E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUSA Today raises the curtain behind how the voting will take place at the Supreme Court on the health law. And the first votes will be today. “The fate of President Obama's landmark health care law likely will be decided Friday in an oak-paneled conference room adjoining the chambers of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,” USA Today writes. “There, the nine justices will meet alone to discuss the case that transfixed Americans for three days of oral arguments this week. When all have had their say, they will vote in order of seniority. That initial decision may be altered as drafts of majority and dissenting opinions are written, circulated and rewritten, often many times. It might even be reversed during the lengthy writing process if one or more justices switch sides.”
More: “For most of the next three months, only the justices and 39 law clerks — four per justice and one each for the three living retired justices — will be privy to the ruling. And even in an age of Twitter and YouTube, it won't leak.”
All the speculation is on Anthony Kennedy, per the New York Times. “Justice Kennedy’s understanding of liberty is idiosyncratic, and there is every reason to think that both lawyers’ arguments in the concluding minutes of the argument on Wednesday afternoon resonated with him, said Helen J. Knowles, the author of ‘The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty.’ (The title is telling. Another book on the justice, by Frank J. Colucci, is called ‘Justice Kennedy’s Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty.’) ‘I really don’t think Justice Kennedy has any idea at the moment how he’s going to vote in these cases,’ Professor Knowles said.”
“Democrats are fuming over Justice Antonin Scalia’s conduct during this week’s Supreme Court deliberations on President Obama’s healthcare law,” The Hill notes. “Scalia appeared hostile to the law while several of the high court’s liberal justices seemed to cheerlead for its defense. But it was Scalia’s attitude that rubbed some Democrats the wrong way. Scalia mocked the so-called ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ without seeming to know that provision was stripped out of the law two years ago. Scalia also joked the task of having to review the complex bill violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.”
“Senate Republicans, including Scott Brown of Massachusetts, today foiled President Obama’s plan to strip $24 billion in tax subsidies from the country’s largest oil companies, potentially fueling an election-year issue among voters disgruntled by escalating gas prices,” The Boston Globe notes.
“President Obama will touch down in Vermont and Maine on Friday afternoon for a series of fund-raisers for his reelection campaign,” the Boston Globe writes. “His New England visits will begin with a private luncheon with approximately 100 supporters at the Sheraton Burlington in Burlington, Vt., where the president will give a speech. Ticket prices for the luncheon started at $7,500 per person.
After lunch, Obama will speak at the University of Vermont, also in Burlington, to approximately 4,500 people. The event will include a musical performance by Grace Potter and the Nocturnals. General admission tickets started at $100 per person, with student tickets available for $44.”
Leave a Comment:
Obamacare is done, finished! Without the individual mandate the 2000 plus page bill is nothing more than toilet paper.
The media recognizes this too and I see the Democrats are now spinning that the end of obamacare will be a good thing for Obama, lmao! More hypocrisy from the wacko left!
A new president and the repeal of obamacare will put the country back on track again!
Not sure why you think you won anything. Nobody wins here for your 'freedom' not to buy insurance and shift the cost to those of us being responsible.
The GOP have no 'replace' to go with their 'repeal'. If the mandate fails, the GOP wont be doing anything about the problems of health care. They just don't care about it. Nobody has the stomach to 'start over' with Healthcare. Face it, if the ACA goes down, that's the en of health care reform for perhaps decades.
What fools we have become. We cant take an imperfect bill and improve it. Its just simpler to reject it and do nothing.
The GOP has no solutions.
Repealing will solve nothing. Premiums still skyrocketing, cancellation of policies for young adults on parents policy, canceled policies for those granted insurance despite a pre-existing condition, and going back to charging for preventative care.
The conservatives just don't care about healthcare. They don't care about us and they have no solutions.
" the repeal of obamacare will put the country back on track again"
You realize a repeal will increase the deficit by $145B? I thought you guys were all about reducing the deficit. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-ppaca_repeal.pdf
The repeal of ObamaCare will usher in One Payor or Universal Healthcare. Medicare for all! I am 100% behind that and will vote for anyone running on that platform. I actually believe President Obama will run on that beginning the very first day SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional. With a vote for life and freedom for those who can afford it,SCOTUS will vote to let the poor or irresponsible die! Yes that is exactly what they will vote for if they overturn Obamacare. Can't wait to see the ads mocking SCOTUS. And they will deserve every bit of it. Especially the two mysoginistic clowns, Scalia and Thomas.
Rub of the Green
What's interesting is that back when Bush1 was the president he had this radical plan to propose an individual health care mandate to bring down health care costs by forcing every American citizen to purchase insurance because the uninsured raise the cost for everyone else. This would also have ended pre-existing conditions.
Sounds familiar right? So why didn't he do it? He ran out of time because he lost to Clinton.
Let's also not forget those who were for it before they were against it: Romney (no suprise about the flip there), Gingrich, and many other Republicans who came up with: Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 which included individual mandate.
Now, the same people are telling you how Obamacare will kill your grandmother and resurrect Karl Marx from the dead. And you eat it up. Good for you.
This isn't about hating a president because he is black! We need some sort of health care coverage for the poor people ...If they have insurance its like 200 a month ..if they use the Emergency Room the bill to the taxpayers is over 1600.00 ..I had 8 stitches in my forehead the Doctor's bill was 480.00 then the use of th ER room was another 900.00.. thank god i had insurance ...it cost me like 180.00 out of pocket ...With some family 's the whole family uses the ER for healthcare ..and you will be paying for it
Obamacare was a disaster from the beginning. Government takeover of the health care industry was the goal for liberals, when the real goal should have been REDUCING COSTS and making it both more affordable and more accessible. It failed miserably, instead it established a massive bureaucracy to administer the rules, regulations and penalties that would have been imposed.
On the brighter side, its total demise would be a positive for the business sector and would actually encourage hiring at a time when so many employers have been holding off, unsure of the future.
No longer will it be a "big fuc_ing deal" with a massive growth of unsustainable entitlements.
This whole mess boils down to a lousy plan that was put together on the fly and rushed thru to the president's signature. The only debate currently being held...basically the first time the bill has been truly 'debated'...is about whether the law is constitutional or not. Period.
I've read on this site hundreds of times just how brilliant Mr. Obama is supposed to be...despite the fact that nobody has ever actually seen his grades from school or college. Most of those telling everyone what a genius this guy is, use as evidence the fact that he was a "constitutional scholar" or that he's so smart, that he "taught constitutional law".
It's pretty ironic that the president's one big accomplishment may collapse due to the fact that his ACA actually violates the nation's Constitution.
jim: Since Ronald Reagan was in office, the goal of the GOP has been to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all other forms social welfare. According to the Republican Party, the purpose of government is to provide for the defense of business and the wealthy, to be paid for by what remains of the middle class.
While the top marginal tax rate is 35%, the average taxpayer whose adjusted gross income is excess of $1,000,000 pays 18%.
The stated purpose of the lower tax rates is that this would "allow" businesses and their ownership to "create more jobs" and the benefits of lower tax rates would "trickle down through the economy" to those who earn less.
The reality is that the only thing the lower tax rates on the highest earners has done is to allow them to amass wealth while at the same time the debt of the United States has grown. Since the downward spiral of our country began under President Reagan, the earnings and wealth of those who earn the most (aka the 1%) has grown by over 400% while the remainder has actually declined.
How can there be equal justice under the law, when only the wealthiest have access to government and write the laws ?
drip101 - I haven't seen what the democrats solution is for saving SS, Medicare and other forms of social welfare. What is their plan? They don't have one except tax more and spend more.
Drip101,
As a regular poster of liberal comments, you know absolutely nothing of GOP goals. So your post is totally disingenuous from the start. Your first paragraph could be considered "a lie" except that it appears to be only a poorly supported opinion.
PSST ! Our country has a HUGE spending problem genius. Taxes today could be raised significantly on all levels of taxation without reducing the deficits. Obama's "budget proposals" have no credibility even within his own party !
Dirp...
Wow...thanks for enlightening me about the true goals of the Republican Party. Before reading your post, I thought the party's only goals were to poison the planet to kill all the old people.
I'll have to read the party platform more carefully before I vote in November.
you keep repeating the lie, still doesn't make any truer now then it did then.
simple fact that insurance company would have managed all the new enrollees, and not the government does not make it a government take over.
but hay, keep drinking that conservative cool aid.
Chris@SLC,
You have no idea of how many new government agencies, departments and bureaus were put into the plan ..... just to administer the MONSTROSITY ! The bill itself was over 2,700 pages and the rules and regulations being churned out, last time I checked, was about double that ...... and still growing !!!
But hey (not hay), if it makes you feel good to say people with different "opinions" lie then just relax .... your meds will be there for you pretty soon.
jim...
I guess that's how the lousy employment numbers were going to be raised...create another boatload of government jobs to oversee the 2700 pages of instructions and details that have never been explained.
LOL, what Teapublicans think is so funny.
First off, conservatives think the Left will be devastated if ACA is struck down. Not so. If ACA is upheld, even if only parts of it is upheld, it will still be better than the Teapublican solution -- which is a more severe version of the current broken system (i.e., no solution). If ACA is struck down it will confirm that the only solution to our current broken system is single-payer. Progressives, and for that matter moderates, will only be more fired-up to get universal health care phased in.
Second, a president cannot repeal a law already put in place by congress. If ACA is struck down in it's entirety, it still would not be the president with the power to do Jack Schit.
But go ahead, and get all giddy about what's not going to happen.
DrDrGimmetheNews -- Riiight. Teapublicans are all about reducing the deficit, so this is why they continue voting to keep subsidies (tax expenditures) for Big Oil. Okay, not really, they keep the subsidies because Teapublicans receive WAY more campaign contributions from Big Oil than Dems do. But time and again, whether it is increasing defense spending (or starting a war), Teapublicans are not serious about deficits and the sane folks in this nation know it.
TrueP - Agreed. Tongue was firmly in cheek with my last post. I've noticed how lots of folks suddenly became aware that there actually was a deficit in 2009. For some reason it just didn't matter until a Democratic president took office. Go figure.
That Scalia didn't even know what was and was not included in the final law is a joke!
Chief Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings said, "...it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." How can Scalia do the same when he didn't even take the time to read up on the law?
When 75% of respondents on a survey say the Supreme Court is just another partisan form of government, Scalia's conduct proved them right.
On 1 of last nights News programs, it was said that a Former Republican Solictor General, said that the Conservative Supremes, were Relaying TeaParty Talking Points, in thier questioning.
Pretty SAD!
You Betcha!
"only the justices and 39 law clerks — four per justice and one each for the three living retired justices — will be privy to the ruling"
Looks like the law clerks will be recommending what decision their Justice should make on the legislation. The Clerks will do all the research and reading. The Justices will be doing nothing!
Law Clerks rule?
Same with the congress and senate, their aids do all the research, reading and decision making. All the elected officials are is just a pretty face to look at.
Waah ! Waah !! Waah !!!!
To liberals, it doesn't seem to matter that Obamacare is considered unconstitutional by about 66% to 72% of U.S. citizens in a recent poll. The bitching, moaning and whining will continue because "things are just not going their way". It will be deemed the fault of "conservative" justices, ignoring the constitutional overreach.
At the end of the day, bad legislation is still bad legislation. Obamacare contained no severability clause, so the whole monstrosity should be appropriately flushed.
jim: you may be correct, they should have just called it a tax and the whole "unconstitutional" claim would be gone.
Amazing, Republicans really are more interested in sysmantics than in assuring that millions of Americans get access to quality health care.
Access means willingness to pay for it. It involves planning and it involves priorities. Some can afford their cigarettes, their beer and their cell phones but cannot afford insurance ????
66% to 72% think it's unconstitutional?
Holy smokes...66% to 72% don't have a college degree, either.
I don't believe in coincidence.
So now it's the evil Supreme Court Justices...and of course, they are much more ignorant on the 'law' than posters on this site. Oh...sorry...I mean that it's only the conservative leaning justices who do not do their job correctly.
Sonya & Ms. Kagan ??? Perfect understanding of all things constitutional, naturally. And as far as Ruth Bader Ginsburg...well, she spends every free moment of her time reading and studying our constitution in a chaise lounge out by the ol' ceement pond in her back yard, while Mr. Clampett cooks the vittles in the kitchen.
tek...
And I'm sure that all of America's geniuses support the healthcare law and everything else Mr. Obama wants to do.
Nice try, Jim. So what are you going to tell the low income senior/disabled who don't drink or smoke? Or the children born into circumstance for which they did not choose, let alone have a cell phone? They don't have a "willingness" to pay?
BTW, SS recipients paid into the system for years. They also pay Medicare premiums for health care.
Healthcare, GOP style:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10926817-hospital-mom-booted-from-er-who-died-in-jail-was-treated-appropriately
Yup, the TeaPublicans have been screaming 'repeal and replace' since the legislation was signed. Somehow they haven't gotten to the 'replace' part.
Former congressman Alan Grayson-D-FL summed up the GOP plan for healthcare: 'Die Quickly'!
Yep, 'repeal and forget' I guess. When will the GOP stop whizzing on the Middle Class?
[When will the GOP stop whizzing on the Middle Class?]
When the ignorants finally wake up from their Reagan/Bush coma...they are also getting whizzed on, but they are told not to worry... it's only raining...
Just read the story. Absolutely tragic.
I see as usual though that FR liberal loonies are attempting to blame the GOP for this gals death. That's too bad. It's just a sad misdirect, kinda like a magician.
Let's not forgot whose watch this happened under. Obummer.
Outta da basement and up to da adult table.
"Let's not forgot whose watch this happened under. Obummer."
So, you do support the health care legislation, so that something like this doesn't continue to happen?.....afterall, Cheney got a new heart (thanks to his great insurance and wealth).
Try to be respectful, Michael1969, at least use President in front of your derisive Obummer term.
@chilled #3.1, #3.5
How do you expect them to replace it ... yet, when it hasn't been repealed .....YET ?????
Did you flunk basic logic 101 there bunky or are you merely crying in your beer ?
Also, my understanding is Dick Cheney has been on a waiting list for 20 months.
chilled...
You have a lot of courage actually putting in writing that you agree with any statement made by that nitwit, Alan Grayson.
[Let's not forgot whose watch this happened under. Obummer. Outta da basement and up to da adult table.]
This coming from a 43 year old virgin who has to post a profile on FUBAR begging other users to "show him some love"...
So, just how IS that working out for you, Mikey?
Lets hope the Supreme Court gets this one right for a change.
Do not kill parts of it. Kill it all.
I will second that ! Obamacare had the "severability clause" removed .... for some reason during one of those "behind closed doors" meetings so if part of it must go, all must go.
Furthermore, without the individual mandate, the whole economic foundation for its "supposed" fiscal viability ........ COMPLETELY FALLS APART ! The numbers will not crunch going forward.
Mr. Obama does not care what will fall apart should the Supreme Court trash his reform law. Ducktape, bandaids, and bubble gum will be put to use to patch anything together that he can keep on the books and have something at election time that he can convince the twits was a great idea.
[Lets hope the Supreme Court gets this one right for a change.]
You mean like they did with Bush/Gore or the Terry Schiavo case?
The individual mandate was the GOP's idea.
A flawed "Obamacare" was the Democrat's idea .... even the student loan takeover which has nothing to do with health care.
Obamacare is flawed because the GOP took a lot of the good, sensible things out.
K2mm,
That's total bull$hit on your part ! Are your pants on fire ? The Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House when this hor$e$hit legislation was "lubricated" through Congress by lies, kickbacks, special deals, arm twisting, etc ........ Democrats negotiating with Democrats to finagle this crap through ! You guys OWNED this from the beginning and Republicans were pretty much powerless to stop anything about it.
Democrats saw this as a golden opportunity to "grow government" because they realized the Congressional numbers allowed them to do anything they wanted. They wasted their time and energy on this at a time when jobs and unemployment were the key issues facing our country.
jim....
jim, jim, jim....are you trying to confuse the issue with fact ! Good God man...get a grip. If the healthcare mess goes down in flames, everyone and anyone knows it will be the fault of George Bush.
[The Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the White House...]
Holy crap jim...calm down dude...you're going to give yourself a stroke...you are propagating the Democratic "suopermajority" myth. And a myth it is. The Democrats only had majorities for a total of about 6 months, and not consecutively.
Truth is, HCR is a Republican idea, dreamed up by Republicans, and then abandoned by Republicans when President Obama took the ball and ran with it, even after one of their own insisted the individual mandate be included, then voted right along with his party.
Mickey NY,
Did you ever get your GED there big fella ? I mean, it is a serious question because you obviously have basic problems with reading skills and math.
First, I did not say "supermajority", I said "controlled" so I must assume you cannot read adequately, need new glasses, or are deliberately trying to distort my post.
Second, your statement "The Democrats only had majorities for about 6 months ..." is simply a false statement. Harry Reid controlled the Democratic majority Senate during that time frame. Nancy Pelousy ( "you'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it") was Speaker of the House, and Obama was in the White House. Their "control" lasted for 24 months until those elected in November, 2010 were effectively sworn-in ..... thereby "neutering" Obama's ability to do whatever he pleased.
You are "propagating" the fact you don't know what in the hell you are talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!!
"First, I did not say "supermajority", I said "controlled" so I must assume you cannot read adequately, need new glasses, or are deliberately trying to distort my post."
You're obviously missing the "control" of the threat of filibuster.
Nice attempted twist there DrDr. Put your reading glasses on again, and see if I ever said a damn thing about supermajority.
The facts remain as stated, and the only thing causing the Dems the slightest slowdown at all was when Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts. Then, the Democrats abused "reconciliation", contrived to make the bill appear revenue neutral (which we the CBO clearly confirms today it was not) and deemed it to be passed. Yes, the wonderful Democrats found a way to disenfranchise Scott Brown of his ability to vote ....... by totally avoiding a final vote altogether ...... and deeming it passed !
[You are "propagating" the fact you don't know what in the hell you are talking about !!!!!!!!!!!!!]
jimmie...no matter how many exclamation points you put at the end of a sentence, doesn't make it so.
Now, regarding your post...
[Harry Reid controlled the Democratic majority Senate during that time frame. Nancy Pelousy ( "you'll have to pass the bill to see what's in it") was Speaker of the House, and Obama was in the White House. Their "control" lasted for 24 months until those elected in November, 2010 were effectively sworn-in...]
You most certainly were talking about a "supermajority" whether you knew it or not. See jimmie, it seems you are forgetting that even with a majority, the Democrats would still need a minimum amount of votes, and thanks to the Republicans moving the goal posts, that number was reached on very few occasions...this is the "supermajority" you aren't talking about.
...and the Good Doctor above is correct...that's not even factoring in the filibuster, which, by the way, the GOP has used in RECORD NUMBERS during this administration.
Anyway, here's the breakdown...let's take a look at your "(super) majority", shall we? Not that you give a crap, but I'm feeling benevolent today:
FACT: The "Democrat supermajority" was a myth, or
rather, a GOP political spin to hide their actions.
FACT: The GOP used every roadblock, filibuster, and secret hold
they could think of so that EVERY bill had to have a 60-vote margin to pass.
So that "Huge, overwhelming (super) majority," It existed only for a total of about 6 months AND only during two periods when Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd were unable to vote AND required them to get the votes of every Democrat plus BOTH independents.
Mickey - Thanks for posting what I usually have to address!
"which we the CBO clearly confirms today it was not"
Perhaps you could show me where Democrats claimed PPACA was completely deficit-neutral? More information about the cost of repeal: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/01/a-budget-busting-law/
The Supreme Court has lost all respect form we the people over the last 12 years. They used to be the most respected governmental, now they rank down there with congress. Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it sure can buy a country.
Only liberals who are so entrenched in their ideology have lost respect. Recent polls show 66% to 72% of U.S. citizens believe the law is unconstitutional. You don't speak for them !
" Recent polls show 66% to 72% of U.S. citizens believe the law is unconstitutional."
Ah yes, we're a nation of constitutional scholars. Or not.
[You don't speak for them !]
And THEY don't speak for the Constitution...this is why we have Constitutional Scholars.
No genius, that is why we have the Supreme Court where Ms. Kagan should recuse herself from a vote on this issue since she directly worked on its formation.
Maybe Kagan will recuse herself when Thomas recuses himself since his wife works for a Conservative superpac...which, by the way, she "forgot" to mention on her tax returns...
Tah tah, jimmie...
Kagan has direct links to the legislation. She clearly should recuse herself from a vote on it.
Your logic, at best, involves two or three steps .... an indirect link.
[Your logic, at best, involves two or three steps .... an indirect link.]
So, by your logic, an "indirect link" isn't grounds for recusal? Even one so "indirect" as the wife of a sitting Supreme Court judge working for the biggest Republican SuperPac on the face of the planet?
...what could go wrong...I mean, she's only sleeping with the judge, right?
jimmie, ANY link...direct or indirect...should be grounds for recusal.
You could agree with that, can't you?
“The fate of President Obama's landmark health care law likely will be decided Friday in an oak-paneled conference room adjoining the chambers of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,” USA Today writes.
The fate of millions of Americans will be decided by the very court that decided that corporations are people. The Affordable Health Care Act was written for human beings and their health care. Real people have been reduced to human resources that are disposable by Republicans. They serve the new people, created by the Supreme Court, not the ones created by God and provided for and protected by the Constitution.
Did you hear that libbie fossil Ginsberg bitching about we should salvage as much of this law as possible. Another Obama lap dog.
Thankfully she is outnumbered and outgunned on that court, and there is no higher court to appeal to. This is it. the libbie buck stops here. Can't kick this can any further down the road.
So, with Obama's "signature legislation" on the rocks, whatever will he run on?? Solyndra?? Dream act?? Fast and furious?? Stimulus spending?? cash for clunkers?? His golf score??
If I have ever seen a sitting President who is politically doomed, it is Obama. The best part?? He will drag down anyone and everyone with the dreaded "D" after their names.
Will soon be an insult to even be called a Democrat. Like calling you deformed or retarded.
This was America's great learning opportunity. We can't believe how stupid we were to elect a socialist "community organizer" to such a high office. Never again. Never.
Joseph -
At least Ginsburg bothered to read and understand the law, unlike Scalia. Broccoli - what a stupid metaphor!
As for the rest of your vile and hateful post, it is not worth responding to.
Don't worry, President Obama and Mr. Soros have more influence on the Supreme Court than you think. I believe everything will go our way.
Spoken like a Soros drone.
[Did you hear that libbie fossil Ginsberg bitching about we should salvage as much of this law as possible. Another Obama lap dog.]
Joseph, what is eParent from your post is that you have no idea as to the role of SCOTUS, or why it is compromised of Republican/Conservative & Democratic/Liberal judges...
That would be "comprised", Mickey.
Keep trying ...... maybe one day you Will get your GED.
[No message of substance again I see ..... so attack the opinion of another !]
Look familiar, jimmie? Sure it does...
so, jimwit the dimwit chooses to point out a spelling error rather than address the post...
Is it because you can't, or you won't?
I'd say it's both...
Oh, and an fyi...you don't have to capitalize "will"...just sayin' genius...
There is nothing in your prior post WORTH addressing. You are flopping around like a fish out of water.
I use capitals for emphasis sometimes. Perhaps that is difficult for you to comprehend. By the way, "compromised" is a word so I think your claim of a misspelling is just a cover.
[There is nothing in your prior post WORTH addressing.]
And that would be because it's correct, right jimmie? My post was about the makeup of SCOTUS. Is it not correct? If not, then please answer why it isn't correct...what is your take on why SCOTUS is comprised of Republican/Conservative & Democratic/Liberal judges.
Here's your chance to shine jimmie...put those two degrees and CPA cert to work...don't let me down.
[By the way, "compromised" is a word so I think your claim of a misspelling is just a cover.]
Think all you want jimmie...it still doesn't change the fact that you're wrong...again...still...
“President Obama will touch down in Vermont and Maine on Friday afternoon for a series of fund-raisers for his reelection campaign....His New England visits will begin with a private luncheon with approximately 100 supporters at the Sheraton Burlington in Burlington, Vt., where the president will give a speech.... After lunch, Obama will speak at the University of Vermont, also in Burlington,
I was just in Burlington, Vermont for the last few days on business. I drove through the University of Vermont campus and walked through the downtown district - Church Street. Burlington is a beautiful little city in a scenic part of the country. Sorry I missed our President.
I am sure he is sorry he was unable to get your campaign contribution. Getting re-elected and maintaining his power is more important than high unemployment, high national debt, and high cost of gas.
Jim...your ignorance and hatred shine!
No message of substance again I see ..... so attack the opinion of another !
With two college degrees and a CPA certificate under my belt, I have more knowledge about the total fiscal irresponsibility of this administration than you are capable of understanding. Social Security and Medicare are already facing serious issues of sustainability and libtards are crying for more government entitlements. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our national debt is well over $15 trillion, still growing rapidly, and neither you or Obama has a clue about the impending danger.
Jim...don't you know you're a snob with so much education? Hell, if you're so smart, why don't YOU run for President? And were you THIS vocal about the national debt/spending in 2001-2008?
It is quite obvious there are a lot of things you don't know. But the basic liberal mantra is that "we're smarter than you" so "if you don't agree with US, well then, you must be uneducated, or or .... uninformed ....or or the product of inbreeding. It basically defines the haughty arrogance that liberals are "liberal" only so long as the opinions being expressed agree with their own.
You guys simply cannot handle opinions different from your own, so you attack their education and attack their intelligence.
By the way, most of the spending during the time frame you referenced was during the last two years when Democrats controlled Congress.
"It is quite obvious there are a lot of things you don't know. But the basic liberal mantra is that "we're smarter than you" so "if you don't agree with US, well then, you must be uneducated, or or .... uninformed ....or or the product of inbreeding. It basically defines the haughty arrogance that liberals are "liberal" only so long as the opinions being expressed agree with their own."
Seems to me you've spent several posts asking a particular liberal poster on here if he has yet gotten his GED. Would that make you *gasp* a liberal by your own characterization?
Liberal and common sense do not go together. You are now so focused upon me and my comments.
Obsess much ? I am still looking for a comment from you of substance about the article
[Seems to me you've spent several posts asking a particular liberal poster on here if he has yet gotten his GED.]
DrDr...this is all that the "closet liberals" such as jimmie here, have left...and it seems that it is a bit premature of him to think I am a "liberal"...in reality, jimmie here has no idea what political affiliation I possess, do you jimmie...all he knows is that he disagrees with me, even though he knows my post above regarding SCOTUS is correct. Therefore, by default, I must be an "eeeeevil librul".
Or could it be he doesn't know I'm correct? In that case, he might want to get his money back on those two degrees and CPA cert he bragged about.
Or could it be an "eeeeevil librul" is smarter than jimmie?
"You are now so focused upon me and my comments."
Seriously, whenever someone addresses the contradictions between your posts, they are now "obsessed" with you? Egocentric much?
The health of 40 million Americans is in the Supreme Court's hands. A scary drum roll.
It has nothing to do with health. It has to do with who controls the health care industry and who pays for it.
I'm really not too sure how this is going to go. Scalia was a no from the beginning and his hostility could be a turnoff to the justices on the fence. Thomas is a no and has a wife who has even campaigned against the law! Kennedy seemed to be a harsh critic in the beginning but seemed to acknowledge if the mandate would be axed only, it would make a mess of the law. I didn't hear anything from him to clue where he was going to vote, just lots of harsh questioning. After all, if there is any skepticism, wouldn't that be the time to ask the harsh questions? The law is on trial, not the opposing view when it comes right down to it.
There also seemed to be an acknowledgement that they couldn't send it back to congress to satisfy their concerns with the dysfunctional ways in both houses. They seemed to be resigned to have to nut and bolt the law and decide what stays and what goes because they don't appear to trust the houses of government. I was surprised that Roberts at times echoed the value of the law. For sure they've also heard Mitch McConnell say nothing would be done if the law would be struck down- not too politically smart to say before a decision of the court, from the view of many!
I believe the SCOTUS is acutely aware of the problematic nature of legislating from the bench, knowing full well their reputations have been diminished by the Gore v. Bush and Citizens United decisions. Will that resonate with the Robert's court? That is a question only they know the answer to. But there would be a backlash against them if they did legislate instead of judging something that passed the House and Senate and was signed by the president. That's a situation that has not been seen since the FDR days. Will they start the Court down that slippery slope?
It wouldn't surprise me if the mandate was taken out. But I would be surprised if the entire law was struck down. The justices are aware of what a problem this is for Americans. It would be just desserts for the Insurance companies if they were still required to do what's left in the law. If it is struck down, especially by party lines, there's going to be an uproar for Single Payer and Medicare for everyone that will be a battle cry from then on. If insurance companies are worried now, imagine the scare if they were cut out of this altogether with Medicare for all! They'd be crying on all their Republican representatives shoulders to get them back into the game!
A lot of words in your post does not equate to "quality". Obamacare has no "severability clause". Therefore, if any part of the bill fails, then the whole piece of legislation gets flushed. Besides, without the individual mandate, the whole financial foundation this thing rests upon has about as much cohesion as sand on a beach !!!
Bad legislation is simply bad legislation. This bill never did anything to reduce the costs of delivering health care in this country. Tort reform was bypassed because the trial lawyers support the Democratic Party and this would diminish their ability to parasitize the medical profession.
dave...
Maybe the president will tell us that the insurance companies would "step up" again, like he said during his flap with the Catholic Church. The "just desserts" you wish upon those horrid insurance companies will only get passed along to the consumer as increases in premiums.
Why does everyone keep feeding Troll Jim? If he is hungry, let him do what he espouses---find his nourishment on his own
I find it interesting that healthcare for all with costs spread equally should be an issue. As long as we have leeches off our system who won't pay for their services and continue to place that burden on the rest of us, reform of healthcare will be needed. Is the current plan perfect, no. But is it better than what we had before, most definitely. For me, I have been able to continue to provide coverage on my plan for my 25 year old daughter who is still in school.
I would prefer they modify and correct the current plan in a bi-partisan effort, but that does not appear likely to happen on this earth.
Politics at all levels are out of control in the country, fueled by the media and false advertising or campaigning. We can thank the Supreme Court for that issue as well.
Jesus' Retrn
You will know when Jesus has returned when right wing Christians, en mass, are gathered up into the clouds, from whence they shall plummet back to Earth. Then, those of us who remain shall fly the friendly skies, united.
Bless their hard little hearts.
Justice Scalia is being called hostile to the health care mandate becasue he is against it? Maybe because it is unfairly and unconstitutionally wrong.
How about putting this health care mandate mess on a voting referendum in the election to see where the majority stands on this issue. It's only fair to whose who will be directly affected by it to have some sort of say in it. Bet it won't happen anytime soon for obvious political reasons.
What can happen if the affordable care act is struck down by the Supreme Court[1]:
1. More of your premium could go to CEO salaries.
2. No longer would insurance companies be required to use at least 80% of your premium on health services.
3. No longer will your insurance company have to justify any increase in your premium.
4. Insurance companies will be able to put a lifetime cap on the amount of care they will cover for you. If you are severely injured or develop a chronic illness (e.g., heart disease), your insurance company may set a cap on how much it will pay—after that, it will come out of your pocket.
5. Five million seniors have gotten rebates for their prescription drugs. More than 360,000 small businesses are getting tax credits for providing health insurance to their workers. Will all these people have to give that money back?
6. Almost every state, including many that have sued to block the health law, has received millions of dollars to start planning to put the law into effect. Will they have to give that money back? And will people in those states being paid with those dollars lose their jobs?
7. About 50,000 people are enrolled in temporary "Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plans" for those who were previously uninsured for at least six months. If the law is declared invalid, that program would very likely have to shut down in fairly short order, leaving those people once again uninsured.
8. In fact, insurance companies would no doubt return to denying insurance to anyone and everyone with any kind of pre-existing health “condition,” including children.
9. And if you were to lose your job, you will no longer be able to qualify for Medicaid.
10. There is also some reason to think the law's disruption could interfere with the operations of the Medicare program for the elderly. The health law made a lot of changes to the way Medicare works and pays doctors and hospitals and health plans. The regulations spelling out this year's payment rates were based on the health law being in place. So if the law is struck down, there's a possibility that Medicare couldn't pay any claims until officials go back through the entire rule-making process — which, by law, takes several months.
11. In some cases the federal government would simply lose the ability to enforce rules. So things that are now required would simply become options. For example: The 2.5 million young people on their parents' health plans are covered by insurance contracts. They're probably OK, at least until the end of the plan year, although the federal law requiring that coverage would cease to be in effect. That would be the same for most of the insurance changes, such as restrictions on annual limits insurance companies can impose. But if the law is struck down, after the plan year ends, insurers would be free to reimpose the old rules.
12. Those falling into Medicare’s coverage gap for prescription drugs would lose their 50% discount on brand-name drugs.
13. Certain free preventive health services, such as regular blood pressure and cholesterol checks, colon cancer and diabetes screenings, OB-GYN, birth control, maternity care checkups, mammograms, flu shots for those on Medicare, and childhood immunizations would no longer be offered.
14. The tax credits for families in certain income levels would disappear.
15. Insurance companies can go back to charging women more than they charge men for the same insurance policy.
16. The simplified rules for qualifying for Medicaid would disappear.
17. Tax credits to help small businesses provide health care coverage to employees would disappear.
And finally,
18. You will continue to have to pay for those people without health care who show up at emergency rooms in need of health care.
And there probably will be changes to how we view the U.S. Supreme Court:
19. If the decision divides, as so many Supreme Court decisions have divided—most notably the most political of Supreme Court votes, the Bush v. Gore decision—along political (conservative-liberal, Republican-Democrat) lines, the Court will lose its credibility for good as an institution devoted to non-partisan interpretations of the constitution.
20. The conservatives on the Court will prove themselves to be what many suspect them to be: conservative ideologues.
21. And worse, that some of them, like Antonin Scalia, are heartless bullies. During questioning, Scalia found some of the Affordable Care Act cases—stories of people being helped by the Act—to be funny. The loss of Affordable Care Act benefits are not funny to those without health insurance, those who lose their healthcare when they lose their jobs and are refused healthcare afterwards due to pre-existing conditions, those who have to make choices between paying for health insurance and putting food on their families’ tables, and on and on.
22. The idea that only liberal judges can be activist judges will be nothing short of big, fat lie.
23. The intellect of the conservative justices will be questioned, given that they seem to think that health care (something everyone everywhere will one day, sooner or later, need) is the same thing as car insurance (something you only have to have, if you choose to own and drive a car). Health care is not a choice. Every human being on this planet, at some point in their lives, will face disease or injury or decay of bodily organ functions. Having to choose whether or not you can afford health care should not happen.
[1] Some of these items come directly from Julie Rovner’s “Thinking The Unthinkable: What If The Whole Affordable Care Act Goes Down?” NPR, Shots: NPR’s Health Blog,
So you are blaming some of the irrelevance of this post on someone else ?
#23 is getting to be really old ........still trying to compare this to car insurance ??
#21 you are going to present an "OPINION" of Scalia as a "heartless bully" as a fact ???
#13 you do realize that Obamacare cut back on frequency of allowed mammograms don't you ????
#18 are you kidding me ????? Those who cannot "afford" health insurance will be subsidized by Uncle Sam.
Sorry, but if this is your concept of "grading" the repeal, I have to give you straight "F's".
Wow, Jim, I see you like an angry bulldog biting at anyone in front of you.
Again, a comment of no substance from you because you are unable or unwilling to refute any line item in #15.1.
Jerry-nice summary.
As much as I respect President Obama (definitely will get my vote again), I wish he would have better explained the ACA when it was enacted. He had a ton on his plate but at least have some surrogates detail the benefits. I already personally know people who are are getting needed health care because of it.
Jerry...
Maybe our national leaders should drop the obfuscations and simply deal with 'Nunber 18' on your list. With the intent of never wanting to direct attention solely on America's "poor"...it seems like any state or national plan always has to be put into place for everyone.
When this health care mess began, we heard that 80-85% of Americans were happy with the health insurance they already had. Mr. Obama obviously had his fingers and toes crossed when he kept droning "if you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan".
In my state a few years ago there was a rise in HIV in urban areas...so naturally the state pols started working on a plan so that "everyone" would be HIV tested instead of dealing with the problem in the cities. Currently in my state, high school dropout rates are around 50% in several of our cities...so naturally our so-called state leaders are working on plans to transform the educational system from head to toe instead of being honest and focusing their efforts where they are most needed.
If our politicians spent less time worrying about stigmatizing the "poor" and instead did their jobs honestly and spoke honestly about the problems of the "poor" and what solutions were possible, maybe we could actually see some progress.
And 'yes'...I know that this will never happen in this nation or in the state I resdie in.
Two more--and I think #2 is, perhaps, the most telling, say whatever you will: