Come up with another plan that they'll have to oppose as soon as democrats voice any support for it? I don't think so.

Ugh. That is just so hard for me to read. I feel like the GOP just got the Dems to do their dirty work (it's their plan, after all) and now they can even run against them and this evil specter that doesn't exist. Once again, this just proves that *half the Dems get their lunch eaten every time they try to go head to head with the GOP while the other *half are in total collusion.

SI

*half/half figures not exact

Another cost saver: Hospitals seeing less uninsured patience, less unpaid medical bills, and better income overall, which in theory should lower hospital prices in general. Of course, I have very little faith in the medical and insurance business in general. They always seem to seek the easy profit over the better health of the customer.

Great line.

What I don't like about the court is all these 5-4 rulings. I sort-of imagined the SCOTUS as this great collection of legal minds that arrived at a consensus.

Of course, I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, either, so I'm not surprised.

I think people will be surprised how much their insurance bills will rise in 2014. I doubt this decision will have much effect on the 2012 election, but the mid-terms will be murder on the Democrats, because the law will affect unemployment rates (higher hiring costs, especially for small businesses) and we'll remain in this uncertain jobless recovery period.

The big battles, for now, remain in the pension and benefits costs related to public-sector unions. Stockton filing for bankruptcy is a far, far bigger story than the media has afforded it.

Anyway, of course it's a tax. I was surprised that Obama denied that so vociferously when he was campaigning for the law. He has more of a legal background than most presidents, so he would understand the subtleties. If you take the purchasing decision out of the hands of the individual, whether it's for police protection, insurance or a new city hall, it's a tax.

Hmm?

That's what I worry about too, but I'm glad it will have a chance and can be tested so it won't become a part of eternal Democratic party lore simply as something that "would have saved everything and been great if not for meddling Republicans", which has pretty much been the party slogan since 2000, how great their ideas are in theory if they could ONLY ever figure out how to enact more of them.

I'm also glad the Commerce Clause apparently still means something.

The main argument is pretty much what you stated: The government forcing its citizens to buy a product. That's the biggest problem I have with the whole thing, besides the fact that it was ramrodded through congress and signed by Obama. I'm sure nothing was overlooked.

I would have no problem with the individual mandate IF and ONLY IF, health care providers, every single one of them were no longer 'for profit' businesses'.

There are many in the insurance industry who agree, in theory. There's even a push within many insurance giants to heavily market and subsidize preventative care as a mechanism for being able to offer lower rates and gain a competitive advantage.

Of course, the boards look at the more immediate bottom line and don't give the visionaries free reign.

The trouble with the entire industry, though, is that there's a disconnect between the increasingly-regulated health insurance and private medical practices. As one grows, so grows the need to regulate the actual cost of this health care.

How do you do that without making all doctors government employees?

This is where I want to end up too. Unfortunately I'm not sure it is feasible to think we could get there in one step. I think it's a multi-step process, and this was the first one.

It's only proactive if our country takes better care of itself from eating, exercising, and living a healthier lifestyle in general. We also have a rather large aging boomer population that is going to require more and more care, which adds up.

What about illegals?

RT @kaylawebley Length of the decisions: Roberts' opinion is 59 pgs, Ginsburg's is 61 pgs, the dissent is 65 pages. Justice Thomas? 2 pages.

Which sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. However, I've heard zero mention of that. Though, I think it would be disastrous if they did it cold turkey. I mean, look how hard it is just to get an accurate itemized statement from one of them. I think their brains would explode if they had to do it all at once. :)

Word.

SI

I read that there's a method to Thomas' madness on this one. He thinks the original ruling on the commerce clause way back when was incorrect so any time it comes up he basically says "I believe that Herp vs. Derp was adjudicated incorrectly and therefore strike down this bill." in 200ish words.

I'd be happy with a single public option plan as an alternative to the for profit companies.

My only concern with that would be a quality issue with that system. No competition, just like cable companies, would mean that they don't have to worry about the quality of their services.

So there's the rub. How do you maintain quality without dangling the carrot of profits in front of a company? I honestly don't know.

Oh, Rand Paul...

Rand Paul on health care ruling: 'Obamacare' is still unconstitutional - POLITICO.com

"Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what’s constitutional.

The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court’s health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a “couple people"

So now BHO will have to flip-flop on his long held position that Obamacare isn't a tax?

Checks and balances...checks and balances, Rand. It's not that difficult.

Woo woo - BHO-time!!

Good - clearly laying out what the ruling means to ordinary people. Poll after poll shows that the underlying components of the plan are BROADLY popular across all breakdowns of voters.

No. He can disagree with the reasoning for the court's ruling, while still being happy that it was upheld.

Don't give Rand a hard time, he's too busy attaching amendments to student loan bills. Like the one he did yesterday once everyone agreed to keep student loan rates lower, where he scuttled the bill by adding an amendment defining life as beginning at conception. Because that is important to student loan rates.

Eh, whoever doesn't like any given opinion sees problems with the system itself and a "couple of justices". (See Citizens United). If you disagree with the policy an opinion creates it's usually attacked as "political" or "activism".

LMAO - ZING!!!

Obama points out that the mandate has enjoyed support from members of both parties "including the current Republican nominee."

He's a "libertarian" after all.

Every Sperm is sacred.

EDIT

Obama knows the different between state and federal, he's just pandering to those who don't. It's not inconsistent to believe in a mandate at the state level (or even as a policy at the federal level) but also believe its unconstitutional for the federal legislature to carry it out.

No he isn't but don't let facts get in the fact of trying to put down libertarians and their wackyness!

Which should be held less decisive than the opinion of one man, Rand Paul

Meanwhile, in an alternate universe...

So I guess they just read the first part of the opinion and went live with it? The media is terrible at understanding and reporting on appellate opinions, it's always better to read the source or give everyone a few minutes to get their act together.

To be fair, there are plenty of folks who think that the SCOTUS shouldn't be the only branch to determine Constitutionality of laws and that each branch has a co-equal duty in its determination. It is no doubt that the courts have taken far more power in interpretation since the passage of the Constitution (Thomas Jefferson was livid after Marbury v. Madison, saying the court had no power to invalidate laws).

Exactly. It's their never ending quest to "WE BROUGHT IT TO YOU FIRST!!". Sorry, I want my news accurate, not first.

Never mind that Thomas signed onto the main dissent. Why not criticize Alito or Kennedy for not writing anything supplemental?

Haha!

Biggest non-shock of my life.

Politwoops - Deleted tweets from politicians

*chuckles* It's kinda interesting to see some (now-deleted) politician tweets that were caught by the fakeout on CNN/fox

Stock market seems to like it.

Anyway, was reading about what it's going to cost the individual taxpayer - please tell me that they were smart enough to put the $250k jointly "means you're rich" is tied to inflation, unlike the stupid AMT tax.

Ramrodded? It was debated in the Dem primary. It was debated in the general election. It was negotiated for a year in the Senate. It passed by a large majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate.

How is that ramrodded?

What would you advocate?

The payment boards have great potential to lower costs. Broadening the pool of insured can lower costs. The focus on digital records can lower costs. There are a number of ideas in the bill with the potential to lower costs. There aren't any guarantees, but the only way you can guarantee lowering costs is to lower payments for providers or limit access, neither of which are politically feasible for either party.

It took less than a year for it to go from committee to Obama signing it from what I remember.

From wikipedia: "Beginning June 17, 2009, and extending through September 14, 2009, three Democratic and three Republican Senate Finance Committee Members met for a series of 31 meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill."

"signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010."

June 17, 2009 - March 23, 2010 = less than a year.

The scariest thing to me is the government's track record when they try to increase access to a privately sold product. (higher education, home ownership). Maybe it'll be different.

So, can somebody educate me on what this will do for myself.

24
Single
Student (For 2 1/2 more years)
On university health insurance, mediocre.
Single mom, low class, on disability.

Did I hit the key points?

Okay, but the discussion started in early March of 2009. For a bill, a year is an eternity of discussion. And this is after a year of discussion on the campaign trail.

A "ramrodded" bill would be the original Patriot Act.

Introduced into 8 House subcommittees: October 23, 2001
Passes House: October 24, 2001
Passes Senate: October 25, 2001
Signed into law: October 26, 2001

Let's be serious. Those tools in Washington don't read a thing of what they pass. Anyone claiming they didn't have enough time to is probably trolling.

All of those state universities are private? Interesting. The government forced the investment market to re-package subprime debt as an A+ instrument and over-leverage their positions? Interesting.

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it will actually work. Time will tell.

Didn't Nancy Pelosi herself say publicly that they needed to pass to bill to find out what's in it?