djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 24, 2012 22:32:06 GMT -5
|
|
ungenteel
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 20:26:26 GMT -5
Posts: 560
|
Post by ungenteel on Jun 24, 2012 22:40:50 GMT -5
insurance companies benefit most ... they won't be forced to provide insurance to those with pre-existing conditions ... an issue that the creepy repubs refuse to address with anything other than lip service
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 24, 2012 22:46:12 GMT -5
insurance companies benefit most ... they won't be forced to provide insurance to those with pre-existing conditions ... an issue that the creepy repubs refuse to address with anything other than lip service um...i meant Romney or Obama. but i like devious answers.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 24, 2012 22:55:50 GMT -5
... um...i meant Romney or Obama. ... Very little advantage to be gained either way. Part of it depends on the vote. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy voting to overturn and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer voting to not will be a slight advantage for Obama. More voting to overturn will be a small benefit for Romney.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 24, 2012 22:59:49 GMT -5
The Republic. It's gone or ObamaCare is gone. We can't keep the country and Obama's policies. We have to pick one, or the other.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 24, 2012 23:02:03 GMT -5
The Republic. It's gone or ObamaCare is gone. We can't keep the country and Obama's policies. We have to pick one, or the other.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 24, 2012 23:02:53 GMT -5
... um...i meant Romney or Obama. ... Very little advantage to be gained either way. Part of it depends on the vote. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy voting to overturn and Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Breyer voting to not will be a slight advantage for Obama. More voting to overturn will be a small benefit for Romney. that is kinda what i think, too. Romney can't just say he is against Obamacare any more tho. he is going to have to say what he is FOR.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jun 25, 2012 8:56:49 GMT -5
From an economic stand point the American public will benefit the most. I could care less about whether Obama or Romney benefit. We do need a better plan to provide health care but the current plan is a bureaucratic mess. We should start with freezing out all the special interests in the planning process.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jun 25, 2012 9:17:01 GMT -5
From an economic stand point the American public will benefit the most. I could care less about whether Obama or Romney benefit. We do need a better plan to provide health care but the current plan is a bureaucratic mess. We should start with freezing out all the special interests in the planning process. I agree...what I would like is legislation that isn't created or shot down for the benefit of any politician. As long as that's the reason for any and all legislation, our country is doomed. What they need to do is exactly what Obama PROMISED to do: have a public discussion with all involved, live on TV for everyone to see. Not his back room, behind closed doors crap. And they need to work on simple legislation...get the damn lawyers out of there so a bill can be introduced that is under 1000 pages. The only reason to have large bills like that is to hide shit...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2012 9:20:10 GMT -5
The bits of the law that have been enacted thus far are hugely popular. If coverage for pre-existing conditions (closing the prescription drug donut hole, coverage for young adults on their parents' plans, you name it) blows up... there will be pressure on Romney and Obama to find a way to get it back.
Obama is not dumb. Doling out the fun parts before the individual mandate hits was pretty shrewd.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jun 25, 2012 9:27:17 GMT -5
The bits of the law that have been enacted thus far are hugely popular. If coverage for pre-existing conditions (closing the prescription drug donut hole, coverage for young adults on their parents' plans, you name it) blows up... there will be pressure on Romney and Obama to find a way to get it back. Obama is not dumb. Doling out the fun parts before the individual mandate hits was pretty shrewd. And surprisingly what is not hugely popular are the monthly premium increases coming out of our paychecks to pay for these hugely popular provisions.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Jun 25, 2012 9:29:37 GMT -5
insurance companies benefit most ... they won't be forced to provide insurance to those with pre-existing conditions ... an issue that the creepy repubs refuse to address with anything other than lip service Insurance co's will not benefit, monthly premiums coming out of our paychecks will be covering this sort of "benefit". The Affordable Care Act has already increased the cost of getting health care.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2012 9:30:24 GMT -5
No, but neither were the comparably high monthly premium increases that were coming out of our paychecks to pay for skyrocketing costs before Obamacare.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 25, 2012 10:50:34 GMT -5
The bits of the law that have been enacted thus far are hugely popular. If coverage for pre-existing conditions (closing the prescription drug donut hole, coverage for young adults on their parents' plans, you name it) blows up... there will be pressure on Romney and Obama to find a way to get it back. Obama is not dumb. Doling out the fun parts before the individual mandate hits was pretty shrewd. This law was intentionally structured so that all the 'good stuff' was front loaded.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 25, 2012 11:10:51 GMT -5
I think it will hurt Obama more, but I can see it's reppeal helping him in the sense that it might become a rallying cry for the November election.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 11:12:06 GMT -5
The bits of the law that have been enacted thus far are hugely popular. If coverage for pre-existing conditions (closing the prescription drug donut hole, coverage for young adults on their parents' plans, you name it) blows up... there will be pressure on Romney and Obama to find a way to get it back. Obama is not dumb. Doling out the fun parts before the individual mandate hits was pretty shrewd. And surprisingly what is not hugely popular are the monthly premium increases coming out of our paychecks to pay for these hugely popular provisions. i believe that the increases have been below historical norms for the last two decades. correct me if i am wrong.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 11:14:20 GMT -5
I think it will hurt Obama more, but I can see it's reppeal helping him in the sense that it might become a rallying cry for the November election. i don't think that necessarily works for Obama. after all, Romney could advocate HC reform and steal that thunder. Romney's problem, as i see it, is his tendency to talk in the same kind of false platitudes that Obama talks in. he will need to get specific to differentiate himself, and that is not really in his skill set. having the ACA out there to attack saves him that trouble. if it is no longer there, he loses that shield.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 25, 2012 11:27:14 GMT -5
Supreme Court is issuing their opinion on Thursday before they recess for the holiday.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 11:34:36 GMT -5
Supreme Court is issuing their opinion on Thursday before they recess for the holiday. thanks, devil gurl.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 25, 2012 11:39:01 GMT -5
"Romney's problem, as i see it, is his tendency to talk in the same kind of false platitudes that Obama talks in. he will need to get specific to differentiate himself, and that is not really in his skill set. having the ACA out there to attack saves him that trouble. if it is no longer there, he loses that shield."
Yes, I think you're right. Being able to direct attacks towards the bill means he doesn't have to propose (and defend) his own idea of health care reform. If it is repealed, he'll be getting some tough questions about what he's going to do about it if he's president, while Obama can say "well, I already tried my idea."
"Supreme Court is issuing their opinion on Thursday before they recess for the holiday."
If I were a betting man, I'd say the individual mandate will be overturned in a 5-4 decision.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 25, 2012 11:58:26 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom pre arguments was that it'd be a 5-4 split. Post arguments I'm not so sure. Justices who were thought to be sympathetic to Obamacare were hammering the government lawyers.
The way the bill was written didn't allow for slicing and dicing. And many say those provisions can't be funded without the money from the individual mandate fines. It'll be interesting to see if they toss the whole thing or decide it can be sliced and diced. One thing's for sure, I will have a very busy Thursday and Friday.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 12:03:09 GMT -5
could be as much as a 6:3 split EITHER WAY. there are a lot of swing issues on this one.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2012 12:36:01 GMT -5
I'm not in on the inner workings of the SCOTUS, but I was reading some reports this morning to see if they would annouce the ACA decision today. Folks are theorizing that Roberts wrote the decision (I guess based on the way the writing assignments were handed out on some of the other cases).
I confess, that makes me nervous.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 25, 2012 12:49:59 GMT -5
Arizona's immigration law decision was today. Can't have all the fun in one day.
I think arguments swung some opinions. Not sure it is the 5-4 split everyone thought was the case pre-argument.
Thursday morning at 10am per the Washington Post. They think a co-authored opinion is possible with it being Roberts with assistance from Kennedy. The Arizona opinion was written by Kennedy.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 25, 2012 12:58:05 GMT -5
Just curious WVGURL,
What does your job have to do with the supreme court decision. I know you're an auditor for the government but what does that have to do with Obamacare?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 13:01:32 GMT -5
I'm not in on the inner workings of the SCOTUS, but I was reading some reports this morning to see if they would annouce the ACA decision today. Folks are theorizing that Roberts wrote the decision (I guess based on the way the writing assignments were handed out on some of the other cases). I confess, that makes me nervous. sarah- i am sure i will take shit for this, but i am not sure how bad it would be if this thing was overturned on the mandate. it seems to me that the mandate was basically a Republican compromise, and that the better solution is single payer. if the mandate stays in place, single payer is a non-starter. if the mandate goes down, single payer is back on the table.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 25, 2012 13:08:47 GMT -5
"sarah- i am sure i will take shit for this, but i am not sure how bad it would be if this thing was overturned on the mandate. it seems to me that the mandate was basically a Republican compromise, and that the better solution is single payer. if the mandate stays in place, single payer is a non-starter. if the mandate goes down, single payer is back on the table."
There's no way we'll go to single payer anytime soon. It was a miracle that Obamacare passed in it's current form, and even then they had to make all kinds of compromises like removing the public options. Something that goes even farther than Obamacare wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell unless something changes drastically.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2012 13:10:34 GMT -5
"sarah- i am sure i will take shit for this, but i am not sure how bad it would be if this thing was overturned on the mandate. it seems to me that the mandate was basically a Republican compromise, and that the better solution is single payer. if the mandate stays in place, single payer is a non-starter. if the mandate goes down, single payer is back on the table." There's no way we'll go to single payer anytime soon. It was a miracle that Obamacare passed in it's current form, and even then they had to make all kinds of compromises like removing the public options. Something that goes even farther than Obamacare wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell unless something changes drastically. i like the sound of drastic change.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,730
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 25, 2012 13:24:25 GMT -5
Considering how badly the government and states have messed up Medicare & Medicaid, I want nothing to do with a single payer system.
Phoenix you have a PM.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:17:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2012 13:25:40 GMT -5
I agree that drastic change is good. But I don't think we will have an environment conducive to drastic change in Washington anytime soon.
The Dems won't be able to gain enough power in the Senate in November to really run the table if Obama wins. If Romney wins, the GOP could potentially set themselves up to make big changes, but I can't see them using that power for health care reform.
|
|