Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If we look at the upcoming Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare in purely political terms, it sure seems to be a loser for the Republicans. Consider what could happen if the Court overturns the individual mandate...

• 16 million people who now have subsidized private health insurance will be thrown back to ER's for their care. Say goodbye to those votes, mostly the poor and minorities.

• All the college-aged kids who either can't get or can't afford insurance, and are covered under their parents' policies, will suddenly be left in the lurch. Goodbye to the youth vote, as well as the votes of well-meaning and concerned parents.

• Tens of millions of people who have private insurance will see their premiums go up substantially. After seeing their premiums increase by about 40% in the last five years, I think you can kiss lots of votes of angry and suddenly much poorer policy holders goodbye.

• If the CBO is correct in their projections, employers of as many as 4 million employees will lose their company-paid health insurance because the employers can no longer afford to offer the benefit. They won't happily support the candidates who say they wanted to repeal ObamaCare.

• How about all the doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers who will suddenly have to write off their bills for treatment of the newly uninsured in ER's? Oh yeah, they'll enthusiastically line up behind the candidates who wanted this to happen.

• And what about the state's attorneys general who banded together to sue? All of a sudden, their state Medicaid programs will be under water, their local hospitals and doctors won't be paid, and their residents will be voting them out of office too.

If the Court overturns all or even major parts of ObamaCare, there is no GOP candidate who'll be able to get far enough away to escape the shrapnel from the public explosion over lost benefits.

From a political strategy point-of-view, wouldn't it have been better to nick away at the least desirable parts of the bill or add in things that are missing, as opposed to just cratering the whole thing? The critics all say that what we need is a "free market" solution. But ObamaCare already is based heavily on private insurers--the single payer system originally proposed was lost early in the fighting over what will be in the bill.

For those who want to replace President Obama, solidify a majority in the House, and maybe take control of the Senate, this has to be the "losingest" political strategy that I can imagine. I wonder if any of the political geniuses ever thought about that?

In some ways I agree with you, and in some I do not.

Yep,this will lose some votes, but I would suggest that they, the Reps, would not have gotten them anyway

I also will point out that there is a case to be made to the MAJORITY of voters who do not approve of this law that this is best for the country, ALTHOUGH...I will add sarcastically that from reading on here..what is best for the country does not seem to be important.

Lastly, I do not believe the court will issue a decision without weighing and hopefully coming up with some remedies for it. Being really optimistic today.

PS...they could also insure the message that they will allow the american people to see and hear the debate and formation of the law which Obama promised but did not do.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Too bad insurance companies don't consider obesity and addiction (ie smoking) as prior conditions and refuse to cover anybody afflicted with either. Think of the money that would save not covering the diseases, diabetes and lung cancer, that are preventable. I'm calling my congressman with my money saving idea.

You post this sarcastically and this is the problem.

BOTH sides understand what you are passing off as some new thought from the left....both sides get it. This bill passed in secrecy in back rooms giving away to those insurance companies and others for strictly political gain is not what this country needs.

You can be sarcastic as much as you want.....hope your party gives you a medal as this kind of attitude is strictly party oriented.

This country need a health care revision...tort reform...address health costs, BOTH promised by Obama.....BOTH ignored by Obama !

Not directly related to the thread, but does anyone ever recall a sitting President of the United States ever being so arrogant as to actually call out the Supreme Court.....

"US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law - Yahoo! News Canada

I mean, reminding the supreme court that they are "unelected" is quite an arrogant statement isnt it ?

Anyone know of a President talking to the court like this ? I dont, but that means nothing....was curious because the statement sort of took me back.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Not directly related to the thread, but does anyone ever recall a sitting President of the United States ever being so arrogant as to actually call out the Supreme Court.....

"US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

Combative Obama warns Supreme Court on health law - Yahoo! News Canada

I mean, reminding the supreme court that they are "unelected" is quite an arrogant statement isnt it ?

Anyone know of a President talking to the court like this ? I don't, but that means nothing....was curious because the statement sort of took me back.

Obama certainly didn't note anything flimsy about those "unelected" Supreme Court positions when he appointed his Solicitor General--Elena Kegan--to be a judge on that court so she would be hearing and deciding on the very law SHE PROMULGATED on behalf of the Administration.

And he certainly does not note anything flimsy about Kagan now arguing to bolster the weak arguments of the solicitor general who took her place and is now arguing the case before her and the rest of the court!

Originally Posted by janmcn

Too bad insurance companies don't consider obesity and addiction (ie smoking) as prior conditions and refuse to cover anybody afflicted with either. Think of the money that would save not covering the diseases, diabetes and lung cancer, that are preventable. I'm calling my congressman with my money saving idea.

Soooo, lung cancer is preventable? Smoking is the only cause? Man, you ain't had working men/woman in your family I figure.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

Soooo, lung cancer is preventable? Smoking is the only cause? Man, you ain't had working men/woman in your family I figure.

Right. The bigotry and discrimination of the "tolerant" liberals expands now against non-smoking lung cancer patients......

"Lung cancer in non-smokers is more common than many people realize. In fact, lung cancer in never-smokers is now considered the 6th most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States.

Though we lump smokers and non-smokers together when discussing lung cancer, lung cancer in non-smokers is a different disease in many ways. What do we know about lung cancer in non-smokers?

Statistics About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)

Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20% of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women....."

Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers - Facts About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Right. The bigotry and discrimination of the "tolerant" liberals expands now against non-smoking lung cancer patients......

"Lung cancer in non-smokers is more common than many people realize. In fact, lung cancer in never-smokers is now considered the 6th most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States.

Though we lump smokers and non-smokers together when discussing lung cancer, lung cancer in non-smokers is a different disease in many ways. What do we know about lung cancer in non-smokers?

Statistics About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

Overall, 10-15% of lung cancers occur in non-smokers. (Another 50% occur in former smokers.)

Two-thirds of the non-smokers who get lung cancer are women, and 20% of lung cancers in women occur in individuals who have never smoked. This percentage is significantly higher in Asian women....."

Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers - Facts About Lung Cancer in Non-Smokers

You bet. The working men/women jumped in when the boss said to. The boss didn't know it was hazardous? Maybe. Many new things discovered that cause Cancer.

Originally Posted by Bucco

In some ways I agree with you, and in some I do not.

Yep,this will lose some votes, but I would suggest that they, the Reps, would not have gotten them anyway

I also will point out that there is a case to be made to the MAJORITY of voters who do not approve of this law that this is best for the country, ALTHOUGH...I will add sarcastically that from reading on here..what is best for the country does not seem to be important.

Lastly, I do not believe the court will issue a decision without weighing and hopefully coming up with some remedies for it. Being really optimistic today.

PS...they could also insure the message that they will allow the american people to see and hear the debate and formation of the law which Obama promised but did not do.

Boy, you really are being hopeful and optimistic today, Bucco. I wish I could share your optimism.

All I can say is that the GOP candidates need to attract a lot of those voters who they might not have "gotten" in prior elections. According to this morning's polls, Romney is as much as 30 points behind Obama among women, worse than that among Hispanics, and about 10-15 points down among other minorities. He's even polling worse than Obama among white, working class males. Continuing to fire away on repealing ObamaCare doesn't seem to be a strategy that will attract back voters from those segments that he really needs.

As far as what the true majority feels about ObamaCare, I really wonder whether most people have really thought through the impact that a repeal of the law would have, and the dismal probability that Congress would be inclined to even consider more healthcare legislation anytime soon. I think you posted a quote from Mitch McConnell, who said basically that a little "work around the edges" is about all that can be expected.

I don't know what to expect from the Court. Will they be activist and "make law" from the bench? Or will they rule solely on the constitutionality of the issue? They are clearly competent to rule on constitutional questions. I'm not as confident that they have the skill, experience or time to make competent rulings on the complexities of a 2,700 page healthcare law that took Congress 14 months to put together.

To some extent, I have to chuckle. In prior judicial confirmation hearings, it's been the Republican members of the judiciary committee and the Senate who have railed against candidates put up by liberal presidents, asserting that they would be activists and make law from the bench. Now, that's exactly what those same politicians are hoping for from the conservative justices.

I guess we'll see, first on the outcome of the Court proceedings, then on the outcome of the fall general election.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Boy, you really are being hopeful and optimistic today, Bucco. I wish I could share your optimism.

All I can say is that the GOP candidates need to attract a lot of those voters who they might not have "gotten" in prior elections. According to this morning's polls, Romney is as much as 30 points behind Obama among women, worse than that among Hispanics, and about 10-15 points down among other minorities. He's even polling worse than Obama among white, working class males. Continuing to fire away on repealing ObamaCare doesn't seem to be a strategy that will attract back voters from those segments that he really needs.

As far as what the true majority feels about ObamaCare, I really wonder whether most people have really thought through the impact that a repeal of the law would have, and the dismal probability that Congress would be inclined to even consider more healthcare legislation anytime soon. I think you posted a quote from Mitch McConnell, who said basically that a little "work around the edges" is about all that can be expected.

I don't know what to expect from the Court. Will they be activist and "make law" from the bench? Or will they rule solely on the constitutionality of the issue? They are clearly competent to rule on constitutional questions. I'm not as confident that they have the skill, experience or time to make competent rulings on the complexities of a 2,700 page healthcare law that took Congress 14 months to put together.

To some extent, I have to chuckle. In prior judicial confirmation hearings, it's been the Republican members of the judiciary committee and the Senate who have railed against candidates put up by liberal presidents, asserting that they would be activists and make law from the bench. Now, that's exactly what those same politicians are hoping for from the conservative justices.

I guess we'll see, first on the outcome of the Court proceedings, then on the outcome of the fall general election.

Do you ever recall a sitting President of the United States calling out the court at this point in deliberation and referring to their not being elected ?

Serious question

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

In case you missed it. The Congressional Budget Office has " scored" the impact of the Supreme Court overturning the individual mandate portion of ObamaCare. Here's what they project will happen....

• 16 million people will come off the roles of those insured by private insurance companies.

• Because of the loss of premium income, the insurance companies will have to increase premiums for those remaining policy holders by 15%.

• Because of the increase in premiums, employers will drop offering company-paid health insurance to an additional 4 million people.

So, if those suing the government are successful, 20 million people will be returned to relying on hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare. The rest of us will pay 15% higher premiums to pay for these using ER's but not paying. The cost of our healthcare will continue to escalate as a percentage of our GDP. And the results in the quality of American healthcare won't improve.

Now I ask you, if it took 14 months for the Congress to create ObamaCare, how long might it take for them to come up with a 'replacement' law to replace what the Supreme Court might overturn? Will they even try?

Is this what we really want?

This says it better than I, of course that is a small task for anyone...

"In the span of one week, Democrats went from dismissing the possibility that the Supreme Court would strike down the 2010 law mandating individuals to buy health insurance to consoling themselves that any such action would have a silver lining.

James Carville says it would help the Democrats in the election. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes that it would make single payer -- a government health system as in the U.K. and Canada -- “inevitable.” Other liberals, and even the occasional right-of-center analyst, have echoed that point: The conservative legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul could prove self-defeating.

It’s an interesting and counterintuitive analysis, but it’s almost certainly wrong. If the court undoes Obamacare, either in whole or in part, conservatives who would like to reduce the government’s role in health care are likely to get policies much more to their liking.

Let’s say the court strikes down the entire law. The Democratic fantasy goes something like this: The public will still be upset about the number of Americans without insurance, rising premiums and the difficulty people with pre-existing conditions have getting insurance. Republicans will have no plan for achieving universal coverage. Sooner or later, single payer -- which would probably be more popular than a mandate, and thus an easier sell to the public -- will prevail"

AND THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART...

"Reality-check time: When Obamacare became law, Democrats had more power in Washington than at any time since the Carter administration in the 1970s. They had the presidency and lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. Because conservative Democrats have declined in numbers, it was probably the most liberal Congress since 1965-66. They were still barely able to pass the law. And that was with important medical industries either neutralized or in favor of the legislation, which they would not be in the case of single payer. "

Democrats Resort to Magical Thinking on Obamacare - Bloomberg

Originally Posted by Bucco

Do you ever recall a sitting President of the United States calling out the court at this point in deliberation and referring to their not being elected ?

Serious question

I don't. But then again, we've never had a President who was lawyer and professor of Constitutional law at a top law school. Do I think he should have opined on the matter from his office? No. But am I all excited about it? Another no. Do I think the nine justices will pay even one little bit of attention to what the president thinks? No.

In so many words, I don't think his statement is worth worrying about.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't. But then again, we've never had a President who was lawyer and professor of Constitutional law at a top law school. Do I think he should have opined on the matter from his office? No. But am I all excited about it? Another no. Do I think the nine justices will pay even one little bit of attention to what the president thinks? No.

In so many words, I don't think his statement is worth worrying about.

I AGREE...it simply points to the absolute arrogance of the man !!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

This says it better than I, of course that is a small task for anyone...

"In the span of one week, Democrats went from dismissing the possibility that the Supreme Court would strike down the 2010 law mandating individuals to buy health insurance to consoling themselves that any such action would have a silver lining.

James Carville says it would help the Democrats in the election. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson writes that it would make single payer -- a government health system as in the U.K. and Canada -- “inevitable.” Other liberals, and even the occasional right-of-center analyst, have echoed that point: The conservative legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul could prove self-defeating.

It’s an interesting and counterintuitive analysis, but it’s almost certainly wrong. If the court undoes Obamacare, either in whole or in part, conservatives who would like to reduce the government’s role in health care are likely to get policies much more to their liking.

Let’s say the court strikes down the entire law. The Democratic fantasy goes something like this: The public will still be upset about the number of Americans without insurance, rising premiums and the difficulty people with pre-existing conditions have getting insurance. Republicans will have no plan for achieving universal coverage. Sooner or later, single payer -- which would probably be more popular than a mandate, and thus an easier sell to the public -- will prevail"

AND THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART...

"Reality-check time: When Obamacare became law, Democrats had more power in Washington than at any time since the Carter administration in the 1970s. They had the presidency and lopsided majorities in both houses of Congress. Because conservative Democrats have declined in numbers, it was probably the most liberal Congress since 1965-66. They were still barely able to pass the law. And that was with important medical industries either neutralized or in favor of the legislation, which they would not be in the case of single payer. "

Democrats Resort to Magical Thinking on Obamacare - Bloomberg

I particularly agree with the second and third paragraphs. I truly believe that the Republican's efforts to overturn the law is a big-time losing political strategy. So much so that it's clearly within the realm of possibility that the Democrats re-take the House, Senate and the White House.

Where I differ with the article is the author's attempt to project that a rejuvenated totally Democratic government would have the same difficulty crafting clearcut, simple legislation as they obviously had in the past.

When the Democrats had the majorities you refer to, they had the same problem that the Republican-controlled House has now--a Senate not controlled by a simple majority, but by the minority who still has cloture powers under Senate rules.

Where I think a difference may lie is the seriousness of the disastrous political strategy currently being undertaken by the GOP. The results of the next couple of elections could easily create Democratic majorities sufficient to overcome even Senate cloture rules. Then the only problem may be how much lobbyists for special interests will influence whatever legislation created by such a politically-lopsided Congress.

Originally Posted by Bucco

I AGREE...it simply points to the absolute arrogance of the man !!!!

Whether arrogance has been a primary character trait of men elected to the Presidency is a question. Some have been more arrogant than others, but they've all exhibited arrogance to a degree. Think about those who have held the office. Eisenhower? Truman? Kennedy? Johnson? Nixon? Clinton? Seems to me there was lots of arrogance among that group. About the only ones where arrogance may not have been a primary trait might have been Ford and Carter.

Interestingly, Ford and Carter were both one-term Presidents. Maybe the public likes a bit of arrogance from its President.

VK, Just for the record Obama was not a professor. He was a lecturer.