Will Scotus Get ObamaCare Ruling "Right"?

I am a lefty and I hope the law gets overturned (although I hope it doesn´t hurt Obama´s reelection).

We need a Single Payer system. This law gets in the way of that.

And Rosborne is correct, the Supreme Court always gets it right by definition.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

But there was the mandate that all persons MUST be treated in spite of ability to pay.

0 Replies

Early reports today from the court seem to indicate that many of the justices were in fact receptive to the idea of severability - that the entire law need not be struck down if the mandate is found unconstitutional.

That would definitely bring about an interesting situation - the current laws on the books, without a mandate, could easily destroy private insurance in this country and hasten our move to a Medicare-for-all plan, or some sort of single-player hybrid plan.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

I, for one, hope Obamacare goes down in flames. It's bad law camouflaged with a thin veneer of goodness. SCOTUS hopefully will see thru the veneer.

I think this was Obama's plan all along. He adopts all of these Republican proposals (health insurance reform, cap-and-trade, the "Dream Act," etc.), just so Republicans will reflexively oppose them. Then, when these proposals have been thoroughly discredited by the very people who supported them in the first place, Obama will reveal himself to be a real Democrat who has supported genuinely liberal alternatives to those programs (universal health care, strict pollution limits, immigration reform, etc.) all along, at which point the Republicans won't be able to claim that they have any alternatives and the real reforms will be enacted. It's the long con. Pure genius!

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Look at how convoluted you have to get to come to the conclusion that Obama is effective and knows what he is doing...

and another thing.....after three years we dont really know what this man is about. That is a red flag for me, as this is the Hallmark of a poor leader.

4 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Look at how convoluted you have to get to come to the conclusion that Obama is effective and knows what he is doing...

It is true that he hast taken the long view consistently, and that his opponents have taken the short view. This has allowed him to out-maneuver them regularly.

Quote:

and another thing.....after three years we dont really know what this man is about. That is a red flag for me, as this is the Hallmark of a poor leader.

You say this a lot, but I don't think it means anything at all. Just general grousing on your part.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

This has allowed him to out-maneuver them regularly.

In what universe? Obama has been governing to this point as a moderate REPUB. When you claim to be a DEM that is called losing.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
This has allowed him to out-maneuver them regularly.

In what universe? Obama has been governing to this point as a moderate REPUB. When you claim to be a DEM that is called losing.

Mmm-hmm. I think you need to look up and read some writing on 'incremental change.' It's why the Dems win in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Look at how convoluted you have to get to come to the conclusion that Obama is effective and knows what he is doing...

You may want to try harder to distinguish convolusion from sarcasm.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Look at how convoluted you have to get to come to the conclusion that Obama is effective and knows what he is doing...

. <------- the point

x <-------- you

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
This has allowed him to out-maneuver them regularly.

In what universe? Obama has been governing to this point as a moderate REPUB. When you claim to be a DEM that is called losing.

Mmm-hmm. I think you need to look up and read some writing on 'incremental change.' It's why the Dems win in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

Really? When I look at the economy, the defunding of the university from public sector funds, abortion, school testing, welfare and about 50 other places it looks to me like the right has been winning most of the time during my lifetime

0 Replies

@JTT,

Wrong academy, JTT.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Early reports today from the court seem to indicate that many of the justices were in fact receptive to the idea of severability - that the entire law need not be struck down if the mandate is found unconstitutional.

That would definitely bring about an interesting situation - the current laws on the books, without a mandate, could easily destroy private insurance in this country and hasten our move to a Medicare-for-all plan, or some sort of single-player hybrid plan.

Actually I was seeing this as a good thing as well, although from a distinctly different position. Severability is likely to kick the issue back to Congress where some intelligent thought and bipartisanship will be forced. And if that fails (all too likely a possibility), perhaps at least the "thin veneer" of goodness can be preserved.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Look at how convoluted you have to get to come to the conclusion that Obama is effective and knows what he is doing...

and another thing.....after three years we dont really know what this man is about. That is a red flag for me, as this is the Hallmark of a poor leader.

Obama lays his program all out in his speeches, not really all that complicated, listen with an open mind and learn.

0 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Early reports today from the court seem to indicate that many of the justices were in fact receptive to the idea of severability - that the entire law need not be struck down if the mandate is found unconstitutional.

That would definitely bring about an interesting situation - the current laws on the books, without a mandate, could easily destroy private insurance in this country and hasten our move to a Medicare-for-all plan, or some sort of single-player hybrid plan.

Actually I was seeing this as a good thing as well, although from a distinctly different position. Severability is likely to kick the issue back to Congress where some intelligent thought and bipartisanship will be forced. And if that fails (all too likely a possibility), perhaps at least the "thin veneer" of goodness can be preserved.

There's no such thing as 'bipartisanship' with the modern GOP. The House would rather cut their left hand off than compromise on anything. Boehner and Cantor won't even say the word 'compromise' out loud, for pete's sake!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The Dems are not exactly paragons of bipartisanship either as this bill amply demonstrates. The bottom line is that compromise is only possible when both antagonists are willing to offer (and accept) concessions of equal value. The Dems believe compromise is moving from a far left position to a moderate left position and then complain when the Republicans don't meet them there at that moderate left position. When both sides agree to truly meet in the middle, then bipartisanship will be possible.

2 Replies

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

The Dems are not exactly paragons of bipartisanship either as this bill amply demonstrates. The bottom line is that compromise is only possible when both antagonists are willing to offer (and accept) concessions of equal value.

Oh, is that so? So, when the Dems offer to cut spending in exchange for tax hikes - which we all know would be THE most effective way to balance the budget quickly - and the GOP refuses to discuss any and all tax raises, saying that they are 'off the table,' that's the Dems' fault?

Quote:

The Dems believe compromise is moving from a far left position to a moderate left position and then complain when the Republicans don't meet them there at that moderate left position. When both sides agree to truly meet in the middle, then bipartisanship will be possible.

Show me one instance of the GOP leadership even agreeing to move to a moderate Republican position over the last few years, let alone a middle position. I dare ya!

They can't do it because their own base would destroy them for doing so. It's why the House can't get a transportation bill passed, why they probably are going to have a hard time passing Ryan's budget, and why they are currently enraging their big-business allies by blocking the import/export bank - Boehner has no control over his caucus whatsoever and no ability to compromise at all.

Watch this interview with Cantor on 60 minutes -

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7393500n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel

Cantor believes that there is no such thing as him having to compromise, or the GOP giving in on any issue. He believes the fact that he's being asked to govern at all is a compromise in itself. He believes that any compromise can never ask him to betray his 'principles.'

Watch this stuff, and then come back and tell me that it isn't the GOP leadership who is the problem here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Are you nuts!?!?

The Democrats wanted Single Payer. That was taken off the table right from the start as a compromise to the Republicans. The Democrats wanted a Public Option. That was taken off the table as a compromise to the Republicans. The abortion language was changed to a ridiculous amount as a compromise the Republicans, as was the immigration language.

Time after time the Bill, which started out far to the right of the Single Payer plan most Democrats wanted, was changed in favor of the Republicans.

I don't know what world you are living in. But you are absolutely nuts if you don't think Obama and the Democrats bent over backwards, giving in time and time again to Republican demands, to get this bill passed.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo wrote:

Show me one instance of the GOP leadership even agreeing to move to a moderate Republican position over the last few years, let alone a middle position. I dare ya!

Sequestration...

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo wrote:
Show me one instance of the GOP leadership even agreeing to move to a moderate Republican position over the last few years, let alone a middle position. I dare ya!

Sequestration...

Oh, BS. They were forced to do that when Obama called their bluff on the debt ceiling - it was a gimmick to avoid them having to back down publicly.

And what more, they are now backing out of that deal, as you well know. So, yeah. Find a real example, or please admit that your party's leadership is far, far less willing to compromise than their opponents are.

Additionally, I'd really love you to answer this question:

Quote:

Oh, is that so? So, when the Dems offer to cut spending in exchange for tax hikes - which we all know would be THE most effective way to balance the budget quickly - and the GOP refuses to discuss any and all tax raises, saying that they are 'off the table,' that's the Dems' fault?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Will Scotus Get ObamaCare Ruling "Right"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know