Results 1 to 25 of 47
03-28-2012, 10:38 AM #1
Would SCOTUS overturning part or all of ACA/'Obamacare' really be a WIN for Dems???
I see all the Repliconserviteapartiers here and in the media jumping for joy that observers are suspecting an eventual 5-4 partisan Supreme Court decision declaring part or all of the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. But... now both Left and Right pundits have wondered if instead it would be a long term win for Dems. Think about it... the number of uninsured keep going up, health care costs keep rising; blame the Republicans for pushing to overturn the only shot we had to reign in costs. Right?
James Carville; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74577.htmlOverturning President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law would be a political boost for Democrats, veteran Democratic strategist James Carville said Tuesday.
'I think that this will be the best thing that ever happen to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably,' Carville told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer of a possible Supreme Court decision to strike down the law. 'I honestly believe this, this is not spin.'
'You know what the Democrats are going to say - and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority,'Carville added. 'The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political.'
Just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better to me than overturning this thing 5-4 and then the Republican Party will own the health care system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin,' Carville said.
MSNBC morning show host Joe Scarborough predicted Wednesday that if the Supreme Court overturns President Obama's signature healthcare law, it will be a 'big win' politically for Democrats.
I personally believe politically that helps Democrats … a lot because I'd rather run against a negative, I'd rather run against the extremist right-wing Roberts court,' said Scarborough on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' Wednesday.
The former Republican Florida congressman argued that if the justices reject the Obama administration's healthcare legislation it will give Democrats valuable talking points in upcoming elections.
He told viewers that Democrats would be able to blame the lack of healthcare access in the United States on the Supreme Court, as well as position themselves against an extremist court.
Last edited by Atomic Vomit; 03-28-2012 at 10:57 AM.Thinking I've found my all-time vagina... riding it switch to the road!!!
03-28-2012, 10:47 AM #2
WTF... why won't this auto parse quotes thing turn off? Arrgghhhh!
edit; Think I have it figured out?
Last edited by Atomic Vomit; 03-28-2012 at 10:58 AM.Thinking I've found my all-time vagina... riding it switch to the road!!!
03-28-2012, 11:25 AM #3
Looks like the law is toast.
Even the Dems know it.
The spin is SHAMELESS!!! BIG WIN for Dems!!
I can see the Obama ad now.
Hey folks, the only thing I accomplished was declared unconstitutional.
That's not FAIR!!!!
I want another chaaaaannnnnnnccccce. Whaaaaah
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 11:46 AM #4
They near as said yesterday that mandated single payer could be constitutional......
03-28-2012, 12:28 PM #5I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 02:34 PM #6Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that
03-28-2012, 02:40 PM #7
Did you see the latest 1984 style doublespeak coming from the White House?
It's not the "Individual Mandate" anymore - It's the "Personal Responsibility Clause"
I'm sure the media will help them change the meaning of another conservative term into something that should be forced on people by Big Brother.
SICK!I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 02:41 PM #8I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 02:50 PM #9
You mean republitard judicial activism will probably create the single payer healthcare we always really wanted/needed.
That'd be fucking awesome.
03-28-2012, 03:31 PM #10
Ah healthcare... what a cluster fuck... the ACA is a cluster fuck. The previous system was a cluster fuck.
Fuck. As usual the only winners will be the insurance companies, the lobbyists,m and the lawyers.Originally Posted by blurred
03-28-2012, 03:47 PM #11
Yes and it would pretty much guarantee national health care.
The current system will collapse pretty quickly because its in no way shape or form sustainable. The current unfunded liability for Medicare is like 32 trillion dollars. I actually think this was part of the plan all along...You're gonna stand there, owning a fireworks stand, and tell me you don't have no whistling bungholes, no spleen spliters, whisker biscuits, honkey lighters, hoosker doos, hoosker donts, cherry bombs, nipsy daisers, with or without the scooter stick, or one single whistling kitty chaser?
03-28-2012, 04:14 PM #12
03-28-2012, 04:23 PM #13Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that
03-28-2012, 04:30 PM #14
03-28-2012, 04:36 PM #15
03-28-2012, 05:02 PM #16I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 05:11 PM #17
Again you demonstrate your absolute and complete disconnect with logic and reality.
By your way of thinking it is more efficient to cover terminal illness rather than covering the preventive health care that would keep a lot of health care cheap and affordable.
You would rather pay to administer to a dying person for hundreds of thousands of dollars than spend a thousand dollars to keep them from getting sick in the first place.
So fucking stupid even you don't grasp how dumb you really are.
03-28-2012, 05:11 PM #18
03-28-2012, 05:38 PM #19Silent....but shredly.
03-28-2012, 05:44 PM #20Damn shame, throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that
03-28-2012, 06:35 PM #21Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.”
03-28-2012, 06:35 PM #22
Whether or not you think they're a good idea, individual mandates are clearly a rational-seeming way to solve problems in the health-insurance market, rational enough that they appealed to the Heritage Foundation, Republicans in Congress, Mitt Romney and so on, and eventually (and reluctantly) to Democrats. But I can't think of any other area of the economy or society where having the federal government order every citizen to buy a good from a private provider seems like a reasonable solution to a problem, or has seemed so to anyone else, Democrats, Republicans, or what have you.
No matter what, Americans won't stand for people dying on the streets because they were turned away but they don't like the mandate either. There are conservatives making tangential arguments about the insurance industry :
The argument for having the Court kill the whole thing is more pragmatic than legal, I think — no one wants to see insurers go out of business because Congress ends up gridlocked and paralyzed on yet another issue. But don’t forget (a) the insurance industry has a lot of political muscle and they’ll bring the full force of it to bear on incumbent congressmen to find a solution and (b) given that we’re all going to have to put on our big-boy pants soon to reform Medicare, maybe a crisis now will be a wake-up call in forcing Congress to start thinking big. Surely they wouldn’t sit idly by while America’s health insurance industry disintegrated around them. [...] How can the mandate be unconstitutional when a far more aggressive power grab like single payer, i.e. “Medicare for all,” probably wouldn’t be?
Last edited by Triage; 03-28-2012 at 07:07 PM.
03-28-2012, 07:33 PM #23I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 07:39 PM #24
There are a million answers. Let the states and the market sort it out.
One thing that needs to go away are government mandates on what has to be covered. If someone doesn't want to buy a policy that pays for sex change operations or HIV treatment, they shouldn't have to.
But remember, life isn't fair and everyone dies. We don't have to bankrupt the nation to make everything "fair".I've been to two state fairs and a goat fuck and never seen anything like this!!
03-28-2012, 09:05 PM #25just a little more ground
- Join Date
- May 2006
Number of uninsured Americans rises to 50.7 million"
Nearly 45,000 annual deaths are
associated with lack of health insurance, according to a new study published
online today by the American Journal
of Public Health. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an
estimate from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2002.
The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance,
found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of
death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess
death rate found in 1993.