The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Could it be possible that the encroachments on, say, the 4th amendment are much more egregious than those on the 1st amendment and thus putting these together would be a false equivalency. Arguably, the first amendment has been strengthened recently with corporate money equaling free speech (which wasn't true 5 years ago) whereas we have had a significant number of fairly strong challenges to the 4th amendment.

SI

Whether something is an "egregious" violation is really a matter of opinion when the courts have gone the other way or haven't reached an issue yet. Ultimately those are just opinions based on what we want the end result to be. People value the rights that impact them, not the rights that impact other people. But again, any 4th Amendment issue that comes up in the courts, there's a segment of people who could care less about precedent, they will be for or against or the government every time, no matter what. Same thing when it comes to contraception or birth control or religion.

And Citizens United didn't hold that "corporate money equals speech." It held that money spent in furtherance of speech receives the same protections as speech. Same as any other activity that furthers speech. The best I've heard it explained was like this - the government couldn't ban using cardboard to make protest signs. They could ban cardboard altogether, but they can't target speech and ban cardboard that's used only for that purpose. I don't know how much of a strengthening of the First Amendment that is, but the idea that organizations have rights isn't some brand new idea.

[flere-imsaho]

Back to Hobby Lobby for a sec, but this stood out to me in Alito's decision:

The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs.

Given that Hobby Lobby both a) paid for plans that provided all forms of contraception prior to the passage of the PPACA and b) matches employees' 401k contributions to funds that include contraceptive-makers (and now apparently does its own investing in similar funds), this ruling sets an extremely low bar for proving "sincerity of religious belief".

This may not have concerned the majority given that they spent more time saying the ruling was restricted to "closely held" companies, but given that this accounts for 90% of American companies, that's not a particularly high bar either.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Given that Hobby Lobby both a) paid for plans that provided all forms of contraception prior to the passage of the PPACA and b) matches employees' 401k contributions to funds that include contraceptive-makers (and now apparently does its own investing in similar funds), this ruling sets an extremely low bar for proving "sincerity of religious belief".

.

The sincerity of its beliefs was not contested, so there's no new precedent there.

It's an uphill battle anyway to argue that an entity or individual is not expressing its religious freedom the "right way". If I value church but don't want to go during football season, or if I feel I can't provide plan b type drugs directly but am OK with all other contraceptives, and OK with providing retirement benefit options that include indirect investment in mutual funds that in turn invest in these drug companies, that's my call, my value determination to make, not the government's

[JPhillips]

Today the Supremes issued an injunction so that Wheaton College and a few other institutions don't have to file the paperwork that would allow plans to offer contraceptive coverage. In other words they undermined the very workaround they offered on Monday.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Today the Supremes issued an injunction so that Wheaton College and a few other institutions don't have to file the paperwork that would allow plans to offer contraceptive coverage. In other words they undermined the very workaround they offered on Monday.

Awesome. This keeps getting more and more fun (well, ridiculous). There's nothing realistically legal about this except it is because the highest court in the land says so capriciously.

SI

[Edward64]

Think a good move is to help Kurdistan gain independence/autonomy. This way Iran gets the Shiite mess and we have an ally (and oil) in Kurdistan.

Iraq: Kurdish president proposes independence referendum | World news | theguardian.com

Massoud Barzani, the president of the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, appears to have moved the country closer to partition after asking MPs to form a committee to organise an independence referendum.

An MP from the Kurdistan Democratic party (KDP) who was present at the closed session said Barzani did not offer a timetable, but it follows the Kurdistan president telling the BBC this week that a referendum was "a question of months" away.

"The president asked us to form an independent electoral commission to carry out a referendum in the Kurdistan region and determine the way forward," the MP, Farhad Sofi, said.

In his interview with the BBC, Barzani said the lightning advance of Sunni militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) through the west of the country with the Shia prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, left in control of Baghdad and the south, had reaffirmed the Kurdish goal of full independence.

"Iraq is effectively partitioned now; should we stay in this tragic situation that Iraq is living? Of course, we are all with our Arab and Sunni brothers together in this crisis, but that doesn't mean that we will abandon our goal," he said.

"I have said many times that independence is a natural right of the people of Kurdistan. All these developments reaffirm that."

The US has urged Barzani to stick with Baghdad, though the Kurdish leader said during a meeting last month with the US secretary of state, John Kerry, that it was "very difficult" to imagine Iraq staying together.

His call for preparations for a referendum came in the same week that Iraq's parliament was beset by walkouts when it met for the first time since elections in April. Sunni and Kurdish parties withdrew their MPs, ensuring the session collapsed, when Shia politicians refused to name their candidate to replace Maliki as prime minister before the Sunni and Kurdish MPs revealed their own nominations for speaker.

With Turkey's approval. I had thought the support was so that Kurdistan would be a buffer for the Iraq mess but its really to court votes.

Iraq: Kurdish president proposes independence referendum | World news | theguardian.com

Turkey has been dropping some serious hints that it could recognize an independent Kurdish state, and by extension the dissolution of the current Iraqi state, Marc Champion writes for Bloomberg View.

On Sunday, Huseyin Celik, a top Erdogan official, said that Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) would be ready to accept Kurdish independence in northern Iraq. The AKP has also submitted a parliamentary bill that would grant clemency to Kurdish militants as well as granting immunity to Turks who took part in the Kurdish-Turkish peace process.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not directly supported the idea of Kurdish independence himself, although he has given signs that he is warming to the idea. Last November, Erdogan met with Massoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Autonomous Region. During the meeting, Erdogan referred to directly to Kurdistan, something that was generally unthinkable for a Turkish prime minister.

Turkey's about-face on Kurdish independence could tie directly into Erdogan's political ambitions. Erdogan is expected to become the first president of Turkey selected through a popular vote. In desperation, the two main opposition parties have put forward a joint candidate to try to win the election themselves. However, both the AKP and the opposition parties have roughly equal shares of the electorate.

Due to this electoral split, the Kurds will likely function as political "kingmakers," according to Champion. Kurds compose roughly 20% of Turkey's population, and a substantial percentage of Kurds do not belong to either of the three main parties.

To ensure political victory, Erdogan and the AKP are courting Kurdish votes through their stance on Iraqi Kurdistan. Any semblances of supporting Kurdish independence in Iraq will likely rally Kurdish votes towards the AKP in August.

Seems to me that Maliki is out, he just doesn't know it yet. His time is running out and if the Shiites don't compromise we should just leave the mess for Iran to play out while we reposition in Kurdistan and other friendly gulf states.

[JPhillips]

Given the composition of the mid-east states, encouraging ethnic independence could be a dangerous precedent. It might still be the best move in Iraq, but it isn't without risks.

[Galaxy]

Do you think Israel will go back into Gaza?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Today the Supremes issued an injunction so that Wheaton College and a few other institutions don't have to file the paperwork that would allow plans to offer contraceptive coverage. In other words they undermined the very workaround they offered on Monday.

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Awesome. This keeps getting more and more fun (well, ridiculous). There's nothing realistically legal about this except it is because the highest court in the land says so capriciously.

SI

This is a TEMPORARY injunction as they are evaluating the Little Sisters case. These sort of things do happen. You'll note that Justice Breyer was fine with issuing the injunction.

[JPhillips]

But this kills the exact same workaround they said could accommodate Hobby Lobby employees. Issuing the injunction just days after saying this workaround was a good solution makes no sense.

[ISiddiqui]

Why not? They are deciding on another case. That involves a different fact pattern.

Also, Alito had mentioned that the workaround was a potential less restrictive means to accomplish the government's compelling interest. It didn't instruct the government to go ahead and do it. Regardless the temporary injunction said that Wheaton can notify the government rather than fill out the Form directly to its insurer until there is a decision on the entire practice.

Why did Breyer think it was ok to do so?

[ISiddiqui]

Where was Justice Breyer in the Wheaton College fight? (Updated) : SCOTUSblog

To be clear, it is not for me to say why Justice Breyer joined the majority – providing a fifth vote – rather than the dissent. But the consequence of him having done so seems to be that the press reported on a significant dissent from the order, while employees and students of religiously affiliated entities will still receive contraception coverage. And that is the end result the Hobby Lobby dissenters emphatically hoped to see, if they could not prevail outright.

[DaddyTorgo]

Man - I liked ISiddiqui better before he got all "born again."

That guy was cool. This new one...eh.

[JPhillips]

I have no idea why Breyer joined, and I don't really care. At first the court said Hobby Lobby was a narrow ruling about four specific forms of contraception. Then the next day they said that the ruling applies to all contraception. They suggested a workaround and then issued an injunction that makes the workaround impossible.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I have no idea why Breyer joined, and I don't really care.

At this point I'm guessing Stockholm Syndrome.

At first the court said Hobby Lobby was a narrow ruling about four specific forms of contraception. Then the next day they said that the ruling applies to all contraception.

Exactly. But it makes sense. If you live in the kind of world like John Roberts' where anti-abortion protestors are genial and well-meaning "counselors", then you would certainly be surprised if people tried to mis-use your "narrow ruling" for their own purposes, right?

[molson]

I work in appellate law, and I'm more than a little fuzzy on the concepts of injunctions and when they're utilized in federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. (Good to know there's so many experts here though!) But I think this post does a decent job of sorting it out. Maybe Sotomayor would have a good response to this reading of her dissent. I just don't think you an look at this stuff in two seconds and have a confident conclusion about whether there's even any inconsistency (I'm not saying she did that, but a lot of the responses seem to have.)

More on what the Wheaton College injunction does (and does not) mean for contraception coverage - The Washington Post

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you live in the kind of world like John Roberts' where anti-abortion protestors are genial and well-meaning "counselors"

That assumption is not necessary to that holding AT ALL.

Yours, (and specifically the law's), assumptions were what was the problem here. You want to arrest anyone standing in those public sidewalks without a government-approved reason, based upon an assumption they all have an intent to harass. So let's arrest them before they commit crimes! If this was any other context, any other type of speech, you would be against that kind of government action.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Yours, (and specifically the law's), assumptions were what was the problem here. You want to arrest anyone standing in those public sidewalks without a government-approved reason, based upon an assumption they all have an intent to harass. So let's arrest them before they commit crimes! If this was any other context, any other type of speech, you would be against that kind of government action.

You build nice strawmen, molson, I'll give you that.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You build nice strawmen, molson, I'll give you that.

The law made it illegal to silently stand there. On public property. It did not require ANY proof of intent to harass. It just assumes that intent. You support that law. It's an authoritarian position, and when it comes to religion and birth control, you seem to have very different ideas about what the government should be allowed to do.

Edit: Roberts isn't assuming that every person in that buffer zone has altruistic motives. Obviously, some (or even most) are there to harass. That doesn't mean the government gets to assume all of them are. In criminal law the assumptions generally go the other direction. The state has to prove the criminal intent, even if someone is of a "type" that tends to commit crimes and have that intent. I wonder how you'd feel about the First Amendment challenges to "gang loitering" statutes - some of those are successful, some are not, it all depends entirely on how narrowly the statute is drawn, and how much protected speech is implicated. But generally, it's not a crime to stand or talk to people on public sidewalks, ESPECIALLY when those people are specifically engaging in political speech. But when it comes to these buffer zones, you can STILL criminalize that conduct, because there's a compelling interest at play. You just have to require the state to actually prove intent to harass instead of just assuming that intent. It's really not that hard to prove that intent, especially in a place like MA, where you probably have lots of biased jurors, who will be more than happy to infer that intent through circumstantial evidence, which is perfectly appropriate.

[molson]

That last part of it is why this is so fascinating to me, the role reversal when religion comes into play. If the statute DID require intent to harass, it wouldn't take much to satisfy that burden. But if the state literally presented no evidence other than the fact that the defendant happened to be there and was maybe talking to people, that would probably be the subject of an appeal based on the lack of sufficient evidence to support that charge. There's a million appeals like that, where the defense argues that the evidence presented at trial didn't match up with one of the elements, to where there was zero evidence to prove one of the elements. In 99% of situations, that would be viewed as the liberal/ACLU/leftish side, where the state would be the conservative/authoritarian/police state side. I know those kinds of psychological and political and moral battle lines really well, people tend to just feel a calling to one side of that or the other. But when it comes to stuff like this, you can flip it 180 degrees. Suddenly that leftish side wants the government to go in and wield its authority, to assume criminal intent, to take a more restrictive view on what constitutional rights actually protect. And the far rightish side, at least those who are really into religion, are suddenly super-concerned with rights of the accused and restraint of government in criminal prosecutions. If you're a cop or a prosecutor or work anywhere on that side, you have a kind of ongoing hostility directed towards you all the time expressing the view that you're too aggressive, etc. So it's kind of funny when those roles suddenly change. I think most cops and prosecutors and defense attorneys are fairly decent at just focusing on what their job is, and to be concerned with everyone's rights, and to know the legal and ethical boundaries no matter what kind of case it is, or at least, that's the goal.

[flere-imsaho]

You continue to argue that a common-sense solution to a very clear and present problem will be abused far beyond its spirit, despite providing no evidence that this is the case (please enjoy the comparison to RFRA, by the way).

And yet again, we absolutely do curtail free speech and/or association all over this country (SCOTUS' building itself, Presidential "free speech zones", "sensitive" building, you mention "gang loitering") with similar or even less obvious danger to the public good. But somehow this instance is different?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You continue to argue that a common-sense solution to a very clear and present problem will be abused far beyond its spirit, despite providing no evidence that this is the case (please enjoy the comparison to RFRA, by the way).

And yet again, we absolutely do curtail free speech and/or association all over this country (SCOTUS' building itself, Presidential "free speech zones", "sensitive" building, you mention "gang loitering") with similar or even less obvious danger to the public good. But somehow this instance is different?

It wouldn't be "abuse" to charge someone with an activity that the legislature expressly made illegal. I just don't understand your resistance to requiring the state to prove intent here.

And sure, the government can and does curtail all kinds of speech. It just needs a compelling reason, and a narrowly tailored statute. This case isn't any different. You can draft a narrowly tailored statute that furthers the compelling government interest in preventing harassment. You can draft a narrowly tailored statute to further many other compelling government interests - like protecting the president, or reducing gang violence. I know in my state, lawyers spent a ton of time trying to define "gang" and "gang activity" in such a way that would survive constitutional scrutiny. The government can also go too far in trying to curtail speech in the name of furthering compelling interests. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's Anti-gang loitering law in the late 90s because it was too broad - many states learned from that and were able to draft more narrow statutes, or come at the issue from different angles....they're probably not as effective, but the Court weighed in. Of course there, the government was perceived to be on the oppressive/right/police state side for trying to pass laws like that, but here, they're too far right if they DON'T pass laws like that to restrict speech at abortion clinics. Which is kind of surreal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

with similar or even less obvious danger to the public good.

I'm pro choice but comparing abortion clinics to the other examples you used seems like one hell of a stretch.

I might personally believe that those facilities actually do more good for U.S. society than harm but putting them on the same (or greater) standing with SCOTUS or POTUS (even when a POTUS utterly & completely reprehensible) is pretty far out stuff afaic.

[NobodyHere]

When did flere become more authoritarian than Jon?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

When did flere become more authoritarian than Jon?

Things probably get twisted around the reality pole when you take someone on the far socio-political right (like me) and give them a left leaning stance (like being pro-choice, bordering on outright pro-abortion).

Probably creates some sort of weird matter/anti-matter displacement thing somewhere.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Man - I liked ISiddiqui better before he got all "born again."

That guy was cool. This new one...eh.

Five years ago? When I voted for McCain, you mean (which was 5.5 years ago, roughly)?

Being a lawyer, I have an inherent distaste for all the Chicken-Little crap that has come out after Hobby Lobby. People are deliberately miscontruing legal rulings for their political bleating. That doesn't do liberalism any good to be so hyperbolic (then again, liberalism has traditionally been concerned with allowing folks with differing opinions, but now it seems to be into left-wing authoritarianism and if you don't agree, we boycott. Meh)

And after all of the distaste for right wing hyperbole, going for left wing hyperbole doesn't make it better. It makes the whole process into a yelling match that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

When did flere become more authoritarian than Jon?

If you really, honestly, think I'm more authoritarian than Jon, then you really haven't been paying attention.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Things probably get twisted around the reality pole when you take someone on the far socio-political right (like me) and give them a left leaning stance (like being pro-choice, bordering on outright pro-abortion).

To be clear, I am not pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Which leads us to....

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And after all of the distaste for right wing hyperbole, going for left wing hyperbole doesn't make it better. It makes the whole process into a yelling match that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket.

I have, not once, said anything of the kind (Chicken Little / Hell in a handbasket, etc...). I have objected to certain things and have attempted to explain my rationale and worldview regarding my objections. In return, some of you find it amusing to a) twist my arguments into strawmen and b) turn me into a caricature.

And again, to be clear, I'm not particularly worked up about this, I'm simply pointing out your folly. If there's one thing I've learned from Jon over the years, it's not to care what the misguided think of my positions. And again, to be clear, when I call you "misguided", I'm not saying you're stupid or dumb, I'm saying you're wilfully not making an effort to understand my position, settling for an easier shorthand route instead.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To be clear, I am not pro-abortion. Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion.

To be clear, I was referring to myself with that bit, not to you.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If you really, honestly, think I'm more authoritarian than Jon, then you really haven't been paying attention.

It was a joke, lighten up.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To be clear, I was referring to myself with that bit, not to you.

Ah, didn't catch that, sorry. I was confused, it has to be said, as I thought I remembered you not being pro-life.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It was a joke, lighten up.

Explain to me how I was to ascertain from your post that it was a joke. Especially given the context of the thread's development in the past few pages.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Explain to me how I was to ascertain from your post that it was a joke. Especially given the context of the thread's development in the past few pages.

Telepathy.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Telepathy.

Hrm... let me try that.

Greg: You are currently thinking of a spreadsheet.

Did I get it right?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It was a joke, lighten up.

Indeed. I laughed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I have, not once, said anything of the kind (Chicken Little / Hell in a handbasket, etc...). I have objected to certain things and have attempted to explain my rationale and worldview regarding my objections. In return, some of you find it amusing to a) twist my arguments into strawmen and b) turn me into a caricature.

You do realize I was responding to DaddyTorgo, right? Do you have to be reminded that the world doesn't revolve around you? (if case you didn't get it, that was a joke too)

[cartman]

Here's someone else that apparently didn't get a joke. Either that, or they asked Perry for his impersonation of Grumpy Cat.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You do realize I was responding to DaddyTorgo, right? Do you have to be reminded that the world doesn't revolve around you? (if case you didn't get it, that was a joke too)

Woah, woah, woah.... You're asserting that the world doesn't revolve around me?

Citation Needed, my friend.

[flere-imsaho]

Also, I am not Rick Perry. In case that wasn't obvious.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Five years ago? When I voted for McCain, you mean (which was 5.5 years ago, roughly)?

Being a lawyer, I have an inherent distaste for all the Chicken-Little crap that has come out after Hobby Lobby. People are deliberately miscontruing legal rulings for their political bleating. That doesn't do liberalism any good to be so hyperbolic (then again, liberalism has traditionally been concerned with allowing folks with differing opinions, but now it seems to be into left-wing authoritarianism and if you don't agree, we boycott. Meh)

And after all of the distaste for right wing hyperbole, going for left wing hyperbole doesn't make it better. It makes the whole process into a yelling match that everything is going to Hell in a handbasket.

I dunno exactly when it was - just that lately I've found myself more and more often shaking my head at things you've posted.

Didn't mean anything sinister by it, just interesting to see how you've changed in some ways over the long history of our interactions on the board is all.

[ISiddiqui]

Just depends on the issues I agree with you on?

I don't fit very neatly into the Democratic boxes. Left on economic issues, more moderate on social issues, and look at legal decisions on a legal basis as opposed to a political one .

Also the my-way-or-the-highway Left annoys me just as much as the my-way-or-the-highway Right.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by cartman

Here's someone else that apparently didn't get a joke. Either that, or they asked Perry for his impersonation of Grumpy Cat.

If Perry were to ever start an interview or press conference with "I'm Rick Perry, bitches!", he would instantly have my support.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Just depends on the issues I agree with you on?

I don't fit very neatly into the Democratic boxes. Left on economic issues, more moderate on social issues, and look at legal decisions on a legal basis as opposed to a political one .

Also the my-way-or-the-highway Left annoys me just as much as the my-way-or-the-highway Right.

I'd argue that you've moved more right-of-center on social issues.

[ISiddiqui]

That's a strange POV. Maybe from someone who's been on left left.

Put it this way, I'm a Hillary Democrat. Which tends to mean Obama and now Warren supporters just don't fully get that.

[JPhillips]

Not perfect, but doing a lot for a lot of people.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Not perfect, but doing a lot for a lot of people.

Follow-up questions:

1) Of those among the 84% who had insurance when Obamacare was passed, how much more expensive is your insurance today, and do you still have access to the same doctors as you did in 2010, with the same deductible?

2) Of those who would not have insurance today without Obamacare, can you afford health care, given the deductible?

3) Are you actually insured, given that policies are not necessarily in full effect if you haven't completed the registration process, paid the premiums, and are, in fact, entitled to the subsidies you claimed?

Not perfect, doing something for some people, but making a bad situation a lot worse for many.

I maintain we need real health care reform, not a band-aid written by industry lobbyists, unread by those who passed it, that merely extends a broken system. There's good reason even those who are most likely to be Obama supporters (union members) actively seek exemptions from Obamacare.

[albionmoonlight]

I pay more for health care now than I did in 2010. I pay more for pretty much everything now than I did in 2010.

No relevant change in doctors or deductibles.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Follow-up questions:

1) Of those among the 84% who had insurance when Obamacare was passed, how much more expensive is your insurance today, and do you still have access to the same doctors as you did in 2010, with the same deductible?

Prior to 2010 my access wasn't any less than it is now, my deductible's had gone up, my premiums had skyrocketed with no yearly end in sight. To say that every cost increase in insurance premiums is due to the new law is not genuine. Costs were escalating out of sight for a long time prior to ACA, but as long as people kept needing healthcare it didn't matter.

2) Of those who would not have insurance today without Obamacare, can you afford health care, given the deductible?

If they had no insurance surely the couldn't have even afforded to walk through the front door of the hospital for anything so the point is moot.

3) Are you actually insured, given that policies are not necessarily in full effect if you haven't completed the registration process, paid the premiums, and are, in fact, entitled to the subsidies you claimed?

Are you actually insured if you go to the emergency room with no insurance? You won't pay the actual cost of the visit, you may not even pay any of it. Is that insurance?

Not perfect, doing something for some people, but making a bad situation a lot worse for many.

Not perfect as there are many more who need access to care, but being made a lot worse because of how badly bastardized the bill that we ended up with became because of the grandstanding lawmakers. It could've been simple, it could have been comprehensive.

I maintain we need real health care reform, not a band-aid written by industry lobbyists, unread by those who passed it, that merely extends a broken system.

Agreed but I think for different reasons.

There's good reason even those who are most likely to be Obama supporters (union members) actively seek exemptions from Obamacare.

From: Even GOP consumers are satisfied with 'Obamacare' | MSNBC

The survey, from the Commonwealth Fund, a research group, a research group, came to similar conclusions as other surveys about the expansion of health insurance. It found that about 15 percent of adults younger than 65 now lack health insurance, down from 20 percent before the Affordable Care Act rolled out in January.

What was more surprising is that people who got the new coverage were generally happy with the product. Overall, 73 percent of people who bought health plans and 87 percent of those who signed up for Medicaid said they were somewhat or very satisfied with their new health insurance. Seventy-four percent of newly insured Republicans liked their plans. Even 77 percent of people who had insurance before – including members of the much-publicized group whose plans got canceled last year – were happy with their new coverage.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I pay more for health care now than I did in 2010. I pay more for pretty much everything now than I did in 2010.

No relevant change in doctors or deductibles.

This.

The proper question is more along the lines of "will the rate of increase of health insurance costs slow over a medium-term time horizon" rather than "do you pay more now than in 2010," but that's not a sexy question and doesn't lend itself to the BS, anecdotal stories that get people fired up.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Prior to 2010 my access wasn't any less than it is now, my deductible's had gone up, my premiums had skyrocketed with no yearly end in sight. To say that every cost increase in insurance premiums is due to the new law is not genuine. Costs were escalating out of sight for a long time prior to ACA, but as long as people kept needing healthcare it didn't matter.

That's pretty much how it was for me before. Deductible stayed the same but premiums went up 20% to 40% every year. Now my premiums are about a third of what they were last year with a much lower deductible.

[Solecismic]

The Commonwealth Fund isn't a neutral source (that's putting it kindly). Citing them is like citing Al Gore on topics related to the climate.

Another question:

Subsidies for Obamacare will (conservatively) increase the national debt by about $100 billion per year over the next decade - which is about $300 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Are you concerned about the national debt, or do you feel confiscation of existing wealth (through devaluing the dollar or other means) should solve the problem?