Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[_Abyssinia]

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

Like CNN?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dems target vulnerable GOP lawmakers over health law repeal vote

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is launching a new campaign Monday targeting vulnerable GOP lawmakers on healthcare ahead of the House vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

“Democrats are on offense as we expose these House Republicans for standing up for insurance companies and congressional perks instead of protecting consumers,” said DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), in a statement announcing the drive. “For 18 months, Republicans have been on defense for protecting millionaires over Medicare and now they’re planning another vote to put insurance companies back in charge of our healthcare at the expense of middle-class families and consumers.”

The DCCC will target Republicans in 10 districts with robocalls, charging those lawmakers with placing the interests of insurance companies above voters.

Among the targets is Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.).

“After taking more than $120,000 from insurance companies, Congressman Lungren wants to put insurance companies back in charge of our healthcare,” says the script of one recorded call.

“Congressman Lungren already voted for deep cuts to Medicare to fund more tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. He even voted to protect the government healthcare plan for members of Congress that is funded with your tax dollars. But now he could vote to let insurance corporations cut back your health benefits,” it continues.

Similar calls will be placed against Republican Reps. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.), Robert Dold (Ill.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), Bobby Schilling (Ill.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Nan Hayworth (N.Y.), Chris Gibson (N.Y.) and Anne Marie Buerkle (N.Y.)

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/235823-dccc-targets-vulnerable-gop-lawmakers-over-health-law-repeal-vote

After Obamacare ruling, conservative group announces $9 million campaign against it

In response to the Supreme Court ruling upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law, Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group, announced plans on Friday to spend $9 million on a campaign against the law.

The project includes a new ad that will run in media markets in a dozen swing states, and focuses on the president’s insistence that the federal mandate to purchase health insurance is not a “tax.” On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision was only constitutional if it’s considered a tax, although the White House continues to refer to it as a “penalty.”

The ad advocates for the repeal of the law and calls it “one of the largest tax increases in history,” a line sure to be repeated on the presidential campaign trail.

“Obama’s health care law is actually one of the largest tax increases in history,” a female narrator says in the ad. “Shouldn’t President Obama’s priorities have been creating jobs and ending reckless spending?”

abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamacare-ruling-conservative-group-announces-million-campaign/story?id=16682203

Poll: SCOTUS amps up GOP to turn out in November

Nearly a third of Republican voters say they’re more likely to vote in November as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling, while just 18 percent of Democrats say the same, according to a poll released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The poll, taken after the court announced its decision Thursday, provides more evidence that Republicans are more likely to be fired up by the ruling than Democrats — and could vote in stronger numbers in November.

The poll also found that 56 percent of all Americans — including more than four in five Democrats and 51 percent of independents with no party leanings — say they want the nation to move on to other issues. However, 69 percent of Republicans hope efforts to stop the law will continue, agreeing with 41 percent of independents and 14 percent of Democrats.

Kaiser found that the court ruling left Americans about where they were before: sharply divided over the law. In fact, an equal number of respondents (46 percent) described themselves as “angry” or “disappointed” in the ruling, compared with those who rated themselves “satisfied” or “enthusiastic.”

Large percentages of Democrats supported the ruling, and Republicans tended to oppose it, while independents were evenly divided.

Yet Democrats unleashed a newfound wave of enthusiasm for the law in the wake of the decision, with 47 percent saying they take a “very favorable” view of the law compared with just 31 percent a month earlier. That still pales compared to the 64 percent of Republicans who have a “very unfavorable” view of the law.

Although much of Washington fixated on the Supreme Court last week, the Kaiser poll found that only three in five respondents were aware the court had ruled.

A majority of respondents said they believed that the Supreme Court justices’ “analysis and interpretation” of the law played a major role in how they ruled. But nearly as many — 49 percent — suggested “national politics” also had a big hand in the outcome. The ideological bent of the justices also had a major role in the outcome, according nearly half of poll respondents.

The telephone poll of 1,239 adults, conducted by telephone from June 28 to June 30, carries a 3 percentage point margin of error.

politico.com/news/stories/0712/78070.html#ixzz1zUEsSFPw

 

[seekerz]

Like CNN?

Yeah, and Fox. To be totally fair to those networks the actual announcement I heard (at least on CNN) did not report definitively that the mandate had been overturned, but “it looks like the mandate has been overturned”. It’s important to listen (as I’m sure those reporters found out) to what is actually being said, before responding to it.They were obviously jostling to be the first with the news, not deliberately misleading anyone.

 

[seekerz]

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

Romney might be elected, but nobody’s repealing anything. Seriously, have we not learned ANYTHING from Roberts about placing one’s eggs all in the same basket?

Right now the only thing making Obamacare bad to many people, is simply the name Obama.
If Romney becomes president, the ACA, it will magically, wonderfully, turn into the best thing since sliced bread - just like the mandate went from relying on the commerce clause to a tax that is within the government’s legitimate functions…

I’m not a betting person, but I could not restrain myself from saying “I told you so” regarding survival of the ACA if Romney wins.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Yeah, and Fox. To be totally fair to those networks the actual announcement I heard (at least on CNN) did not report definitively that the mandate had been overturned, but “it looks like the mandate has been overturned”. It’s important to listen (as I’m sure those reporters found out) to what is actually being said, before responding to it.They were obviously jostling to be the first with the news, not deliberately misleading anyone.

I think they reported mandate as being overturned because it was under the Commerce clause. Fox and CNN did not then expect John Roberts to say he had written it under ‘tax’

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney might be elected, but nobody’s repealing anything. Seriously, have we not learned ANYTHING from Roberts about placing one’s eggs all in the same basket?

Right now the only thing making Obamacare bad to many people, is simply the name Obama.
If Romney becomes president, the ACA, it will magically, wonderfully, turn into the best thing since sliced bread - just like the mandate went from relying on the commerce clause to a tax that is within the government’s legitimate functions…

I’m not a betting person, but I could not restrain myself from saying “I told you so” regarding survival of the ACA if Romney wins.

If you want to believe ObamaTax would survive under Romney if he were President that is up to you but I do not believe it. ObamaTax is unpopular and will likely bankrupt the country. I see no reason that would benefit Romney’s popularity or America if he kept ObamaTax

 

[Mickey]

If Romney becomes president, the ACA, it will magically, wonderfully, turn into the best thing since sliced bread

Don’t bet on it.

 

[dixieagle]

RomneyCare did not take billions out of medicare like ObamaTax takes $500 billion out of MediCare

This requires some clarification. From the Tampa Bay Times - Miami Herald site: tinyurl.com/6mqm6zq

*"The key to this claim is the fact that the health care law does not take $500 billion out of the current Medicare budget. Rather, the bill attempts to slow the program’s future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in future spending increases over the next 10 years.

In fact, Medicare spending will still increase.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects Medicare spending will reach $929 billion in 2020, up from $499 billion in actual spending in 2009. So while the health care law reduces the amount of projected spending increases in Medicare, the law doesn’t cut Medicare.

Put simpler, Medicare’s budget will continue to grow – just at a smaller rate than had originally been projected."*

For an excellent, non-partisan tutorial on Medicare and Obamacare: kaiseredu.org/tutorials/Medicare-and-health-reform/player.html

 

[seekerz]

Don’t bet on it.

Not any more than I’d bet the sun will rise tomorrow…

 

[Mickey]

Not any more than I’d bet the sun will rise tomorrow…

Good…because the odds are better that the sun will not rise.

 

[Dawnia]

Good…because the odds are better that the sun will not rise.

Not in the South, West or North anyway.

 

[garn9173]

To answer the OP’s question, I do not agree with the decision because i’m opposed to the hostile takeover of 1/6 of the US economy by the federal government. While we all agree that there could be some revisions, it does not require the single biggest tax increase in American history to to achieve it.

 

[megsdad]

I voted yes on the poll. I think Congress should pass these laws and if people are unhappy with them, then they should elect new representatives to change the laws. It’s tempting to say the Court should just overturn it, but it’s not their job unless they absolutely have to. Although you might agree with the court striking down a law today, you might disagree with them tomorrow when they strike down something else.

As I read the decision, it says if you can “fairly” read the law as imposing a tax, then it’s within Congress’s taxing power and the Court cant strike it down. I agree with Roberts that if you’re being fair about it and cut to the bottom line, you can read it as a tax.

And I dont think you have to rewrite it to say so. Rewriting it would be if he changed the amount of the tax due, or if the law didnt contain a payment provision and he added one. All he said was what Congress calls it doesnt matter for whether it was within the taxing power.

Interesting questions about the power of the government and the role of courts and legislatures! Cool to read so many good opinions here.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I voted yes on the poll. I think Congress should pass these laws and if people are unhappy with them, then they should elect new representatives to change the laws. It’s tempting to say the Court should just overturn it, but it’s not their job unless they absolutely have to. Although you might agree with the court striking down a law today, you might disagree with them tomorrow when they strike down something else.

As I read the decision, it says if you can “fairly” read the law as imposing a tax, then it’s within Congress’s taxing power and the Court cant strike it down. I agree with Roberts that if you’re being fair about it and cut to the bottom line, you can read it as a tax.

And I dont think you have to rewrite it to say so. Rewriting it would be if he changed the amount of the tax due, or if the law didnt contain a payment provision and he added one. All he said was what Congress calls it doesnt matter for whether it was within the taxing power.

Interesting questions about the power of the government and the role of courts and legislatures! Cool to read so many good opinions here.

Do you think Congress Democrats would of passed ObamaTax had it been labeled as a tax? I do not think they would. Many admitted they did not even read the 2700 page bill

 

[_Abyssinia]

Jindal: Romney never favored national individual mandate

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal asserted on Sunday that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney never favored an individual mandate as part of health care reform at the federal level, notwithstanding a video that shows him calling that idea “essential.”

“Mitt Romney’s always been against the national mandate,” Jindal declared on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

The Republican governor’s assertion came just after NBC host David Gregory played a 2006 video unearthed by the Democratic-oriented group American Bridge 21st Century.

“With regard to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate,” Romney says in the video. The houses Romney referred to were the Massachusetts House and Senate, not the U.S. Congress, though that may have been lost on some viewers. The video was released last week by the group.

Jindal went on to argue that Romney doesn’t believe everything that was good for Massachusetts would necessarily be good for the nation.

“Mardi Gras is great for Louisiana. It may not work as well in Vermont or other states,” Jindal said in a quip that seemed to fall flat with Gregory.

“You’re really comparing Mardi Gras to the universal health insurance,” Gregory said somewhat incredulously.

“What I’m saying is every state is different,” Jindal replied.

politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/07/jindal-romney-never-favored-national-individual-mandate-127832.html

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Do you think Congress Democrats would of passed ObamaTax had it been labeled as a tax? I do not think they would. Many admitted they did not even read the 2700 page bill

Most serious observers (read: not cable news pundits) knew how the bill would work all along. The only reasons for not calling it a tax were political: people react irrationally negatively to the word. The bill could have been perfect, but defeated anyway because too many people would stick their fingers in their ears the instance the word “tax” came up.

People really wanted health care reform. People really like the individual components of this law. People also like balanced budgets. To do all those things, there need to be some taxes. I suspect if the democrats, knowing what they’ve gone through the past two years, would have rather passed a more progressive plan, like the single payer.

 

[ProVobis]

Do you think Congress Democrats would of passed ObamaTax had it been labeled as a tax?

I don’t believe any Democrat has signed Grover Norquist’s No-Tax Pledge. OTOH if any Republican had voted for the bill, then they would have had a right to be upset concerning Chief Justice’s language, since most, if not all, signed the pledge.* But as we all know, no Republican voted for the bill (except the one who holds his position for life.)

*AFAIK, this pledge would not prevent them from borrowing money from China or the Fed in order to fund their programs, for example, like the Iraq War or Medicare Part D. In other words, borrowing is okay, taxing not okay for those having signed the pledge.

 

[timotheos]

People really wanted health care reform.

So did I. Too bad we’ll never get it now.

When you’re fighting a grass fire with a garden hose and it doesn’t seem to be working, it is wrong to assume that maybe it just needs more grass. Instead of critically looking at how to decrease medical costs, they just found a source of more money to feed the beast. Health care and its subsidiaries – a politically-protected conglomerate – will guzzle down any money thrown its way and “need” more.

We had an opportunity to seriously examine and weed out the excess medical expenses and provide different levels of good care at a fraction of the cost. The country was on board and ready for a solution. But there were too many people wanting to protect turf, and polititians didn’t want to touch it. So they took the coward’s way out — and stuck it to the American people.

This “win” is a loss. We will not get what we will pay for.

 

[Maxirad]

Click here and here to watch videos of Michael Voris weighing in on the ruling.

 

[CMatt25]

While I don’t think the Affordable Care Act went far enough, I agreed with the decision. Better than the status quo. Jesus wants the sick to get care. And having adequate health care includes more than a trip to the ER.