Total Pageviews

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Is it the End of Obama Care?

As early as tomorrow the most conservative court since the 1930s will rule on the constitutionality of the “individual mandate" provision of the Affordable Care Act or to declare the whole Act unconstitutional. I think we can all agree that it will have an enormous economic and political impact.

I cannot sugarcoat the devastating blow it will be to the liberal agenda if ACT gets struck down. It will fall more on them than it will on the Democratic Party. That's unfortunate because liberals only make up 40% of the party and they didn't get the benefit of the pubic option or the single payer, In fact the latter two options did not have a representative at the table. The Blue Dog Democrats (conservative Democrats) did not support the Affordable Care Act and consequently lost their reelection bid; leaving the liberals the only group to blame. Why is this important? It gets down to the basics; the liberal’s reason for expanding heath care is their desire for equality and social justice. The best sign I saw during the Tea Party protest to health care, read “Spread my Work ethic..Not my wealth." Although the “individual mandate" was originally a conservative idea because it's at the core of " individual responsibility" of their beliefs but their civil libertarian side hates the government telling the citizen that they have to purchase anything. I saw a AP poll where 77% wants Congress to redo the legislation and 19% want doesn't want Congress to do a thing. It’s like any huge piece of legislation; it takes a bipartisan effort for it to be successful but the desire is not the same for both parties.

If any part of the Affordable Health care Act gets struck down, the Mitt Romney team will say that the reason for the high employment is that the president spent too much time on health care but that's not true. The Democrats passed the stimulus thinking that it would bring down unemployment but did not anticipate that governors would use that money to balance their budgets, lay off public employees, and that they did not want to start projects which couldn’t be completed without federal funds. The administration over sold the "shovel ready projects." I think the biggest mistake the administration made was thinking that the Republicans would work with them. President Obama was against the mandate during the campaign but was persuaded because he was told that the republicans would support it. The other mistake was not using the "public option" as a bargaining chip and making the deal with Big Pharma instead of having the option to buy drugs in bulk as the VA does. I have to give it to the GOP they won the message war by calling it "government run government health care" and it never was. The political rhetoric will drown out the fact that 30 million people will lose their health insurance if any part is struck down.

Several pundits still say that the legislation is too complicated and the four years it would take for the whole law to be in force was way too long. The reason for the four years was to not go the same path as Romney care. It takes at least four years to get the funding and the clinical and delivery system in place. The administration sent $5 billion to divide between all 50 states to set up temporary risk pools. This was done 90 days after the law was passed. Massachusetts made the mistake of immediately sending out 550,000 insurance cards but did not have the primary care capacity in place; consequently the ERS were always full defeating the cost savings of Romney care since ER care is a lot more expensive.

If the Supreme Court decision is another 5-4, some will see it as upholding the constitution while others will see as partisan politics. President Obama could use the decision to galvanize his base saying " we 've got work to do because the GOP will not take up the mantle." Mitt Romney does not have that option because 5 of the justices are conservative if the unlikely happens.

 What do you think; am I partly right,way off base or somewhere in the middle?


Mike said...

I forgot to explain how the future of the Democratic Party has to do with health care...If the national Dems think they have a shot to revive the ACT they will have to recruit more progressives at the state and national levels because conservatives Democrats will just hinder any progress because their constituents will not want them to cooperate....If there isn't any hope then they can take anyone.

born2Bme said...

I can't even begin to say what will happen. It can go a couple of ways.
Republicans could very well win the battle on this one, but may lose the war in the process. We have a lot of people that will be beyond angry if what they have gained is taken away. We had a chance of taking most people off of public healthcare and putting them on private policies, but in their quest to make President Obama look bad, the Republicans have lost site of why that is a good idea for themselves and their pocketbooks.
I guess, or hope, one day they will look at the big picture, but I'm thinking that is a lost cause.

Mike said...

Peggy Noonan said the sad thing that The Republicans don't have a plan B and neither does the Democrats...So, the Democrats gave to come up a plan B when they didn't get any help with plan A? The democrats will want to expand Medicaid and 10,000 people are coming into Medicare everyday but Paul Ryan's budget will put a damper on that.

Another republican representative said that the GOP wanted a market based solution..Huh?

What does he think this is...We still use our doctors, insurance companies and hospitals..

If not tomorrow it'll be Wednesday when the ruling comes down...I'll be looking at the vote and the Supreme Court dissenting opinion after I read the verdict.

Edith Ann said...

Have you seen this?

born2Bme said...

Republicans won't be happy until "everyone" and everything is controlled by big business. It's going to come to no one actually getting a paycheck or even owning their own homes, but everything going somewhere where "they" have total control over how it is spent.
Republicans complain about loss of our freedoms, but what they are trying to get done is so much worse. Where do they think all of the poor, and now middle class, people are going to go when they need help? What I see is that they want everyone dependent on something outside the government so they can have a hand in what happens. Government is stopping them from getting their hands on all the money and control.
It's no accident that normal savings accounts draw very little interest, forcing people to place their money at risk if they want anykind of meaningful return.
Yep, slavery coming back, or should I say, it is already here.

dale said...

Several of the health companies I sell for have indicated they will stick with the wellness provisions of Obama Care.

The way I see, Obama Care was designed to fail. Insurance companies are not like government, they must show a profit. The wellness feature was bound to have a huge first year usage. As such, the usage would be passed along as increased premiums. I saw many of my customers (me included) see 20-30% premium increases. So much of affordable healthcare.

Nothing which Obama supported would be praised, regardless of the merits. Todays D and R are just like that. "If I can't win, no one will win."

I hardly can say this Supreme Court is the most conservative. Bush the Younger had one more "conservative" pick as I recall.

Good thoughts, Mike.

dale said...

Perhaps overseas outsourcing will offer us another option:

Press 1 for Pakistani
Press 2 for Indian
Press 3 for Spanish with an Indonesian accent.

We Republicans are truly about choices. The multi-national corporate market will prevail Mike. If you like Obama just wait until you get Romney.

Mike said...

There is no question that the GOP wants to privatize everything to our deprivation.

I don't expect anyone to take my word for it but I ask them to look at the Ryan budget...This is a newer far right GOP that will not waiver.

Mike said...


That was a good read and I hope the state Dems look to that article for inspiration.

Mike said...

I agree with your "Obama Care was designed to fail" but for more reasons than you pointed out...You see, we are getting fatter and older and paying more per patient but getting less for it and this law cannot take all the steps to prevent that.

Nationally, the insurance rates went up by 8% but it wasn't really all about preventative care because there still a lot of people who have yet to come into the program... There are some thoughts that insurance companies were raising their premiums before the law was a fully implemented. For instance, if the law is struck down, the insurance companies would save $1.8 billion in refunds and because they did not spend enough money on health care.

A lot of people don't believe me but I don't think that healthcare is a marketable item... As you said "Insurance companies are not like government, they must show a profit.” I agree wholeheartedly but 20% of the people are paying for 80% of the medical cost; how do you expect the insurance industry to survive if they don't constantly raise their prices... The objective for republicans and democrats should be lower cost.

It's the most conservative court on how they ruled...The Justice Robert's has already ruled 88 times in favor of big business..No other court has brought up that many cases that involved corporations. ..They also gave us "Citizens United."

Mike said...

Word now is that it will be Thursday when SCOTUS will rule on health care but right now they have struck down some of Arizona's law and have said that Montana cannot forbid corporations from pouring all the money they want to influence policies under Citizen's United.

dale said...

Lower cost is the white elephant. How do we lower cost and who gets paid less?

I see alot of my client's doctor allowable costs. I wonder how the small practicioner can be expected to stay in business. The only way to make it on current medicare/private insurance allowable rates is to run a puppy mill practice. (Breed em fast and furious. Some will live, some will die but they are running them through the front door.) We have forced drs to become Walmart type providers. (No service, no quality and all foriegn made).

We will see in a day or so how much all of us have lost. The only winner may be the Constitutional declaration that many things must be left to the states. Heck, maybe federalism (and its huge expenditures) will be rolled back.

Mike said...

The Cleveland and Mayo clinics run a very successful "pay for services" instead of what we do...They pay the hospitals a block amount for say heart attacks and said hospital divides the amounts to doctors,overhead,drugs etc...but their patients are healthier and wealthier and may not mimic the rest of the nation.

My doctor and I love Medicare because it's straight forward and everything is spelled out. I don't know how he feels about pay and bureaucracy.

The states? We are already near DEAD LAST in health care;do you want us to win the race for the bottom?

Mike said...

(61 percent) of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.

(72 percent) of respondents wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees.

(82 percent) of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

Confusing as hell.... a new poll shows that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, most back its key provisions. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that absent the controversy of the individual mandate, strong majorities favor most of what is actually in the health care law:

It tell me that democrats are poor sellers or this poll is flawed.....What do you think?

born2Bme said...

I think the very people that this effects the most, don't have time to listen to the news or read a newspaper, so they just get bits and pieces of things from commercials and friends. They just don't understand what it is all about.

Mike said...

That's a good answer and is one that I will go with ...I really wish more Republicans would come in and tell me their reasons why they oppose this current bill..I never said it was a perfect bill;it certainly has it's flaws but it took years to straighten out Social Security.

Thanks Dale,wish there were more people like you.

Legion said...

Off subject, I never actual read the Citizens United ruling until today, all I knew was that corporation could make unlimited donations.

The other side of the coin is that the same ruling allows unions to make unlimited contributions also.

Yeah Unions have members , people, that pay dues and work for lots of different corporations.
Corporations are also made up of people, investors that invest, employees that just might be union employees and all the investor and employees dependents.

So, minus election reform, it seems like a wash. Except for the union employees who s union donates to to a candidate and who s employer donates to the other candidate.

All everyone has said about the ruling is that corporations are now people, no one ever mentioned that unions are regarded as the same.

Mike said...

This is what I'm hearing.

$235 million in ads protesting health care
$69 million in ads for the health care

Another poll CBS/NYT 

41% overturn the entire law
27% overturn mandate only
24% keep the entire law 

That's 68% to get rid of mandate

Only 2% understand the law

born2Bme said...

I thought of something else that just slipped my mind earlier.
Employers are also scaring employees with sad sob stories of if Republicans don't get into office, such-and-such will happen to their jobs, pay and benefits. I know, my son came home and told me what his boss told them. His boss actually told them how to vote. If it happened in one place, it is happening in other places

Mike said...

From the very start everyone I know has acknowledged that unions are allowed the same privileges ;I believe it's in the majority ruling of  the SCOTUS decision.

Labor unions only represent 11.4 %  of the private workforce and about 32% of public work force but those numbers are dropping. I see your point and I've never argued that 
Point but there no comparison in amount of money between the parties...The Las Vegas GOP sugar daddy said he might spend $100 million to defeat Obama.

Here is the problem for Democrats..They no longer have deep pockets because their donors to not want favorable EPA laws,bank regulations,or lower corporate and individual income tax rates...They will have to rely on Hollywood,trial lawyers and individual donors.

I think people fear that elections will be bought by the highest donor.

Mike said...

Wow,I didn't know that was happening ,born

Sugar Magnolia said...

Mike - add to your post at 4:02 a third scenario which I believe is at the heart of the opposition to this mandate, at least for me: I oppose a FEDERAL mandate for healthcare. Once again, the feds have way overstepped their boundaries and, like a little child, need their hands slapped and the American public and the SCOTUS to say "No, no!". This is the crux of the problem. This should be left to the individual states, NOT THE FEDS. Why have the democrats ignored this very basic fact?

Just as with Medicare/medicaid, Social security, attempted supreme court packing by FDR and myriad other examples of Feds overstepping boundaries, this is abuse of power by the federal government at its worst. I just wanted to throw out this thought to you, as I haven't seen it even mentioned.

The Arizona/immigration law that the SCOTUS ruled on today is an example of what the federal government SHOULD be in charge of - securing our borders. In fact, this is one of the original "job descriptions", if you will, of the federal government. This is a matter of national importance, with borders north and south encompassing many states. Health care, while also a national concern, is best left to the discretion of the states and their residents, just as car insurance. It is just a whole different matter.

That's just my opinion, but I do believe it is a big factor in the opposition of which you speak.

Legion said...

What born said is nothing new, way back when I heard from my boss, (family), "we have to get Mark White out of the governors office."

It wasn't a order, hell, I didn't even vote that year.

Legion said...

To what Sugar said, a lot of the insurance company s are going to keep parts of AHC no matter how SCOTUS rules.

Mike said...

Good answer Sugar ,and I can see the opposition to the individual. Mandate as the president did originally and so did Nancy Pelosi but since it was an idea that was originally a conservative idea the Dems were duped into thinking it would bring over some GO P votes..
Bad idea and now it will probably be rightfully strict down.

The Feds will always have a say in health because of Social Security,Medicaid, VA, and Medicare but I'm not keen on it being a state issue because With a few exceptions I don't think they can handle it but that's just my opinion....Thanks for your input.

Mike said...

Today,SCOTUS told Montana that it could not have their own version of Campaign Reform.and that's a conservative state.

What if SCOTUS strikes down the whole ACT?

I got angry when my church told me who to vote for.

Edith Ann said...

If healthcare is left to the states, every time there is a change in leadership, folks will have their healthcare jacked with. It is much more efficient to have a federal guideline.

Besides, look what Perry did to the children of Texas--he hijacked the funding (federal) for their coverage and used it to fill the gaps in his crappy budget.

Mike said...

That's possible and if an employee moves his plan will change. The president has said "if the sates have a better plan;send it up and let's look at it" because the goal is costs and healthy people.

dale said...

"Besides, look what Perry did to the children of Texas--he hijacked the funding (federal) for their coverage..."

So I finally will admit to being a Libertarian-like R mentality. You have a kiddo, take care of your kiddo. You choose a cell phone over breakfast for your kiddo. Tough, let em go hungry. You choose a cable tv over doctor visits for your kiddo's allergy. Tough, let em have a stuffy nose. Your kiddo has horrible grades in school cause you were not there for him. Tough.

The responsibility of raising your kiddo is not mine. For 50 years the feds have been raising kiddos via free breakfast, free lunch, wic, chip and the kids (now adults) are worse than before the Johnson Administration. Prove to me the fideral government can raise a kid. They can not run medicare...but the politicians did run it into the ground. Paying for your kids health insurance is your responsibility...if Perry did that, he finally did something I'd agree with. (Rare)

Mike, you said something on EA about the world economy. Will you expand on that thought?

Mike said...


Yes, Governor Perry did borrow Medicaid funding to balance the budget and that's wrong.

Somehow the discussion always drifts back to individualism and the "I've got mine" mentality.

You don't like the safety net and I get that...I know you will always use one- sided hypothetical to emphasize your points but I'm not ready to paint with the broad brush as you always want to do. I think a prosperous country like ours should set aside funds for the unfortunate. I don't want to be the one going around monitoring my fellow human beings just to see if they are spending their money as I would like them to do. I don't think twice about feeding hungry children, in fact and there are about 2000 references in the bible about taking care of the poor. I’m going on a tit-for-tat with you...that's the worst kind of class warfare imaginable to mankind...IMO

You might check your history; the Federal government has been around to help the most vulnerable since the Civil War..Probably even before that.

Like I said before, I'm want to leave it there because I've had my 30 years of arguing with the Ron Paul/Ayn Rand mentality and them trying to justify selfishness.

As for my comment on EA's blog. Someone posted that the demand for Caterpillar's heavy equipment might wane; leaving us in a bind . As the oil boom did in the 70s....CAT is a Fortune 500 company and a world leader in producing heavy equipment; if the demand for their equipment falls, then we have a word financial crisis on our hands because no one is building. CAT leaving or them being in a downturn will be the least of our problems.

Mike said...

Don't you just love the English language: You can make a reasonable case for the individual mandate but I'm not holding my breath.

"But what would a middle way of resolving the case look like? Perhaps something like this: The court could opine that an “individual mandate” that compelled Americans to engage in commerce with a private party is unconstitutional. But, the court could say, this law does not actually force anyone to engage in commerce. As I noted last month in Washington Post, “Given the relatively modest payment required of those who choose not to maintain insurance, no one is being forced to buy a product they don’t want.”

The law’s challengers have responded that the mandate is a binding requirement that makes anyone who goes without insurance a lawbreaker. Here is where the court could give a theoretical victory to the challengers: By saying that if you did read the law that way—as its text seems to suggest—as making lawbreakers out of those who don’t acquire health insurance, it would be unconstitutional. But we don’t read it that way, the court could say. We read it as nothing more than an incentive to purchase coverage. No one is compelled to make a purchase from a private party because they can choose, instead, to pay a relatively modest penalty that never exceeds 2.5 percent. This makes the decision about whether or not to have insurance a genuine choice, not a compulsion.

At this point, a compromise-prone majority would have a couple of choices. The first would be to accept Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s astute suggestion that the court avoid the constitutional issue by reading the law as giving a real choice to citizens: Have insurance or pay a modest penalty. Either way is compliance, not lawbreaking, the solicitor general says. Or the court could decide the text does not permit that reading but the Constitution compels it. The provision stating that everyone must obtain coverage or be a lawbreaker is unconstitutional, but the linked provision imposing modest financial incentives to have coverage is acceptable and can stand. (I advanced this thought at a recent session of the American Constitution Society and soon learned that I was not the first or only person to make this suggestion. See, for example the similar thoughts of Joey Fishkin and Jonathan Cohn.)

So a compulsory mandate would be unconstitutional but a financial incentive that leaves the choice to the individual would be OK. The practical effect would be to uphold all the operative provisions of the Affordable Care Act, while firmly planting a liberty flag that would limit future Congresses.

Edith Ann said...

Dale, I am only going to go here once because you know how it turned out the last time we had this discussion.

First, Mike, Perry didn't borrow anything! To borrow implies that you will return, and Perry has no intention on returning anything. He STOLE the funding. Perry gutted the CHIP insurance program.

Now, Dale, Mike is right about your thinking on any kind of safety nets. And for the most part, I have no problem with anyone taking care of their obligations. But why would we punish a family where the parents are perhaps under-employed? Or children who have a disabled parent? Or soldiers missing limbs and with disabilities that prevent them from obtaining employment?

I often wonder, but will never really know, how many Catholics are on some kind of governmental assistance. I would suspect it is a bunch--after all, to hear some tell it, folks are only having babies for two reasons. The Catholic Church doesn't use contraception, and the state pays you to have babies. Sounds like a match made in heaven if you ask me!

It never occured to me that purchasing CHIP insurance for a child (yes--the parent does not get this free) would be considered by some to be the equivalent of someone else raising my child. When I write that check to Aetna--who's raising my child then? That corporation that the Supreme Court has declared a person?

You republicans are just fucked up!

Mike said...


I agree in part that borrowing from Peter to pay Paul can be considered theft;especially an entitlement....If we take them at their word, it's an IOU. I get it because many said LBJ stole from SS and put it into the general fund....Now, our Social Security Fund is one great big..IOU

"Legislators left a nearly $5 billion unpaid tab for Medicaid, which they planned to cover in 2013 with any unexpected revenue or the $7 billion rainy day fund. The funding ignores the likely growth of enrollment in Medicaid."

I don't know if the "rainy day fund" was left as collateral. i doubt it;it's one of those "trust me" things.

Mike said...

I think it's high time to put that myth "The Catholic Church doesn't use contraception" into the fiction section where it belongs...Sure, that's what the hierarchy and the unofficial ambassadors(posters) would like everyone to believe but catholic females are no different than their protestant and yes, atheist sisters when it comes to birth control. Very few true believers..... If they had to come forward, the lines of the confessional booth would be miles long ...:-)

Edith Ann said...

From Matthew 25:31-46:

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

One day, when I get to heaven, I do not want to have to explain why I didn't do for the least of my brothers. I don't believe there would be any excuse available that would sufficiently explain my lack of compassion and servitude. I would not want to look Mother Theresa in the eye after having been so self-serving and selfish.

There are many non-Catholics who live their religion with conviction. For those who have never had to rely on anyone but themselves, who have never been in a position of needing something out of their reach, I do truly hope you understand how truly blessed you are. And how it can change in the blink of an eye. Just ask a hurricane victim, a war vet, the children of a random homicide victim.

Mike said...

Can I have an Amen..:-)

Seriously,if you check ,you will see that the churches are overwhelmed and their shelves are bare, charitable contributions are way down, and it's so bad that I doubt Kenneth still carries that extra sandwich to give to the first homeless person he meets.

At 8.1% unemployment leaves about 5 people competing for every job available.

No jobs,no charity and no government handouts =?

Mike said...

This year, a number of Democrats won't be in attendance. West Virginians Sen. Joe Manchin, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Rep. Nick Rahall -- all of whom are running for reelection in 2012 -- aren't going to the convention.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) joined the growing group of Democrats who will skip the Democratic National Convention,
Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Reps. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Mark Critz (D-Pa.) also plan to stay away.

Why are they Democrats? why should they get DNC money?

Mike said...

Fast & Furious is a hoax according to Fortune magazine...I 'll read the article and will write a blog about it after the Health Care decision tomorrow.

born2Bme said...

Looks like the changes have been made over at the VA

Edith Ann said...

Because I stay signed in on FB, it automatically has my FB stuff at the start of the comment box. I should try my FB Edith Ann page profile and see what that does. I noticed that some comments are in a category of 'unverified'. One was Riverboat's. And I noticed David JB Webb aka JasonBourne aka tstorm5 made a comment, but it is not anywhere on the story. Perhaps he is the first of the 'fake account' casulties?

Jacked up, for sure! End of the forum? Most likely.

Mike said...

I imagine we will see some inconsistencies throughout the day as VA tries to sort this out..Webb,aka jasonbourne, comments can be seen if you go to "more comments" ...It shouldn't be too hard not many are commenting but that will pick up as people get familiar with the new format or not.

It'll be interesting to see if a banned poster will sneak through once again on day 1.

Mike said...

That's interesting because since you have a FB account you might have more access than a non FBer becuase I cannot see Riverboat's comment.

Mike said...

I see now,if you are a FBer your comment will be featured on front page ;if not you are dumped into the unverified tab...nothing changed..IMO...The unverified might be the most

10 or minutes on how my day will go...:-)

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rebecca said...

I was thinking that I might enjoy the unverified section more! I'll have to bookmark it! It will be like the hidden corners of the site, where people smoke cigars and occasionally break out in a fist fight.

Mike said...

"Where people smoke cigars and occasionally break out in a fist fight” that's a pretty good description...It reminds me of a program we had in South Korea

...We got a new commanding general who got permission to start a program to clean up our after-hours image..We were all issued a great big patch to wear on our uniforms. We were in the 7th Division, so the patch was a great big "U/7 "meaning "you and the seventh division; meaning that if a soldier did not get into any trouble, he would get the privilege of wearing that patch...A month or so later we all noticed that it was mostly the sissies (as we called them) who were proudly wearing them..It wasn't something that our immediate supervision kept up with, so soldiers were taking off the patch weather they got in trouble or not because they did not want to be associated with those who did not go the program died pretty quick.

dale said...

When I want an unpopular law explained well, Mike is my news commentary source.

It is a sad day for individual responsibility...but heck this is 2012 America. Without Big Brother, I can not survive.

Mike said...

Reads like a backhanded compliment but I have yet to really comment on the decision.

What I do know is that the law was always constitutional as long as you called it a tax ,which we know is a role of Congress...The penalty phase won't be implemented until 2014.

Democrats and the president cannot gloat because this ruling might make some angry enough for another 2010 mid term election to get a veto proof Congress and Senate to repeal the law.

House leader Cantor said he would hold a vote to repeal in July but it will die in the senate.

The health care law still is a private sector run insurance program.

Mike said...

"CNN and Fox News were left with egg on their faces on Thursday, as they got the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's health care law wrong.
The trouble started early for CNN. Congressional correspondent Kate Boulduan read out part of the Court's ruling, which said that, the individual mandate could not be upheld using the Commerce Clause. Disastrously, though, it failed to pick up the other part of the ruling, which said that it could be upheld as a tax."

I was watching CNN as they made their initial announcement and I was about to turn off my TV but I switched over to MSNBC, who were still awaiting the decision..To my surprise (about 5 minutes later) I was really confused as they announced the Health Care Law was upheld. I went over to CNN where they were profusely apologizing for preempting the decision...The rush to judgment by Fox & CNN.

There's still a lot to read...It's on line.

Mike said...

A couple of funny tweets I received
Healthcare mandrake? WTF! Now can you see why I got out of government work? I don't think we even have mandrakes in Alaska. Obama is insane.

Sarah Palin

Thank you, CNN, for letting me experience how the Republicans must feel right now for 30 seconds.

From a tweet by the handle of LOCALGOP

dale said...

It was a true compliment. You are normally right on the Left.

You are correct... happy folks normally will not vote. Angry folks vote. And I will get a Romney WH, R - House and hopefully a D - Senate. And all the House and Pres have to do is "de-fund" the Act and bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the Rs have never figured out that political ploy. But they always fall for the Ds "Lets be Bipartisan" and get along.

Congrats on your win. :(

Edith Ann said...

Dale--you think Romney will win now?

Go leek at the letters from Texas Blog off my blog and look at the Romeny clip about his thoughts on the indivisual mandate.

born2Bme said...

I cannot see anywhere where you can leave a "unverified comment".

Everything I've tried comes up with FB

Mike said...


I'm not sure happy and content folks will sit out of a presidential election but if President Obama doesn't make the case of why it's important for them to vote;you might be right.

So you are a MY Way or the Hi way instead of bipartisan?

I'm still very surprised by the vote but pleased it was Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote.

Mike said...

Have you tried putting in your email address in...Never mind, they changed it since this morning..Now I get a blank box and blinking cursor which is not requesting my email address.

born2Bme said...

The election can go either way at this point. It's all going to depend on which side gets the vote out and how honest the voting (think voter suppression) is in democrat-leaning states.
There are many people who do not like the ACA, but there are many that do.
There is a vast voting bloc out there that doesn't wear their preferences on their sleeves. They just act come election day.

dale said...

Being that we even have a discussion indicates I am not a My or Hi guy, Mike. But, bipartisian, probably not. I just can't get an entire house and senate full of MY representatives elected. HAHAHAHA. Sometimes we have to take what we get.

I helped with a congressman's campaign. At the end of the primary a fellow from Corpus Christi was sent to pick up the signs I erected. You think I am a conservative? This fellow is a 68 yr old redneck/cajun. To him... I am a "Mike the Liberal".

EA, and do I think Romney will get elected? Let us say, I will be praying for a miracle at the Republican Convention. By the hand of God, maybe it will be a brokered convention and RP has enough committed and leaning to... Romney/Obama. Romney/Obama. Beam me up EA.

Mike said...

Most of discussions at VA were with "my way or the hi way" Some people just want to leave their point of view.

That's a big dream,Dale.

Mike said...

The GOP Congress found Eric Holder in contempt 255-67 all GOP and 17 Dems and several Dems walked out in protest in this political stunt. Meanwhile 15 million people are still unemployed...Staying up late watching talk shows

born2Bme said...

Don't think it is a coincidence that it happened on the same day the ACA was upheld.

born2Bme said...

Oh, and the VA comments are rather boring, wouldn't you say?

Mike said...

The comments are rather bland and uninteresting...The NRA put pressure on the 17 Dems running in conservative districts... NO coincidence,they didn't want it to be the center stage.

born2Bme said...

Chris Cobbler is in there trying to make something happen...asking those lame questions just so people will post something

Tophat said...

Worse problem I have with the Facebook thing is now I don't know who anyone is. When it was a screen name, I knew what their slant on the world was.
Of course, I will not have a facebook account, so my wise ole thoughts will have to be posted elsewhere.

Mike said...

Good point Tophat,my sentiments exactly.

After all the years of "oh yeah,he would say that "to "ho hum."

I guess it will take some time.

Mike said...

KAVU should do more reading before going on the air...The reporter said Obamacare will enacted in 2014 .Wrong,it's in place now the mandate will take force in 2014.

Dr. Starkey  said it will be more expensive and some people will not be able to afford it but he didn't say that Medicaid will be expanded ,exchanges will start to take place etc.

I heard about a cap on a medicine bottle will be equipped with a sensor and wifi enabled to alert doctors and family if a loved one forgets to take will also alert pharmacy if medicine gets low...of course it will make meds more expensive.


born2Bme said...

Insert from a article at politico. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

But the law provides for subsidies for low- and middle-class people to buy health care in the new state exchanges. It’s on a sliding scale, with help available for families earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, currently around $92,000 for a family of four.

Some people are also exempt from the mandate on hardship grounds. That includes people so poor that they don’t have to file taxes (income around $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples) and people who have access to health care through a job but would have to spend more than 8 percent of family income to take it up (after employer contributions and federal subsidies are taken into account).

Read more:

Mike said...

I just heard that Montana is thinking about a single payer system.

The Democrats need to sell that info you submitted because the AHCis getting outspent in ads.
$235 million in ads protesting health care
$69 million in ads for the health care

Mike said...

I can post a blog at the VA but I can't comment since I don't have a Facebook account.


born2Bme said...

Didn't Chris say that we would still be able to post, but it just wouldn't be on the front page? They must have not gotten that bug worked out yet. Maybe you should send him a message and ask.

Mike said...

I sent a MSG to Jessica