Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[nots]

Big win for proponents of national health care.

Bigger win for the large insurance companies.
Huge loss for those who believe in single payer. I'm sorry to say that we won't have that in my lifetime.
John Roberts with the big curve ball here--I guess its good to see the Judges will stray from their ideology from time to time.

[B-Fly]

Huge loss for those who believe in single payer. I'm sorry to say that we won't have that in my lifetime.

We wouldn't have seen that in your lifetime, regardless. Sadly, single payer is not achievable politically in the US. A S Ct decision striking down the entire ACA would have simply returned us to the status quo ante, which we'd be left with for the foreseeable future given the nature of our politics.

[Moonlight J]

Bigger win for the large insurance companies.
Huge loss for those who believe in single payer. I'm sorry to say that we won't have that in my lifetime.
John Roberts with the big curve ball here--I guess its good to see the Judges will stray from their ideology from time to time.

I'm with Fly as in single payer wasn't going to happen right now. Can't give up on it but at least we have something for now that is better than what we had.

[nots]

We wouldn't have seen that in your lifetime, regardless. Sadly, single payer is not achievable politically in the US. A S Ct decision striking down the entire ACA would have simply returned us to the status quo ante, which we'd be left with for the foreseeable future given the nature of our politics.

Maybe when he had an 80 vote majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, he could have pushed a little bit for it instead of selling out to Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
But we'll never know will we?

[cardboardbox]

In terms of election impact, this is exactly the result I wanted. Repubs should be a little more fired up in november with the promise of legislating obamacare away. On the other hand they could become demoralized but that usually doesnt happen until you get destroyed in a recall election.

[Moonlight J]

Maybe when he had an 80 vote majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, he could have pushed a little bit for it instead of selling out to Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
But we'll never know will we?

this is a bad talking point used by too many

that there were only two time periods during the 111th Congress when the Democrats had a 60 seat majority:

• From July 7. 2009 (when Al Franken was officially seated as the Senator from Minnesota after the last of Norm Coleman’s challenges came to an end) to August 25, 2009 (when Ted Kennedy died, although Kennedy’s illness had kept him from voting for several weeks before that date at least); and
• From September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 (when Scott Brown took office after defeating Martha Coakley);
• For one day in September 2009, Republicans lacked 40 votes due to the resignation of Mel Martinez, who was replaced the next day by George LeMieux

So, to the extent there was a filibuster proof majority in the Senate it lasted during two brief periods which lasted for a total of just over five months when counted altogether (and Congress was in its traditional summer recess for most of the July-August 2009 time frame).

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

[B-Fly]

In terms of election impact, this is exactly the result I wanted. Repubs should be a little more fired up in november with the promise of legislating obamacare away. On the other hand they could become demoralized but that usually doesnt happen until you get destroyed in a recall election.

This is the best result for both Obama and Romney. It allows Obama to show a big deliverable to his base rather than a year of political capital squandered for nothing. And it allows Romney to run on "repeal Obamacare" rather than being pressed to outline his own specific 'fix'. Thankfully, this is also the best result for some 17 million Americans without healthcare - and particularly those with "pre-existing conditions".

[B-Fly]

this is a bad talking point used by too many




http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did...-for-how-long/

Not to mention that Lieberman also had indicated a willingness to support a filibuster against single payer.

[nots]

this is a bad talking point used by too many




http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did...-for-how-long/

Um, not really. Sept-Feb is a fairly long time in a legislative calendar.
The President was never behind single payer. Pinning this on the Senate only having 60 votes for a part of a 2 year term, instead of the whole term is just excuse making.

[Moonlight J]

Um, not really. Sept-Feb is a fairly long time in a legislative calendar.
The President was never behind single payer. Pinning this on the Senate only having 60 votes for a part of a 2 year term, instead of the whole term is just excuse making.

I'm sorry the facts do not agree with your opinion. The way the 60 vote majority is portrayed, people think he had it the entire 2 year time when in fact he had it, putting vacations in to play, about 4 months out of 24.

They got Single Payer out of the House but the Senate had to reconcile stuff to get things moving forward. He could have pushed harder on Single Payer but there were a few other hats to juggle at the time and pushing for it would have required more time that wasn't there given the state of the economy and what not.

[OaklandA's]

Um, not really. Sept-Feb is a fairly long time in a legislative calendar.
The President was never behind single payer. Pinning this on the Senate only having 60 votes for a part of a 2 year term, instead of the whole term is just excuse making.

Many of us want single payer, but there was absolutely no chance of that happening. The polls from July 2011 showed the national support for a Single Payer health care system at just 35%. Although the number varies a lot, depending on how the question is asked. When asked about single payer, the support is 35%, but when asked for a system like Medicare, the support is closer to 50%. It will take more time for the country to evolve on this, just as we have seen with Don't Ask, Don't Tell and gay marriage.

[Judge Jude]

"particularly those with "pre-existing conditions". "

A conservative on Imus this morning said two things were staying no matter what happens with the court and the election. That above was one, and the "offspring can be covered under parents' plan under 26" was the other....

[DMT]

Romney campaigning against this thing is such a blatant example of hypocritical behavior it boggles the mind. What a buffoon.

Obama will skewer him with this.

[Judge Jude]

"This also strikes me as a slight "in your face" moment at those who laughed at the Team Obama performance during arguments. Obviously, those arguments worked."

Haven't had time to read enough on this, but my impression is that Roberts rejected the Team Obama use of the Commerce Clause as rationale for the law. Instead, he went with the "taxing power" angle that Obama has been trying to escape for a couple of years now.

That would imply that Obama's side won in spite of themselves, no?
They lost the battle but won the war, and all that...

[In the Corn]

Haven't had time to read enough on this, but my impression is that Roberts rejected the Team Obama use of the Commerce Clause as rationale for the law. Instead, he went with the "taxing power" angle that Obama has been trying to escape for a couple of years now.

That would imply that Obama's side won in spite of themselves, no?
They lost the battle but won the war, and all that...

The tax angle also provide Romney with some ammunition about what Obama will be bring about in increased taxes to the middle class.

I'm torn on this issue, as I see the need to have everyone insured, but see this as something that does take away people's independence to make decisions about how they want to engage in this area of commerce.