If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

[rightwinger]

Constitutional Amendment? you watch too much Fox

Medicare didn't require one, Social Security didn't. Well within the scope of General Welfare

The Medicare decision was predicated on the Social Security decision. The Social Security decision was COERCED by FDR's court-packing threat.

Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare. Social Welfare is NOT an enumerated power of Congress, and looking at our federal budget... it's clear why the founders didn't include it in the Constitution.

Waffle much Murph?

You went from a A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation.
to
Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare.

You think the fact that Social Security hasn't been overturned in over 70 years may come into play?
Founders did not include "Social Welfare" but included "General Welfare"

 

[The Rabbi]

Constitutional Amendment? you watch too much Fox

Medicare didn't require one, Social Security didn't. Well within the scope of General Welfare

The Medicare decision was predicated on the Social Security decision. The Social Security decision was COERCED by FDR's court-packing threat.

Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare. Social Welfare is NOT an enumerated power of Congress, and looking at our federal budget... it's clear why the founders didn't include it in the Constitution.

Waffle much Murph?

You went from a A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation.
to
Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare.

You think the fact that Social Security hasn't been overturned in over 70 years may come into play?
Founders did not include "Social Welfare" but included "General Welfare"

The Supreme Court won't need to overturn the Social Security law. TGhe system is so bad and so broke that the program will go away of its own accord.

 

[Murf76]

Waffle much Murph?

You went from a A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation.
to
Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare.

You think the fact that Social Security hasn't been overturned in over 70 years may come into play?
Founders did not include "Social Welfare" but included "General Welfare"

"General Welfare" is NOT an enumerated power. And I didn't say I think we should approve a Constitutional Amendment for Single-Payer. I said that's what you'd need to implement Single-Payer.

Frankly, after the SCOTUS decision to allow corporate advertising dollars to be spent on political candidates, I'm not certain as to where you're finding the confidence that precedence is all you need. That ruling overturned something like 90 years of established law, didn't it?

 

[Zoom-boing]

When? As soon as polticians get the sack to run on the issue. So far they have not, but the day is soon coming.

What is one of the big Rep angles against the healthcare bills. "You're cutting $500 billion from Medicare."

Why are they waiting for some bill to pass before cutting waste and fraud in Medicare? I'd have some semblance of faith in congress had they tackled this waste and fraud a year ago and could stand there now and say 'look at the billions we have saved'. Talk is cheap . . . .

 

[rightwinger]

The Medicare decision was predicated on the Social Security decision. The Social Security decision was COERCED by FDR's court-packing threat.

Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare. Social Welfare is NOT an enumerated power of Congress, and looking at our federal budget... it's clear why the founders didn't include it in the Constitution.

Waffle much Murph?

You went from a A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation.
to
Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare.

You think the fact that Social Security hasn't been overturned in over 70 years may come into play?
Founders did not include "Social Welfare" but included "General Welfare"

The Supreme Court won't need to overturn the Social Security law. TGhe system is so bad and so broke that the program will go away of its own accord.

The GOP has been saying that for 70 years

 

[rightwinger]

Waffle much Murph?

You went from a A single-payer system would require a Constitutional Amendment. There is no enumerated power that allows the government to run our healthcare. But proponents don't want to have THAT conversation.
to
Truly, I hope that both are overturned if/when the Supreme Court gets it's hands on Obamacare.

You think the fact that Social Security hasn't been overturned in over 70 years may come into play?
Founders did not include "Social Welfare" but included "General Welfare"

"General Welfare" is NOT an enumerated power. And I didn't say I think we should approve a Constitutional Amendment for Single-Payer. I said that's what you'd need to implement Single-Payer.

Frankly, after the SCOTUS decision to allow corporate advertising dollars to be spent on political candidates, I'm not certain as to where you're finding the confidence that precedence is all you need. That ruling overturned something like 90 years of established law, didn't it?

Oh, I understand now...

Since the fillibuster is not working, you need a 2/3 majority to approve a Congressional Amendment

 

[Maple]

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn't 1994; it's 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth -- and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgement that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals -- such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability -- that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.

washingtonpost.com

This is from Democrats, the pollsters for Carter and Clinton.

If they pass this pig without support from the majority of Americans, americans won't wait until Nov. Millions may just refuse to pay their taxes due to a clause in the Constitution, no taxation without representation. Without majority support from the people, there may just be a way out of paying taxes according to the constitution. Hell, they can't throw millions of people in jail, they don't have that many IRS agents to track everyone down.

 

[Murf76]

Oh, I understand now...

Since the fillibuster is not working, you need a 2/3 majority to approve a Congressional Amendment

No. The point is that we have a U.S. Constitution which sets specific LIMITS on the power of central government. You don't just get to do whatever the fuck you please by democratic majority in Congress. There are established rules for what needs to happen if Congress wants a new enumerated power.

Government FORCE, unbacked by the rule of law... is TYRANNY. And it doesn't matter if it's perpetrated by a King or a Congress. It is arbitrary. Democracy, when worked without the framework of agreed-upon law, is nothing but a tyranny of the majority over an unprotected minority. Democracy can only work within established parameters, otherwise it fails over the course of time... because eventually, the unprotected minority fights back.

 

[EriktheRed]

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Absolute horseshit, Democrat or not.

If Dems fail to pass this, they're gonna do even worse. As it stands now, they're already getting bombarded with negative ads just for attempting to do a sweeping healthcare reform bill. Somehow this is gonna change if they fail? Of course not, the die is pretty much set there. Couple with that with the stigma of having failed to even do what they'll be getting bashed for and it's definitely worse than having not passed it at all.

And if Republicans really believed that passing this would be worse for them, they sure as hell wouldn't be telling them so.

 

[Murf76]

Absolute horseshit, Democrat or not.

If Dems fail to pass this, they're gonna do even worse. As it stands now, they're already getting bombarded with negative ads just for attempting to do a sweeping healthcare reform bill. Somehow this is gonna change if they fail? Of course not, the die is pretty much set there. Couple with that with the stigma of having failed to even do what they'll be getting bashed for and it's definitely worse than having not passed it at all.

And if Republicans really believed that passing this would be worse for them, they sure as hell wouldn't be telling them so.

Sometimes there are more important things than politics. It's better to allow some Democrats to save themselves from electoral destruction, than to saddle this country with disastrous legislation that affects every man, woman, and child in America. There are times when Country really does come First.

 

[EriktheRed]

Well, since the OP wants to post words of caution for the Dems, here are some for the GOP:

Other opponents are hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts's Supreme Court would do the repeal for them. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), among others, foresees "a real constitutional challenge." The Republican National Committee issued a news release claiming that Nancy Pelosi herself once put her name on a legal brief pronouncing unconstitutional the very deem-and-pass procedure House Democrats plan to employ to enact health-care reform. (The RNC neglected to mention that the courts rejected Pelosi's argument, citing a 108-year-old Supreme Court precedent.)

Even the conservative majority on the Supreme Court would have to be wary of suddenly rejecting a legislative process that has been tolerated for years -- all for the purpose of taking health care away from 30 million Americans. That would make Bush v. Gore look relatively innocent.

Beyond that, it's doubtful that opposition to the measure will ever again be as high as it is now. Fox News polling found that 45 percent of voters would favor repeal, while 47 percent say leave the reforms alone or add to them. With the big insurance subsidies years away, the initial changes stemming from the legislation would be relatively modest -- and that should come as a surprise to an American public told by Republican foes of the legislation to expect a socialist takeover of the United States.

What Americans would see -- or at least what Democratic ad makers say they'd put on Americans' TV screens -- are the benefits that would take effect this year: tax credits that encourage small businesses to offer health coverage; a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the prescription-drug "donut hole" (the checks would start going out June 15); allowing young people up to age 26 to stay on their parents' health policies; and, above all, a ban on refusing coverage to children with preexisting conditions.

There will certainly be ads this fall saying Republican Congressman X voted against tax breaks for small business and voted to deny Junior his life-saving treatments. These modest changes to the health system probably wouldn't be widespread and noticeable enough to limit Democratic losses at a time of 10 percent unemployment. But, at the very least, voters would see nothing to justify the Republicans' apocalyptic predictions.

washingtonpost.com


It works both ways, y'know.

 

[rightwinger]

A month from now the electorate will realize that the world did not end, the economy did not crash and granny is still alive.....even though we have a healthcare bill

By November, the key issue will be the Economy and Jobs


And the GOP will be wishing for the economy to fail

 

[PatekPhilippe]

A month from now the electorate will realize that the world did not end, the economy did not crash and granny is still alive.....even though we have a healthcare bill

No shit Sherlock Holmes....hint for the terminally stupid such as yourself...THE BILL DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT FOR FOUR FUCKING YEARS!!!!!!!!!

 

[driveby]

A month from now the electorate will realize that the world did not end, the economy did not crash and granny is still alive.....even though we have a healthcare bill

By November, the key issue will be the Economy and Jobs


And the GOP will be wishing for the economy to fail

That should have been the key issue all along, clown ....

 

[EriktheRed]

Thought I'd bump this, since certain people on here regarded polls on the HC Bill to be so important...


AP-GfK poll: Public thumbs up for Obama health law


Verdict on Healthcare Reform Bill Still Divided


Not exactly great, but definitely not the expected calamity for the Dems, either.