Supreme Court Ruling ups support for Obamacare

[mercury14]

Especially among independents who just shifted 11% after the ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/ruling-ups-support-obama-healthcare-still-unpopular-040755810.html


Meanwhile, the markets have tanked since the ruling, just like conservatives said they would. The Dow even tanked plus 250 points. Wait, what?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah!

Go TEAM!

We just could not wait to get out there and poll the good news!



Reelected and its understood!
Reelected and it feels so good!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"Despite the court labeling the mandate a tax - which Republicans have seized on in campaigning against Obama - the new survey found support for it unchanged. Thirty nine percent of all Americans backed the mandate, compared with 61 percent who opposed it."

 

[mercury14]

"Despite the court labeling the mandate a tax - which Republicans have seized on in campaigning against Obama - the new survey found support for it unchanged. Thirty nine percent of all Americans backed the mandate, compared with 61 percent who opposed it."

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The conventional wisdom compells the Dow to play the role of a crystal ball, but in fact people trade stocks for various reasons. Mostly they wanna separate a fool from his money. Or they wanna take control of a company. Or they like to gamble. No one buys stock cuz the company makes gold outta cat shit, and pays a sweet dividend.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One more thing to keep in mind, Jeff Sessions is saying that now that the mandate has been ruled a tax (which actually should have stopped the ruling in its tracks, no one had been taxed yet, think about it) it takes only a simple majority to overturn it instead of a ⅔ majority...

So Mr. Soros had better get to work funding those Senate campaigns.

Lord knows Senator ObamaClaire McCaskell is in 1/32 Cherokee heep big doo-doo...




But you go on celebrating the mountain-sea change; you've earned it!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

We didn't want it then, we don't want it now, it got zero Republican votes unlike the Holder contempt charge which was a real bipartisan effort.




You were so cool, telling everyone that you knew how to run a mop...

Drive a car...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

You dont GET us conservatives at all. We dont wanna buy a pig in a poke or pay for cat when chicken is what we want. We want a steak NOT Loin de Sylvester smothered in Creme de la Pepe le Pew.

 

[mercury14]

One more thing to keep in mind, Jeff Sessions is saying that now that the mandate has been ruled a tax (which actually should have stopped the ruling in its tracks, no one had been taxed yet, think about it) it takes only a simple majority to overturn it instead of a ⅔ majority...

So Mr. Soros had better get to work funding those Senate campaigns.

Lord knows Senator ObamaClaire McCaskell is in 1/32 Cherokee heep big doo-doo...




But you go on celebrating the mountain-sea change; you've earned it!

Support for Obamacare is rising fast as expected and is already 48%. Come January it will probably be over 50%. Are Republicans going to go against America's wishes and press for repeal? Because for the last three years you've been arguing based on the "will of the people" and shoving shit down people's throats.

Hypocrite.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Support for Obamacare is rising fast as expected and is already 48%. Come January it will probably be over 50%. Are Republicans going to go against America's wishes and press for repeal? Because for the last three years you've been arguing based on the "will of the people" and shoving shit down people's throats.

Hypocrite.

You're projecting and starting with the name-calling...

January?

The poll that counts is in November. You're already counting hatched chickens.

 

[mercury14]

You dont GET us conservatives at all. We dont wanna buy a pig in a poke or pay for cat when chicken is what we want. We want a steak NOT Loin de Sylvester smothered in Creme de la Pepe le Pew.

The contents of Obamacare are widely supported by conservatives. The mandate isn't, but most everything else is. Your presidential candidate's reaction to the SCOTUS decision was to read off a shopping list of Obamacare provisions that he supports, and indeed conservatives support.

The fact is conservatives broadly support increased government regulations on insurers and mandates that will raise costs. Republicans are monumental hypocrites here. They loudly support no denial for preexisting conditions (hey look fuckers - you're using big government to force companies to sell something!!!!) and then turn around and attack Obamacare because this very policy raises costs.

 

[mercury14]

You're projecting and starting with the name-calling...

January?

The poll that counts is in November. You're already counting hatched chickens.

What? No that's not what conservatives say at all. You've been saying for ages that polls and polling on Obamacare matters because it shows that Obama is governing against the will of the people. He's a tyrant, remember? Now that support for the ACA about 50% and increasing, well you never said that?

Hypocrite.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A_J's corollary #5, “When lacking reason and sound argument, the New Age Liberal charges headlong into ‘debate’ with emotional cries of Hypocrisy. The New Age Liberal is, of course, immune to and incapable of Hypocrisy. That would require hard and fast standards.”

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

duplicate post

~technical difficulties~

 

[mercury14]

A_J's corollary #5, “When lacking reason and sound argument, the New Age Liberal charges headlong into ‘debate’ with emotional cries of Hypocrisy. The New Age Liberal is, of course, immune to and incapable of Hypocrisy. That would require hard and fast standards.”

Yeah you're a hypocrite because that's how you act. You say and think hypocritical things on a regular basis and get nailed for it. Your policy positions are manipulative and often incoherent. You fail to take responsibility for your comments and predictions and your arguments are a slurry of ad hominem and tangential, desperate topic-shifting when you're held accountable for your own philosophy. You substitute logical fallacy for rational discourse whenever you can and declare yourself king of the hill when you're not even standing on the right hill anymore.

In your next post I fully expect you will accuse me of being a racist alt in response to my OP comments about health care reform. Because that's just who you are. I really can't imagine you any other way.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

It's teh American way!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, the true Democrats show their true colors yet again...



Have fun. Revel.

You're "winning..."

http://www.downinthevalley.com/images/product/medium/164228.jpg

 

[mercury14]

Oh, the true Democrats show their true colors yet again...

Ad hominem.

Your game is so old and predictable I could play it for you.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Ad hominem.

Your game is so old and predictable I could play it for you.

"U R a racist" cut-n-paste in 5...4...3...

 

[mercury14]

How much longer until Romney looks at polling number on independents and stops bitching about Obamacare?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Especially among independents who just shifted 11% after the ruling.

http://news.yahoo.com/ruling-ups-support-obama-healthcare-still-unpopular-040755810.html


Meanwhile, the markets have tanked since the ruling, just like conservatives said they would. The Dow even tanked plus 250 points. Wait, what?

I'm pleasantly surprised that five percent more Republicans support Obamacare now that it has passed Constitutional muster with all three branches of the government.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Marching Orders?

The memo, according to The Hill, was written by senior adviser and messaging strategist David Plouffe, and also argues that Democrats should be “happy to debate Republicans on taxes.” Even though Obamacare now represents a series of tax hikes on those making under $250,000, the memo suggests that it "illustrate how the President and Democrats in Congress are standing up for the middle class.” Based on Thursday's Supreme Court decision, Obamacare is not only the largest tax increase in history. Thus, his signature piece of legislation now represents a broken promise by the President, who promised not to raise taxes on the middle class.

As The Hill noted, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed 44 percent of those surveyed had an unfavorable view of the bill, but the country “is evenly split on the Supreme Court's action, with 46 percent of those surveyed saying the law was either constitutional or unconstitutional.” But the White House thinks if they convince Democrats to go on the offensive in defending Obamacare, these numbers may tick up, even as the Democrats defending the law risk a blow to their popularity.

If Democrats running for Congress take Plouffe’s advice, many may lose their races because of it. If that is the case, of course, the odds of repealing Obamacare will greatly increase.

 

[fuckwaffle]

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

I don't want anything for free, I'm willing to pay my own way. What I'm not willing to do is pay your way, that would be your responsibility.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah the mandate is what pays for it. Fiscal conservatives just don't want to pay for shit. You want all the goodies... for free!

Hypocrite:

The Supreme Court gave ObamaCare a new lease on political life by upholding the entirety of the law — well, almost the entirety of the law. The decision by Chief Justice John Roberts threw out a portion of the bill in a dispute that didn’t get a lot of attention during the two-year legal fight, one that removes the penalties for states that don’t take part in the Medicaid expansion. Shortly after the decision was announced, at least three Republican governors announced that they would not expand Medicaid as dictated by the ACA. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana declared in a conference call with the media that his state would not enact either the exchanges or the Medicaid expansion, which would force his state to absorb much larger costs. Jindal wasn’t alone for long:

Gov. Scott Walker pledged again Thursday not to phase in any parts of President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law ahead of November’s elections even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it is constitutional.

Walker, a Republican, has said he holds out hope the GOP will recapture the White House and gain full control of Congress and repeal the legislation. He reiterated his stance Thursday minutes after the court released its ruling.

“While the court said it was legal, that doesn’t make it right,” Walker said at a news conference. “For us to put time and effort and resources into that doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

In Kansas, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ successor Governor Sam Brownback concurred:

A day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback said he had no plans to implement provisions of the health care law.

“This is now in the hands of the American public. Mitt Romney has said on Day One he’ll grant a global waiver from the implementation of Obamacare, so now it’s up to the American public to decide, and I’m going to see what’s going to happen in the fall election before we move forward,” he said on CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report.”

Chuck Blahous warns that the court’s change of the Medicaid-expansion provision makes ObamaCare much less sustainable and practically guarantees its failure:

The Supreme Court left intact most of the health care law’s provisions, excepting only one section that would have allowed the Secretary of HHS to withdraw “existing Medicaid funding” from states that fail to comply with the law’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility.

This is important. At first glance, it appears quite possible that this decision could:

Considerably worsen the budgetary effects of the law, and;

Result in substantial cuts, later in this decade, to the subsidies for low-income individuals who are compelled to buy health insurance under the law.

Blahous, a former economic adviser to George W. Bush and deputy director of the National Economic Council, argues that the states have very compelling reasons to stay as far away from the Medicaid expansion as possible. The federal government covers the costs for the first few years, but after that it becomes a huge unfunded mandate. If states refuse to participate — and remember, 26 states sued to block implementation of the law — the federal government will have to expand the subsidy program to help lower-income families in the 100-400%-of-poverty-line group buy health insurance. And that means that ObamaCare costs will explode:

How much worse? No one (perhaps outside of CBO) can say. But under past estimates, a 1 million-person reduction in the law’s reliance on Medicaid has meant an increase in net costs of about $50-$90 billion over ten years. With 26 states joined in a lawsuit to be released from this forced coverage expansion, the fiscal worsening could be substantial.

The side effects of the court ruling don’t end there. The health law also contains a “fail safe” provision requiring that total costs of the health exchange credits be limited to 0.504% of GDP per year after 2018. In previous estimates, CBO projected that subsidy percentages would “eventually” be cut by this provision to keep their total costs beneath this cap. But if health exchange participation is to be significantly higher than previously projected, then costs will be also much higher. This would force significant cuts in subsidies to low-income individuals starting in 2019; the text of the law is explicit that the cap will be enforced by reducing these subsidies. Lawmakers would thus have to choose between allowing these cuts to low-income individuals to go into effect, and waiving the existing fiscal constraints of the health care law.

So much for the promise of cost control, which was always a shell game, with the states playing the role of sucker. ObamaCare backers could only claim cost control by shifting the costs for the Medicaid expansion to the states, while taking credit for more-or-less universal coverage. That would mean either higher state taxes, reductions of other state services, or both. By freeing the states from having to bear those costs, the bill will come due at the federal level instead, and Blahous thinks that will start sinking into the national consciousness soon:

The Supreme Court may have just set in motion of chain of events that could lead to the law’s being found as busting the budget, even under the highly favorable scoring methods used last time around.

I’m not sure that really does us any favors, but at least the reversal on the Medicaid expansion exposes the dishonesty of the “deficit-neutral” argument.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/30/can-obamacare-survive-success/

But merc, the market mandate doesn't pay for it. The mandate survives and still, the cost, as always is expected to be born by the states. HOW? Obama doesn't give a shit. He'll be on the lecture circuit by then...

The Father of American Serfdom

 

[RobDownSouth]

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/428934_3480190125934_408455107_n.jpg