Will Obamacare's Loss be Obama's Gain?

[Zander]

Obama touts his credentials as "a constitutional professor. He loses face if "Obamacare" is found to be unconstitutional. It will be devastating to Obama and the Democrats. There is no amount of "spin" that will change that..............

Well it won't stop them from trying. How effective it will be I don't know. I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the average American voter. Do you?

I do. I think the American voters are the best people in the world. They do get fooled from time to time.....Obama fooled us once.....he won't do it again. Especially after we caught him whispering away our national security. The emperor has no clothes...

 

[Polk]

Self delusion. The polls overwhelmingly show people already think the law is unconstitutional. But if it makes you feel better to believe this, go for it.

The polls show no such thing.

Pfft....according to Gallup even most Democrats think it's unconstitutional.

Americans Divided on Repeal of 2010 Healthcare Law

Because that question is not written in a leading way at all...

 

[Polk]

Obama touts his credentials as "a constitutional professor. He loses face if "Obamacare" is found to be unconstitutional. It will be devastating to Obama and the Democrats. There is no amount of "spin" that will change that..............

Do you really believe this? That there is some great mass of people who support Obama now but will change their minds over? Seems pretty far fetched, especially as the court is now seen as acting in a more partisan manner.

 

[Dragon]

LOL

POLL: 68% of Americans angry at Obama...

Americans angry with Obama over gas prices | Reuters

It's quite revealing that you see the stupidity of the American people as a cause for rejoicing.

 

[BluePhantom]

Because that question is not written in a leading way at all...

You crack me up Polk. First you argue "the polls don't indicate that the majority of Americans see the individual mandate as unconstitutional at all", then when evidence is provided that...well...yes in fact they do....then it's "oh well that poll sucks"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I want to toss out a line of argument here for consideration. For the purposes of this thread we will assume that Obamacare is doomed based on the SCOTUS hearings the last two days. Many have said this will be a critical blow to Obama. Personally I am not so sure. I think it can be used as an effective weapon actually. Consider the following strategy. Keep in mind it matters not whether any of this ir true or factual...only that it can be sold to the American people.

1) Obama will attack Romney on the grounds that the Republicans through the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (and by extension Romney) just took away 40 million people's health insurance, allowed people with pre-existing conditions to be denied care, etc.

2) After Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional it's possible that businesses will breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have a large financial burden awaiting them in the future. With this feeling of comfort and security they will likely start hiring again meaning unemployment decreases and the economy picks up steam.

3) Obama can argue that his economic policies are working if point #2 comes to fruition and therefore deserves a second term. Of course the exact opposite will be true: in that scenario the economy would start rolling because Obama's policies got throw out on their ear (and Romney will have to stick that point hard), but the average person will not make that connection and the media sure isn't going to point it out to them.

4) Health care will once again become a critical part of the general election campaign and most polls that I have seen show that people trust the Democrats more on that topic than they do the Republicans. Rasmussen , for example, has a two point edge to the Democrats on that issue. Obama will be able to bedazzle the voters with bullshit again and promise them ice cream cones and unicorns in regard to health care...and frankly they will fall for it again.​

Now I do think that Obama will take an initial hit when Obamacare goes down, but I am not so convinced that it will be a death bell tolling for him. I think he can use it to his advantage. And keep in mind I can't stand Obama so I am not engaging in liberal wishful thinking here.

Thoughts?

1) Romney can attack back saying "In massachussettes we designed a state level plan and I will advocate for each individual state to come up with their own plans to deal with health care like I already did. I'm a different republican as evidenced by romneycare"

2) Romney can point to the removal of the regulations in obamacare as being a catalyst for business to be doing better. He can then argue that if Obama didn't waste all that time and political influence on Obamacare, which in this hypothetical has been tossed out by the court, and instead focused on jobs and the economy we would have been even better off way earlier.

3) see #2

4) See #1, he can frame it as an issue for the states if the SC throws it out and not the federal govt (aka the president or congress)

 

[Polk]

Because that question is not written in a leading way at all...

You crack me up Polk. First you argue "the polls don't indicate that the majority of Americans see the individual mandate as unconstitutional at all", then when evidence is provided that...well...yes in fact they do....then it's "oh well that poll sucks"

Because most polls don't. You found a single poll with a highly skewed question and claim that shows the polls are on your side. Also, you claimed polls show the public overwhelmingly thinks it's unconstitutional.

 

[BluePhantom]

Because that question is not written in a leading way at all...

You crack me up Polk. First you argue "the polls don't indicate that the majority of Americans see the individual mandate as unconstitutional at all", then when evidence is provided that...well...yes in fact they do....then it's "oh well that poll sucks"

Because most polls don't. You found a single poll with a highly skewed question and claim that shows the polls are on your side. Also, you claimed polls show the public overwhelmingly thinks it's unconstitutional.

Oh ok.

"Do you think it is constitutional or unconstitutional for Congress to require
Americans to have health insurance?"

Constitutional 30%
Unconstitutional 62%
Don't"Know/Refused 8%
Total 100%​

http://reason.com/assets/db/13327241811317.pdf

That poll suck too? Tell you what....go find me one where most voters say it's not unconstitutional.

 

[Zander]

Not looking to good for Obamacare....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

 

[BluePhantom]

Not looking to good for Obamacare....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

here's two very critical quotes from that story:

"Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. "​

I am eager to listen to the audio today, but it seems like it's going well for opponents of Obamacare.

 

[Polk]

You crack me up Polk. First you argue "the polls don't indicate that the majority of Americans see the individual mandate as unconstitutional at all", then when evidence is provided that...well...yes in fact they do....then it's "oh well that poll sucks"

Because most polls don't. You found a single poll with a highly skewed question and claim that shows the polls are on your side. Also, you claimed polls show the public overwhelmingly thinks it's unconstitutional.

Oh ok.

"Do you think it is constitutional or unconstitutional for Congress to require
Americans to have health insurance?"

Constitutional 30%
Unconstitutional 62%
Don't"Know/Refused 8%
Total 100%​

http://reason.com/assets/db/13327241811317.pdf

That poll suck too? Tell you what....go find me one where most voters say it's not unconstitutional.

I don't know, you tell me. Would you accept a poll from Daily Kos? Because that's the equivalent of what you've got there.

 

[Polk]

Not looking to good for Obamacare....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

here's two very critical quotes from that story:

"Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. "​

I am eager to listen to the audio today, but it seems like it's going well for opponents of Obamacare.

If anything, that makes sound more likely the mandate will be upheld. The alternative is saying Congress doesn't have the power to regulate insurance.

 

[BluePhantom]

That poll suck too? Tell you what....go find me one where most voters say it's not unconstitutional.

I don't know, you tell me. Would you accept a poll from Daily Kos? Because that's the equivalent of what you've got there.

So in other words you can't

 

[candycorn]

I want to toss out a line of argument here for consideration. For the purposes of this thread we will assume that Obamacare is doomed based on the SCOTUS hearings the last two days. Many have said this will be a critical blow to Obama. Personally I am not so sure. I think it can be used as an effective weapon actually. Consider the following strategy. Keep in mind it matters not whether any of this ir true or factual...only that it can be sold to the American people.

1) Obama will attack Romney on the grounds that the Republicans through the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (and by extension Romney) just took away 40 million people's health insurance, allowed people with pre-existing conditions to be denied care, etc.

2) After Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional it's possible that businesses will breathe a sigh of relief that they no longer have a large financial burden awaiting them in the future. With this feeling of comfort and security they will likely start hiring again meaning unemployment decreases and the economy picks up steam.

3) Obama can argue that his economic policies are working if point #2 comes to fruition and therefore deserves a second term. Of course the exact opposite will be true: in that scenario the economy would start rolling because Obama's policies got throw out on their ear (and Romney will have to stick that point hard), but the average person will not make that connection and the media sure isn't going to point it out to them.

4) Health care will once again become a critical part of the general election campaign and most polls that I have seen show that people trust the Democrats more on that topic than they do the Republicans. Rasmussen , for example, has a two point edge to the Democrats on that issue. Obama will be able to bedazzle the voters with bullshit again and promise them ice cream cones and unicorns in regard to health care...and frankly they will fall for it again.​

Now I do think that Obama will take an initial hit when Obamacare goes down, but I am not so convinced that it will be a death bell tolling for him. I think he can use it to his advantage. And keep in mind I can't stand Obama so I am not engaging in liberal wishful thinking here.

Thoughts?

I don't see how he can portray this as anything but poor leadership. The Republicans should make good ground on this issue.

It's one thing if the do-nothing House or the do-nothing Senate derails him. When the Supreme Court slaps you down, you stay down and you really can't come back with "knowing better" even if you do, in fact, know better.

Thanks Founding Fathers.

 

[BluePhantom]

Not looking to good for Obamacare....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

here's two very critical quotes from that story:

"Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. "​

I am eager to listen to the audio today, but it seems like it's going well for opponents of Obamacare.

If anything, that makes sound more likely the mandate will be upheld. The alternative is saying Congress doesn't have the power to regulate insurance.

Well I just finished listening to today's arguments. I think you are engaged in some very wishful thinking. I have very little doubt at this point that Kennedy will vote to strike it down and his comments today are pretty clear that if the mandate goes, the whole thing must go. Certainly you never know until they issue their opinions, but unless I read this very wrong it's game, set, and match.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-393.pdf

http://mfile.akamai.com/81817/wma/supremecourt.download.akamai.com/81817/audio/wmafiles/11-393.asx

 

[kaz]

1. That assumes they'll strike down the whole law. It's far more likely they sever the mandate.

We'll see, but actually their choice legally because of the way the law was written is to strike it all down or none of it. Though the court only considers the constitution a suggestion so it could happen.

That's not accurate. The case law on severability generally requires a clause saying something isn't severable.

Nice try, but you have it backwards. There needs to be a severability clause and there isn't one.

People keep making this argument, but it doesn't make sense. Why would you drop coverage when there is a penalty for not providing in when you could drop it today without any penalty at all?

Good question. I'll answer your question then tell you what I already did. Two reasons.

1) The answer is you're missing part of the equation, which is all the mandates in the law will drive up the cost of insurance even higher. Since it's "typical" to pay half insurance, you can pay far more for all your employees, or cut it and pay nothing but a small fine. The fine is designed to be the correct size for that purpose, the Democrats wanted employers to drop coverage. Don't ask me what Republicans want, I have no idea. They are useless.

2) When changes like that are made, employees are more open to changes without backlash. For example, during recessions employers cut dead wood they wanted to cut before but couldn't because of a backlash.

So what many employers will do is give raises to employees that somewhat reflect what they pay now for the insurance for the employees weighted by their performance/value and wish them luck getting their own insurance.

What I did though was go to an HRA. My employees have their own policies. I have an agent, but he helps them get individual policies, it's not a company group policy. Then I pay 100% for their disability up to $100 a month and I pay 1/2 their health policy up to $500 a month. That way my liability is capped. Some go on their spouses policy, I still pay their portion with that formula. That way they get the insurance they want, but my exposure is capped. Insurance was killing me because I had no control before. I feel bad for the ones who have high premiums, but I can't solve the world's problems.

[/B]4. I don't think health care will be big campaign issue, but it could make the courts a winning issue for Democrats, between this case and Citizens United.

Self delusion. The polls overwhelmingly show people already think the law is unconstitutional. But if it makes you feel better to believe this, go for it.

The polls show no such thing.

According to Gallop, no friend of conservatives, 72% of Americans and 56% of Democrats think the mandate is unconstitutional. I never understand why liberals are so lazy. Google is your friend.

 

[kaz]

I think you are right. I was suprised by both Roberts and Scalia..however. Scalia especially because in recent interviews he's expressed some concern that the court was getting to involved in political scabbles.

Seems that was just talk for the media.

Sure, Democrats once again ignoring the 10th amendment is just a political squabble.

I think one good thing that might arise out of this..is that the right of a state having supremacy over an indivdual that the federal government doesn't have will be questioned

Obviously as a libertarian I don't like State or Federal mandates. But let's say one will have it and the other not.. Any liberty loving person would want the State to have it over the Feds. When the Feds do, you can't escape other then leaving the Country. The States are far more accountable to the people and at least you can chose then where you live.

Had you said the Federal mandate will make people ask why States should have a mandate I'd have agreed with you. But the way you phrased it, why should the States have a mandate the Feds don't have, that...is ridiculous.

 

[Dr.House]

Any leftist who believes 0bama will be elected in November if his precious 0bamacare is struck down by SCOTUS is just plain fooling themselves...

The "shining jewel" of his 4 years becomes null and void...

 

[kaz]

The polls show no such thing.

Pfft....according to Gallup even most Democrats think it's unconstitutional.

Americans Divided on Repeal of 2010 Healthcare Law

Because that question is not written in a leading way at all...

How is that question leading?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not looking to good for Obamacare....

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

here's two very critical quotes from that story:

"Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

"Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. "​

I am eager to listen to the audio today, but it seems like it's going well for opponents of Obamacare.

If anything, that makes sound more likely the mandate will be upheld. The alternative is saying Congress doesn't have the power to regulate insurance.

If they throw out the entire bill because of the individual mandate it does NOT mean the SC is saying congress doesn't have the power to regulate insurance. What it will say is that Congress at the federal level does not have the power to compel an individual to purchase a product from a private company.