What does HC ruling mean for Obama in November?

[dblack]

It's almost as if these people have no idea how insurance works.

That's pretty much what got us into this mess in the first place.

There is no mess. There is progress in tackling the problem of expensive health care and uninsured millions. That is cleaning up the mess.

Oh, there's nothing but mess. And it has been created by our idiotic expectations of health insurance and government.

The ACA does exactly nothing about the problem of health care inflation. Actually, I take that back - it does plenty in terms of making it worse.

 

[Zander]

Listen. It gets old retyping this, but please try to understand. You can make exactly the same argument in the other direction. You can say that by voting third party you are essentially voting for Romney by default. What is the difference??? There is none at all.

But of course neither is true. It's based on a logical error.

Nice try, but your logical fallacy argument is only valid if each candidate has the exact same odds of winning the election. They do not. As of this moment, your vote for a 3rd party candidate only helps one person - Obama.

Try thinking about it a little more clearly. The estimated odds are irrelevant to the question of who a vote "helps".

Your argument is based on a faulty assumption. You're assuming that if I didn't vote third party I'd vote for Romney, and that's not true. I'd stay at home rather than vote for either Obama or Romney. So, no, me voting for a third party candidate doesn't help either Obama or Romney.

In this case, then you'd be correct. I was assuming you normally voted for one of the two major parties.

 

[Zander]

Read the following...


Republicans’ best hope for partial repeal is through the reconciliation process, whereby legislationonly needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, as it is certain that the GOP will not have afilibuster-proof majority next year.

However, the reconciliation process cannot undo reform it itsentirety, as some key elements of the law are not considered to have a budgetary impact and wouldtherefore require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. As such, a Romney Administration could address these issues through the decision not to implement or release final rules, as well as the rescission or rewriting of regulations.

Furthermore, a new GOP Congress can block implementation of any newrules the Obama Administration releases in Q4/early Q1 via the Congressional Review Act with asimple majority vote.Below are the various issues being targeted by Republicans, as well as the policy tools they will employ to repeal, replace or stall them.

We note that the following assumes a Romney victory, aRepublican Congress, and that the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety.


Romney will not win the upcoming election. There should be a GOP congress but without the necessary 60 votes to do business in our Senate;

Thanks to our Constitution--majority doesn't rule.

No chance until 2014 if the GOP can strengthen it's hand in the Congress.

Since this has been ruled a tax, filibusters are no longer an issue.

Sure they are... since bills must pass both houses last I checked. Additionally, since Obama will win the 2012 election, the veto/repeal question comes into play as well.

Wrong, a filibuster is a Senate tool. There are no "Filibusters" on the House.

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

 

[Listening]

Read the following...


Republicans’ best hope for partial repeal is through the reconciliation process, whereby legislationonly needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, as it is certain that the GOP will not have afilibuster-proof majority next year.

However, the reconciliation process cannot undo reform it itsentirety, as some key elements of the law are not considered to have a budgetary impact and wouldtherefore require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. As such, a Romney Administration could address these issues through the decision not to implement or release final rules, as well as the rescission or rewriting of regulations.

Furthermore, a new GOP Congress can block implementation of any newrules the Obama Administration releases in Q4/early Q1 via the Congressional Review Act with asimple majority vote.Below are the various issues being targeted by Republicans, as well as the policy tools they will employ to repeal, replace or stall them.

We note that the following assumes a Romney victory, aRepublican Congress, and that the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety.


Romney will not win the upcoming election. There should be a GOP congress but without the necessary 60 votes to do business in our Senate;

Thanks to our Constitution--majority doesn't rule.

No chance until 2014 if the GOP can strengthen it's hand in the Congress.

Since this has been ruled a tax, filibusters are no longer an issue.

Sure they are... since bills must pass both houses last I checked. Additionally, since Obama will win the 2012 election, the veto/repeal question comes into play as well.

I am taking avitar bets on the election....you seem confident.

Wanna bet on the outcome ?

 

[dblack]

In this case, then you'd be correct. I was assuming you normally voted for one of the two major parties.

Not since 1984. First and last time.

 

[Missourian]

Apparently you're unsophisticated about how the bill becomes a law and how a law is repealed:

First what may happen is Obama doesn't get a second term. We all know Romney isn't going to win but lets say he does.

Then what must happen is that you would have to get a super majority in the Senate. Mathematically, that isn't going to happen either.

So there is no chance (at least for the next 2 years) that any part of this law will be repealed.

Sorry, thats the way it works.

If there's a will...there's a way.

Read and be enlightened.


GOP ACA Repeal Options | Scribd

Read the following...


Republicans’ best hope for partial repeal is through the reconciliation process, whereby legislationonly needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, as it is certain that the GOP will not have afilibuster-proof majority next year.

However, the reconciliation process cannot undo reform it itsentirety, as some key elements of the law are not considered to have a budgetary impact and wouldtherefore require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. As such, a Romney Administration could address these issues through the decision not to implement or release final rules, as well as the rescission or rewriting of regulations.

Furthermore, a new GOP Congress can block implementation of any newrules the Obama Administration releases in Q4/early Q1 via the Congressional Review Act with asimple majority vote.Below are the various issues being targeted by Republicans, as well as the policy tools they will employ to repeal, replace or stall them.

We note that the following assumes a Romney victory, aRepublican Congress, and that the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety.


Romney will not win the upcoming election. There should be a GOP congress but without the necessary 60 votes to do business in our Senate;

Thanks to our Constitution--majority doesn't rule.

No chance until 2014 if the GOP can strengthen it's hand in the Congress.

Then it goes on to delineate what can be done and how.

 

[JoeB131]

I love this one..

Allows persons to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 26 at no cost to you or I;

now just how many parents want their ADULT children living off them? and HOW many parents can AFFORD to pay for their ADULT children staying on their insurance..

Most insurance plans have single plans and family plans, with no real counting of who is in the family

Fact is, this really isn't much of a burden. How many times did you see a doctor between 18 and 26.

Other than my medical exams for the military and a few colds, almost never in my case. And my medical was completely free.

 

[Claudette]

This is Obama's worst nightmare. His signature accomplishment in 3.5 years has been ruled a tax. It was a bad piece of legislation to start with and now the spotlight will be on how much this thing will cost when fully implemented. Those dancing with glee either don't understand health policy or believe that we do not.

Yup. This whole mess is a win, win for Romney and the GOP.

Way ta go Roberts. LOL

 

[JoeB131]

This is Obama's worst nightmare. His signature accomplishment in 3.5 years has been ruled a tax. It was a bad piece of legislation to start with and now the spotlight will be on how much this thing will cost when fully implemented. Those dancing with glee either don't understand health policy or believe that we do not.

Yup. This whole mess is a win, win for Romney and the GOP.

Way ta go Roberts. LOL

If this were a "winner" for the Weird Mormon Robot, then the GOP never would have looked to the courts to get them out of this to start with.

Now, yes, the sausage making of the whole process turned people off. But if you ask people what they think about individual components of the law, they support most of those. (The mandate being the exception.)

For Romney, this is bad politics for a few reasons.

1) It reminds everyone that this whole magilla was his idea.

2) It puts him in the position of taking the side of big insurance companies vs. working families.

3) It takes him off his game about talking about jobs and the economy if he argues this.

One only imagines Obama pulling out some sad, pathetic child in a wheelchair who is covered now while Romney talks about insurance company profits.

 

[candycorn]

Since this has been ruled a tax, filibusters are no longer an issue.

Sure they are... since bills must pass both houses last I checked. Additionally, since Obama will win the 2012 election, the veto/repeal question comes into play as well.

I am taking avitar bets on the election....you seem confident.

Wanna bet on the outcome ?

Yes....if Obama wins, your sig line becomes "All Hail President Obama, your President, my President, Our President" and you leave it up from 11/7/12 to 1/1/13.

If Romney wins, my sig line becomes "All Hail President Romney, your President, my President, Our President" and I leave it up from 11/7/12 to 1/1/13.

Easy, peasy, lemon squeezy.

 

[candycorn]

Since this has been ruled a tax, filibusters are no longer an issue.

Sure they are... since bills must pass both houses last I checked. Additionally, since Obama will win the 2012 election, the veto/repeal question comes into play as well.

Wrong, a filibuster is a Senate tool. There are no "Filibusters" on the House.

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

Yes and that is the reason why I mentioned the magical number of 60 in the Senate to pass a cloture motion.

 

[Claudette]

Come on Joe.

Barry now has to explain a tax in this economy. He has to explain why we are going to pay higher premiums and a new tax.

Don't you remember the phone lines jamming DC when this clusterfuck bill was being crafted?? Folks didn't want it then but got it rammed down their throats by Pelosi, Reid and Barry Boy. They don't want it even more now.

Roberts has landed a loser in Barrys lap and a winner in Romneys.

Just MHO but hey. It is what it is.

 

[candycorn]

If there's a will...there's a way.

Read and be enlightened.


GOP ACA Repeal Options | Scribd

Read the following...


Republicans’ best hope for partial repeal is through the reconciliation process, whereby legislationonly needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, as it is certain that the GOP will not have afilibuster-proof majority next year.

However, the reconciliation process cannot undo reform it itsentirety, as some key elements of the law are not considered to have a budgetary impact and wouldtherefore require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. As such, a Romney Administration could address these issues through the decision not to implement or release final rules, as well as the rescission or rewriting of regulations.

Furthermore, a new GOP Congress can block implementation of any newrules the Obama Administration releases in Q4/early Q1 via the Congressional Review Act with asimple majority vote.Below are the various issues being targeted by Republicans, as well as the policy tools they will employ to repeal, replace or stall them.

We note that the following assumes a Romney victory, aRepublican Congress, and that the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety.


Romney will not win the upcoming election. There should be a GOP congress but without the necessary 60 votes to do business in our Senate;

Thanks to our Constitution--majority doesn't rule.

No chance until 2014 if the GOP can strengthen it's hand in the Congress.

Then it goes on to delineate what can be done and how.

Yes but the premise is faulty. He's been the nominee for about a month now and there seems to be less enthusiasm for him than there was during the primaries when he had challengers.

 

[Missourian]

Read the following...


Republicans’ best hope for partial repeal is through the reconciliation process, whereby legislationonly needs a simple majority to pass the Senate, as it is certain that the GOP will not have afilibuster-proof majority next year.

However, the reconciliation process cannot undo reform it itsentirety, as some key elements of the law are not considered to have a budgetary impact and wouldtherefore require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. As such, a Romney Administration could address these issues through the decision not to implement or release final rules, as well as the rescission or rewriting of regulations.

Furthermore, a new GOP Congress can block implementation of any newrules the Obama Administration releases in Q4/early Q1 via the Congressional Review Act with asimple majority vote.Below are the various issues being targeted by Republicans, as well as the policy tools they will employ to repeal, replace or stall them.

We note that the following assumes a Romney victory, aRepublican Congress, and that the Supreme Court upholds the law in its entirety.


Romney will not win the upcoming election. There should be a GOP congress but without the necessary 60 votes to do business in our Senate;

Thanks to our Constitution--majority doesn't rule.

No chance until 2014 if the GOP can strengthen it's hand in the Congress.

Then it goes on to delineate what can be done and how.

Yes but the premise is faulty. He's been the nominee for about a month now and there seems to be less enthusiasm for him than there was during the primaries when he had challengers.

You've moved the goalpost...your assertion was that even if Romney won the presidency repeal was impossible.

That assertion is obviously not fact based.

 

[candycorn]

Then it goes on to delineate what can be done and how.

Yes but the premise is faulty. He's been the nominee for about a month now and there seems to be less enthusiasm for him than there was during the primaries when he had challengers.

You've moved the goalpost...your assertion was that even if Romney won the presidency repeal was impossible.

That assertion is obviously not fact based.

Apparently you're unsophisticated about how the bill becomes a law and how a law is repealed:

First what may happen is Obama doesn't get a second term. We all know Romney isn't going to win but lets say he does.

Then what must happen is that you would have to get a super majority in the Senate. Mathematically, that isn't going to happen either.

So there is no chance (at least for the next 2 years) that any part of this law will be repealed.

Sorry, thats the way it works.

So under Romney, the Senate won't have the filibuster any longer?

 

[skookerasbil]

So many of the k00ks on here have the political IQ's of handballs. It is 100% certain that some liberal Democrats are going to vote GOP because of one simple reason: they want private health insurance, see where this is all headed ( government takover of healthcare) and dont want shit quality medical care when the get to the golden years. Blue Dog type Dems who voted for Obama in 2008 are sitting home tonight saying, "Fuck this crap......now Im going to have to wait months for an MRI or surgery I want to get!!"


This is the political irony with this short term win for liberals. Middle class and especially upper middle class Democrats will flee because they will be shitting in their pants of the prospect of government takeover of healthcare. They arent stupid..........they know this wiill put private insurance out of business. They'll be running to the polling stations to vote for Romney!!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

So many of the k00ks on here have the political IQ's of handballs. It is 100% certain that some liberal Democrats are going to vote GOP because of one simple reason: they want private health insurance, see where this is all headed ( government takover of healthcare) and dont want shit quality medical care when the get to the golden years. Blue Dog type Dems who voted for Obama in 2008 are sitting home tonight saying, "Fuck this crap......now Im going to have to wait months for an MRI or surgery I want to get!!"


This is the political irony with this short term win for liberals. Middle class and especially upper middle class Democrats will flee because they will be shitting in their pants of the prospect of government takeover of healthcare. They arent stupid..........they know this wiill put private insurance out of business. They'll be running to the polling stations to vote for Romney!!!

Still attempting to scare people with lies about wait times and government takeovers. The rest of the free world is just pretending to have better health outcomes at lower costs than us.

I have experienced single payer health care (Japan). It works well. There is a great emphasis on preventive care....and nobody suffers due to wait times as you have described. That is a line of bull you have bought. Soundly debunked by a cursory study of how other nations handle this issue.

 

[Missourian]

Yes but the premise is faulty. He's been the nominee for about a month now and there seems to be less enthusiasm for him than there was during the primaries when he had challengers.

You've moved the goalpost...your assertion was that even if Romney won the presidency repeal was impossible.

That assertion is obviously not fact based.

Apparently you're unsophisticated about how the bill becomes a law and how a law is repealed:

First what may happen is Obama doesn't get a second term. We all know Romney isn't going to win but lets say he does.

Then what must happen is that you would have to get a super majority in the Senate. Mathematically, that isn't going to happen either.

So there is no chance (at least for the next 2 years) that any part of this law will be repealed.

Sorry, thats the way it works.

So under Romney, the Senate won't have the filibuster any longer?

Obamacare was passed under the rules of reconciliation...specifically to avoid a filibuster...remember?

We told you that it would come back and bite you in the ass...

The majority...and perhaps all, depending on how the CBO scores the law knowing what we know now, including the mandate tax, can be repealed the same way.

And the shouts of "not fair" will fall on deaf ears.

If it was fair for the D's to pass a law using reconciliation, it's not only equally fair to repeal it the same way...it's a beautiful example of poetic justice.

 

[candycorn]

You've moved the goalpost...your assertion was that even if Romney won the presidency repeal was impossible.

That assertion is obviously not fact based.

Apparently you're unsophisticated about how the bill becomes a law and how a law is repealed:

First what may happen is Obama doesn't get a second term. We all know Romney isn't going to win but lets say he does.

Then what must happen is that you would have to get a super majority in the Senate. Mathematically, that isn't going to happen either.

So there is no chance (at least for the next 2 years) that any part of this law will be repealed.

Sorry, thats the way it works.

So under Romney, the Senate won't have the filibuster any longer?

Obamacare was passed under the rules of reconciliation...specifically to avoid a filibuster...remember?

We told you that it would come back and bite you in the ass...

The majority...and perhaps all, depending on how the CBO scores the law knowing what we know now, including the mandate tax, can be repealed the same way.

And the shouts of "not fair" will fall on deaf ears.

If it was fair for the D's to pass a law using reconciliation, it's not only equally fair to repeal it the same way...it's a beautiful example of poetic justice.

You're right about the filibuster as it applies here. I was wrong.

Still, unless Romney wins in the fall; it simply doesn't matter since the veto looms and neither side will have the 2/3rds majority/

 

[candycorn]

Since this has been ruled a tax, filibusters are no longer an issue.

Sure they are... since bills must pass both houses last I checked. Additionally, since Obama will win the 2012 election, the veto/repeal question comes into play as well.

I am taking avitar bets on the election....you seem confident.

Wanna bet on the outcome ?

I prefer sig lines. The avatar thing is more subject to the TOS, size of the picture, it may affect the loading speeds of the screens, decency requirements, etc...

Lets just do sig lines...