I do laugh every time that Obama spells it out as simply as possible: He was against mandate but now realizes that it's necessary. It is nice to be constantly reminded that public policy is driven by elections in which the voters have no understanding of the issues.

I understand that it takes a few seconds of thought to understand, bu it's one quarter of the respondants in the poll.

Insurance only works if you can't buy it after you need it? That's hardly a flaw in the bill, it's the fundamental concept of all insurance.

One conservative radio host I heard on Wednesday said that the court ruling would be a harbinger on the election. Upheld, Obama wins. Struck down, Romney wins.

Thursday evening he mentioned nothing of the prediction. Only that the ruling has awakened the sleeping conservative giant who would now go out and vote in droves, leading to a Romney victory and the repeal.

Amusing story from one of the guys I employ. He works for me on the off-days when he's not on the job as a firefighter/EMT. Last night, they went out on a call. Arrived to find a guy who appeared to be on a substance of some sort. When asked who he had health insurance with, he responded, "Haven't you been watching the news today????? I got insurance through FUCKING OBAMA BABY!!!!!"

Is the only way this bill can be repealed is if Romney wins, GOP wins Senante and retains House?

News from The Associated Press

Yes. If the Democrats control either chamber they will not put the repeal up for a vote.

I think the GOP will probably take control of the Senate and retain control of the House so the best case scenerio at this point is Obama winning. (Or Democrats holding the Senate) Otherwise I have a feeling the GOP won't look at the election as a mandate to overturn healthcare but instead to institute more terrible ideas and laws. (While also probably coming up with an alternative to Obamacare that has more loopholes, more pages, and costs more money)

They need 60 in the Senate also, because they won't be able to change in through reconciliation.

Nah. If the GOP is in control of all three branches you can bet they'll find a way to bypass the filibuster so they can get shit done.

Agreed. As ridiculous as the whole 'you don't have to filibuster to filibuster' thing is, if either party were to control all three parts, I think you'd see some movement on a lot of these things. Until then, both sides will continue to throw shit on the other guy's wall in the hope that it stinks more than their wall.

Like in 2009? Or 1993?

I didn't like many of the things that were done in 2009, but I'd argue that it was a lot more productive than other legislatures that we've seen in recent times IMO.

Big donation here. Some were wondering where the money was coming from in recent donations. This guy hands out millions like it's candy.

AP source: Adelson giving $10 million to aid GOP | Fox News

Either party except the Democrats.

That's why I don't think the 4.5 mil Romney raised is a big deal. Before this campaign is over it won't be in the top 25 money days for the GOP.

Someone wrote an article on how much he stands to lose (because he is ridiculously wealthy), each year, if taxes go up on the highest earners and it was just a silly amount of money. I think it said that his per year tax would go up like $250M-$400M per year, so it is certainly worth it to him to spend that to try to keep status quo.

Romney's priorities.

Mission Impossible: Romney's ambitious first term agenda - First Read

Problem is that reconciliation can only be used to actually reduce the budget...since the CBO scored the ACA as budget reduction they'd have to do something to further reduce it in order to use reconciliation to get rid of it...which is, let's face it...laughable if you think they'd actually do that.

If R0omney wins and the GOP controls the Senate they'll make reconciliation mean whatever the fuck they want it to mean.

If Romney Wins
If they win the majority in the Senate
IF they maintain control in the house.

Thats a LOT of ifs just to think about the option. perhaps the GoP might want to think of something a lot less "iffy" as their real talking points. like the reality that they might get 1 out of those 3.

It's not really him, it's his company. The have a tax shelter overseas and he wants to bring that money back into the US. You have to pay taxes on that and he doesn't want to pay any taxes. Romney will likely put in a "tax holiday" to allow companies to bring in the profits they hoarded overseas tax-free. It's less about "taxes going up" and more on someone who believes he shouldn't have to pay taxes (but everyone else should!).

But the biggest reason is that him and his company have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department. The US is one of the only countries I believe that makes it illegal for you to bribe officials in foreign countries. They have allegedly been doing that for some time. That probably goes away with a Romney justice department. I'd wager not going to jail is worth a lot of money to someone with endless resources.

There is talk that this is over Israel which he is a huge supporter of. But Romney and Obama's plan on Israel aren't too different. So I don't think that fuels his donations.

Also, I don't know if we're going to start an election thread or not. But I've seen a lot of smart people write about how Romney has to win Ohio. There is almost no scenario for him to win without Ohio. The electoral college makes things weird.

Obama won't win without Ohio either. Only four times in history has Ohio not voted for the winner.

I'm really looking forward to the rest of the year politically. I think this will be one of the more exciting elections for me.

Foreign policy is out, I don't think the GOP can attack him on WOT, Iraq or Afghanistan.

So that leaves domestic policy which is essentially the economy (whose responsibilty for the mess can be obfuscated), immigration and now healthcare (each party's stance is pretty clear).

I think both sides will be galvanized to vote. I predict a higher than normal turnout this year.

That sounds like SOP for a particular "conservative radio host" in general.

I think the big three states to watch this election will be Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. Romney probably needs to win all three and Obama probably needs to win 2 of 3 (although he can actually do it with 1 of the 3 if he holds the Mountain/West states).

Some polling results. Interesting how it changed from May, not sure I get why other than its more "real" now? Also nice that independents seem to favor.

Americans divided on health care ruling – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

If GOP wins Senate and retains House, budget reconciliation could be used. Obama may have to balance healthcare ACA with looming budget compromise. Looks like budget may be the next big thing.

Healthcare law still faces obstacles, beginning with election - latimes.com

I've REALLY never quite got this side of things - surely once you get to a certain level of richness it really doesn't matter if you pay a little more tax.

I couldn't see myself bemoaning paying an addition $400m in tax if I was earning $4bn a year ... I couldn't see anything which $3.6bn a year couldn't do that $3.8bn might myself ;)

(I mean seriously with that much money what is there you can spend it on - there are only so many holiday islands you can own ;) )

CBS's Jan Crawford confirms what many believed--Roberts switched his initial vote:

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

(It's amazing how frequently wisdom from, or about, professional wrestling comes in handy)

Interesting read. It sounds as if the SOP within SCOTUS is come up with initial thoughts, socialize them and try to convert others. Pretty amazing that this story (or some form of it) did not break prior to the public decision. I guess the "former law clerks story" really didn't have any merit.

Sort of sounds like a fancy way of avoiding an actual explanation.

Read a book abotu the Supreme Court a few years back after Roberts was added. The author seemed to imply exactly what happened here. That Roberts was never a sure lock to side with conservatives on all issues. That he was a huge historian and understood that the court needed to maintain legitimacy with the public. Obviously the health care issue wasn't going on at the time, but he did imply that he didn't think Roberts would overturn Roe vs Wade based on the same principles.

No, it's actually just an old adage (attributed to everyone from Arn Anderson to Jeff Jarrett but surely belonging to someone else I figure) that seems appropriate on occasion.

If there are people out there who believe there's such a thing as "too much money" then I doubt I'm going to get them to understand otherwise no matter what I say.

Nor did I figure I'm going to be successful in getting Mark to understand how utterly absurd I find a statement like "I couldn't see myself bemoaning paying an addition $400m in tax if I was earning $4bn a year". (Although I did briefly consider using the FOFC'ism "a million here, a million there, sooner or later it adds up to real money").

Frankly, I figure anybody who says something like that ought to be committed to an institution for the completely batshit fucking insane ... but that's not a very productive conversation either, since I lack the authority to put him away and I figure there's an extremely small chance that I could convince him to put himself away.

So ... I ran with the quick one liner instead.

I think a lot comes down to upbringing tbh - I've always been taught that if you're fortunate enough to have been lifted up by society to a position where you have wealth/success then you use it to help lift up those around you.

As such paying more tax doesn't terrify me now, paying it if I was a billionaire would affect me even less than paying a little more now does ...

The normal argument I hear from people who are against this this is "I've earned it - why should others get a 'right' to it" .... my stance is that no one earns something alone, I was helped to my current standing by the education system, health system and individuals in the world who made me what I am today.

As such giving back to others in appreciation of that is the right thing to do.

(its a bit like the Christian athletes who praise God for their accomplishments because without him creating them etc. they wouldn't have achieved them .... just put on a practical/earthly level)

I realize that many people in America don't want to help others - thats their choice, but I don't see my stance as absurd .... it just fits in with my moral view of the world.

Does this make me unusual - in some countries yes, bat-shit crazy ... I'd like to think no that most people want to help others.

I've noticed that about most conservatives... Talking to them about an issue has the same effect as talking to a table or lamp.

To be fair, the extreme left is the same way, but it seems more conservatives follow the 15 scripted plays philosophy. Even if it doesn't work or make sense, do the same thing, say the same thing. Why? Because it's right. Period. And if you disagree with it one bit not only are you wrong, but you hate America.

Please don't confuse my criticism of "tax" with criticism of "charity". Those are two different animals.

Come to think of it those aren't even both animals, but you get the idea.

:D

I do and I'm sure you're a very generous individual yourself.

The main difference is at least partially down to our upbringing, mine indicated that everyone within a society should help that society prosper; whereas in America the 'cult of the individual' is more prevalent ....

With any belief that society should look after itself comes responsibility for all - allowing some to avoid that responsibility (ie. relying on peoples generosity/charity) is a bad thing as it rewards the selfish.

Strangely this is somewhat in line with the common approach of Americans who decry those those they see as 'sponging' off others ... the only difference is that taxing forces people to be responsible and contribute towards others rather than act irresponsibly.

Its all a matter of perspective and what people see as good/bad, efficient/inefficient etc.

(as with most things a 'middle ground' is usually the best solution between ideaologies, extremes tend to neglect one area of another - its finding the happy balance which is the challenge imho)

This set off a random "hmm" with me, an extremely minor one really but wth, I'll ask anyway.

One of the oldest phrases (referring to gov't programs) I'm familiar with would be "on the dole". My understanding is that the phrase dates back to WW I and originates with the U.K., and specifically with unemployment benefit(s). I think the Americanized usage extends to various gov't programs more generally though.

It's a phrase that's fairly innocuous when used here but I've always considered it to carry a fair amount of derision under the surface.

Anyhoo, my question is simply this: would you say the phrase is less pejorative when used in the U.K. as opposed to it's usage here? I just can't get past the image of Onslow & Daisy ;)

I'll take unexpected references for a thousand.

What? 80% of what I know of British culture comes from the various Britcoms that PBS imported about a decade after they originally aired ;)

"Are you free?" :D

There is definitely some stigma to being unemployed in England - in that people are expected to try and contribute towards themselves and society.

Exactly how much tends to depend largely upon the situation and individuals involved really, the most someone can relate to someone in that situation the lesser the stigma imho.

I think generally the English mix between classes/races more and so there is probably stigma in this regard simply because you're more likely to know someone within that social sphere personally (which helps you understand its not a 'luxury lifestyle' ;) ).

I grew up raised by a single mother, she attempted various jobs and set up some companies (which invariably stumbled along for a few years before failing) and also spent some time unemployed - as such I can relate quite well to people from most backgrounds I think - personally I don't associate much stigma to being 'on the dole' myself.

In that case I sincerely hope you envision me as John Cleese from faulty towers :D

BASIL! BASIL!

FYI - back to the discussion of how healthcare polls

Handy way to put a number on the RINO's self-identifying as Repubs when polled I guess.

I guess I disagree that the individual needs override the common good when it comes to Americans. The politicians would love you to believe that, but I've found through my business that's not necessarily true. There's a very strong community bond in our area.

For example, our winery allows not-for-profit groups free rent on Monday through Thursday nights of a ballroom that otherwise would cost them a pretty penny. We do that because it helps out these groups greatly while allowing us to create a good relationship with those area groups. I suppose some would characterize that by saying that there's obviously a tax benefit. I personally get a great feeling when these people come in and thank us, telling us how much more they'll make for their charities as a result of their free rental. It's like a drug in that you want to keep helping people once you start.

I don't necessarily think you intended any slander in any way by your comment, but I do think the generosity of our country can sometimes get lost in the political games that are played out in the media and on the internet.

Honest question. What if an ubber-rich guy didn't want to give any more money (than he is legally supposed to) to the US government because a lot of it is basically going to the military industrial complex. Would you support a humanitarian stance like that?

To be honest I wasn't intending to indicate anything negative - more that American's prefer 'individual freedoms' and that people volunteer charity/help/whatever on their own terms rather than have it dictated by a government.

The UK way is that obviously individuals can still make charitable acts - but a certain amount of items which are for society as a whole are incorporated in law through taxation and the like (for instance the National Health Service which is there to provide health cover for all).

The US way allows for more individual choice - but does mean selfish people get to not contribute with no adverse effects (unless you believe in Karma :D).

Sorry if I hadn't made that clear.