Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lucky View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by nots View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by nots View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by B-Fly View Post
          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?

          Comment


          • 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.
            "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." -NY Times

            "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts" - Joe Biden

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nots View Post
              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).

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cardboardbox View Post
                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".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Moonlight J View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Moonlight J View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by nots View Post
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by nots View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • "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....
                          finished 10th in this 37th yr in 11-team-only NL 5x5
                          own picks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 in April 2022 1st-rd farmhand draft
                          won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84

                          SP SGray 16, TWalker 10, AWood 10, Price 3, KH Kim 2, Corbin 10
                          RP Bednar 10, Bender 10, Graterol 2
                          C Stallings 2, Casali 1
                          1B Votto 10, 3B ERios 2, 1B Zimmerman 2, 2S Chisholm 5, 2B Hoerner 5, 2B Solano 2, 2B LGarcia 10, SS Gregorius 17
                          OF Cain 14, Bader 1, Daza 1

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by eldiablo505
                            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.
                            If DMT didn't exist we would have to invent it. There has to be a weirdest thing. Once we have the concept weird, there has to be a weirdest thing. And DMT is simply it.
                            - Terence McKenna

                            Bullshit is everywhere. - George Carlin (& Jon Stewart)

                            How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are? - Satchel Paige

                            Comment


                            • "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...
                              finished 10th in this 37th yr in 11-team-only NL 5x5
                              own picks 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 in April 2022 1st-rd farmhand draft
                              won in 2017 15 07 05 04 02 93 90 84

                              SP SGray 16, TWalker 10, AWood 10, Price 3, KH Kim 2, Corbin 10
                              RP Bednar 10, Bender 10, Graterol 2
                              C Stallings 2, Casali 1
                              1B Votto 10, 3B ERios 2, 1B Zimmerman 2, 2S Chisholm 5, 2B Hoerner 5, 2B Solano 2, 2B LGarcia 10, SS Gregorius 17
                              OF Cain 14, Bader 1, Daza 1

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Judge Jude View Post
                                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.
                                "Looks like I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue.
                                - Steven McCrosky (Lloyd Bridges) in Airplane

                                i have epiphanies like that all the time. for example i was watching a basketball game today and realized pom poms are like a pair of tits. there's 2 of them. they're round. they shake. women play with them. thus instead of having two, cheerleaders have four boobs.
                                - nullnor, speaking on immigration law in AZ.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X