Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
New Poll: The Supreme Court and the Health Care Law - NYTimes.com
More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. Just 24 percent said they hoped the court would keep the entire health care law in place.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide a challenge to the law by the end of this month.
Forty-one percent of those surveyed said the court should strike down the entire law, and another 27 percent said the justices should overturn only the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
24% like it? What's our USMB population?
Why would Romney be opposed to RomneyCare?
Is he a flip flopper?
A douchebag?
A waffler?
Is 3 years too long at Harvard? What about 4?
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
Yep. I don't know why we keep having to repeat the simple, yet obvious fact.... what a state can do and what the federal government can do are two completely different things.
So why are you against it, shyttehead? LOL
Romney said he'd make sure it was GONE. But it may be gone or damaged by the SCOTUS before he gets there.
Why would Romney be opposed to RomneyCare?
Is he a flip flopper?
A douchebag?
A waffler?
Is 3 years too long at Harvard? What about 4?
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
Why would Romney be opposed to RomneyCare?
Is he a flip flopper?
A douchebag?
A waffler?
Is 3 years too long at Harvard? What about 4?
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
So a state can force people, against their will, to buy a product from a private company, even if they do not intend to use it, but the federal government cannot?
Does Romney have a Constitutional argument for that?
Why would Romney be opposed to RomneyCare?
Is he a flip flopper?
A douchebag?
A waffler?
Is 3 years too long at Harvard? What about 4?
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
Yep. I don't know why we keep having to repeat the simple, yet obvious fact.... what a state can do and what the federal government can do are two completely different things.
Well, from the political standpoint; it crystalizes the difference in the two major parties. One that wants to insure persons without healthcare, make it to where insurance companies cannot reject you because of PECs, and one who wants to lessen the public outlay of monies to combat acute care and the GOP who doesn't want those to have insurance, doesn't mind if insurance companies reject you and want to keep hospital emergency rooms apparently as full as possible.
Whether this "helps" or "hurts" President Obama or Governor Romney remains to be seen. I don't think it will move the needle much either way unless the Governor can marry the overturning of the ACA with the opportunity costs associated with it's passing. I think there is ground to be gained there.
"Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, President Obama chose to focus on healthcare that, while important, wasn't the most pressing priority in the nation." I can see the argument gaining some traction. Probably not enough red meat in the statement for the GOP and probably too complex an argument for the republican rank and file but it would shine a light on the wasted opportunity and the President's priorities.
I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will toss out the mandate. What remains to be seen is if they toss the entire law. If they do, millions will lose their insurance over night while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
If the SCOTUS does not toss the whole law, it will leave insurance companies in a situation where they will lose money hand over fist. They will start dropping customers like a bad habit ... while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
SCOTUS tossing all or part of the law is a win for Obama. You think it will make him look like a "loser", but he will be able to use this as a reason to come back and try again and there will be millions of voters with no access to care who will vote for him for that reason. Because we all know, Romney has zero intentions of trying to expand access.
I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will toss out the mandate. What remains to be seen is if they toss the entire law. If they do, millions will lose their insurance over night while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
If the SCOTUS does not toss the whole law, it will leave insurance companies in a situation where they will lose money hand over fist. They will start dropping customers like a bad habit ... while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
SCOTUS tossing all or part of the law is a win for Obama. You think it will make him look like a "loser", but he will be able to use this as a reason to come back and try again and there will be millions of voters with no access to care who will vote for him for that reason. Because we all know, Romney has zero intentions of trying to expand access.
Two points.
1. He can't try again from Chicago.
2. The GOP will never allow another abomination like this again even if he were to win in November.
I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will toss out the mandate. What remains to be seen is if they toss the entire law. If they do, millions will lose their insurance over night while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
If the SCOTUS does not toss the whole law, it will leave insurance companies in a situation where they will lose money hand over fist. They will start dropping customers like a bad habit ... while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
SCOTUS tossing all or part of the law is a win for Obama. You think it will make him look like a "loser", but he will be able to use this as a reason to come back and try again and there will be millions of voters with no access to care who will vote for him for that reason. Because we all know, Romney has zero intentions of trying to expand access.
Two points.
1. He can't try again from Chicago.
2. The GOP will never allow another abomination like this again even if he were to win in November.
Well, from the political standpoint; it crystalizes the difference in the two major parties. One that wants to insure persons without healthcare, make it to where insurance companies cannot reject you because of PECs, and one who wants to lessen the public outlay of monies to combat acute care and the GOP who doesn't want those to have insurance, doesn't mind if insurance companies reject you and want to keep hospital emergency rooms apparently as full as possible.
Whether this "helps" or "hurts" President Obama or Governor Romney remains to be seen. I don't think it will move the needle much either way unless the Governor can marry the overturning of the ACA with the opportunity costs associated with it's passing. I think there is ground to be gained there.
"Instead of focusing on jobs and the economy, President Obama chose to focus on healthcare that, while important, wasn't the most pressing priority in the nation." I can see the argument gaining some traction. Probably not enough red meat in the statement for the GOP and probably too complex an argument for the republican rank and file but it would shine a light on the wasted opportunity and the President's priorities.
Why would Romney be opposed to RomneyCare?
Is he a flip flopper?
A douchebag?
A waffler?
Is 3 years too long at Harvard? What about 4?
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
So a state can force people, against their will, to buy a product from a private company, even if they do not intend to use it, but the federal government cannot?
Does Romney have a Constitutional argument for that?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I'm almost certain the SCOTUS will toss out the mandate. What remains to be seen is if they toss the entire law. If they do, millions will lose their insurance over night while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
If the SCOTUS does not toss the whole law, it will leave insurance companies in a situation where they will lose money hand over fist. They will start dropping customers like a bad habit ... while the GOP runs through the streets cheering.
SCOTUS tossing all or part of the law is a win for Obama. You think it will make him look like a "loser", but he will be able to use this as a reason to come back and try again and there will be millions of voters with no access to care who will vote for him for that reason. Because we all know, Romney has zero intentions of trying to expand access.
Two points.
1. He can't try again from Chicago.
2. The GOP will never allow another abomination like this again even if he were to win in November.
The GOP might not have a choice. Again, if millions of Americans lose health insurance while the GOP cheers it, that could cost them more then just the Presidency.
Two points.
1. He can't try again from Chicago.
2. The GOP will never allow another abomination like this again even if he were to win in November.
The GOP might not have a choice. Again, if millions of Americans lose health insurance while the GOP cheers it, that could cost them more then just the Presidency.
Apparently 2/3rds of Americans disagree with you. Unless you're saying they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their position.
The GOP might not have a choice. Again, if millions of Americans lose health insurance while the GOP cheers it, that could cost them more then just the Presidency.
Apparently 2/3rds of Americans disagree with you. Unless you're saying they are too stupid to realize the consequences of their position.
You need to learn how to read poll numbers.
Only 41% want the entire law tossed out while 51% want to keep it or just toss out the mandate. If the ENTIRE law goes away, 41% cheer while at least 51% are pissed off. Since the 41% represents the GOP position and the 51% represents the Dem position, who comes out ahead?
Hint: not the GOP.
RomneyCare was in the Commonwealth NOT imposed Federally.
Big Difference. Pay attention.
So a state can force people, against their will, to buy a product from a private company, even if they do not intend to use it, but the federal government cannot?
Does Romney have a Constitutional argument for that?
The Citizens of that Commonwealth can ALWAYS sign a petition drive to get rid of laws that don't work...but that isn't the point...the POINT is:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Look Familiar? If not it should. NO WHERE in the US Constitution does it give the FED power over healthcare...but DOES give States that authority IF the people wish it.
YOU need to go back to Civics 101...BASIC American History and the Constitution.
