Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Strategically, in some ways, the timing could not be worse for the GOP. If repealed, Obama gets a rallying cry for his base, and independents who mostly want some kind of non for profit insurance company option, plus there must be a few million families with kids in that 23 - 26 age bracket insured now, who most likely would be dropped from their parents insurance upon repeal. The odds of any party opposing Obamacare and regaining their votes long-term is non-existent.
So while no fan of Obamacare, from a votes standpoint, this may be a case of be careful what you wish..you may get it.
Strategically, in some ways, the timing could not be worse for the GOP. If repealed, Obama gets a rallying cry for his base, and independents who mostly want some kind of non for profit insurance company option, plus there must be a few million families with kids in that 23 - 26 age bracket insured now, who most likely would be dropped from their parents insurance upon repeal. The odds of any party opposing Obamacare and regaining their votes long-term is non-existent.
So while no fan of Obamacare, from a votes standpoint, this may be a case of be careful what you wish..you may get it.
The supreme court could rule that the mandate is unconstitutional, and leave the rest of the law in place, securing the mandates of coverage of college kids and not being able to drop those with pre-existing conditions.
They can leave it be, strike down part of it, or the whole thing
If the Court rules as I suspect they might, then I think this would be a political gift for Obama. He and the Democrats will suffer the embarrassment of having their pet legislation killed by a right-wing supreme court, but at least they can claim credit for having done something about health care insurance premiums. Meanwhile, the GOP and the conservatives will continue to look more and more like the party that serves millionaires. Honestly - and I mean this - I want healthcare reform, but I am fine with the supreme court taking this bill down.
Not a chance. Either way, he'll get hammered. If they uphold the law, that will bring conservatives out in droves to vote for the man who will repeal the law.
If they shoot it down, just WOW. What an ad that will make - see, what the dems/obama did? They spent 2 years trying to pass an unconstitutional law with budget gimmicks and underhanded, corrupt legislative means, all the while IGNORING jobs.
Even better yet, I can't wait to hear their rationale, and I dare them to lay down the legal foundation that permits things like social security, medicare, and unemployment insurance. Because once the Supreme Court declares health care mandates unconstitutional, they'll essentially be doing the same with the other entitlements. And good luck winning an election then, conservitards. Like I've said before, there will be a point at which the Republicans will finally go too far, and then Americans will actually realize why nobody voted for them for the 40 years between the 1940s and 1980s.
I see you're confused. This has nothing to do with entitlements like SS, Medicare.
This is all about forcing people to BUY a product, just because they are a citizen of this country.
They are requiring citizen engage in an economic activity.
I see you're confused. This has nothing to do with entitlements like SS, Medicare.
This is all about forcing people to BUY a product, just because they are a citizen of this country.
They are requiring citizen engage in an economic activity.
The constitutional argument is that everyone participates in the healthcare system sooner or later. As such it falls under the interstate commerce clause for them to be able to force you to buy what you are already using.
As I said earlier, thats one argument, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, but that is the argument.
And the Republicans gave them that argument because they said the same thing back in the 90's.
The thing is: if they rule in obama's favor on one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation...ever...I can't see that helping him at all. It will give an even bigger incentive for conservatives and like minded Indies/Dems to get out and vote for the GOP candidate who will repeal the law...or at least starve it to death. If he thinks taking a victory lap, more in your face celebration of a law as unpopular as obamacare would do him any good at the polls, I think he's miscalculating horribly.
I mean, do his supporters think that a favorable ruling for obama by SCOTUS will somehow change their minds about obamacare?
If they rule against obama, what better campaign ad than one in which obama and the dems have been slapped down for forcing an unconstitutional bill down the country's throat?
How is Romney going to pull such an ad? It will be impossible.
And I am already giving Romney the nomination as Perry is going down in flames and Paul doesn't have enough appeal. Cain and Gingrich will eat each other, thus leaving Romney.
This is all about forcing people to BUY a product, just because they are a citizen of this country.
sanrene:"They are requiring citizen engage in an economic activity."
I'm not a fan of what passed, but if you find the above morally indefensable, isn't it disingenuous to not bring up the fact this is America's only product/service that the provider is forced to provide for free w/o regard to your ability to pay?
This is all about forcing people to BUY a product, just because they are a citizen of this country.
sanrene:"They are requiring citizen engage in an economic activity."
I'm not a fan of what passed, but if you find the above morally indefensable, isn't it disingenuous to not bring up the fact this is America's only product/service that the provider is forced to provide for free w/o regard to your ability to pay?
And this is the crux of the argument.
Reagan mandated care for all people in this country, regardless of their ability to pay.
Forcing people to pay for insurance if they can afford it falls right in line.
I've long since said, either repeal the emergency care act that Reagan signed, and allow hospitals to turn people away, or pay for it.
Two people walk into a hospital. One with insurance, one without. The one without insurance gets free care, the hospitals will go after them in collections but its hard to collect what someone doesn't have, and poor people don't have credit anyway.
Then the guy with insurance gets in. He gets charged for things that other people don't. He gets treatments he doesn't need. and he gets charged more for the same treatments that the poor guy got for free.
All to pay for the poor guy to have insurance, because, after all, they can't turn him away by law. How were the hospitals supposed to pay for it?
This all causes the guy with insurance rates to increase. Then he can't afford it. So now he gets free care. Then my rates go up, to pay for his free care. Then I can't afford it.............
The cycle continued until rates are through the roof, healthcare costs are sky high, and no one has fixed the problem until its mandatory for everyone to carry some form of insurance. You cut the problem off at the head, and prevent costs from increasing further.
Hey, I'd much rather preferred a single payer system that paid for all NEEDED medical care for everyone. Then let people who could afford it pay for supplemental insurance for private physicians and other care that is not life threatening. But Republicans didn't want that either.
Republicans want to keep the status quo, or allow people to buy insurance across state lines, but not really fix the problem, that 30 to 40% of Americans can't afford healthcare, they get it for free anyway, and because hospitals have to make up the difference, that number is growing.
Unless Republicans have the testicular fortitude to say "let them die in the streets if they can not pay", then they need to have a plan that covers everyone, because any other way simply isn't feasible.
Not a chance. Either way, he'll get hammered. If they uphold the law, that will bring conservatives out in droves to vote for the man who will repeal the law.
If they shoot it down, just WOW. What an ad that will make - see, what the dems/obama did? They spent 2 years trying to pass an unconstitutional law with budget gimmicks and underhanded, corrupt legislative means, all the while IGNORING jobs.
There's no way to tell, one way or the other.
The thing is, this law has had little or no effect as yet. That's actually one of the problems of the law up to this point for democrats, because the right wing has been foaming at the mouth and telling everyone and anyone who will listen about how dastardly and fascist the health care law is, when in reality it has yet to do anything. Because the law hasn't taken effect yet, the democrats have nothing to brag about, and the Republicans have successfully instilled a health fear in everyone about the potential for harm.
On the other hand, this may not turn out to be so bad after all. The most politically explosive and damaging aspects of the bill -- the $2000 'fine' in the form of a tax that people will pay for not having insurance -- may never take effect. And because of this, people may always wonder what good might have come from this bill. If the Supreme Court acts as I suspect it might, we'll never know. The conservative judiciary might get credit for saving us a tax hike, but they will also get blamed for insuring that healthcare premiums continue to increase. And it's that trend that won't go away, which will cause more and more people to blame the GOP as this issue affects more and more people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
I see you're confused. This has nothing to do with entitlements like SS, Medicare.
This is all about forcing people to BUY a product, just because they are a citizen of this country.
They are requiring citizen engage in an economic activity.
Oh, this is actually the interesting part. You see, nobody is actually forcing anyone to buy insurance; they're offering a choice between paying a tax or receiving a tax credit for proof of insurance. I would agree that this is strong-arming people into buying insurance, but people can pay the tax if they so choose. And the constitution allows congress to tax just about anything it damn well wants.
Thus, it has everything to do with entitlements. The argument of the 'Obamacare' suits claim that the commerce clause does not allow government to impose taxes against income to promote common welfare. Interesting, because earlier courts decided that this was a political question and that it wouldn't hear cases like this that involve the interstate commerce rationale. But now, after nearly 75 years, that's exactly what they're doing.
Sure, a conservative congress can pledge to leave medicare and social security alone. They'd be politically prudent in doing so. The problem is, once the lawsuits from the Koch brothers and anyone else who doesn't want to fund these entitlements start coming...it's over. The court will have established the doctrine, and it will have paved the way for terminating two programs that are popular with senior citizens.
Good.
Night.
Republican.
Party.
LOL!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
