This is called the 'art' of compromise!

Something that's a foreign concept with the Scott Walkers of the country!

Anyone else as tired as I am of the, MY way or the HIGHWAY attitude?

Bev,

You are correct. The republi"can'ts" have already all but written the health care reform act off as dead. Funny what happens when you can write your own reality.

Fiesty,

I also grow weary with the attitude that the working class in this country should be the target of all conservative efforts to reform government.

And for the righties out there - President Obama is NOT giving these states/businesses/unions waivers for any reason other than they have their own plan that will provide the same or better coverage for their workers.

Nah.. Just found Unconstitutional.........

Not by the Supreme Court Steve. Until then, it is still the law.

What exactly is Obama going to run on in 2012? 10% unemployment? $4/gallon gas prices? $1.5 trillion dollar deficits? Adding $5 trillion to the nation debt in 4 years? His ObamaCare, which is getting shredded in the courts, shredded by companies asking for waivers, shredded by states asking for waivers? His foreign "policy" which seems to be to wait and see what happens"?

So let's see...this is Obama's Monumental Law that was passed because it was for the good of all Americans.

And then, McDonald's states that it can't comply with the law. So, Obama gives an exception.

Congress doesn't have to participate

Unions are exempt.

Major corporations are exempt.

So now, everyone that helps with Obama's campaign funds doesn't have to comply with the law...but the middle class, poor and small businesses do. If this is so good for everyone, why is it the Unions, Congress and the major US employers don't want to participate?

what planet are you from Joanna?

Bryan E., PA

Not by the Supreme Court Steve. Until then, it is still the law.

Hmmm.....so is the Defense of Marriage Act, but Obama doesn't see it that way and refuses to do his job and defend the laws of the country.

Bryan E.,

Until then, it is still the law.

No it's not. It was a declarative judgement that stands for the 26 states.

It is dead. Obama can take it to the Supreme Court, but he has done nothing except pretend it doesn't exist.

Obama as no regard for law, court decisions, contempt orders, will of the people..... he does what he wants as if he is above the law.

JoAnnaSmith,

What is Obama going to run on .......... the back of the unions and the biggest pile of cash ever imagined - his only hope.

Union power? See Harry Reid.

For those confused about what the waivers mean as evidenced by postings above: The waivers for companies and some unions are temporary until the full law taxes effect. It is applied to entities that have covered their members in alternative ways before the law (Unions with good coverage and big companies like McDonalds). Until the law is fully implemented, several actions to accomplish its goals are stopgap so waivers make sense if some folks have better methods than the stopgap methods.

The waiver the states are seeking is different and is on the full law AS LONG AS the State can demonstrate accomplishing similar goals in different ways. And ability for States to do things differently WAS ALWAYS in the law - only just moved up to 2014 from 2017. The article states it too. Is reading so hard?

Joanna, Obama will run on his record.

Google gdp graph, jobless claims graph, and the DOW....enough said.

Joe, a President that believes a law is unconstitutional (after a federal judge deemed it so) should not defend it further and waste tax payer money.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that 3 judges have Ruled For HCR & 2 have Ruled against.

I don't live in LaLaland(thats the planet js1's from Mark). It seems that BOB is from there also. He still beleives Ronnie Raygun whooped Hezzbolahs butt back in the 80'z.

Anyways Bob, I guess he's as Immune from the law as the 2 War Criminals from the last Administration.

It's a shame the Energizer Bunny has so much energy, otherwise ole Tricky Dick Cheney could meet his maker & Saddam at the sametime!

bob: What is Obama going to run on .......... the back of the unions and the biggest pile of cash ever imagined ......his only hope

Obama is going to have to run an incredibly soft and issue free campaign. He'll need to roll out the old "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can" chants, along with the "Win The Future (WTF)" theme. That, and an incredibly negative and dirty campaign against his opponent, because the issues will not be Obama's friend.

Eric: Joanna, Obama will run on his record.

Good luck with that.

Eric: Google gdp graph, jobless claims graph, and the DOW....enough said.

Google cronic unemployment, deficits, and debt ceiling, let us know how that goes for you.

@Joe-755363 I suggest you check your so called "facts" about healthcare reform.

Corporations are not "EXEMPT" from healthcare reform. They received a one year extension to come into compliance. Obviously, you have zero concept of implementing those types of changes into an extremely large business.

Congress doesn't have to participate because they already have healthcare that will be provided to those who can't have it or don't want it through their employer. DUH!!!!!

Unions are NOT exempt from the law itself. Again, I suggest you do your research and stop spewing false BS.

The HCR has NOT been found unconstitutional, in fact three Judges say it is constitutional and only 2 say otherwise. Nice try but this is still going to the SCOTUS for final judgement. You unconstitutional comment is a lie.

Drives the GOP/TP nuts when the only adult in the room compromises and takes away their thunder. Can Boehner pronounce the word yet???????? COM PRO MISE. Didn't think so.

Its quite obvious from your post's constructs l.tjdangle (above and below) that you have very serious educational issues that might preclude you from understanding what's going on and you might be fighting your own interests. Kindly please find a teacher to support at these times.

"l.tjdangle

ANyone that thinks the health law or Obama are going to be around after 2012, please let me have some of what your smoking. I didn't know it was pollible to smoke something that could make you that dillusional."

I think you smoked too much of it.

You don't seem to understand politics, or constitutional law, even remotely.

If it wasn't found Unconstitutional.............. Why is it heading to the Supreme Court...............

My Comment stands on its own........ The Law has been Found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FACT.

This is just proof that the Libbie USNAVY lives in a Fantasy world............. like the rest of the libbies..

JoAnna,

"Google cronic unemployment, deficits, and debt ceiling, let us know how that goes for you."

Unempolyment is dropping. The job loss numbers are now job gains.

The deficit was $1.2 trillion for 2009 BEFORE Obama took office. Most of the increase in our spending is from lost federal revenue due to the recession, increased manditory outlays due to the recession, and leftover deficits due to policies from the last administration.

If the GOP had not turned a virtual surplus into trillion dollar deficits we would not have to worry aboutt he debt ceiling being as high as it is, even with this recession.

Steve,

"My Comment stands on its own........ The Law has been Found UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FACT."

It was found unconstitutional by a partisan judge based on very shaky reasoning.

It has also been upheld by three other judges.

In order for the case to go your way, you and the right will probably have to come up with a good constitutional argument.

Repubicants

Congress is in total control of spending in this country. What was the deficit at the end of 2006? You're right about unemployment dropping right now. Look who regained some control of Congress.

Were there no democrats in Congress for the Bush years? If so why the heck weren't they the party of no at that time if everything that was being done was so terrible for the country. You libs can't have it both ways. You say the republicans blocked everything with Obama but you never say why your party wasn't more effective blocking Bush. Maybe because they are the party of run and hide?

Senator Lena Taylor of Wisconsin
Special Guest: On Upfront with Jesse Jackson 2.26.11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR7K2-CL0_w

PolitiFact defends not offering correction for ‘false’ rating on Maddow

PolitiFact editor Bill Adair is refusing to back down on his site’s “false” rating for Rachel Maddow’s claim that Wisconsin …

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/02/politifact-defends-not-offering-correction-for-false-rating-on-maddow/

One VERY Simple question...

F Obamacare is the next greatest thing since silced bread... WHY is the Gvmnt giving so many wafiers to NOT have to follow the law?

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

The HCR has NOT been found unconstitutional, in fact three Judges say it is constitutional and only 2 say otherwise. Nice try but this is still going to the SCOTUS for final judgement. You unconstitutional comment is a lie.

Im sorry Navy, but you are 100 percent totally WRONG on this case. It doesnt matter if you agree with health care or not. A federal judge ruled it as unconstitutional and if you took the time to read his briefs you would understand that Obama is in fact in violation of ferderal law.

And before you go off half cocked like most lefties do. I said the same thing about gay marriage, making Mary Jane Legal, and the police not needing a warrent to search my cell phone that the liberal 9th circut court in CA have all ruled on.

What you do not, or fail to understand Navy, is that our court system is not a Walmart vs Target lets go shopping for the prices or ruling we want. Our court system is not a football game where you can add up all the judgements and say we win because we have more judges that ruled in our favor.

The fact that other judges found it constitutional ( which from my readings on the subject is not 100 percent true ) doesnt mean anything. A federal judge found it unconstitutional, and in his briefs stated that the law was null and void therefor a stay was not needed, there is no law. Obama and the DoJ have two options, and they are doing neither. Let the judges ruling stand, and Obamacare is gone and off the books or appeal it to the higher court.

It doesnt matter what side of the debate here you are on. This is Factual, and you cannot spin it any way.

Great post Jeremy....stated well, but falling on deaf ears here.

l.tjdangle,

"I'm trying to help you, I bet you were one of the liberals who thought it wasn't going to be a slaughter for the dems in the 2010 ellections. I bet the results hit you like a ton of bricks. If you had the slightest clue, you would have seen it coming in the same you seem to be missing the obvious, that the health law and Obama are finished."

LOL!!!

You are trying to help the poster do what?

You projected you beliefs about the poster onto the poster, and then acted like it backed up your parroted argument.

Seriously, can you give a reason why the health care law will be gone, or do you really think saying it over and over will make it happen?

J. Richter

For those confused about what the waivers mean as evidenced by postings above: The waivers for companies and some unions are temporary until the full law taxes effect.

A Freudian Slip I suppose. :-P

Jeremy,

"Im sorry Navy, but you are 100 percent totally WRONG on this case. It doesnt matter if you agree with health care or not. A federal judge ruled it as unconstitutional and if you took the time to read his briefs you would understand that Obama is in fact in violation of ferderal law."

I am sorry.

You are 100% wrong.

The opinion from Vinson was full of holes. There is a very clear reason why the health care law is constitutional. This is why Vinson had to use illogical hypotheticals such as suggesting this mandate would open up the possibility that congress could force everyone to eat brocoli.

If Vinson truely understood the precedent (or chose not to ignore it), he would see how his comparison is not possible.

The opinion from Vinson was full of holes

Then there are Judge Vinson's ties to the tea party:

Of course this was political. Just read the ruling: Is Vinson's decision politically motivated? asks Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. "His ruling certainly suggests as much." Not only does it contain a "shout-out to the Tea Party" in the form of a reference to the 1773 Tea Act, there's a "gratuitous reference" to General Motors as "partially government-owned." Vinson also quotes Obama's campaign rhetoric as an argument against him. I fear he "may have tipped his political hand."

http://theweek.com/article/index/211652/floridas-health-care-ruling-was-a-tea-party-judge-to-blame

You already have Justice Thomas & Alito in bed with the baggers, why should Vinson be exempt!

PS: Bev - thanks for the heads up - I'll check it out!

JoAnnaSmith1

What exactly is Obama going to run on in 2012? 10% unemployment? $4/gallon gas prices? $1.5 trillion dollar deficits? Adding $5 trillion to the nation debt in 4 years? His ObamaCare, which is getting shredded in the courts, shredded by companies asking for waivers, shredded by states asking for waivers? His foreign "policy" which seems to be to wait and see what happens"?

I see more talking points, i see that slamming your head on concrete has not helped, please come up with a original thought.

And there you have it. We ALWAYS make it to this point in these conversations...

IT IS ONE GRAND CONSPIRACRY!

JH,

"Congress is in total control of spending in this country. What was the deficit at the end of 2006? You're right about unemployment dropping right now. Look who regained some control of Congress."

I can tell by your response you have no idea what made up the increased spending.

Congress has no control over the hundreds of billion in lost reveue that was the result of the recession, unless they raise taxes, which is unwise during a recession.

Congress has no control over the hundreds of billion in increased MANDITORY spending, unless they cut medicare, unemployment, social security, etc, which is also unwise during a recession.

The current president and the democratic controlled congress had no control over the revenue cuts and increased spending done by a GOP congress and GOP president from 2001-2003. (2001 and 2003 tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and the wars).

"Were there no democrats in Congress for the Bush years? If so why the heck weren't they the party of no at that time if everything that was being done was so terrible for the country. You libs can't have it both ways. You say the republicans blocked everything with Obama but you never say why your party wasn't more effective blocking Bush. Maybe because they are the party of run and hide?"

I do not remember saying their were no democrats that are responsible for the massive and irresponsible spending done during the Bush years. I merely pointed out that you are not well informed on the issue of spending, debt and deficit.........

Thank you for continuing to make my point.

Left leaning lisa

I have read the law. Effective September 2010, children will be able to stay on their parents policies until age 26, children only policies will be not subject to prexisting condition. Result of that: 70% of the insurance companies that offered children only policies, discontinued offering the product completely.

Effective Jan 1, 2011. Wellness covered at 100% including colonoscopies. No annual maximum benefit caps. No Policy maximum benefits.

Result: McDonald's, along with multiple other entitites, stated they would have to discontinue their group health insurance plans. They were given exceptions (and they weren't one year exemptions to come into compliance)

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

Congress doesn't have to participate because they already have healthcare that will be provided to those who can't have it or don't want it through their employer. DUH!!!!!

According to that logic, anyone that already has healthcare doesn't have to participate? Wrong. Congress doesn't have to participate because (1) under the law, they would be taxed heavily for having a "rich benefit plan" and (2) if they did have to buy their insurance through an exchange, which the rest of us will have to do, they would lose benefits and the cost would go up dramatically.

Unions are NOT exempt from the law itself. Again, I suggest you do your research and stop spewing false BS.

If you actually read the law, you would know you're absolutely incorrect. Try section 154. Contruction Regarding Collective Bargaining.

The HCR has NOT been found unconstitutional, in fact three Judges say it is constitutional and only 2 say otherwise. Nice try but this is still going to the SCOTUS for final judgement. You unconstitutional comment is a lie.

Nice try but it has been found unconsitutional. Two of the judges who imply said it was constitutional, actually didn't rule....they refused to hear the case. One case was not based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate but on freedom of religion. Vinson from Florida wrote an exceptional decision based strictly on how the law was unconstitutional and cited the Commerce Clause specifically. Not one liberal judge has defended it.

Should it matter that it is the law, GWB and President O BOTH have exercised the option to tell the Justice Dept to not enforce the laws they do not like.

Same Potomac shuffle, now I see Lefty's defending their prez just as the Right did theirs.

My issue is less about the social medicine, just prove we can pay for it! I guess this has no longer become the American way. Has the Potomic shuffle become the 'kick the can down the road' dance.

is it possible that Americans enjoyed this last recession? Funny how at the Academy Awards they blamed the bankers (you know, the ones that the tax payers will make money on) and no mention how our banks AND govt did nothing about giving money to those who would never pay it back.

It sounds to me as if the Republicans are arming themselves so that they can run on a campaign saying that while they failed to repeal HCR, they managed to get it modified so that it actually works. Then, claim credit for it.

Repulicants

Congress and President Obama have spent plenty of money all by themselves. The recession does drop the amount that Treasury is receiving but Treasury was receiving plenty until 2007. Congress is supposed to make policy to get things going again when they spot a recession. Your Congress was in total control and they failed at their job. President Obama spent billions on his stimulus package and it failed. You have failed to make your point with me

Joe,

"Vinson from Florida wrote an exceptional decision based strictly on how the law was unconstitutional and cited the Commerce Clause specifically. Not one liberal judge has defended it."

Vinson had to jump through hoops to reach the conclusions he reached.

The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause give congress clear authority for the mandate.

In order for the SCOTUS to over turn the law, both Scalia and Roberts would have to contradict there own recent opinions by ignoring the precedent they used.

Really, the reason Vinson had to make the brocolli argument is because his ruling was anything but exceptional. It was partisan.

JH,

"Congress and President Obama have spent plenty of money all by themselves."

They have spent to help the economy. But you don't appear to know how much, or what, or the details, etc. You only seem to know that the debt and deficits are higher, and your ideology tells you the democrats did it.

What, exactly, and how much is "plenty"? Do you even know?

"The recession does drop the amount that Treasury is receiving but Treasury was receiving plenty until 2007"

Yes. Please go back and check to see when the recession started.

(Thanks for making my point, again.)

"Congress is supposed to make policy to get things going again when they spot a recession"

They did. They passed TARP, which is a resounding success, and will cost this nation almost nothing. They also passed the ARRA.

"Your Congress was in total control and they failed at their job. President Obama spent billions on his stimulus package and it failed."

My congress? Failed?

Huh. Economists seem to disagree. Almost every economic analysis available shows the ARRA did what it was supposed to do and stimulated the economy. (Conservative, liberal and moderate, including the non-partisan CBO which found the ARRA helped in each and every quarter.)

Sure, there are plenty of WSJ OPEDs feeding you and the rest of the willing what you want to hear, but the facts show differently. If you disagree, present the analysis that shows the ARRA did not save jobs, create jobs and raise the GDP. And remember, that is Analysis or a Study. Not an OPED or one page article.

This is why the best argument against the ARRA is an 8% projection that was false before the legislatio passed and had no logical influence on the success or failure

The ARRA sure as hell helped the public sector unions. But I didn't see much help for the average American. I wonder if they would study it again today and find the same results? I doubt it because the states are just now dealing with the income gap that the end of those funds has created.

Repulicants

The commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause give congress clear authority for the mandate.

The Commerce clause says that the Federal Gvmnt has the authority to REGULATE state to state commerce.

Im sorry but there is no definition for the word regulate that can be interrupted as Forcing someone into state to state commerce. The Commerce Clause IS a lost cause. It is, in fact, not within the powers of the Federal Gvmnt. STATE Gvmnts can force you to do stuff, IE Car insurance, but the Federal Gvmnt cannot FORCE anyone to buy something.

JH,

I see you cannot dispute the facts, or present any analysis that makes your case.

In fact, judging by the parroted talking point you responded with, I am quite sure you never even looked to see whether the ARRA helped the economy.

You simply repeated what you wanted to hear.

In addition, studies are constantly being done on the ARRA, and they all show the same thing, now, and before. They all show it did what it was supposed to do.

Had the states not recieved funding from the ARRA in 2009, they would have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers, and cut services. This would have cost both public sector and private sector jobs, as the private sector supplies the public sector with many goods and services. (Not to mention the jobs and businesses in the communtities.)

Had the funding not been provided, the recession would have been worse, and longer. The states do have gaps now, and a very good argument has been made that they should recieve at least one more year of assistence from the federal government. Unfortunately, the politics do not support this, and many will lose their jobs as a result.

Hopefully, we have recovered enough that this will not slow the recovery. However, this is a good place to point out that GOP policies are "killing jobs."

They did so by not supporting more aid to the states, and they will do so if their CR passes in it's current form. The GOP is making symbolic cuts to make it look like they are fiscally responsible, but they are doing nothing to address the long term debt problem. No one is, for that matter.

But it is the very height of irresponsible governing to symbolically cut discresionary spending that does nothing to solve the debt problem - falsely claiming it is for austerity, but does hurt the recovering economy.

In short, after two years of accusing the democratic policies of being "job killing policies" (despite all the economic analysis that showed the opposite), one of the first things the GOP does is pass "job killing policies."

Jeremy,

"The Commerce clause says that the Federal Gvmnt has the authority to REGULATE state to state commerce.

Im sorry but there is no definition for the word regulate that can be interrupted as Forcing someone into state to state commerce. The Commerce Clause IS a lost cause. It is, in fact, not within the powers of the Federal Gvmnt. STATE Gvmnts can force you to do stuff, IE Car insurance, but the Federal Gvmnt cannot FORCE anyone to buy something."

--------------------

You do not understand. Let me explain.

The commerce clause gives congress the authority to regulate commerce, and, as such, gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry and the insurance industry. Past precedent clearly gives congress the right to regulate these industries. There is no question here.

So the question remains, does the necessary and proper clause give congress the authority to impose the individual mandate. The answer is yes, as long as the statute is a reasonable means to a reasonable end when resolving a problem using one of congresses constitutionally anumerated powers.

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

You basically admitted just what should have been done a couple of years ago. Don't spend federal money to prop up the public sector unions because all it will do is put off the inevitable. They wasted the money to punt things down the road. And your answer is to spend more? Why not do the right thing now and cut government spending so the average American will have more of their money to spend which will in turn raise tax dollars for the treasury? When Bush cut taxes the federal government was receiving more tax dollars than ever before in history. The problem is that both parties spent it faster than it was coming in. STOP SPENDING.

Of course ARRA at first glance looks like it helped the economy. Dumping a half a trillion dollars of borrowed money into any economy looks good on paper....as long as you don't factor in the long term ramifications of interest due. ARRA created jobs average about $200k per temporary job...does that seem like economic responsibility to you? Did the unemployment rate go down as a result of ARRA?

Uncertainty about the future due to this enormous debt is job killing. Obamacare and it's requirements on the small business is job killing. Green laws are job killing. All democratic policies.

The biggest job killer out there though lies at the feet of both parties....the outsourcing of American service and manufacturing jobs overseas. I see not one politician willing to address that situation.

The last time the commerce clause was upheld by the Supreme Court on such a sweeping piece of legislation was when the Social Security Act was challanged.

The justices found that since the Social Security Act was voluntary it could be regulated. (The basis being that employment is voluntary).

How are the liberals going to present it this time when they try and use the Commerce Clause to uphold PPACA? That breathing is voluntary?

if we were able to buy health insurance across state lines then the commerce clause would allow the health care law be upheld since we cant buy health insurance across state lines then the law should be found unconstitutional people that compare it to auto insurance if you don`t drive or don`t own a car you don`t need auto insurance

JH,

You seem to only hear what you want.

The spending saved jobs, and helped the economy recover. More was needed to prevent states from having to lay off people, while still cutting. They are not getting more, but what was provided over the last two years did help. It allowed the states to prevent layoffs and cuts at the height of the recession, which would have ultimately made it worse, and recovery harder.

In addition, your reasoning is invalid, since cutting spending will not put money into the average workers hands. It will remove money from the economy, which is why it will "kill jobs."

Joe,

It would seem anything you wish to projet as job killing, is job killing.

When all the economic analysis shows the ARRA created and saved jobs, make up some projection that "proves" your ideological point of view.

Sorry kid, try posting some analysis to make your point, not a parroted projection/opinion.

Interesting way to try and get the States to drop their lawsuits.

Question - how can he change the law? Funny I thought laws came from Congress for his signature...

Joe,

That is not a constitutional argument. I know you do not like the mandate, but that is not going to pass muster with the courts.

What is your constitutional argument?

Volentary has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the mandate. The issue is whether congress can regulate the industry (which it clearly can and does) and whether the "necessary and proper" clause covers the indivdual mandate as a solution to a problem congress has the authority to address under the commerce clause.

You have presented no argument that would suggest congress does not have every authority for the individual mandate.

Please study up.

Feisty, a question in regards to your original statement talking about the "art of compromise". Were you in favor of compromise when Obama said, "The republicans can come along for the ride, but they will have to sit in the back of the bus". In other words, are you always for compromise, or only when it is necessary to advance the policies of the democratic party?

billbissette,

You , like many of the other posters here, do not have a very good understanding of this issue.

You seem to be arguing that because you interpret the constitution the way you do, precedent and past rulings have no standing.

That is not how it works. Do some homework on the issue.

One federal judge ruling does not make fate accompli. Stop arguing the constitutionality of HCR, that is the job job of the Supreme Court, and ONLY the Supreme Court to decide. And that fact IS in the Constitution.

The whole problem is the overly long introduction period for this law. Probably not an accident.

Joanna, Regarding what Obama will run on... The real question will be what will all the first term, Tea Party wannabes in the House will run on. Will they stay true to their right-wing base, displeasing the majority of voters? Or will they compromise and lose the big campaign funds lurking under the surface of the tea leaves? I find the greatest amusement is watch the Republican party eat its own young, and old. I really doubt that Reagan, or even Lincoln, could find a place in the party today. Good thing for McCain that he won his last election, because I suspect that it will be his last election.

Notice how the guy only talks about the number of people covered and nothing about bringing down the cost of health care , which is what he tried to sell the American people on !!!!Speak the truth , teach your children the conservative way and VOTE !

The only ones that apparently can't opt out of ObamaCare, are individuals. You know, the ones that will be forced to pay for ObamaCare.

Illiteracy is pathetic. The waivers for companies and some unions are temporary until the full law taxes effect. The waiver the states are seeking is different and is on the full law AS LONG AS the State can demonstrate accomplishing similar goals in different ways. And ability for States to do things differently WAS ALWAYS in the law - only just moved up to 2014 from 2017. The article states it too. Is reading so hard?

If Congress makes a law, what authority does Obama have to say certain groups don't have to obey that law?

And if it such a great law, something everyone can afford, why does he offer waivers because people can't afford it?

Repeal this pile of dookie and come up with something that actually addresses costs and works - you know the stuff Obama promised it would do.

He has NOT done ANY of that, bob-1805084.

The law already has waivers for State who can show alternative ways to accomplish Congress's goal. Obama is simply supporting moving the date up from 2017 to 2014. But Congress till has to vote on that. Just like the did for the voided 1099 provisions. Read the article.

The other waivers are implementation waivers. No one is exempted following the full law's implementation.

Cynicism + ignorance = the modern conservative.

This is essentially, "you figure it out or we'll totally screw up your state". Same concept as "volunteer or we'll make you" or "self-regulate or we'll step in". If self-regulation goes farther than expected, they claim victory, if its less, they use it to justify their heavy hand. Simple political tactics; no way to loose for people who believe the ends justifies the means-- comrade.

Hey J. Richter, Does Obama say the states must also make obamacare cheaper, you know "bend the cost curve" crap ? Because I know that was just to get middle class workers to go along with his crap.

No company is opting out of the LAW or can

That's absolute nonsense from those who refuse to understand or seek full knowledge.

The exemptions for companies and unions are temporary to allow time to come to compliance.

The State waiver is for States who can show an alternative way to accomplish the same objective in the law and was always in the law as pointed out in the article. IF anything, someone would praise the provision that allows States to show or demonstrate their own way of accomplishing the same goals in the law.

owlgal: You might want to read the bill. When the plan takes effect in 2014 congress members have to purchase insurance from one of the insurance companies in the pools that will be formed. But nice try at spin.

l.tjdangle watches way too much cable news.

Convinced of the reality and projections fed to him/her.

FACT:

A waiver IS NOT an "opt out"...nobody can "opt out". A waiver is TEMPORARY.

l.tjdangle-

The law WASN'T "declared unconstitutional by 26 states" it was challenged as unconstitutional by the Governors/Attorney Generals of 26 states. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Governors and AG's don't have the authority to "declare" a federal law unconstitutional.

Enough said.

And a waiver can be tempory one year to the next, avoiding the issue while assisting a select few.

l.tjdangle,

One partisan judge declaring the law unconstitutional on shakey reasoning in no way indicates the health care law has no chance of being law.

Especially when you and the right don't really have a constitutional argument on your side.

Look... If the HCR Law is so great... and saving everyone money... why are these companies taking the temporary waivers?

Why wouldn't they jump on the 'money saving' bandwagon and start reaping the benefits (no pun intended) of this great new plan?

I'll tell you why... because it does NOT save money... it does NOT benefit the average worker... AND these companies are praying that by delaying adoption of this monstrosity they will benefit from current efforts to prove the law unconstitutional.

THAT is why they seek waivers!

26 states are "asserting" that its unconstitutional. Only the SCOTUS can "declare" it so. Unless King Obama is coming down with another decree.

"Friends" in this case being mostly big corporations who are most likely just buying time to see if the bill can be repealed. The "enemies" in this scenario are the people.

For once we agree, Bob. I don't like the waivers, either.

How many times are you gonna post this?

Everyone Dem or rep typically gets to pay for their own healthcare when the law is fully implemented. Waivers are temporary and area to allow some time to come to compliance and is going to entities who are already paying for their own healthcare one way or another.

McDonald's Corporation is a big democratic supporter? Who knew?

FACT:

A waiver IS NOT an "opt out"...nobody can "opt out". A waiver is TEMPORARY.

The president of the corporation resells the cookies making a profit. Seeing the profit potential, he builds a cookie factory and hires 200 people, all who pay taxes. Meanwhile, the public union member complians about having to pay more for health care and retirement. Conceding to the demand to pay more, they figure, "we'll get those consessions back in our next collective bargaining agreement. Meanwhile, the "teabaggar" goes about his day working 9 to 5, paying taxes, paying into SS, and paying for his own healthcare. You see, he/she wants nothing more than for government to stop spending so much money they don't have at the expense of his children and grandchildren.

Nowadays, Danno, they just keep the profits in the bank, earning almost no interest, unless they decide to build a factory in China or India and sell cookies there instead.

http://fsrn.org/audio/moody%E2%80%99s-investor-service-report-says-corporations-sitting-cash-reserves-worth-billions/7762

Meanwhile, public sector employees also work 9 to 5 and longer, pay taxes, pay into Social Security, and in most cases pay at least something toward their own health care. That's a fact. And public sector employees are the ones who maintain the roads and the infrastructure, keep you and your family safe, provide world class health care, and educate those who create the technology that allows your corporation to exist in the first place and bake a better cookie.

Meanwhile, the paper pushers at the top of your corporation spend all THEIR time slashing jobs so they can "increase productivity" and thereby produce a better bottom line for their shareholders. Unless, of course, it's spent wining and dining Scott Walker, lobbying for tax breaks, and plotting how to get rid of the unions that provide the only barrier to wages and benefits at a level that is NOT China.

Actually, the Corporation guy takes the 11 cookies and saves some, spends some on luxuries and expands his company in the emerging markets or invests there since labor costs are like 30c to ours due to currency manipulations and returns are greater (only a foolish capitalist would invest in less yielding investments by the definition and there's nothing wrong with that).

Which is why since 2001 when those like him have been taken more of the cookies, less jobs have been created (-1.8milllion) in the ten years since compared to the 23million in the 8 years before under Clinton.

If he had left some cookies on the table, presumably either the union member or the teabagger could have had something left to start corporations with and the country would have been better off in the past decade rather than losing jobs and growing deficits. Apart from the cookies grabbed, the corp guy also asks for additional and gets subsidies, tax exemptions, bailouts, and reduced regulations, and still creates less jobs than when all those werent heaped at him.

The bagger of course asks that the corp guy gets more of the cookies so that some crumbs will come his way even though it never does and still wont. He also asks that the union guy gets less in the delusion that reducing his min wage from $7/hour down to maybe $3/hour would get some of those jobs that now go for 30c/hour offshore will return.

[The bagger of course asks that the corp guy gets more of the cookies so that some crumbs will come his way]

Ahhh...Trickle-on Economics!

Anna Molly,

Please have the last word. I wouldn't want to get into a discussion with someone who thinks that employees who "in most cases pay "at least something" toward their own health care" is somehow fair to the rest of that states taxpayers.

Book it, Danno, and thanks. Public employees have long since sacrificed higher pay for better benefits and job security. Now you want to take the rest of that back, too.

Remind me not to trust you with my cookies. ;-)

That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what happened when Obama gave more tax cuts in Dec to the wealthy and the business leaders and the last two years. In addition to the tax cuts, he's signed 15 prior bills that included tax cuts. Besides this, does your fantasy scenario include the $700billion given away to Wall Street and the rich in 2008?

Good post...what would happen next, unfortunately, is the progressive will spend the money on campaign commercials, get elected on a promise to pay unemployment compensation indefinitely, and keep on deficit spending until the party's over...

If we're to discuss "give aways" let's not forget the stimulus rushed through Congress to "create or save" tens of thousands of jobs. Oh and let's not forget, it was to keep unemployment at or below 8%. Another example of government intervention with taxpayers dollars, bringing about zero CHANGE. I really shouldn't be so harsh, I did get three miles of the local highway paved. BIG SIGN, no long term jobs.

The wealthy wanted their tax cuts which, in itself is a SPENDING BILL , and they took the money and ran...no job creation, no nothing.

The GOP/Teabagger Party have no plan..is just that simple. They campaigned in 2010 on creating jobs, and all you hear is...crickets...pathetic.

Since 2001 when we've been giving those tax cuts also continued by Obama (the same one who presumably grabs all the money but is taxing us less now than in 2008), less jobs have been created (-1.8milllion) in the ten years since compared to the 23million in the 8 years before under Clinton.

Get a clue. Those poor, downtrodden corporations were doing that long before President Obama showed up.

By the way, if we libbies have all the money, where are we hiding it? And why aren't we buying anything with it? Other than campaign ads, I mean.

You must have us confused with republicans. Because that's pretty much what they're doing. It's for darn sure they're not creating any jobs with it.

@Bob ~

If you want to see some really great examples of out-of-state corporate interests spending money on campaign commercials, just come to Wisconsin, where the Koch brothers spent $3.5 million to attack Scott Walker's opponent, and they continue to spend it today, by the millions more, to attack the unions. Give me a break, Bob. Seven out of the ten highest contributors to campaigns in 2010 were corporations. They're now trying to destroy the only substantial voices on the other side, and your ignorance is helping them do it. Congratulations, Bobby. How does it feel to be a tool?

Anna, you are aware of the millions being spent to "organize" the pro-union protesters in Wisconsin and various other states, right? You are aware that Unions spent more than $400 million in the 2008 election cycle to elect Mr. Obama - dwarfing the Chamber of Commerce or any other PAC, right? You are aware that Bernie Madoff and several Wall Street cronies gave generously to Mr. Obama's campaign, right? Congratulations Anna, to use your words, how does it feel to be an uninformed "tool"?

Anna

What the democrats and unions are doing in Wisconsin today is costing that state FAR MORE than the Koch Bros. ever spent there. Why do you have a problem with the koch brothers? Are they too successful for you? Are they far too good to charitable organizations for you? Are they not allowed to push their agenda with their money? If you belong to a union you are pushing the democratic agenda everyday. The unions spend far more than the Koch brothers. Get over it. They create more tax dollars for this country than you might think. Please don't send them packing to some other country because your side can't afford your agenda without successful conservatives.

J. Richter

The tax breaks went to everyone. I say let them ALL expire and I will pay more if everyone contributes. Get over that idiot talking point of the tax breaks for the rich. EVERYBODY got a break.

Leftists live in a fantasy world, where Dear Leader Obama has total control of every penny in the economy,

Really?! The Koch brothers will be SO disappointed. This means they'll have to give their personal billions back. And they wanted SO MUCH to be the bosses. :(

Oh sheesh, we have a new bugaboo folks, it is the "Koch brothers." Prior to 2008 it was the "neocons," but now the left of center blogs have found a new strawman to attack. Now, given your previous comments Anna, we all know how you feel about "birthers." What makes you think your fascination with the Koch brothers any different? Relax, drink some decaffeinated coffee - the Koch brothers are not at your door.

Slavery bill?

It is still just a wave bye bye for his union buddies.

The best way to deal with the slave bill is to just nullify it. I will buy that for a dollar.

Nothing like a little incoherence to grace a slow news day Monday.

That is actually what some people are discussing as a possibility. I don't think anyone really knows what the answer is yet.

also jeff, you can understand why so few politicians were brave enough to tackle the problem.

Yes, but by and large, they appear to be doing the WRONG thing. You won't fix your deficits by taking the money away from the middle class, which spends it, stimulating new growth and providing tax revenues. You won't fix your deficits by ignoring the roll that Wall Street greed played in creating them, or by continuing to give away money to the same few people, who squirrel it away, and then, if they do spend it at all, spend it building factories, selling products, and creating jobs overseas.

If you took back just the extension of the tax breaks for the wealthy, which are demonstrably proven to NOT create jobs, and used that money to guarantee the $175 billion in the deficits of those state governments who agree not to give any more tax breaks to people who don't need them, you'd have more than enough money to solve the problem lickety-split, and the top 2 percent wouldn't even notice the difference.

Hey now... let's be fair...

Obama HAS done something about the deficit... Thanks to him it is the BIGGEST it has EVER been!

dear job

keep dreaming !!!

Merlin: Obama has absolutely NO respect not only for the Constitution but for this country. He is now choosing which laws "he" thinks are constitional and which ones he'll 'defend' regardless of anything else. As witness to just about everything this guy does, he fasions himself a 'ruler' over the people. He is our 'enemy-within' and he must GO! Oh and fyi, my husband said his next car is a Ford too!

"............the man himself is UNCONSTITUTIONAL"

What is that supposed to mean?

"Something-something Socialism."

HaHa Clotho... that's the extent of articulation we're probably going to get.

But wait Mike; If what you say is true, then the 2008 election proved the will of the people to be for healthcare. You do care about the will of the American people, don't you? At least theoretically?

Maybe you should: Organize for the next election and, if you can persuade the American people, we'll do it your way.

What's most disturbing about this post is the assumption that you speak for the "American People". As if anyone with a different opinion is not an American. That's fascist brain-washing working its magic.

And if you're going to complain about people being incoherent (which is what I think you were trying to express in your last semblance of a sentence), you really should learn how to spell or at the very least run your rant through a spell checker. Your "verbaige" makes me and millions of other readers weary.

Clem,

Only 36% of the populace supported Obamacare when it went up for a vote a year ago Christmas eve. The left pushed this through by manipulation, payoffs, and a total disregard for "the will of the people;" even Pelosi admitted that it had to be passed so it could be read. That is not democracy, that is tyranny.

real-My point to Mike was the 2008 election was "the will of the people." those officials were elected by a majority of the people and did what they campaigned on and was elected on; healthcare reform. If each election we get a new understanding of the "will of the people;' we will be changing laws every two years. That's not going to work. The Iraq war was the "will of the people" before it wasn't.

@Real: 36% of the populace? Really? Based on which poll?