It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[JoeB131]

[


Yeah, coz if Hillary had done it, we would all have been fine with it.

Well, if Hillary had gotten in, we'd have gotten a public option and a law with a lot more teeth...

And you'd still carp and whine, I'm sure. But then you m ight have a good reason, because she'd have proposed real socialized medicine, and not what you guys proposed for years until The Black Guy Did it.

You see my problem here? You guys were all for Mandates back in 2008, and Mitt Romney called it his proudest acheivement.

Until Obama went ahead and did it... and you just can't give the man an ounce of credit even when he's seeing things your way.

So you have Governor Romney not wanting to even talk about his days as Governor, given his two biggest accomplishments were beta-testing the two things Obama now stands for- Indvidual Mandates and Gay Marriage.

Um, no, Joe, I was not all for federal mandates back in 2008.

But have a nice day!

Hey, I'm sure that you guys can disassocaite yourselves indiviudally, but how about answering the question.

If there were all these constitutional questions about Mandates in 2008, why Did Romney and the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute all think they were wonderful ideas?

 

[dblack]

...it's hyperbole.

Again, I'm still trying to figure out at what point a mandate to buy insurance (which I suspect everyone here is already responsible enough to purchase) went from being a sensible solution to the health care problem (as Mitt Romney said in 2009) to being a violation of constituitonal rights...

I think it happened around the time Obama's views "evolved" from having a "substantive" opposition mandates to seeing the light of the insurance lobby's demands.

Equating insurance with responsibility is at the core of the ACA con. Mandated insurance is the opposite of responsibility. It doesn't matter who came up with the idea or who is currently shilling for it. It's a bailout and a power grab designed to enrich the insurance corps and expand the regulatory state. It's a "win-win" scenario (or a win-win-HUGE LOSS, depending on whether we consider free society worth keeping around).

 

[Amelia]

Well, if Hillary had gotten in, we'd have gotten a public option and a law with a lot more teeth...

And you'd still carp and whine, I'm sure. But then you m ight have a good reason, because she'd have proposed real socialized medicine, and not what you guys proposed for years until The Black Guy Did it.

You see my problem here? You guys were all for Mandates back in 2008, and Mitt Romney called it his proudest acheivement.

Until Obama went ahead and did it... and you just can't give the man an ounce of credit even when he's seeing things your way.

So you have Governor Romney not wanting to even talk about his days as Governor, given his two biggest accomplishments were beta-testing the two things Obama now stands for- Indvidual Mandates and Gay Marriage.

Um, no, Joe, I was not all for federal mandates back in 2008.

But have a nice day!

Hey, I'm sure that you guys can disassocaite yourselves indiviudally, but how about answering the question.

If there were all these constitutional questions about Mandates in 2008, why Did Romney and the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute all think they were wonderful ideas?

Why should I answer that question? I am not responsible for defending those who felt that national mandates would be constitutional.

And I'm beyond tired of explaining the difference between a state mandate and a federal mandate to those who claim (stubbornly pretend) that if Massachusetts' program was constitutional then it would be constitutional to do it on a federal level.

 

[Meister]

Um, no, Joe, I was not all for federal mandates back in 2008.

But have a nice day!

Hey, I'm sure that you guys can disassocaite yourselves indiviudally, but how about answering the question.

If there were all these constitutional questions about Mandates in 2008, why Did Romney and the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute all think they were wonderful ideas?

Why should I answer that question? I am not responsible for defending those who felt that national mandates would be constitutional.

And I'm beyond tired of explaining the difference between a state mandate and a federal mandate to those who claim (stubbornly pretend) that if Massachusetts' program was constitutional then it would be constitutional to do it on a federal level.

Absolutely....they won't acknowledge that, because their whole premise would die at that point.

 

[JoeB131]

...it's hyperbole.

Again, I'm still trying to figure out at what point a mandate to buy insurance (which I suspect everyone here is already responsible enough to purchase) went from being a sensible solution to the health care problem (as Mitt Romney said in 2009) to being a violation of constituitonal rights...

I think it happened around the time Obama's views "evolved" from having a "substantive" opposition mandates to seeing the light of the insurance lobby's demands.

Equating insurance with responsibility is at the core of the ACA con. Mandated insurance is the opposite of responsibility. It doesn't matter who came up with the idea or who is currently shilling for it. It's a bailout and a power grab designed to enrich the insurance corps and expand the regulatory state. It's a "win-win" scenario (or a win-win-HUGE LOSS, depending on whether we consider free society worth keeping around).

I have no illusions that if left to his own devices, Obama would have imposed a Canadian style single payer system on us and called it a day. He merely bowed to the realities that the insurance industry had too much power and his own party couldn't get its shit together with overwealming majorities in both houses.

So what an Insurance Mandate does is give a sloppy wet kiss to the Insurance Industry. But here's the thing. The Insurance companies know that things can't go on as they are. ACA buys them maybe another ten years and they are back to the same problem - the rising costs of medical care is going to outstrip any premiums employers/individuals/the government will be able to subsidize.

And frankly, that's kind of how it's always been. If we completely privatized the system, it would never work. Insurance companies would want to only sell to the healthy and would want to disallow the sick.

I think the problem is that we need a mandate for health care for the same reason we need a mandate for car insurance... Because everyone is draining the system whether they choose to participate or not.

 

[Listening]

and what will happen.

all those people who now got to keep their insurance will lose it.

they will thank the republicans for that one

I think you mean the supreme court.

Or do you somehow think it is wrong for people to challenge the constitutionality of a bill just because it means you can continue to live off of welfare ?

 

[Salt Jones]

Will pre-existing conditions be reversed? Will the age limit be reversed? Will the popular sections be reversed?

If not, it's just like a vine and will only spread with time. It's just like the fall of DADT, medical marijuana, or same-sex marriage the conservatives may win the battle, but they have lost the war.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Why should I answer that question? I am not responsible for defending those who felt that national mandates would be constitutional.

And I'm beyond tired of explaining the difference between a state mandate and a federal mandate to those who claim (stubbornly pretend) that if Massachusetts' program was constitutional then it would be constitutional to do it on a federal level.

Except nobody ever claimed it was unconstitutional at the federal level Until The Black Guy Did It.

(That's my new acronym, UTBGDI. It goes to describe anything Republicans were all for until Obama actually did it. TARP, Auto bailouts, killing Khadafy or Bin Laden)

Romney called for it as a Federal Model all the way up until 2009. So did Heritage and Cato..

In fact, doing it piecemeil at the state level would be kind of counterproductive, because it would just encourage businesses and workers to move to states where they don't have the mandate.

I would also argue that if the Justices strike down ObamaCare, they will probably strike down RomneyCare in the process.

 

[Listening]

and what will happen.

all those people who now got to keep their insurance will lose it.

they will thank the republicans for that one

This is not a Republican VS Democrat issue, it's a ignorance and contempt for the constitution issue by the people who passed the bill. You are being very short sided if you don't not see the danger in the Government being able to mandate people to buy things.

Leave it up to TM to turn this into a party VS party issue rather than an obvious attack on personal liberties as it clearly is.

It is partisan hackery.

Thaat is what the SCOTUS now does

You can thank FDR for that.

He is the one who used the ability to nominate judges as a way to pack the court with people who were going to kiss the ass of his social programs.....even after the existing court kept knocking them down.

But I am guessing you know that ....

It is only hackery when it does not go your way......

 

[JakeStarkey]

But had later stated he'd GET RID of ObamaCare.

He's running for office for Pete's sake!

The far right of our GOP is going to be in for a hell of a shock when he is president next year.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is not a Republican VS Democrat issue, it's a ignorance and contempt for the constitution issue by the people who passed the bill. You are being very short sided if you don't not see the danger in the Government being able to mandate people to buy things.

Leave it up to TM to turn this into a party VS party issue rather than an obvious attack on personal liberties as it clearly is.

It is partisan hackery.

Thaat is what the SCOTUS now does

You can thank FDR for that.

He is the one who used the ability to nominate judges as a way to pack the court with people who were going to kiss the ass of his social programs.....even after the existing court kept knocking them down.

But I am guessing you know that ....

It is only hackery when it does not go your way......

Presidents have always done it, particularly Andrew Jackson with Taney's pick.

 

[JoeB131]

But had later stated he'd GET RID of ObamaCare.

He's running for office for Pete's sake!

The far right of our GOP is going to be in for a hell of a shock when he is president next year.

Not really.

If Romney couldn't really stand up to the MA Legislature (the go-to excuses of how a supposedly "Severely Constipated... conservative" Governor could have socialized medicine and allowed gay marriage) How is he going to stand up to the Tea Party?

Is he going to get a gang of thugs to hold them down and cut their hair?

 

[JakeStarkey]

He's running for office for Pete's sake!

The far right of our GOP is going to be in for a hell of a shock when he is president next year.

Not really.

Um . . . really, guy. . .

 

[Greenbeard]

Will pre-existing conditions be reversed? Will the age limit be reversed? Will the popular sections be reversed?

Given that none of those are considered by either side to be unconstitutional, one would assume not. But if the Court decides to be especially hackish, you never know.

 

[Amelia]

[
Why should I answer that question? I am not responsible for defending those who felt that national mandates would be constitutional.

And I'm beyond tired of explaining the difference between a state mandate and a federal mandate to those who claim (stubbornly pretend) that if Massachusetts' program was constitutional then it would be constitutional to do it on a federal level.

Except nobody ever claimed it was unconstitutional at the federal level Until The Black Guy Did It.

(That's my new acronym, UTBGDI. It goes to describe anything Republicans were all for until Obama actually did it. TARP, Auto bailouts, killing Khadafy or Bin Laden)

Romney called for it as a Federal Model all the way up until 2009. So did Heritage and Cato..

In fact, doing it piecemeil at the state level would be kind of counterproductive, because it would just encourage businesses and workers to move to states where they don't have the mandate.

I would also argue that if the Justices strike down ObamaCare, they will probably strike down RomneyCare in the process.

"UTBGDI"

That is so cute that you would jump on the racial division train when you know good and well that no one could have tried to implement a health insurance mandate on a national level and not been smacked down for it.

But please do go with the UTBGDI. That should be fun for you - lots of yummy attention for you from those you manage to hook - and it will be a reminder for me that you're not in serious mode.

A win for both of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amelia, some on our side do think that way, unfortunately. But the libs have racists as well.

 

[JoeB131]

[
"UTBGDI"

That is so cute that you would jump on the racial division train when you know good and well that no one could have tried to implement a health insurance mandate on a national level and not been smacked down for it.

But please do go with the UTBGDI. That should be fun for you - lots of yummy attention for you from those you manage to hook - and it will be a reminder for me that you're not in serious mode.

A win for both of us.

I think it's a very serious mode. Just not one you are comfortable with.

I've been a Republican since 1980, and frankly, the one thing I've grown uncomfortable with is the GOP appealling to very base things on religion and race to get people to vote for them when it wasn't in their economic interests to do so.

The thing is, Romney would have probably tried to do exactly what Obama did in he had become president in 2009. He even talked about that as part of his 2008 platform.

And, yes, I think this is where the GOP has gone too far off the edge. As much as the GOP didn't like Clinton (- and with far better reason, Clinton was a far worse person than Obama is -), they were still able to work with him on things like entitlement reform, balancing the budget and even coming up with coherent plans to do day to day thing and get the economy on track.

Now, it, "Well, of Obama's for it, we're against it, even if we were previously all for it."

Obama's lack of political skills is part of the problem, but I think the inflexibility of both parties is a large part of the problem. No one wants to be Dick Lugar or Joe Leiberman drummed out for daring to meet halfway.

 

[Amelia]

Will pre-existing conditions be reversed? Will the age limit be reversed? Will the popular sections be reversed?

Given that none of those are considered by either side to be unconstitutional, one would assume not. But if the Court decides to be especially hackish, you never know.

You forgot the notion of inseverability?

How do you make that affordable without the mandate?

When you come up with a constitutional way to do that and when you make the case to enough people to get that to pass, well done.

Too bad Obama spoiled the effort by not coming anywhere close to making the case that his plan was worth getting behind when the economy was in crisis mode. Maybe he could have put that off for a year and done his real duty of making sure that his programs such as the stimulus and HAMP were being administered well and were achieving desired results, and addressing the issue when it was seen that they weren't.


Obama misunderstood his mandate and blew it royally.

 

[Salt Jones]

Will pre-existing conditions be reversed? Will the age limit be reversed? Will the popular sections be reversed?

Given that none of those are considered by either side to be unconstitutional, one would assume not. But if the Court decides to be especially hackish, you never know.

You forgot the notion of inseverability?

How do you make that affordable without the mandate?

When you come up with a constitutional way to do that and when you make the case to enough people to get that to pass, well done.

Too bad Obama spoiled the effort by not coming anywhere close to making the case that his plan was worth getting behind when the economy was in crisis mode. Maybe he could have put that off for a year and done his real duty of making sure that his programs such as the stimulus and HAMP were being administered well and were achieving desired results, and addressing the issue when it was seen that they weren't.


Obama misunderstood his mandate and blew it royally.

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

 

[The T]

Given that none of those are considered by either side to be unconstitutional, one would assume not. But if the Court decides to be especially hackish, you never know.

You forgot the notion of inseverability?

How do you make that affordable without the mandate?

When you come up with a constitutional way to do that and when you make the case to enough people to get that to pass, well done.

Too bad Obama spoiled the effort by not coming anywhere close to making the case that his plan was worth getting behind when the economy was in crisis mode. Maybe he could have put that off for a year and done his real duty of making sure that his programs such as the stimulus and HAMP were being administered well and were achieving desired results, and addressing the issue when it was seen that they weren't.


Obama misunderstood his mandate and blew it royally.

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.