To the extent that ginning up The Base is important for a candidate, this decision did just that and cleared away any reticence Tea Partiers had about throwing their support, whole hog, for Romney
I'm waiting to see Romney crucified for it. And deservedly so.
Am I missing something? Surely Healthcare for all can only be a good thing? People objected to a similar plan in Europe not too long ago - now they love the new healthcare system and would never go back.
It was always a Lose-Lose proposition with very little upside.
John Roberts saved the Court, Obama got his policy, and the GOP got its issue. (Plus, the public got to laugh at the errors of the media, and, oh, yes: health care.)
Now, make no mistake, the GOP nominee would have dearly preferred to see the law struck down.
But if it were to be sustained, the manner in which Roberts did so was pretty much optimal from the Republican point of view: by deeming the individual mandate kosher not as a regulation of commerce but instead as a tax.
And thus open to having its budgetary impact characterized in the most damaging way imaginable.
No doubt, the politics of health care are potentially messy for Romney, given the shared genetic code between his own mandate-laden Massachusetts reform law and Obamacare.
But that handicap did not prove crippling on the more treacherous terrain of the Republican nomination fight.
And the Court’s decision may render Romney’s tear-down-Obamacare stance—he’s vowed to repeal it on his first day in office—even more effective in the general election in at least two ways: by enabling him to tap into the fierce anti-health-care-reform energy that has been unleashed by the Supremes in the conservative base (in the 24 hours after the Court’s decree, the campaign was flooded with donations of $4.6 million); and by helping him further frame the election as a referendum on Obama’s tenure.
Perhaps you might consider moving to Haiti. Not only would you be able to dodge socialist doctors, but you might be able to avoid medical professionals altogether: The country only has 25 physicians per 100,000 people. While access to clean water may be a bit spotty, this is more than made up for by the short life expectancy and the absence of Barack Obamas.
the majority of the continent of Africa is far away from both Obamacare -- and any sort of care whatsoever. In fact, for you diehard libertarians who hate having your government provide things, there aren't many places better-suited for you than Liberia. Not only will the Liberian government not provide you with health care, but it will also fail to provide for just about every other basic human need.
As a bonus for you fans of the Second Amendment who feel that it's necessary to have a gun on you at all times, you're going to love this beautiful land where that's probably a pretty good idea.
Turkmenistan. The former Soviet region not only abolished its free public health care in 2004, but it was also once again named as a chronic abuser of human rights by the United States State Department this past May.
Granted, many have been plagued by poverty, unemployment, and civil war, but how is living in those conditions that different from life under the Obama administration? Have you seen that Rick Santorum ad? Spooky!
Indeed, the Obama campaign highlighted this exchange yesterday between FOX’s Chris Wallace and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Wallace: “If the Obama mandate is a tax on the middle class, isn't the Romney mandate a tax on the middle class?” McConnell: “I think Gov. Romney will have to speak for himself on what was done in Massachusetts.” Ouch. By the way, how many Democratic candidates for House and Senate will use Romney to push back against these attacks? We’re betting many of Romney’s health-care sound bites will become more well-known on the congressional level.
I don't presume to be a legal expert, but a Republican majority could invoke Reconciliation to do just about anything. After all the Dems did, and what did the Republicans do to stop them?
Passage in the Senate was temporarily blocked by a filibuster threat by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who sided with the Republican minority. Nelson's support for the bill was won after it was amended to offer a higher rate of Medicaid reimbursement for Nebraska. The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback" (and was later repealed by the reconciliation bill). On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill, eliminating the possibility of a filibuster by opponents. The bill then passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.