I just read these two amazing articles from Bloomberg Businessweek, one about the current economic recovery and the other about Obamacare. Do yourself a favor, take some time and read these with an open mind they really shed honest light on both subjects. A warning that these articles are a bit lengthy but great reads nonetheless.

Lucky or Good? The Truth About the Obama Recovery
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/15078-lucky-or-good-the-truth-about-the-obama-recovery

Obamacare Has Already Transformed U.S. Health Care
http://www.businessweek.com/printer/arti...dot-health-care

I know most of you think I am some crazy Liberal (am not) because of all the pictures I post up (I post them to promote discussion and laughs) usually bash the GOP. I go by facts and raw data to base most of my opinions. These articles are from the generally conservative Bloomberg Businessweek.

President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he'd have "more flexibility" after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.

Obama, during a sit-down with Medvedev in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after November. The conversation was relayed by a TV pool producer who listened to the recording from a Russian journalist. "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama told Medvedev.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/.../#ixzz1qF1w2Sq0

olivant - Hilarious.

DD - I'm still of the opinion that whatever flaws HCR that passed Congress has, it's a foot in the door, a step forward. Instead of the GOP personalizing this as a conflict by personalizing it as the legacy of a Muslim Socialist Fascist terrorist, they should instead (and I mean "they" like Romney) should instead attack it on efficiency, not the ideology.

And I say that, among other reasons, because what if the SCOTUS upholds Obamacare? What if...well actually Mittens has already disowned his own involvement in HCR, so that's not rhetorical. Because if you totally cede an issue, you lose that issue with the other side (whether it wants it or not) may or may not decide to own it. A short term political rally victory might turn into a long term defeat.

If the health care law is upheld, that puts conservatives in a clumsy position. Of course, they rant and rave against activist federal judges and I'm sure that they will construe a constitutional finding by the Court as activisim. However, it was conservatives that provided the impetuis for the court challenge.

Exactly.

Does anyone have any "fair" guesses as to how the Health Care debate will turn out? I am fairly confident the entire bill will NOT be tossed but what about the mandate which seems to be the main issue no?


TIS

Remember when the individual mandate was a Republican invention and championed cause?

TIS, the Constitution authorizes the Congress to regulate commerce among the states. The Court may base its decision on whether or not that authorization applies to state governments and/or state inhabitants. Since states apply their own laws and regulations to health care and since a case can be made that those laws and regulations affect health care in other states, there is a basis for applying the commerce clause. Does that help?

I guess, but it is kind of confusing.

Btw, here's a link to the audio of the Supreme Court hearings which I have not yet listened to because I just got it. Today, as I understand they determined IF the Supreme Court would hear the case and tomorrow they discuss the individual mandate.

TIS

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday

No.

My guess is that the mandate is upheld. Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Ginsburg are likely to uphold while Thomas and Alito are likely to rule that the Commerce Clause doesn't provide a Constitutional basis for the Mandate. That leaves Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy. Many feel that Kennedy could be the deciding vote, but I believe that Roberts will also vote to uphold the Mandate. It should be noted that Scalia has previously taken expansive views on the application of the commerce clause.

While we all tend to look at this as a political football in an election year, the Justices, believe it or not, have to reconcile their decisions, based upon the principles of stare decisis, and the language from their own relevant decisions. Scalia likes to be conservative, but he likes even more to be consistent in his decisions.

Andrew Napolitano of Fox stated last week that he thought the Justices had their minds made up already. But you're right Kly about your analysis of the Justices. A couple of the conservative ones have ruled as you state.

I don't understand why mandating insurance for health would be different than mandating auto insurance for driving. You can pay auto insurance for years and never get in an accident and never use it.BUT, it's there when you need it. Why can't I opt out? I haven't had accident or used it in years?

As sure as the sun rises, we ALL will need medical care at some time or another. It's inevitable.



TIS

j

And did Napolitano say which way he thought the Justices would go?


TIS

TIS, the retort to your statement by conservatives is that one does not have to own acar. Thus, one is not then compelled to purchase vehicle insurance.

I think it's a weak argumant. Listening to some pundits discuss it, they seem to focus on what they believe the Founding Fathers intended whichis limited govrnment. The problem witht at reasoning is that they want the Court to engage in Substantive Due Process which they usually equate with judicial activism which the, in turn, don't like. Substantive Due Process, essentially, is reading in to the Constitution things that are not "expressly" there. Go figure.

The following article is about components of the Health Care Reform law that you probably didn't know it contained. Give it a read. I was enlightened by it:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/health/health-reform-fun-facts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I hope the mandate is tossed. Why should someone who is self-employed by forced to have insurance while others are getting it for free?

I don't have a single friend or relative who has seen their insurance premiums level off or decrease since Obamacare was passed. And no one really figures they'll benefit once the law goes into effect.

This is especially true of civil service workers. Transit. Port Authority. Health care is the biggest sticking point in negotiations these days.

Why pay taxes at all? I mean some pay more than you, some less, some don't even pay any taxes.

He thought they'd strike it.

yep Newt was all over it as well as Romney

"Then-Gov. Mitt Romney, took up the cause for individual mandates as he pushed for universal health care in Massachusetts. Romney claimed victory in a 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "Health care for everyone? We found a way." In that essay, Romney noted proudly -- and accurately -- that he had proposed the individual mandate in his state, calling it a "personal responsibility principle," and had shepherded the measure through a Democratic legislature. "A free ride on government is not libertarian," Romney wrote. Now a possible favorite for the 2012 presidential nomination, Romney has since distanced himself from the Massachusetts approach, apparently in efforts to court his party's conservative base. "

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/24/individual-mandate-flies-under-the-radar/5

On Saturday, David Fahrenthold wrote that “more than a year after Republicans first pledged to ‘repeal and replace’ President Obama’s new health-care law, the GOP is still struggling to answer a basic question. Replace it . . . with what?”

This shouldn’t be such a problem. Health care is a big issue. It’s been around a long time. The Republican Party should, in 2011, have a position on it. To understand why it doesn’t, it’s worth reading Newt Gingrich’s April 2006 comments on then-Gov. Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts reforms.

“The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts,” wrote Gingrich, or someone speaking for Gingrich, in his “Newt Notes” newsletter. “The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system. We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. ... Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.”

In 2006, in other words, the Republican Party had an alternative to Obamacare. The only problem? It was Obamacare.

Between 1990 and 2007, the reigning Republican theory of health-care reform was that instead of handing the health-care system over to the government, they would put private insurers and personal responsibility at the core of their health-care reforms. During this period, everyone from Bob Dole to Jim DeMint to the Heritage Foundation endorsed this approach. But then Democrats, looking for a compromise, endorsed those same plans. And then Republicans, rather than pocketing the policy win, ran from their own ideas.

But insofar as the Republican Party had a plan for health-care reform, the individual mandate was it. That’s why Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, and Jon Huntsman either passed, endorsed, or expressed openness to an individual mandate. And that’s why Romney hasn’t paid for his plan: Almost every other serious candidate for the Republican nomination supported an individual mandate, too. It’s hard for Gingrich to take a clear shot at Romney for proposing what Gingrich called “the most exciting development” in health-care reform.

It’s also why the Republican Party can’t figure out an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was their alternative. Now they need an alternative to the alternative. But there are only so many policy approaches that make sense as an answer to our health-care problems. And Republicans have pretty much run out of them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...N5YKP_blog.html

here is newt supporting it as early as may of 2009

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ay-2009/252233/

check this out, i found this helpful

"Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the rationale for the Anti-Injunction Act—protecting government revenue--didn't apply to the insurance penalty.

"One thing that's relevant in my mind is that taxes are, for better or for worse, the life's blood of government," Justice Breyer said. While the health-law penalty is expected to generate revenue, its purpose wasn't to fund the government but to drive people into the insurance pool, he suggested.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, saying: "This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful … nobody will pay the penalty." "

pretty much sums it up

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424..._LEFTTopStories

Looks like a media narrative that GOP voting % is weaker compared to '08 is actually untrue. It's actually gone up compared to 4 years ago.

By a whooping 2%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-...eCNWS_blog.html

I'm not against taxes. But the Democrats have been pushing this HCR as "affordable healthcare" when in fact it's only going to cost everyone more, not less, over time.

One good thing about HCR is that insurers can't turn you down for preexisting conditions.

are you Italian?

No, I'm American.

Are you going to use that against me?

What happens if the SCOTUS strikes down the Individual mandate but leaves the rest of Obamacare afloat? Different estimates, but basically premiums go up and 12-25 million people increase in the uninsured with 2-15 million dropped from employer sponsored insurance.

So yes Skinny, fuck the people.

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2012/03/23/the-link-the-impact-of-aca-market-reforms-without-a-mandate/

All indications (for what it is worth) is that it did not seem to go well today in arguments FOR the mandate. I am listening to the audio now here, if anyone is interested. It just started.

TIS



http://www.c-span.org/Events/Supreme-Court-to-Review-Individual-Mandate-Provision/10737429100-3/

I was just wondering if you're Italian-American. Calm down. I use nothing against anyone.

Premiums have been increasing and are going to increase even if the mandate stands. No one really believes that the mandate would lower premiums.

So you're fine with your premiums up even MORE?

SV, are you American?