similar policies. If Obama were really shrewd he would try and turn this into a chance to paint Republicans as political opportunists who play games with people's healthcare by opposing things just for the sake of defeating him.

On the contrary, I'm thinking throwing the whole law out might be the best for Obama's re-election prospects. I can think of three scenarios coming out of this decision and their impact on the election:

1. Whole law overturned: This may in fact be the best case scenario for Obama. The 31% of people who are Ds will vote Obama and the 27% of Rs are voting against him. The 40% of independents is where it's at. By about 2-1 they dislike the law but most have a favorable opinion of Obama. A majority of independents might vote against Obama just to nullify ObamaCare, but could be more likely to vote for him if they don't have to vote for the GOP candidate who would try to repeal the law. Plus, independents already widely dislike Romney. Result: Obama ekes out a close win.
2. Whole law stands: This would probably have minimal effect, as Romney would continue to attack Obama and Obama would continue to say "Dude, this was your idea." Some independents still vote against healthcare despite their obvious distaste for the very hateable Romney. Election very close barring some financial/political firestorm like Europe falling off the cliff or another debt ceiling vote in October (both very real possibilities).
3. Mandate overturned, rest of law stands: This is really bad news for Obama. Not only is it stinging rebuke to his entire first term, the rest of the law is still in effect which gives independents a reason to hold their nose and pull the lever for Romney. Plus, it would have a devastating effect on the private health insurance industry and would give Romney plenty of ammo against Obama in the general ("You're a constitutional law professor and part of your signature legislation is unconstitutional? Maybe you better go back to law school yourself [applause break...oh I'm not supposed to read that part?]" "You're law...or what's left of it [smirky rich guy laugh]...will drive premiums significantly higher and eventually force people into a de facto single payer system. Mr. President, the American people don't want to be Canada!") If this is the outcome, I think Romney wins.

[VDB]

I do think it will be very, very hard to pass another bill that attempts to provide Universal health care in the near future if this bill gets put down.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how badly people are wanting to move away from the status quo and how much they can be convinced that things are only going to spiral more out of control if we do nothing. And if they can be made to understand that all that popular shit they want needs to be payed for somehow, e.g. by expanding the pool.

The pols could come back and just go for single-payer. Say, "Fine, if we can't force you to buy health coverage we'll just give it to everyone and pay for it out of taxes... do you want universal healthcare or not?" The counterpoint to this approach (which I don't dismiss) is the question: how badly do you want to be in a government-administered health plan?

[DoW]

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

[VDB]

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

Well, but it is political. That's what I was saying about how SCOTUS justices can't even agree on constitutionality most of the time, otherwise we'd always have unanimous decisions. And you know that as November approaches this issue is going to be discussed in terms of politics as often or more often than in terms of policy.

Besides, politicians pass laws and in doing so they play all sorts of political games. I hate it as much as you do. In a vacuum, yes, we can talk policy and policy only. But in discussing actual or proposed laws, it's realistic to also look at them in their political contexts.

[Hicks]

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

On that we can definitely agree, whatever happened to what is good for the majority of the American people?

We are so fucked.

[DoW]

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

On that we can definitely agree, whatever happened to what is good for the majority of the American people?

We are so fucked.

I finally agree with you and now I disagree with voodoo.     I hate this thread.   :-D

[runawayjimbo]

that said, this thing was in trouble the minute he backed off the single-payer plan.

Never happened

From my point of view Obama's main mistakes have come from his tendency to compromise too early in the negotiating process.  I hope to see him take more of a hard line approach should he win a second term.

That might be tough to do since GOP will likely hold the House and may even take the Senate (or at least will continue to filibuster at every turn).

I wonder, could we next argue about the Constitutionality of Medicare???

I'm down :wink:

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

Well, but it is political. That's what I was saying about how SCOTUS justices can't even agree on constitutionality most of the time, otherwise we'd always have unanimous decisions. And you know that as November approaches this issue is going to be discussed in terms of politics as often or more often than in terms of policy.

Besides, politicians pass laws and in doing so they play all sorts of political games. I hate it as much as you do. In a vacuum, yes, we can talk policy and policy only. But in discussing actual or proposed laws, it's realistic to also look at them in their political contexts.

This'd

Back on topic, it sounds like Obama got his first clear win this afternoon on the issue of whether or not the Medicaid expansion unlawfully coerced states to complying with ObamaCare. Roberts reportedly said the states may have forfeited sovereignty by taking so much federal money since New Deal.

[VDB]

even now the discussion leads to re-election.  this is the problem.  even, we the people can't discuss topics without making it political and about getting votes.

maybe obama's approach wasn't so bad after all.

On that we can definitely agree, whatever happened to what is good for the majority of the American people?

We are so fucked.

I finally agree with you and now I disagree with voodoo.     I hate this thread.   :-D

Heh, I don't actually disagree on the fundamentals of how fucked up and disappointing our political and lawmaking systems are. Trust me, I find it endlessly aggravating.

Back on topic, it sounds like Obama got his first clear win this afternoon on the issue of whether or not the Medicaid expansion unlawfully coerced states to complying with ObamaCare. Roberts reportedly said the states may have forfeited sovereignty by taking so much federal money since New Deal.

And what empowers Roberts to make that declaration? If we're talking constitutionality, is there anything in the constitution that attaches a "use it or lose it" condition to state sovereignty? That doesn't sound very "strict constructionist" to me.

[runawayjimbo]

Back on topic, it sounds like Obama got his first clear win this afternoon on the issue of whether or not the Medicaid expansion unlawfully coerced states to complying with ObamaCare. Roberts reportedly said the states may have forfeited sovereignty by taking so much federal money since New Deal.

And what empowers Roberts to make that declaration? If we're talking constitutionality, is there anything in the constitution that attaches a "use it or lose it" condition to state sovereignty? That doesn't sound very "strict constructionist" to me.

I don't think he was making an argument for or against the constitutionality of it, he was simply saying that the petitioner's argument is kinda weak since they've been sucking at the federal teat for 80 yrs.

Besides, I don't think Roberts has ever tried to be Clarence Thomas. It's not completely outside the realm of possibility that he (and possibly Kennedy) could still go along with the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause and allow this thing to stand. As the saying goes, you don't win a case before the Supreme Court on oral arguments, but you can lose it.