Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Mickey_Finn]

But the appointment of Democrat presidents are totally predictable.

And you can predict what Romney is going to do? Based on what he said when?

I don’t understand why everyone is so shocked by the SCOTUS’s decision. The one thing that we can count on them to uphold. Is the governments right to rule.

ATB

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m honestly still not sure what to think of last week’s decision. I know that I wanted it struck down because I think the ACA has lots of problems. Health Care truly needs reform because we cannot indefinitely continue on our current trajectory of exponentially increasing costs, but I am concerned that the ACA will only make matters worse. Had the law been struck down, it also would have made the future fight regarding the “HHS mandate” (not to be confused with the “Individual Mandate”) unnecessary. As it is, we now have to keep fighting.

But I know my personal desires do not speak to the constitutionality of a law. Roberts made the right call in striking down the argument about the Commerce clause (I don’t see how that could have been constitutional). And it seems somewhat wily to me to just change the language to make it a “tax” when that’s not the language of the bill. However, if Roberts is correct that, when it comes to legislation duly passed by our elected representatives, the Court is to make every reasonable effort to see how it might be constitutional, then I suppose it’s possible (as much as it pains me to think it) that he made the right call.

Roberts has the line in there about how it’s not the job of the Court to protect us from the consequences of our political choices. I keep coming back to that. Many of us do not like the bill, nor many of the things involved in it. But that doesn’t automatically make it unconstitutional.

(This speaks nothing as to the constitutionality of the “HHS Mandate” with regards to religious liberty. I cannot think of any way that could be construed as constitutional, and I have every confidence it will be struck down once it inevitably has its day in court. But of course that can be struck down without invalidating the entire bill.)

In the short term, it would have been easier if the bill had just been struck down. But perhaps the lengthy, difficult road (with court battles and subsequent legislation to patch the holes and remove the junk) will be better in the long run. If the law had been struck down, it might have been decades before Congress wanted to go near the issue of health care again. Perhaps this will turn out to be the only way to make the necessary changes. I suppose we’ll see.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And you can predict what Romney is going to do? Based on what he said when?

I don’t understand why everyone is so shocked by the SCOTUS’s decision. The one thing that we can count on them to uphold. Is the governments right to rule.

ATB

If he becomes president Romney pledged, ‘I will appoint conservative, strict constructionists to the judiciary’

lifenews.com/2012/06/08/christians-should-vote-for-romney-because-judges-matter

Judge Robert Bork, pro life, who President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court in 1987 and was rejected by the senate because of his conservatism, endorsed Romney for president in 2008

‘No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney …. Governor Romney is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation’

archive.lifenews.com/nat3554.html

Robert Bork is on co - chairman on Romney’s team of judicial advisors

Romney has picked pro life conservatives as top judicial advisors

lifenews.com/2011/08/05/romney-picks-pro-life-conservatives-as-top-judicial-advisors

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is there a link that I missed on the calculation of federal tax increases? I would really like to know that. The federal gov’t will subsidize Medicaid to the States, and that’s fairly massive, which means definitely higher taxes. Clearly it wouldn’t fall to the Medicaid subscribers, but I’m concerned that it will significantly impact the middle class.

Or is one of the problems that there have been no hard calculations?

 

[SamH]

New York Times did a poll in which the result was 34% of Americans support ObamaTax

To be sure, about a fifth of those who oppose it say it did not go far enough, essentially frustrated liberals

Dr Margaret Flowers, single payer activist, liberal and paediatrician says ObamaTax is ‘crony capitalism on steroids’

The individual mandate requiring people to purchase private insurance and using hundreds of millions of our public dollars that go directly to the private insurance companies is outrageous. If you look at it people having private insurance still doesn’t guarantee that you could see the doctor that you need to see, get the treatment that you need to seek; [it doesn’t guarantee] that you can afford the healthcare because of co-pays and deductibles…The greatest cause of bankruptcy is medical [costs] and 80 percent of those people that went bankrupt from medical cost had health insurance. So, we’re forcing people to purchase a defective product, we’re putting our private dollars into a private corporation that’s just going to take that money as profit and not give it out to the people for care

Obama did not get a bounce in Rasmussen poll after Supreme Court decision

The problem is many of those that support it think it means free health insurance for them. I have people in my office asking me when “the free health insurance” kicks in and get mad when I tell them they’ll never see free health insurance as long as they have jobs.

 

[Joe_5859]

The problem is many of those that support it think it means free health insurance for them. I have people in my office asking me when “the free health insurance” kicks in and get mad when I tell them they’ll never see free health insurance as long as they have jobs.

That’s kind of sad.

Congrats on 9,000 posts! I think that will make you a Veteran member.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The problem is many of those that support it think it means free health insurance for them. I have people in my office asking me when “the free health insurance” kicks in and get mad when I tell them they’ll never see free health insurance as long as they have jobs.

They are deluded. ObamaTax means higher premiums if you already have insurance, 75% of the new 21 taxes are on those earning less than $120000, or you pay a tax penalising you for not having health insurance

 

[wynnejj]

However, if Roberts is correct that, when it comes to legislation duly passed by our elected representatives, the Court is to make every reasonable effort to see how it might be constitutional, then I suppose it’s possible (as much as it pains me to think it) that he made the right call.

One judge comes up with a trick to redefine a penalty ( as established by legislators and treated as such in all preceding court proceedings and treated as such by SCOTUS itself until the illusion was proposed) as a quasi-tax when you look at it one way, then it is OK for those looking for a specific outcome to agree with the illusion to achieve the desired outcome.

Why is it that so much effort is made to rationalize the means to justify the desired outcome?

Why is that so much effort is made to put a pretty dress on a gorilla so that we can pretend that we’re looking at a pretty girl in a dress?

Obamacare is NOT the issue. The issue is judicial overreach.

 

[_Abyssinia]

**Americans Want Obamacare Repeal, Worry It’s Less Likely
**

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, polling data released today by Rasmussen Reports indicates a majority of Americans — as they have since its passage, want the law repealed. However, they worry repeal is unlikely.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters favor repeal of the health care law, while 39% are opposed. That’s little changed from a week ago and support for repeal has barely budged since the law was passed. The latest numbers include 44% who Strongly Favor repeal and 30% who are Strongly Opposed to it.

“The U.S. Supreme Court declared that President Obama’s health care law is constitutional, but they were unable to make it popular,” said pollster Scott Rasmussen.

Additionally, while most voters still hope for repeal, the belief that it will happen has fallen sharply. Just 39% now believe repeal is even somewhat likely, down from 61% last week. Forty-five percent (45%) now consider repeal unlikely and 15% are not sure.

Rasmussen’s most recent newspaper column suggests that “The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else.” He adds that defending the law is “going to be a heavy burden for the Obama campaign to bear.” Confirming that perspective, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and other Democrats have indicated a desire to shift the campaign away from the health care debate.

“As has been the case since the law was passed, senior citizens are more supportive of repeal than younger voters. In fact, voters under 40 are almost evenly divided on the question. Middle income voters are more likely to support repeal than those in both upper and lower income brackets,” Rasmsusen said about its poll. “Thirty-seven percent (37%) of voters think the health care law will be good for the country. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree and believe it will be bad for America. Forty-three percent (43%) feel repeal of the law would be good for the economy, while 27% say it would hurt the economy. Fifteen percent (15%) think repeal would have no economic impact, but 15% more are not sure. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe repeal would create new jobs while 36% disagree. Thirty-one percent (31%) are not sure.”

Meanwhile, a Sunday Rasmussen survey found public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the Obamacare was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

“A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week,” Rasmussen said.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many — 27% — believe the justices remain impartial. Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it’s too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided: 32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative. In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

The Obamacare repeal survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 29-30, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

lifenews.com/2012/07/02/americans-want-obamacare-repeal-worry-its-less-likely

Reuters Poll: 73% of Independents Oppose Obamacare

newsmax.com/Newsfront/independents-oppose-healthcare-law/2012/06/24/id/443279

 

[ricks1948]

One judge comes up with a trick to redefine a penalty ( as established by legislators and treated as such in all preceding court proceedings and treated as such by SCOTUS itself until the illusion was proposed) as a quasi-tax when you look at it one way, then it is OK for those looking for a specific outcome to agree with the illusion to achieve the desired outcome.

Why is it that so much effort is made to rationalize the means to justify the desired outcome? Why is that so much effort is made to put a pretty dress on a gorilla so that we can pretend that we’re looking at a pretty girl in a dress?

Yup

 

[estesbob]

They are deluded. ObamaTax means higher premiums if you already have insurance, 75% of the new 21 taxes are on those earning less than $120000, or you pay a tax penalising you for not having health insurance

Higher premiums, higher taxes, poorer medical care.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Higher premiums, higher taxes, poorer medical care.

Which is why Romney has to be elected and a majority Republican senate to repeal ObamaTax

 

[_Abyssinia]

**Reuters Poll: Obamacare Is Still Unpopular After High Court Decision
**

Voter support for President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul rose after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it, but most people still oppose the law, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Sunday.

The online survey showed increased backing from Republicans and, crucially, the political independents whose support will be essential to winning the Nov. 6 presidential election.

Meanwhile, Republican leaders in Congress are banking on the fact that voters will have the final word on healthcare in the November elections, and the GOP is betting that the law’s unpopularity will be enough to drive Democrats from power.

**According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 38 percent of independents support the healthcare overhaul in the poll conducted after the court ruled Thursday the law was constitutional. That was up from 27 percent from a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken days before the justices’ ruling.

Among all registered voters, support for the law rose to 48 percent, from 43 percent before the court decision.

…

Republican opposition to the law stayed strong, if somewhat weaker than before the high court ruled. Eighty-one percent of Republicans opposed it in the most recent survey, down from 86 percent in the poll conducted June 19-23.

Underscoring the intense polarization on the issue, three-quarters of Democrats backed the bill, the same as a week earlier.

In some good news for Republicans, the Supreme Court ruling is energizing opposition to the 2010 healthcare overhaul.

In the new poll, more than half of all registered voters — 53 percent — said they were more likely to vote for their member of Congress if he were running on a platform of repealing the law, up from 46 percent before the ruling.**

my emphases

newsmax.com/Politics/Reuters-poll-Obamacare-Romney/2012/07/01/id/444101

 

[Rohanfan]

Which is why Romney has to be elected and a majority Republican senate to repeal ObamaTax

The House would have to stay Republican. Projections are that it will not stay Republican. The Senate will be very close with looking along the lines of 51 R - 48 D + 1 I(Bernie Sanders, sides with Democrats)

 

[estesbob]

The House would have to stay Republican. Projections are that it will not stay Republican. The Senate will be very close with looking along the lines of 51 R - 48 D + 1 I(Bernie Sanders, sides with Democrats)

I have seen no scenarios that show the Republicans losing the house

 

[ProVobis]

But the appointment of Democrat presidents are totally predictable.

Yeh, who would have thought JFK’s only nomination would rule against Roe vs Wade.

 

[ProVobis]

Obama did not get a bounce in Rasmussen poll after Supreme Court decision

Maybe he gloated too much. The other way would certainly have given more ammunition to his opponents, though.

 

[Mickey]

foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/after-fleeting-supreme-court-victory-obama-remains-amateur/

 

[_Abyssinia]

The House would have to stay Republican. Projections are that it will not stay Republican. The Senate will be very close with looking along the lines of 51 R - 48 D + 1 I(Bernie Sanders, sides with Democrats)

Where are those projections?

It is likely the senate will get a Republican majority of 50.

See this analysis for projections for the House

My previous research had indicated that large changes in the House of Representatives are quite unusual when the White House and House of Representatives are controlled by different parties. As I wrote last October, “It would seem that in the past 60 years voters have been unwilling to reward or blame either party too greatly when faced with split government. They tend to like the status quo.” All the factors I look at seem to suggest that will hold. A modest Democratic gain of about 5-13 seats at this point seems the most likely scenario

 

[ProVobis]

foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/after-fleeting-supreme-court-victory-obama-remains-amateur/

Is this the same source which couldn’t read the SC decision and reported that the mandate was overturned?