30
   

Listening to the Supreme Court hearings on Obamacare. . .

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 06:04 am
Finn says
Quote:
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


Considering that Romneycare in MA was a model for large parts of Obamacare (including the individual mandate, now called "tax") and Romney regarded it as his major achievement--so much so he approved its appearance in his official portrait, and considering he's called Obamacare "morally wrong", or whatever the phrase he used was, this is going to become another stellar example of Romneypander, which will, on the contrary, serve to turn the Republican base from him. Since we seem to be stuck with PACs buying elections, I'm waiting to see Romney crucified for it. And deservedly so.
revelette
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 07:50 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
I'm waiting to see Romney crucified for it. And deservedly so.


You will probably wait a long time, most of those voting for Romney have just convinced themselves they are voting for the party and Romney will use his digits to sign the bills given to him. The SC ruling I don't think makes any difference one way or another as everyone already had their minds made up. Those who are fired up, were already going to vote Romney but I doubt they will be able to sway anyone with the fire.

Showing those clips of Romney supporting the mandate and praising the mandate as near as 2006 will go a long way in dispersing some of the fire.


0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 10:23 am
I have a question for the legal experts here. We have discussed elsewhere on A2K (don't remember where) that the Republicans could defund Obamacare through the budget reconciliation process. But if the noncompliance penalty is a tax, that suggests an additional option. Couldn't a future Republican Senate majority abolish the penalty through the reconciliation process? Practically, that would be as good for them as killing the individual mandate. Legally, I'm not sure how the hypothetical Democratic minority would respond to that.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 02:27 pm
@Thomas,
They would still have to pay for the insurance of anyone that can't afford it. They would be increasing the deficit if they eliminate some of the income but do not decrease outlays. So much for their "We have to pay for it" argument if they do that.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jul, 2012 03:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
Revellete is right.

Democrats would like RomneyCare to prove problematic for Romney with the Republican base, but it simply will not.

Anyone who is is steadfastly opposed to ObamaCare is not going to lose the last chance to do away with it because Romney had his own version.

It certainly was a vulnerability during the primaries, but Romney weathered that storm, and to the extent that the result left any portion of the Republican base feeling sour and possibly contemplating staying ohm on Election Day, the recent SC decision on ObamaCare reduced their numbers considerably.

If and when the subject comes up in the Presidential Debates, what will Obama argue? That Romney is a hypocrite. That he's an opportunist?

The people that believe such accusations already intend to vote for Obama, and the people who intend to vote for Romney aren't going to be persuaded not to by any accusation of Obama.

Personal attacks during a debate are likely to turn-off moderates and independents, so what will Obama be left with?

It's clearly a positive for Romney.

In and of itself, it won't win him the election, but it's made it that much more likely.

The Democrats did as much as they could to promote the law by front loading it with the candy they knew the public would like, but saving all the messy stuff until after the election.

Obama had a chance to postpone the SC ruling until after the election, but chose not to. I can't imagine what he (or Axelrod) was thinking. It was always a Lose-Lose proposition with very little upside.

Because the SC found it constitutional doesn't mean they found it good policy. In fact Thomas specifically commented that it wasn't the Court's role to decide whether or not it was good policy.

Betting that a positive result would somehow fool voters into thinking the Court approved of the law,was hardly worth the risk of having it thrown out.

I'm sure arrogance played some role in the decision as it always does with
Obama.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jul, 2012 03:56 pm
@Thomas,
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?

That the SC ruled the mandate a tax, actually makes a Republican use to thwart it more legitimate.

Arguably there are aspects of the law that do not legitimately fall within the scope of Reconciliation, but since when does legitimacy affect political machinations in Congress.

It will be rich though to see Liberals gnash their teeth over the GOP's use of the Dem's trick.

I think, the Dems would be limited to two counter-moves:

Appealing to the Senate's Parlementarian, however I suspect that's position filled by the Majority.

Finding someone with standing to sue and waiting for the case to make it to the SC.

Of course they could also try to make it a driving force in off-term elections and hope to win back the majority.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jul, 2012 05:06 pm
We will see Finn, I think you are unrealistically optimistic, Romney is going to loose the election and the republicans are not really going to do anything about the affordable health care law except moan and make silly pronouncements. They took their shot, they lost, sooner or later I guess you'll get over it.
Digital33
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 05:58 am
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.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:04 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The problem with that thesis is that you're assuming everyone has made up their minds already.

The staunch Republicans will hold their noses and vote for Romney. The staunch Democrats will vote for Obama.

The folks in the middle, who haven't paid much attention to the election cycle up to this point, might just be curious about Romney's 180.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:06 am
@Digital33,
Digital33 wrote:

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.

People are not good at evaluating risk. Everyone thinks insurance is a good idea for their neighbors, but they don't want to pay for it themselves.
Digital33
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:41 am
@DrewDad,
Sure, but what about the bigger picture? Won't this mean healthcare will improve for everyone? It'll mean more customers for the pharma companies (everyone who had insurance before + everyone else now too), so they will be able to invest that money back in to innovation
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:47 am
@Digital33,
I really don't understand why people are fighting this. I don't disagree with your points.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 07:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It was always a Lose-Lose proposition with very little upside.


http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/health-care-ruling-2012-7/

Quote:
Win-Win-Win

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.)


I found it an interesting opinion piece from a number of angles, but am just dropping in most of one paragraph.

Quote:
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.



Heileman's Power Grid is usually an interesting read.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 08:03 am
@ehBeth,
Hate Obamacare? Don't Worry, Here Are Some Countries You Can Move To

Quote:
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!
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 08:20 am
@DrewDad,
the moving to Canada thing always cracks me up

I've seen quite a few posts on FB from people saying they're moving to Canada as a result of Obamacare. Like seriously, where do these people get their information?

I'd have said Haiti was a good option but there are a LOT of Canadian doctors there - still dealing with the post-hurricane **** - way too many Canadians on the ground there to suit the anti-Obama troops from going there.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 08:25 am
@ehBeth,
Heh heh.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 09:02 am
I see that Finn is firmly stuck in the 'denial' phase of his mourning over the health-care loss for his side.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 09:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
***LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU***
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 09:13 am
Quote:
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.


source

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 09:21 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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?


When did the Dems do this? The ACA wasn't passed in the Senate using Reconciliation, though the Dems did talk about it:

Quote:
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.[126] The compromise was derisively referred to as the "Cornhusker Kickback"[164] (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.[165]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act#Senate

You can't filibuster a vote under Reconciliation rules. Perhaps you are referring to the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions of the bill? A totally separate thing than using Reconciliation to pass a bill in the Senate?

You guys are so full of ****, you know that? You don't even remember things from a few years back.

The problem for Romney and the GOP's position here, is that they have NO plan for dealing with any of these issues. So, during the debates this Fall, when Obama says 'what's your plan for dealing with pre-existing conditions?' Romney will only be able to spout the same vague bullshit your entire party has been spouting. Obama will flay him alive on stage if he tries that. And yes, it won't matter to the legions of mouth-breathers who hate him; but it will matter to quite a few swing voters, and people who, say, have a pre-existing condition or a child who has one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 01:49:22