-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
I keep hearing that there really isn't a mandate since no penalty will be enforced on people who choose not to get insurance.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
When is the last day they are in session? Lol. They want to avoid fallout either way. This is one of the biggest decisions of the last 30 years on the court, so there is going to be fallout either way.
Well shit, what's all this hoopla about then.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Never forget!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/23/hypocritic-oath/
Seriously, watch this video. Ezra Klein highlighting the beautiful tragedy of Repubicans moving against something of which they conceived.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/23/hypocritic-oath/
Seriously, watch this video. Ezra Klein highlighting the beautiful tragedy of Repubicans moving against something of which they conceived.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Your general point was that there was no difference between democrats and republicans, including on gay rights. You've conceded gay rights apparently, I'm just saying your general point is still wrong.
With respect to Iraq you're right most democrats voted for it - and if Obama was in congress at the time I truly believe he would have voted for it, or voted present of course.
The problem here is that the positions of both parties changed drastically as the war progressed. Republicans demanded we double down, democrats began opposing the war (while often voting to continue to fund it, which I think is understandable/justifiable).
Multiple issues have been brought up where democrats and republicans fiercely disagree, both in ideological principle and party platform.
Appeasing morally and ethically bankrupt private insurance companies.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The big joke is that they're fucked if the mandate goes down. Ezra points out in the video I posted above that the mandate was originally designed to protect them in the event universal healthcare/single payer ever passed.
Heh heh heh.
I really do wonder if I'm going to see a significant increase in my monthly payment for health insurance, though. The lack of a mandate is going to make them lose their shit.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Ultimately this is about Republicans destroying their own personal gain in favor of political expediency.
It's the new wave of tea party conservatism!
How awesome it would be in 10 years if single-payer passes, and as a result of this decision striking down the mandate, the GOP cannot try to sneak in any kind of measure to combat single-payer such as a mandate on private insurance.
Ohh how sweet that would be.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Man, we both know that's not going to happen.
I could see single-payer being proposed as a viable option if the mandate does fall and premiums spike as a result. But there'd really have to be a fundamental shift in American politics for that to happen. We'd need another Teddy Roosevelt who just doesn't give a shit about the establishment, and then 60 of those in the Senate and 218 in the House (and 5 on the Supreme Court).
Obama's idea is incremental reform within the system, which is nice but I'd think after the next big recession hits (in a bear and bull market it's inevitable) the people will have had enough.
I feel like you're going in circles.
Yes, the two parties are pretty close to each other on a number of issues, and yes, this country could use more diverse views in Washington.
Yet that does not mean that there is no difference between the two.
There are a number of important (at least to me) issues that they are undeniably different on.
Few have been pointed out to you, I'm sure you can find many more even in vague and broad document as the national platforms.
Are you arguing this point philosophically or practically vis-a-vis the 2012 election?
PhoenixDark
Banned
What's to stop the SC from ruling single payer is unconstitutional as well?
I have a friend who have been saying for a while that throwing out the mandate is the best thing that can happen to healthcare in this country.
His point is that conservatives doesn't have any ideas outside the mandate, that the voucher system is too simple to fool people and that; he, like Ezra Klein, think this will force a single payer.
He can be quite persuasive, especially after a couple of drinks, but man, that's a lot of uninsured people in the meantime.
Medicare.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
He's done way more than just repealing DADT. You should look some of this stuff up.
Well yeah. But ten years is a long time. And in that time frame there would probably be another big Democratic wave (if not 10, then 15 years) and by then single payer could be more politically viable as the boomers aren't around as much and we are starting to get older.Man, we both know that's not going to happen.
I could see single-payer being proposed as a viable option if the mandate does fall and premiums spike as a result. But there'd really have to be a fundamental shift in American politics for that to happen. We'd need another Teddy Roosevelt who just doesn't give a shit about the establishment, and then 60 of those in the Senate and 218 in the House (and 5 on the Supreme Court).
Obama's idea is incremental reform within the system, which is nice but I'd think after the next big recession hits (in a bear and bull market it's inevitable) the people will have had enough.
PhoenixDark
Banned
because it was Obama's 11th dimensional chess end game all along
Bet y'all are dying to see RightWingNews' top 20 hottest Republican wimmenz:
http://www.rightwingnews.com/specia...ervative-women-in-the-new-media-2012-edition/
http://www.rightwingnews.com/specia...ervative-women-in-the-new-media-2012-edition/
So slick he waited until after it was already decided, as Gaborn has pointed out to us before.
10-15 years is not "anytime soon"
They all have the same smile.
Single payer in as little as 10 years? You're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am then.
Black Republican
Member
i said it would be upheld!
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Stepford Wives?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
GOP backed off tort reform after that study was released saying it wouldn't do anything to substantiallly lower costs. A few years ago that was all they'd talk about.
I figure there's gonna be a lot of depressed people later today when the SC rules medicare the mandate unconstitutional, so how about we enjoy one last bit of schadenfreude before that:
Relevant quotes:
Socialism for me, not for thee.
BOOM.
Relevant quotes:
Socialism for me, not for thee.
BOOM.
The Librarian
Banned
Really? If his statement held true then he should have NO problem finding ten Republicans that support SSM. I opened it up to state representatives because there isn't a Republican in Congress that will come out for SSM. Even though you seemingly found more than ten, his original assertion is still false. Relative the number of elected Republican legislators in the country, there aren't "many Republicans" that support SSM. And this is completely ignoring that whenever gay marriage makes any headway in states, it's under Democratic administrations.
His premise that the two parties are largely the same is false, but I took more issue with his "Americans, let me tell you what's what" attitude than anything. It was kind of insulting to be honest, and I think that's why he received the response he did.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Just read the Detroit Free Press article about how close the race is in Michigan.
http://www.freep.com/article/201206...n-Michigan?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
If Obama can't win Michigan after Romney's auto industry comments, he can't win the election.
http://www.freep.com/article/201206...n-Michigan?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
If Obama can't win Michigan after Romney's auto industry comments, he can't win the election.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
These two sentences right next to each other like this is hilarious...its like he's not listening to what he's saying. I'm honestly curious now, if asked, how would he define a government handout? Does he think that if the government goes to other people it won't go back into the economy?
teruterubozu
Member
Well, GM CEO Akerson as well as many other Detroit auto execs are Republican, bailout or no bailout.
empty vessel
Member
That limb looks a little too thin for me.
Buddha Beam
Banned
I'm one of the few holdouts who thinks they'll keep the full thing intact.
That said, if they did throw it out, i recall reading that Obama COULD enact Medicare for all via a simple signing statement. From there it's just a matter of daring the republicans to undo that order, similar to the deportation issue.
Of course, I find that happening to be less likely than the SC upholding the mandate.
That said, if they did throw it out, i recall reading that Obama COULD enact Medicare for all via a simple signing statement. From there it's just a matter of daring the republicans to undo that order, similar to the deportation issue.
Of course, I find that happening to be less likely than the SC upholding the mandate.
Sirpopopop
Member
If Obama does the bolded, I'll stump for him on Facebook.
Byakuya769
Member
worldrunover
Member
That would be a logistical nightmare. There's 0% chance of that happening.
Although it would be ironic, since Republicans have been crying "government takeover of healthcare!" for two years now, and then Obama would replace his clearly capitalistic solution with an ACTUAL government takeover of healthcare.
Sirpopopop
Member
Black Republican
Member
i got a feeling the arizona law will be upheld, sotomayor will prob vote to uphold it too
Exactly. Since he already gets shit for it, let's actually do it
balladofwindfishes
Member
Wouldn't buying across state lines not only weaken state's power to regulate healthcare, but also turn healthcare reform into a federal government issue because of the commerce clause?
Seems like it would give all the power for healthcare to the federal government, which the GOP was advocating against... at the same time as wanting to hand over the power of healthcare to the federal government.
The Librarian
Banned
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
We should know right around 10AM EST -- 20 minutes from now.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I would do the same damn thing, seeing as how healthcare and the lack of it is what is dragging this country down.
worldrunover
Member
I'm not a usual sky is falling guy, but if this gets struck down it's hard to see how it's not a major, major blow to Obama. His signature legislation is determined to be unconstitutional? Many of his opponents see him as "illegitimate" already, and this would just further the meme. Maybe I'm wrong, but an overturn by the SC would be incredibly bad for Obama.
All it means is that eveyr health insurance company would relocate to whatever state had the most lax regulations and make you agree to follow Arizona law and use Arizona courts (or whatever state they're located in) for any disputes.
It's what happened with credit cards and banks about 20-25 years ago. They all moved to Delaware
Because the SC sucks lately.
- Status