8:58: I am listening to Mitt Romney right now…and he is shamelessly lying about the impact of the patient protection and affordable care act. I didn’t hear anything about “death panels” but the same old bullshit lines:
“Obamacare puts the government between you and your doctor”
“Higher deficits.”
“Causes you to lose the insurance you like”
“Or return to a time when you could chose the insurance you like,”
“Obamacare is a job killer”
…and others.
Yawn.
Most of his claims have been shown false by the fact checking web sites.
9:06: Gov. Gregoire is on KUOW now, pointing out how “going back to the status quo would bankrupt our businesses, our families, and the state.”
9:09: Goldy takes the SCOTUS decision as a sign that Rob McKenna is a crappy lawyer:
Remember, McKenna was instrumental in initiating the lawsuit that forced today’s ruling, and spoke confidently on the campaign trial that he and his fellow attorneys general would prevail. He was wrong.
“Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.”
Even though an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars had weighed in that the mandate appeared to be constitutional, perhaps it is unfair to use this ruling to impugn McKenna’s legal acumen. Perhaps McKenna merely made the political calculation that the conservative majority on the court would ultimately prove be just as politically unprincipled as he is, and thus toss out the ACA regardless of clearly established precedent?
Perhaps. Not that that take is any more flattering.
The point is that under McKenna’s leadership the attorney general’s office has an established track record of championing losing, politically motivated cases and opinions.
9:15: Obama is on now. He goes through a list of the major advantages.
“Young Americans can stay on their parents insurance”
“Seniors receive discounts on prescriptions”
“No insurance? Then you will be insured starting in 2014.”
“No discrimination by preexisting conditions”
“People who can afford insurance should take the responsibility of buying it”
“I didn’t do this because I believe it is good politics. I did it because it is good for America.”
Not much new there. Essentially, Obama and Romney stuck to their previous points.
9:23: The gods of politics are to be worshiped and thanked for giving us a Republican nominee who, while a Governor, passed the model of universal health care that he must now fight against. I think this angle has been downplayed to date because of the uncertainty of the SCOTUS decision. Now, it’s ripe….
9:26: The real “Death Panel” would have been SCOTUS if they had struck down Obamacare. Hopefully, today’s ruling will help us claw our way back to the top of the list for health statistics….
9:28: Rep. Jim McDermott is on KUOW. He is happy.
“John Roberts…is fantastic” (Okay…maybe I’ve changed the meaning there.)
“People have been trying to do this since 1935…huge victory”
“Rob McKenna has egg on his face.”
9:31: Republicans have been chanting “overreach, overreach, overreach” like they are in a fucking trance. What the SCOTUS decision shows us is that they were engaged in a collective reach around!
9:34: Steve Scher on KUOW is now interviewing some wingnut (part of the lawsuit) who claims that today’s decision means Americans have “lost their freedom.” Sure…they have lost the freedom to go bankrupt from medical costs. Freedom from watching the most disadvantaged Americans suffer for want of health care. Freedom from the constant worry about how to get health insurance….
9:40: Okay…finally back to Goldy’s point above. He is right that McKenna was shown by the SCOTUS decision to be a lousy lawyer. McDermott is right, “Rob McKenna has egg on his face.” But I stand by my statement that McKenna is a winner by this decision. A little egg on his face is nothing compared to dealing with the actual consequences to real voters had the lawsuit succeeded.
9:49: Paul Constant posts this hilarious CNN moment:
10:20: Josh Marshall:
I have some thoughts on the politics of this — mainly because the politics is what I have some expertise to speak about. But that will be my next post. Before I do that I wanted to state very clearly that the politics of the decision pales before its substance, a fact that I suspect will get little attention today. This decision will have a massive effect on the lives of literally millions of people. Mitt Romney may have joked yesterday that the White House was “not sleeping real well” last night. But a lot of people tonight and in the future will sleep a lot better for this result. Young people, people with pre-existing conditions and mainly people who through the chaos of the health care market simply find themselves with no coverage.
That’s the big deal.
10:33: Apparently, FAUX News joined CNN in jumping the gun. They heard or read that the court didn’t find the Commerce Clause argument convincing and assumed the whole thing would be struck down. TPM does a medley:
10:40: Obama speaks:
10:45: Gov. Christine Gregoire’s statement on today’s SCOTUS ruling. (Livestreaming for now.) Gregoire eviscerates Rob McKenna!
10:56: Rob McKenna releases a say-nothing statement on today’s ruling. As one of two people who initiated the lawsuit, you’d think he’d have a hell of a lot more to say than that. I suspect he is just relieved that the whole potential nightmare for his gubernatorial campaign is over.
11:06: Justice Ginsburg’s opinion quoted from Gov. Christine Gregoire’s brief,submitted in reaction to McKenna joining the lawsuit. “We tried healthcare without a mandate and it [became]…a death spiral.”
11:09: I, for one, look forward to the forthcoming law with its tax incentive to eat broccoli.
11:14: Seattle PI’s Joel Connelly summarizes some of the PPACA’s benefits for Washingtonians:
About 52,000 young people have been able to stay on their parents’ health insurance programs until the age of 26.
The law has provided that families seeking insurance cannot be denied coverage because of a child’s pre-existing condition. Nor can insurers place lifetime limits on spending for an individual’s health care.
More than 100,000 small businesses in Washington are now eligible for a federal small business tax credit designed to make it easier and more economical to provide employees with health care.
“I look forward to the day not long from now when more than 800,000 people in our state will be able to use our Health Benefit Exchange to get health insurance they need but currently must go without,” said Gov. Christine Gregoire.
Yesterday he said Obamacare is immoral. I’d like to see him say that to the face of someone whose life was just saved by a law that says insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to sick people.
For the rest of today, the juiciest stuff will be in rightwing blogs, which are hysterical with grief right now.
Let’s start with this exchange at the Blog Next Door:
pudge: “I believe there’s an excellent chance the health insurance act will be shot down, either in significant part, or in its entirety.”
RR: “The chances of ACA being struck down seem to have been somewhat less than ‘excellent.’ Nice going, pudge.”
pudge: “Roger Rabbit: You don’t understand probabilities at all, do you?”
RR: “I play with probabilities in the stock market and do all right at that.”
KDS: “Yeah, right and pigs fly…”
RR: “You got something against capitalism?”
@ 1, 2
Yeah, take a sniff at the Freepers.
It’s all sorts of doom and gloom.
Pudge sez, “We never should have been trusting the Supreme Court to do our work for us. We need to secure our own liberty against such tyranny as a government that would create for itself the power to force us to do whatever it wishes.”
Taking it to the streets, Pudge? Don’t forget your guitar.
@3
Didn’t you know?
pudge is an eminent scholar of both law, and probability and statistics, having received training at that bastion of rational thought, BIOLA*.
*(BIOLA = Bible Institute of Los Angeles; “Biblically Centered Education” is their credo. From what I can tell, it’s a homeschool program writ large.)
Ha!
I was looking for a YouTube of his performance at one of the 2008 Repub debates, but couldn’t find it quickly.
Now for some choice teeth-gnashings from the Blog Next Door:
“I didn’t get it wrong. I was wrong about what Roberts would say; but I was right about what the law and constitution say. The mandate is unconstitutional.
Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:29 AM”
Memo to pudge: The problem with this argument is that he’s the Chief Justice and you’re not. — RR
****************
” … ‘you needed better intel’ You don’t understand probabilities.
Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:26 AM”
*******************
“First house bill next week: Each American regardless of age must own a handgun by 2014 else they must pay a $1000 tax of 10% of income each year they don’t provide evidence of owning a handgun.
Posted by doug at June 28, 2012 09:23 AM”
“Is Roberts a traitor now or really a ‘libral’ all along?
Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:16 AM”
**********************
“‘I believe there’s an excellent chance the health insurance act will be shot down’… you needed better intel Pudge.
Posted by proud American at June 28, 2012 09:13 AM”
*********************
“The responsibility for nominating John Roberts to the SCOTUS can be laid at the feet of Bush. That was Bush’s fault. …
Posted by KDS at June 28, 2012 08:34 AM”
********************
Let the recriminations begin! — RR
“I sure can’t figure out why liberals/progressive/commies think that when they point out that the Individual Mandate was a GOP/conservative idea that conservatives should all jump up and go: ‘Oops, my mistake, it’s a good idea after all!!’ A crappy, unconstitutional idea is bad no matter who thinks of it. Just because it came from the Heritage Foundation … doesn’t make it good.
Posted by Oscarphone at June 26, 2012 06:34 PM”
********************
“I can’t wait to see the look on that witch Pelosi’s face when this all crashes down. …
Posted by zorch at June 27, 2012 12:16 PM”
Memo to zorch: I’d love to see the look on your face right now — RR
***********************
“Wehn I saw the Arizona decision, I realized this court is way more liberal than conservative. …
Posted by gs at June 26, 2012 08:54 PM”
After posting 100 comments a day for two months straight, Bob somehow found a way to be busy today. Oddly enough, so have all the usual right-wing commenters over at the sucky (un)SP. Poor Pudge. He finds that it’s mostly only liars like Roger who are posting comments today.
Sigh! Maybe Bob and Pudge will prove to be better at predicting the 2012 election results than they were at predicting the Obamacare SCOTUS decision.
Chief Justice Roberts. My, but wingnut heads must be exploding. No wonder they’re speechless.
@9 Yeah, I’m disappointed, I wanted universal Medicare.
From the Freeper wailing wall:
“DEATH PANELS HAVE ARRIVED
With The Supreme Court upholding Obamacare, The Death Panels are not far behind. If you are a Democrat and need a kidney, you get it. If you are a member of the Tea Party and need a kidney, sorry you are out of luck. Very soon, Death Panels will decide who lives and who dies. How will these Death Panels make life and death decisions? I think I know the answer.”
Today the Supreme Court took an anti-liberty step today. The so called affordable health care act violates my indvidual liberty. So I refuse to buy health insurance. I am doing this for two reasons. First, the goverment has no right to require me to buy anything. Second, all insurance in the state of Washington must cover pre-birth infantcide. I will not contribute to anything that funds pre-birth infantcide.
If the goverment decides to come after me for this stand I will not resist. I am willing to accept any punishment that comes with my decision. That is what civil-disobedience is about.
Mathew Renner
Now back to The Blog Next Door:
“The good news is that polls consistently showed Americans did not like Obamacare roughly 70-30. So absent any ability to control the SCOTUS, Americans will apply their power where they can in November. Romney in a landslide. I just donated $1000 to his campaign.
Posted by Jeff B. at June 28, 2012 09:45 AM”
Man, I love to watch how Republicans spend their money — easy come, easy go!! The actual contribution probably was closer to $10 though. Republicans have a tendency to exaggerate when it comes to anything having to do with money.
I suppose that the wingnuts who now strive to repeal the health care law will accept as their own responsibility the continuation of “uncertainty” that they have long claimed has held back our Job Creators. Yeah, right.
“The so called affordable health care act violates my indvidual liberty.”
Tell it to Chief Justice Roberts and the Republican president who appointed him, assipe.
Did you all see that little news item that J. P. Morgan now clarifies that its trading loss was not $2 billion but $9 billion? I wonder if that gets Jamie Dimon another trip back to Capitol Hill.
From the Seattle Times blog: “Funny how bent out of shape those who claim the Christian mantle are.”
“Did you all see that little news item that J. P. Morgan”
Yeah, indeed I did. Did you see the comment where Bob, with his usual narcissistic authority, talked about the big fins on American cars of the, heh, 1960’s?
@18 Actually I think this is what Bob is nostalgic for:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/bfm/bfm01.htm#9
@12 The Supreme Court just said your freedom to freeload on my health insurance stops where my premium check begins. I’m very pleased with that.
Mathew Renner,
“Today the Supreme Court took an anti-liberty step today. The so called affordable health care act violates my indvidual liberty.”
No it doesn’t. Lay off the Wingnut rage generators…they may you look ignorant and foolish.
“So I refuse to buy health insurance.”
Fine…that will be perfectly legal. You will miss out on a tax incentive for purchasing insurance, but that is your choice.
“I am doing this for two reasons. First, the goverment has no right to require me to buy anything.”
Well…they actually do (car insurance) but the point is irrelevant for health insurance. The PPACA does not require you to purchase health insurance. You simply miss out on a tax incentive if you don’t.
“Second, all insurance in the state of Washington must cover pre-birth infantcide. I will not contribute to anything that funds pre-birth infantcide.”
Yawn…
“If the goverment decides to come after me for this stand I will not resist. I am willing to accept any punishment that comes with my decision. That is what civil-disobedience is about.”
Again…lay off the Wingding Talk Radio/FAUX News crap…it makes you “talk soooooopid.”
Nobody is going to “come after you”, you moron! You’ll simply not “have the freedom” to check a box on your 1040 once a year.
Really, it’s not worth slitting your wrists over. (But if you do, you know…you might want to have some health insurance, just in case….)
In other news, the Texas GOP wants schools to stop teaching critical thinking skills and to start beating students, but presumably just the brown ones.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasg.....-Final.pdf
They’re only seeking what the GOP needs in order to survive in the 21st century, a voting populace beaten into submission and lacking critical thinking skills.
So, Matthew Renner, I have a question for you.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, is military conscription also unconstitutional?
Do you think it was wrong for our government to order some of our citizens to fight World War 2, Korea, and Vietnam against their individual will?
Aaaaw. Cereal must be too buttsore about the SCOTUS decision to post his usual 20 rants before 10AM this morning ….
@24 Bob haz a sad.
re 24: Right. And exuding WFBjr-like smarmy self-assurance is hard when the world has just proved that you have been wrong, wrong, wrong, all along.
Speaking of WFBjr, my favorite Firing Line moment was when he sunk a bit further into his well-cushioned leather chair, folded his legs, peaked his fingers together, raised his eyebrows, smiled wickedly and said: “But don’t you see? That’s a litote!!”
WTF, said I. What’s a litote , and how do you avoid them?
That’s the kind of guy Cereal imagines himself to be.
24, 25 – Bob’s probably hiding in a corner having a nervous breakdown.
So, it turns out that a guy who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago might know a little something about the constitution after all.
“Did you all see that little news item that J. P. Morgan now clarifies that its trading loss was not $2 billion but $9 billion? I wonder if that gets Jamie Dimon another trip back to Capitol Hill.”
JPM will still be making money (and paying taxes to support government) this year. What’s funny is the Congress assholes questioning Jamie Dimon about trading losses of $9 billion when those crazy fuckers waste more money in a week that JPM lost on the trades in question. The House and Senate are the biggest bunch of hypocritical asshole losers in existence.
This health care decision will be used to expand the power of the federal government because it will be cited as a precedent for just about everything the federal government wants to do. If the Reps get elected in November, it will be used to expand our crazy foreign adventures overseas in support of and in continuence of our empire. If the Dems get elected, look for more nutty social programs and wasteful spending on physics-defying energy programs and other boodogles.
Yep, this decision will be used for just about any reason the feds think it should be used for. In any event, we’re fucked!
@27 Wonderful post.
@28 Until today, Bob was on pace to have posted 31,424* (per my very own recently developed HA databaze) comments by the November election, making him in the space of only a few months the third most prolific commenter in the entire history of HA, trailing only you and Puddy.
*Of course, I’m into designing buildings, not developing databases, so my numbers could be off a bit.
Somewhere, a Klown’s head is exploding today.
re 30 and 31: If only government would leave us alone, every man could have his own tipi and cornpatch.
@29 “So, it turns out that a guy who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago might know a little something about the constitution after all.”
Liar. I’ll put my Bible school education and profound knowledge of the constitution against the lying Kenyan’s any day. And what I learned is this, just because the SCOTUS decides that it’s constitutional doesn’t mean that it’s constitutional. Just ask Senator Rand Paul.
When we take to the streets, me and my guitar, we’ll be showing you the true meaning of “constitutional”.
MEDICARE for EVERY American should be our demand…not the ACA.
that said i am somewhat happy we have that atleast.
the real danger is in how CJ Roberts went the tax route instead of the commerce clause…this is death to enviromental legislation both past and future.
progressives need to get real here…this was a loss for progressives in every way and a gift to the right wing nuts that want to pollute our air and water.
Kind of off topic, but I listened to a little over an hour of the drug addled Excellent Broadcaster today for some Schadenfreude.
There are few days in history when you get the chance to hear someone meekly try to rationalize their continued existence as their world comes crashing down. Today is one of those days. It was beautiful in a sad, desperate, clinging to that last hopeful thread of pathos way.
@31
Yep, you caught us. We lefties really do see the chessboard 13 moves ahead and our every action is designed to eventually get our boot heels on your throat. But know we have to kill you so our Blowfeld-esque plan can succeed.
Politically Incorrect @ 31,
“Yep, this decision will be used for just about any reason the feds think it should be used for. In any event, we’re fucked!”
Since the gist of today’s SCOTUS ruling was to affirm that, yes, the federal government can use the tax code to incentivize behaviors, like it has done for generations, it’s hard to take your comment as anything more than childish prattle.
The right wingers are wagging that a “tax” can levied at $0 with a simple majority in the U.S. Senate during budget reconciliation.
Don’t know if this is bullshit or not…
But c’mon PPACA may be better in a lot of ways than what we had before but what we really wanted was medicare for all or at least a public option.
And any bad day for trollish, degenerate right wingers is good day for me!
OK first @20, I believe if I have no insurance and have a medical condition that you should not have to pay one penny for me. I and I alone should be forced to pay it. So I agree you should not have to pay for me or anyone else for that matter. I have type 2 Diabeties. I have it because I lived a lifestyle of eating mostly junk food and almost no exercise. (I was drinking a 12 pack of Coca-cola on many days.) It is all my fault.
Second @ 21 If I do not own a car and do not drive the goverment cannot force me to buy auto insurance.
Apparently, Rand Paul still fires up a Marly every morning…
Ok Roberts bought the Solicitor General’s backup argument that the mandate was really a tax of sorts..
But he rejected the two other arguments and in doing so restricted Congress’ future uses of the Commerce clause.
http://www.slate.com/articles/.....ingle.html
He may have been after a bigger prize for right wingers.
Hey Rush, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!
@44
Well he’s one of the few people large and mentally slow enough to not get out of the way of the door be just exited.
re 41: “OK first @20, I believe if I have no insurance and have a medical condition that you should not have to pay one penny for me. I and I alone should be forced to pay it.”
I’m glad that you have such a principled stance that you would agree that you should be ‘forced’ to pay for it — because now you will be.
“If I do not own a car and do not drive the goverment cannot force me to buy auto insurance.”
Similarly, if you’re not alive, we don’t force you to pay for health care. Eh. But you do give me a couple of ideas. First, forcing you to pay for health care after you’re dead, and second, forcing you to buy an electric car and auto insurance. Hey, thanks!
Matthew Renner,
“Second @ 21 If I do not own a car and do not drive the goverment cannot force me to buy auto insurance.”
So? If you do drive a car, then the government can require you to buy insurance. This falsifies your statement (above): “First, the goverment has no right to require me to buy anything.”
You still seem to be missing the point that, with the PPACA, the government is not forcing you to buy insurance. You have, essentially, been fooled by stupid right-wing talking points. The “mandate” isn’t a mandate, it is an option: for people that can afford it, either buy insurance or pay a tax penalty.
Matthew Renner,
for last 15 years I’ve been required to have health insurance. The deal my employers signed with their health insurance companies all required that every full time employee must have insurance. If you weren’t on company provided health insurance you had to provide proof that you were insured somewhere else to keep your job.
I find it interesting that people are all freaked out about what the government might do, but are completely silent about what private companies have been doing for years.
What’s going to happen when Obama wins in November? Maybe a few of these nut cases will actually jump off of a bridge and end it. We could only hope.
I take it that Plan B for the wingnuts was to replace President Obama. Today they might be wondering why on earth they nominated a sociopathic, dog-hating, cult leading, vulture capitalist who ships American jobs to China while telling us how much he loves to fire American workers.
Hmm, you wingnuts are probably busy trying to come up with a Plan C today. Good luck with that.
@51 Well, if you left the Tee-Vee on, you’re probably watching part of “Plan C” cranking up now. Why am I not at all surprised that “Fast and Furious” was a project “begun in a previous administration”?
As long as the GOPers think there’s a chance they might not win in November, they’re no doubt working all the angles to see if they can blow this up into a case for impeachment. If that doesn’t work, “Plan D” probably involves firearms as well.
Lesson learned from the Clinton administration: Don’t release any information and don’t allow a special prosecuter.
Michelle Bachmann’s Racist Remarks
“Rep. Michele Bachmann today said President Obama’s health care law was a … ‘black cloud on economic recovery ….’
“This not the first time that Bachmann has made racially charged comments. …
“She was derided for signing … [a] conservative pledge saying that ‘African American children were more likely to grow up in stable families during the era of slavery than under President Barack Obama’ [and] … accused Obama of ‘waving a tar baby in the air’ during a remarks on … energy policy.”
http://www.reddingnewsreview.c.....100067.htm
@37 I thought Fox’s trip-over-dick moment was highly entertaining. First came the too-eager, triumphant-toned, flag-waving announcement that SCOTUS had “gutted” Obamacare. And then came the oh-shit moment when the on-scene reporter uttered that petrifying word, “upheld!” Precious!
@41 “OK first @20, I believe if I have no insurance and have a medical condition that you should not have to pay one penny for me. I and I alone should be forced to pay it. So I agree you should not have to pay for me or anyone else for that matter.”
Sounds great on paper, but the real-life fact is that the uninsured do freeload and it does cost the average policyholder $1,200 – $1,500 a year in higher premiums. As a policyholder, I don’t need platitudes about others paying their own way; I want action to make sure they do.
It seems a lot of the reaction is happening over at Facebook, as photoshopped images of Obama with the words “Impeach and Repeal” are being circulated.
Really? These guys have no brains. If you impeach Obama, then Biden gets into office. You would have to impeach both of them before (shudder) Boener gets into office, assuming that a new Vice-President isn’t appointed in time (like Ford was appointed to fill the vacancy when Agnew was caught with his hands in the cookie jar).
@57
Because it worked out so well for them the last time the Republicans tried to impeach a Democratic president.
Does Clinton 379, Dole 159, ring a bell?
This is a lot of fun, but I had a contemplative moment at lunchtime. I thought about how much could have been accomplished, so much more quickly and more efficiently, if the Republicans had just agreed to health care reform, or at least not have mounted this ridiculous constitutional challenge to it. Millions of man-hours wasted at every level, attorney fees and limited atate resources expended, valuable media time wasted, all to accomplish – nothing.
And yet the Republicans are claiming that this will somehow contribute to our national debt.
I’m wondering if you added up all the costs, whether it would have been enough for something really substantial – like a significant down-payment on a new NASA manned space program.
After that awful Wisconsin election…it’s nice to win one.
Republicans are so snarled in lies, they need a Frank Luntz to coach them with ‘happy phrases’ to preface their meaningless spouting of contradictory talking points.
From the guy who gave us Death Tax, here what we will be hearing for the next 11 months.
Imagine
No Excuses
I get it
If you remember only one thing
Uncompromising intergrity
The simple truth
Believe in better
Real-time
You decide
You deserve
Lets get to work
http://michiganstate.247sports.....-5934648/1
I believe if I have no insurance and have a medical condition that you should not have to pay one penny for me. I and I alone should be forced to pay it. So I agree you should not have to pay for me …
>> It would be interesting if you could opt out and sign a waiver, distributed to the entire health care system, so that if you got cancer or got in a car accident, nobody was responsible for you in any way.
“…or anyone else for that matter.”
>> But it’s not fair to put that on to everyone else. That’s like saying, “I don’t like nachos therefore nobody in the country should have them.” There are a lot of people who would like to be able to afford health care, but cannot. Why should they be locked out because you don’t want health care.
>> How long is this for? Could you decide to be health care free when you are 22, but at 56, you realize health care would be a good idea. Does society have the right to pull up that waiver signed during a drunken Ayn Rand party and deny you any socialized health care for the rest of your short miserable life?
I freaking love The Amazing Atheist.
Mitt may want to update his website, specifically the “Courts & The Constitution” section
Where’d all the righties go?
re 63: Most nuanced take I’ve seen on Obamacare yet.
What kind of strikes me as funny is the way Republicans are so great at ‘messaging’ and tagging things with deceptive names.
They’re now stuck with ‘Obamacare’. You can’t be thrown off your insurance because of pre existing conditions. Who are we to blame for that terrible thing: Obamacare!! Ha Ha —
AND — Republicans always try to create fear that voters will lose something if they don’t vote Republican — well, this time, they’ve created the fear IN THEIR OWN BASE that they will lose their healthcare if they vote Republican — Ha Hah
Right wing fools and liars: the mandate is in name only, and pretty much on the honor system. There is no enforcement, no penalties, no fines. All these were specifically enjoined in the law by the Ds.
The prize here is the State based experimentation (read single payer) that will occur after 2016. It is important to note that the current Canadian health care system American progressives wish we had started as an experiment in Saskatchewan.
Yea, the problem for these guys who insist that they are willing to die without insurance coverage is that the minute the get to the point where they can’t communicate, their family will step in and demand that someone pay for their coverage. There’s a difference between insisting that no extraordinary means be used to keep a person alive, and simply allowing normal care as long a someone pays for it.
@67
In the good old USA we make the assumption that people want to live. If you can’t communicate your wishes and you don’t have an advanced care directive pinned to your chest (and maybe even if you did), we’re going to assume that you want to live.
@57 Why do they even want to bother with impeachment? We’re holding a recall election in a few months.
@65 Maybe we should do them a favor and call it what it is — Romneycare.
# 70: There’s another picture making the rounds on facebook, which simply says “Repeal Obamacare/Romneycare. At least that’s a slight improvement in an understanding of the facts.
Hmmm, it seems Pudge and Serial have decided not to participate in the discusions for most of the day. Not exactly a courageous display in the face of adversity, wouldn’t you say?
Heh.. They’re tuned into their right wing hate talk radio, braindead blogs and Faux News..
A mass black hole for a mind-meld.
Fresh new talking points will be up, first thing in the morning. Anything but the hilarious I’m right, I know the Constitution better than the SCOTUS drek from the likes of Pudge and his followers..
They’ll feel better soon enough.
This is too delicious not to repost it:
“Roger Rabbit: you are being deliberately obtuse just to stir up trouble. …
Posted by pudge at June 28, 2012 09:27 AM”
http://blog.usefulwork.com/cgi.....y_id=15465
And then there’s this gem:
pudge: “He doesn’t define constitutionality.”
RR: “Um, yes, he does when he’s the swing vote on a 5-4 court. And you call ME stupid?”
pudge: “Incorrect. He defines what the courts see as constitutional, not what actualy is constitutional. Again: the touchstone of constitutionality is what the constitution says, not what the Court says.”
Translation: A law is unconstitutional if pudge says so, even if SCOTUS says it’s constitutional. That sounds like “sovereign citizen” bullshit to me. Does pudge drive around with home-made cardboard license tags and refuse to use ZIP codes on mail?
The degenerate right is really freaking out with calling Roberts a “traitor”..
Their hatred of Obama is so out of control they’re not going to hear the other shoe drop, if it ever does anyway.
Maybe it’s just a psych-up for November.
We may assume pudge doesn’t like Marbury v. Madison either.
Darryl @ 39,
I’ll bet your one of those little Seattle twits who thinks he’s Kurt Colbain reincarnated and dresses to match the fantasy. Yours is the “childish prattle,” ace.
On another note, it could be that John Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate because he wanted to energize hatred against Obama and to encourage those of us who aren’t Dems or Reps to vote for Romney. Well, I won’t be voting for Romney or Obama, but there are many independents who really aren’t to enamoured or the Milk Chocolate Messiah, and this health care thing might encourage them to vote for Romney.
As for me, I’ll write-in Ron Paul, just as I did back in 2008. Dennis Kucninich will get my vote for vice-prez via write-in, too.
The Sound Politics take on today’s supreme court ruling.
CBS, and just about everyone else’s, take on todays ruling:
Kinda looks like they put limits on federal power to me.
I’ve always believed that John Roberts has a brilliant mind and is by far, the most intellectual and articulate of all the Justices.
He was spot on. And in being spot on, Roberts has likely handed the keys to the White House to…..Mitt Romney.
All the Justices basically said Obama is a liar. Obama said the mandate was not a tax..over & over again. Clearly the Court said that it was a tax.
And Roberts also pointed out that it is not the Supreme Courts job to litigate away unpopular laws with flawed processes like ObamaCare. Roberts put the focus and target right on Obama when he talked about who is elected has consequences. It will be a rallying cry for Romney.
The Court has spoken.
Now the people will speak in November.
Republicans’ best chance to make changes in the law lies in the budget process. They can avoid the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. Everything with a dollar sign — Medicaid expansions, subsidies for the poor, Medicare savings, new taxes — can be attacked now and in future years.
Frankly, I think Obama was shocked. He was prepared to blame the axing of ObamaCare on 4 Republican White Guys and a misguided Black Guy. Oops.
Now Obama is f*cked.
The whole campaign will be about ObamaCare and the impact it has on the economy.
2 Loser issues for Obama.
By the way, Barrack Obama is now responsible for the largest tax increase on the working Middle Class in the history of the world.
That ought to sell real good, huh?
@81
Giving people access to healthcare and containing healthcare costs is “the largest tax increase on the working Middle Class in the history of the world?”
Yeah, right.
@81
Making it so that middle class people no longer go bankrupt do to healthcare cost is the ” largest tax increase on the working Middle Class in the history of the world.”?
Sorry, no.
@80 JohnRobertsIsBrilliant
Nah. Obama is not at all “f*cked”.
Not the least of which Obama in not “f*cked” by this decision is because, at best, the impact on the economy of ACA is arguable. And I think it is an flip to argue back that the problem with the economy is the “banksters” and the do nothing Congress.
But let’s cut to the chase.
Roberts is not “brilliant”
Roberts should be impeached.
The job of the CJ of the SCOTUS is to build majorities.
In this BS case it should have been a slam dunk.
Well, yes he does have two nitwits in Fat Tony and Pube Thomas, but his worst case outcome should have been 7-2 affirming.
But Roberts could not do that. Roberts could not convince his side of the table to demonstrably restrict the Commerce Clause.
What should have been a 9-0 decision affirming the legality (and there really is no good reason not to, and that’s why Roberts sided with the “libruls”) of Congress’s ability to tax and limiting its power under the Commerce Clause became a partisan 5-4 precedentless decision that does nothing but support Roberts’ political enemies.
Roberts is not “brilliant” and Obama is not “f*cked”. Frankly, the inverse is true.
Quote me in November.
Michael @ 83—-The Himmelstein Study created this huge myth you refer to. Here is the real math:
Much fewer than one percent of Americans enter bankruptcy each year. Of those, only three to five percent are plausibly bankrupt due to medical debt. These numbers present the inconvenient truth that our health system is not leading to bankruptcy in America.
You are trying to justify this monstrosity of a job killer when the reality is Medical Bankruptcy impacts at most 1 in 10,000 Americans.
Don’t you feel silly Michael?
You ought to.
Michael@82–
Access to Health Care?? They already do Michael. Your comments are hollow and without merit.
One other question for you Michael?
Where are all the Doctor’s coming from to service all these new insureds??
Seriously…where are they coming from Michael?
OK, so you start out by saying that these people already have access to healthcare and you end by by wondering where all the doctors are going to come from for the newly insured. But, if they already have access healthcare then there’s no worries about where the people to treat them would come from.
Sorry, not going to play your silly game.
Is this the freaking klown again?
Yep it’s the Wyoming Rodeo harlequin again.
@84–
I’ll save your comment Mike.
But I submit to you this SCOTUS decision will cause Obama more harm than good.
It’s a toxic issue for him because he must now tell voters he lied and the mandate is a tax.
If Obama doesn’t say he lied, I’m pretty sure Romney & his surrogates will say it…over & over again.
In addition, look at the 2010 Governor Races in the Swing States like Ohio, Wisconsin etc.
Republicans took many of those seats and ObamaCare was a huge issue in the campaigns.
So before you jump to your partisan conclusion based on feelings & ignorance, you may do a little research for once.
How did he lie? His Solicitor General made 3 arguments to the Scotus and Roberts bought one of them.
The only lies as usual are coming from the right.
OT
Tell me, is there anything more funny than pudge policing his comments against a script?
Yawwn.. Bullshit…
http://www.urban.org/publications/412533.html
Has the right wing shrunk the “middle class” to 6 percent or less of the population in the last 30 years??? It wouldn’t surprise me.
And a big chunk of “ObamaCare” was going to be adopted by the insurance companies regardless of what the supreme court ruled. Yeah, Obama’s in real trouble.
Wingnut Trolls,
If there was a better “free market” solution than a “mandate” why didn’t the wannabe leader of the free world, Willard M. Rmoney, implement it in MA?
RomneyCare is the law of the land!
Obama is a liar.
The Interviewer arguing with Obama was his l’il buddy, George Stephanopolus. Watch the interview for yourselves. You’ll be seeing it over & over again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL7ak__MGyw
Obama promised to NEVER raise taxes on the middle class…and now the Supreme Court has ruled that he did! How is that not a lie? Obama is a perpetual liar who lies so much, he cannot possibly remember them all.
Here is the promise-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
Here is Candidate Obama again promising not to raise taxes on the middle class..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVMWjTQh_Y
Lied again.
Get used to this language.
It’s a tax increase…the Justices said so.
The LIBERAL JUSTICES said so.
Roberts may have checkmate you idiots.
@96, 97, 98
Not only is your moniker hilarious, your grasping at straws is humorously pathetic.
Keep up the good work!
@94 Maybe the better question is why the market didn’t come up with a “better solution” in the 236 years since our free market based system was established?
If the private sector “solution” was working great there would be no support for a government-imposed “solution.” Obamacare isn’t perfect, but it was enacted by a majority of congressmen elected by a majority of voters in their districts and signed into law by a president who received majorities of both popular and electoral votes … because … (drum roll) … the private-sector health care system created by “the market” is worse.
@87 He’s certainly stupid enough to be the dumbfuck Klown.
I can think of all kinds of things government does because the private sector can’t or won’t do them (often because they’re unprofitable but nevertheless necessary or at least desirable):
1. Building roads and schools in rural counties that lack a sufficient tax base to support them;
2. Providing electricity and mail service to rural counties too lightly populated to be able to support the economic costs of these services;
3. Supporting basic research that is too costly or not profitable enough for private businesses to undertake;
4. Providing infrastructure that supports our economy (see, e.g., highways, airports, and ports);
5. Safeguarding lives, property, and trade routes with inherently costly and unprofitable services such as military and police;
6. Subsidizing farmers so they can produce food even when market conditions are unfavorable for food production because we all have to eat regardless of market forces; and
7. I’m sure you can think of lots of other government functions, without which society itself couldn’t function.
I’m getting tired of brainless people who mindlessly bash government just to make themselves feel good or hear themselves talk. I’d rather spend my time with people who have some critical thinking skills and something thoughtful to say. Just listening to unhappy people ventilate is a waste of my time.
The GOP is running a candidate whose vision for the future is reinstating our broken health care system of the past.
The centerpiece of Obama’s first four years is reforming our health care system.
The centerpiece of Rmoney’s campaign is unreforming it.
Do Republicans really believe they can win with this strategy?
Which he can’t even do, because the insurance companies have said they’re keeping many of the changes.
Thanks for the laughs, JRIB.
I’d post something, but I’m speechless.
No couple who earns less that $200,000 will pay one dime in new taxes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
Oh really, there are 12 new taxes aimed at everyone under $200,000, and 9 aimed at those above that income level.
They way you can tell if an elected official is lying is to see if their mouth is moving.
Roger Rabbit @ 103
You said “103.
Here is Romney’s Plan. It is not what you just represented.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
You obviously don’t like Romney and won’t vote for him but to say he wants to reinstate the past is flat out false. But hey, that’s what farleftists do. Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals
RealClearPolitics just moved Arizona from a toss-up to Leans Romney making the current count 221-181
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....e_map.html
So the remaining toss-ups are-
Toss Up
Colorado (9)
Florida (29)
Iowa (6)
Michigan (16)
Missouri (10)
Nevada (6)
New Hampshire (4)
North Carolina (15)
Ohio (18)
Virginia (13)
Wisconsin (10)
In virtually all of these toss-ups, Obama hovers around 47%. As the ObamaCare debate heats up, it will be interesting to see if Obama can get beyond 47%. He desperately needs to as Undecideds generally break against the incumbent when there are heated issues like we have.
@109. GetFactsFirst,
If the election were held today, you’d need to be planning your Christmas shopping.
But the election is not today,
so get busy planning your 4th of July celebration with its extra added bonus this year of celebrating the constitutionally legal (as determined by Republican President appointed and unanimously Republican confirmed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts) Affordable Care Act.
ALINSKY!!!11!!
ACORN!1!!!!
FAST N FURIOUS!!!!1
SOLYNDRA1!!!!
VINCE FOSTER!!!!
Ack thpittt!
@108
I just read you link – and Rmoney’s plan is no plan – it’s a list of gauzy bromides and “free-market” boilerplate, like:
That worked so well with the financial industry, what could go wrong?
and
Doesn’t change premiums, and is a backdoor entry to tort reform, which is just Republican wet-dream of further erosion in consumer rights.
or
OH! Now you’re talking – that’ll solve the health care crisis right there!
Whew, glad Mitt is on the case.
@108 “JohnRobertsIsBrilliant spews:”
The Dumbfuck Klown. A Klown can change his screen name but he’ll never, ever be able to hide teh stupid.
110. MikeBoyScout spews:
Roberts DID NOT say this was good Legislation. He said it was legal because despite Obama’s lies to the contrary, it was a TAX.
Now it gets real political.
Will you be celebrating in November Mike?
What will you do if ObamaCare doesn’t get funded in the future?
Conservatives have lots of options to derail the onerous parts of this.
113. Steve spews:
Huh?
GetFactsFirst @ 114,
“Roberts DID NOT say this was good Legislation.”
And damn good thing he didn’t, either. It’s not in his job description.
“He said it was legal because despite Obama’s lies to the contrary, it was a TAX.”
FALSE
Look, asshole, stop parroting Rush Limbaugh talking points. READ THE FUCKING DECISION.
The decision says that the Act was a “legitimate use of Congress’ taxing authority.” That is not the same as saying the Act is a tax.
In fact, if it had been considered a tax, the Supreme Court would have declined to render an opinion:
This was one of the grounds on which the lawsuit was challenged. In other words, if the Act was for the collection of a tax, the SCOTUS would decline to rule until someone was forced to pay the tax. Alas…
In other words, the SCOTUS decided it COULD take the case because the taxing authority was not used as an ordinary tax. Rather it was a tax penalty (which is precisely what was claimed for it by POTUS and the congresscritters who actually wrote the legislation.
Consider yourself informed (and with any luck, a little better educated).
For a really good point by point breakdown of what “Obama Care” really does go here: http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm
Here’s the first two on the list:
@110 Things are looking up for Rmoney in the RCP poll! He’s only 40 electoral votes behind and needs only two-thirds of the tossup votes. He might have a chance if he keeps his mouth shut and says absolutely nothing between now and Election Day.
@116 Actually, SCOTUS said it’s a “tax” for purposes of the Constitution, but not a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. In law, a thing can be two different and mutually exclusive things at the same time; it happens all the time. Drives law students crazy until they finally catch on. If you’re called on to discuss it in class, perhaps the best strategy is to call it a “thingy”; you really can’t go wrong with that.