# Supreme Court starts to hear "Obama Care" law today



## punisher73 (Mar 26, 2012)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-0326-krauthammer-20120326-7,0,7884941.column

The US Supreme Court will examine whether or not President Obama's health care law is constitutional or not.

Do you think it will pass?


----------



## Steve (Mar 26, 2012)

I think it's going to be upheld.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 26, 2012)

The swing vote will likely come from Justice Kennedy.  I see a 5-4 vote either way on whether the mandate part of the law is upheld.  The Obama administration seem to claim that the law can survive intact even with if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, although most experts think it would be a financial disaster without everyone paying into the system.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 26, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> The swing vote will likely come from Justice Kennedy.  I see a 5-4 vote either way on whether the mandate part of the law is upheld.  The Obama administration seem to claim that the law can survive intact even with if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, although most experts think it would be a financial disaster without everyone paying into the system.



That's what I read as well.  I was a bit surprised to read the analysis, but in the end, I agreed with it.  Most likely a 5-4 split, and Kennedy is the swing vote.  I suspect he may to uphold the individual mandate. That will be a very bad thing for individual liberty, and I'll be very sad.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 26, 2012)

They make everyone pay into social security i dont see them overturning this either

Actually only working folks pay social security which i suspect will be the same for heathcare the people that work will need to pay for the ones that dont


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 26, 2012)

I hope it fails.

If that mandate is upheld, there is nothing that you can't be forced to buy. Good bye freedom. 



> "First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even  if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements  for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate  interstate commerce extends only to  economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such  activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not  necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that  would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it  cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited  federal government of enumerated powers.
> 
> An essential aspect of  liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that  Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases  individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional."


The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers
[url]www.cato.org




[/URL]





> 4. The Individual Mandate Threatens the Foundations of Contract Law
> 3. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified Under Existing Supreme Court Precedent
> 2. The Individual Mandate Rests on an Unbounded and Unprincipled Assertion of Federal Power
> 1: The Individual Mandate Violates the Original Meaning of the Constitution


The 4 Best Legal Arguments Against ObamaCare
reason.com


----------



## Steve (Mar 26, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> They make everyone pay into social security i dont see them overturning this either
> 
> Actually only working folks pay social security which i suspect will be the same for heathcare the people that work will need to pay for the ones that dont


A distinction, however, is that social security is public.  I would agree with you completely if there were a public option under the healt care reform act.  But there is not.  Requiring citizens to purchase from private vendors is something completely new.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 27, 2012)

Steve said:


> A distinction, however, is that social security is public. I would agree with you completely if there were a public option under the healt care reform act. But there is not. Requiring citizens to purchase from private vendors is something completely new.



That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me.  If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered.  Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.  

I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me.  If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered.  Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.
> 
> I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.



http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...rguments-individual-mandate/story?id=16012066

While it is very early for anyone to guess at outcomes, I found this encouraging:



> Kennedy asked whether the law "changes the relationship" between the federal government and the individual in a "very fundamental way". He pointed out that the law requires an individual to "do an affirmative act. "
> ...
> Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the limits of federal power.
> 
> "Can the government require you to buy a cell phone?" Roberts asked.



I remain hopeful that this mandate will be found unconstitutional and will thus unravel the healthcare reforms.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

*CNN
Toobin: Mandate in grave trouble*
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says questioning by Supreme Court  justices leads him to believe the health care reform law is in peril. He  called today's session "a train wreck" for the White House. WATCH |  A SHARP DIVIDE

FOX


Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy may  hold the final say as to whether or not the individual mandate &#8212; the  provision in Obama's health care law requiring Americans to buy health  insurance &#8212; is constitutional, as the Supreme Court appears to be  closely divided after a hearing. 
*ObamaCare Faces Crucial Hearing* | *Supreme Court Signals It Won't Punt on ObamaCare Decision* 
*OPINION: What Happens If Individual Mandate is Thrown Out?* | *OPINION: Why We Went To Court Over ObamaCare* 

MSNBC
*Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of individual mandate
*NBC's Pete Williams, who has been listening in as the Supreme Court  hears arguments about President Obama's health care reform law, says he  thinks it's "very doubtful" the high court is going to find the law  constitutional. 

*Skeptical Kennedy signals trouble for Obama's healthcare law*
Los Angeles Times - &#8206;17 minutes ago&#8206;
     By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey The Supreme Court's conservative  justices sharply attacked the insurance mandate that is at the heart of  President Obama's healthcare law, strongly suggesting Tuesday they are  prepared to strike it down as *...* 

*Supreme court divided over Obama healthcare law |*
Reuters - &#8206;35 minutes ago&#8206;
     By Joan Biskupic and James Vicini | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The US  Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared closely divided along ideological  lines over whether Congress had the power to require most people in the  United States to buy medical insurance, *...* 

*Hard Questions From Justices Over Insurance Mandate*
New York Times - &#8206;47 minutes ago&#8206;
     With the fate of President Obama's health care law hanging in the  balance at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, a lawyer for the administration  faced a barrage of skeptical questions from four of the court's more  conservative justices. 

*Supreme Court turns to key constitutional issue in health-care law*
Washington Post - &#8206;53 minutes ago&#8206;
     The Supreme Court on Tuesday ended two hours of arguments about the key  component of the nation's health-care overhaul, with the court's  dominant conservatives appearing deeply skeptical that the Constitution  gives Congress the power to compel *...* 

*Conservative justices question insurance mandate*
Boston.com - &#8206;26 minutes ago&#8206;
     Supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in  Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, as the court continued hearing  arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. (AP  Photo/Charles Dharapak) By Mark Sherman *...* 

*Key Supreme Court Justices Roberts and kennedy Skpetical of Obamacare Mandate*
ABC News - &#8206;23 minutes ago&#8206;
     Two years after President Obama signed the signature achievement of his  administration, the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court heard  arguments about whether a key provision of the law is constitutional. In  a courtroom stuffed with spectators, *...* 

*Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate*
Chicago Tribune - &#8206;21 minutes ago&#8206;
     Reporting from Washington&#8212; The Supreme Court's conservative justices  Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's  healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a  much-anticipated second day of arguments on *...* 

*Mandate could be in big trouble after Supreme Court arguements*
Politico - &#8206;16 minutes ago&#8206;
     Before Tuesday, most legal analysts seemed to agree that the Supreme  Court would probably uphold health care reform's individual mandate &#8212;  even if the conservative justices had to hold their noses to do it. Just  minutes into the oral argument Tuesday, *...* 

*Health Law Seen in Jeopardy After Questioning by Justices*
BusinessWeek - &#8206;9 minutes ago&#8206;
     By Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo on March 27, 2012 US Supreme Court  justices voiced skepticism about President Barack Obama's health-care  law, hinting they might strike down his biggest domestic achievement  just months before the election.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

Majority of views seem to point to Kennedy as the swing vote here. It's almost guaranteed to be a 5:4 decision, along ideological lines.

While I'm encouraged by the news, it's not over until the decision in late June.

I'm hoping the mandate is struck.
I'm also hoping that Congress will figure out how to save the good parts of the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Majority of views seem to point to Kennedy as the swing vote here. It's almost guaranteed to be a 5:4 decision, along ideological lines.
> 
> While I'm encouraged by the news, it's not over until the decision in late June.
> 
> ...



Agree with all of the above.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me.  If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered.  Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.
> 
> I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.


Agreed.  I think that the right thing to do is single payer.   Everyone's covered and it's constitutional.  At least, it's as constitutional as Social Security.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

Steve said:


> Agreed.  I think that the right thing to do is single payer.   Everyone's covered and it's constitutional.  At least, it's as constitutional as Social Security.



I would not have a major problem with that.


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....


Define "done it right."


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 27, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....



By doing what, exactly?  Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo?  There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists.  Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> By doing what, exactly?  Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo?  There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists.  Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/



> "People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,'" Obama said on Aug. 21, 2008, at a town hall in Chester, Va. "And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies &#8212; they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."



None of those things happened.  So I call ********.  Feel free to deny it.



> Obama promised &#8212; repeatedly &#8212; an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same &#8212; talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things happened. So I call ********. Feel free to deny it.



I don't like closed-door politics either, but how does that answer what healthcare plan would have been "done right" or acceptable?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

Steve said:


> Define "done it right."





RandomPhantom700 said:


> By doing what, exactly?  Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo?  There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists.  Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.





Bill Mattocks said:


> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things happened.  So I call ********.  Feel free to deny it.





RandomPhantom700 said:


> I don't like closed-door politics either, but how does that answer what healthcare plan would have been "done right" or acceptable?



First, I don't consider SS Constitutional, but the USSC did and we trust these 9 people who can never be fired more than the 500 or so we elect every few years.....  /sarcasm.

You're right. It's a mess.

Hows this:
Increase the medicaid/care taxes a few % points.  Use that to expand those systems while increasing their efficiency.
Using the already in place system, make it easier for lower income Americans to obtain -basic- health care such as ER visits, needed drug coverage, wellness visits, etc.  Leave the boob jobs, elective surgery and whatnot to the private insurance folks, who can focus on those being relieved of covering the 'low end of the pool they ***** about all the time'.

Over simplified, yes. But we've beaten this to death over 2 years, and come up with at least 5 options that would have been better than what we got.  If we can do it, why the hell didn't they?

Congress simply isn't allowed  to order me to buy something.  This is a badly written law. If this is  struck down, blame the idiots who passed it in the first place with the  illegal mandate, and no severance clause.

 I hope it is struck down. I hope that Congress after getting smacked,  goes back and quickly fixes the problem so that all of the good parts  are able to survive. I also hope that in November every one of those  sorry SOBs that voted yes are kicked to the curb and a government that  can comply with the Constitution put in place.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I don't like closed-door politics either, but how does that answer what healthcare plan would have been "done right" or acceptable?



A 'done right' plan would have begun by keeping promises to the American people.


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A 'done right' plan would have begun by keeping promises to the American people.



That's still a non answer.  As I said before, done right means something to each person.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

> During a recent townhall, Congressman Phil Hare (D - IL) told an  assembled crowd of critics of the health care reform bill that, "I don't  worry about the Constitution on this to be honest." For more on health  care reform, visit http://www.heritage.org. For the full video, visit http://www.sharpelbow.net










> CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution  grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance  mandate?
> 
> Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
> 
> ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ&feature=related








> Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"










> PETE STARK: - The Federal Government can do most anything in this country -




That's why we're having this problem now.

During all the pre-passage debate, many U.S. lawmakers were unable to answer the simple question, &#8220;Where specifically in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?&#8221; They mocked people who suggested it might not be. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, when asked the constitutionality question, said he &#8220;assumed&#8221; the commerce clause would make it all legal, but noted that he wasn&#8217;t a constitutional scholar. Just, you know, a guy who makes laws.  The divide was party line.  The GOP said "this is unconstitutional" the Dems said "we won't now that until we pass it."

Maybe the Dems should have stayed in the chamber when the GOP read the Constitution into the record. It would have been the first time many of them saw it I suspect.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 27, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....


 Are you kidding? Then what would he have to campaign about? He'll have something to say "Lookit the good that I've done! Killed Bin Laden and passed this great new law that will save millions of tax dollars, vote for me again will ya?" 

As poor as I am, if they somehow do pass this law, then I guess I'm a criminal in their eyes. There's no way I can afford even the most marginal costs of health insurance. Even if I get another minimum wage job, I still wouldn't be able to afford it. Gas prices are rising, food, rent, all of that... nope. Sorry. 
I've been lucky not to have any major or even minor health problems, other than an occasional sniffle now and again.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

You'll only be a criminal if you don't pay your fine. See, it's not illegal to not have health insurance.

Just illegal to not pay the fine.

BUT!  If you can scrape up the cash to pay the $500-900 per month premium, every month, you won't have to pay the fine....which starts at $95 the first year.
AND! You can apply for a "credit" when you file your taxes. 


Now that sounds stupid to me. But I'm not an exempt from the law Congressman making $150,000 + benis a year, so what would I know.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 27, 2012)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.


Three parts to that


RandomPhantom700 said:


> Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen


!? Really? Really? 


RandomPhantom700 said:


> the only motivation herein is to kill the bill


 Do you mean the over 2000 page bill that was passed into law without being read in full by ANYONE? The one which campaign donors and other Obama supporters are routinely exempted from? You're damn right the motivation is to kill the bill! A better motivation, IMHO, would be to vote out every single POS Politician that voted for it and the President that signed it...


RandomPhantom700 said:


> keep  private insurance in complete control.


Because forcing people to buy private insurance takes control away from private insurance companies?!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 27, 2012)

Steve said:


> That's still a non answer.  As I said before, done right means something to each person.



I think my answer is very clear.  Before doing anything else, before making any decisions, the President should have kept the promise he made multiple times and made it an open, transparent, public debate.  The debate he promised.  No matter what direction the final bill would have taken, it would have reflected the will of the people instead of the will of the President, and it would have had no hidden gotchas, no huge segments of law no one was even allowed to read, and at the very least, we'd know exactly what we were getting ourselves into.

That would be 'done right'.  Even if I had disagreed with the final result.

Instead, what we got was lies.  Lies, lies, and more lies, from our President.  Big fat turds spewing right out of his mouth.

Non answer?  The President is a lying SOB.  There's your answer.  If he had kept his word, we could have at least tried to do this healthcare reform right.  We might have failed, but instead we were doomed from the start, we didn't even have a chance to do it right.

Anybody who can stand up and pretend the President didn't lie about this; I don't understand.  They're either stupid or have their heads so far up the Democratic donkey's *** that they don't know what truth looks like anymore.  Anybody who can stand up and say that this was a good idea?  Same thing.

You want an answer?  There's your answer.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think my answer is very clear.  Before doing anything else, before making any decisions, the President should have kept the promise he made multiple times and made it an open, transparent, public debate.  The debate he promised.  No matter what direction the final bill would have taken, it would have reflected the will of the people instead of the will of the President, and it would have had no hidden gotchas, no huge segments of law no one was even allowed to read, and at the very least, we'd know exactly what we were getting ourselves into.
> 
> That would be 'done right'.  Even if I had disagreed with the final result.
> 
> ...



No Mattocks, don't be shy, tell us what you really think.


----------



## Steve (Mar 27, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think my answer is very clear.  Before doing anything else, before making any decisions, the President should have kept the promise he made multiple times and made it an open, transparent, public debate.  The debate he promised.  No matter what direction the final bill would have taken, it would have reflected the will of the people instead of the will of the President, and it would have had no hidden gotchas, no huge segments of law no one was even allowed to read, and at the very least, we'd know exactly what we were getting ourselves into.
> 
> That would be 'done right'.  Even if I had disagreed with the final result.
> 
> ...



Come on, bill.  The president?  Just him?  You're smarter than that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 27, 2012)

Obama -could- have vetoed it.  There was no hurry, half the bill still isn't in effect for 2 more years. Another 2-3 months wouldn't have hurt at all.
And there weren't enough votes to override the veto.

He could have insisted that -as he promised- the bill would be available for public review prior to the vote.

He could have called Pelosi on her BS "need to pass it first" comment.

He could have insisted that a fully Constitutional bill be presented, especially given his resume bit of being an expert on the Constitution.

He could have insisted on a more balanced bill that brought both parties together, rather than his "Hey, who won, yeah I did now suck it losers" approach.

But.

He didn't.

He isn't the -only- person to blame.
But he could have played a better part in preventing this mess in the first place.

Good intentions, but poor understanding of the legalities.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2012)

Then there was this 'nugget' from Speaker Pelosi







Current impression seems to be that the mandate is history, but most of the bill will survive.

Also, like Congress, the Court doesn't feel like reading the full 2,700 pages.

It's not that much....any 14 year old did that in a few days....just retitle it "Harry Potter and the Incomprehensionable Bollocks".


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Obama -could- have vetoed it.  There was no hurry, half the bill still isn't in effect for 2 more years. Another 2-3 months wouldn't have hurt at all.
> And there weren't enough votes to override the veto.
> 
> He could have insisted that -as he promised- the bill would be available for public review prior to the vote.
> ...


Man, I guess I don't see it the same way.  While he could certainly have vetoed it, as is often the case, Congress puts together the bill and it becomes an interesting dilemma for the President.  It's the pork that often sneaks into the bill or the concessions that have been made along the way.  The question is never whether the bill is perfect.  It will never be.  Too many stakeholders.  Too many contrary interests.  Too much pork.  The question is whether the bill is... good enough.  Does it meet at least some of the key goals or in some way retain the spirit of the original idea.

And my intention isn't to debate the Health Care Reform Act.  I think that there are big problems within the bill.  

I have two points.  First, that "done right" is entirely subjective and given 20 people you will get twenty different opinions, and it's entirely possible that all 20 of those opinions have merit.  

Second, that this was a group effort.  And while there are people who had more influence over it than others, each member of both houses of Congress are, in my opinion, far more responsible for legislation than the President.  Blaming the President is a cop out.  This turd is, IMO, an almost perfect example of Congressional dysfunction.  It's the perfect storm of money, blame, partisanship and acrimony mixed together in the media with liberal doses of greed.  

There are other influencers at work, including us (the people), the media and historical precedent.  But ultimately, in the hierarchy of influence it is clear that there is Congress and then, below that, there is the President.  They draft the bill.  They debate the bill.  They vote on the bill.  They present the bill.  And while the president can cajole, coerce and convince, ultimately, he gets what he gets and that's it.  And I'd be willing to bet a steak dinner that what he gets resembles what he wanted in no significant way.  

And I honestly can't believe that you guys would suggest otherwise.  While I can expect this sort of simplistic partisan criticism of Obama from blatant jersey wearers like billcihak, I'm frankly a little surprised to see it come from both of you, Bob and Bill.  While we don't always agree, I have come to expect that you both tend to be fair.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2012)

The thing is Steve, I am being fair.  I'm holding Obama to his own words, his promises, an job as a leader.
He failed on those.

Yes, it was the responsibility of the Congress to present him a solid bill, but he was an active participant in this, meeting with many, pushing for inclusion of HIS wants.

I don't blame him.
I blame all of them.


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I don't blame him.
> I blame all of them.


This is not what I've seen so far in this thread.  So far, it's been the same old partisan claptrap.  Even calling it Obamacare is letting Congress off the hook somewhat.  

You posted a series of indictments against the President in this thread and the only acknowledgement you give to any others who are at all culpable is a Milquetoast "yeah, but" statement at the end of your diatribe.

And you guys have yet to acknowledge that both of your "done right" statements are 100%, grade A bluster grounded in a fantasy world where politics are clean and neat, goals and motivations are universal and transparent, and everyone at a table negotiates in good faith.  Please.  Done right.  

Let's be real.  "Done right" in politics often translates directly to "done at all."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve said:


> Come on, bill.  The president?  Just him?  You're smarter than that.



Who made the promise?  Who broke it?  The President.


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Who made the promise?  Who broke it?  The President.



Who made which promise?  Promises were made all aroundon both sides of the aisle.  

Who broke the presidents promise ?  I'd say congress, obviously.  Thats the point.  

Who writes legislation? Who votes on it?  Whose job is it? 


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve said:


> Who made which promise?  Promises were made all aroundon both sides of the aisle.



This one.  As I've already stated.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/



> Who broke the presidents promise ?  I'd say congress, obviously.  Thats the point.



Congress forced the President to not discuss health care reform in public?  They can issue gag orders now?

_"Obama promised  repeatedly  an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same  talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken."
_


> Who writes legislation? Who votes on it?  Whose job is it?



That's not what you asked.  You asked for a definition of _'done it right'_.  I gave you one; the President could have kept his promise.  Not Congress' promise, his promise. That might not have resulted in a health care bill I'd have liked either, but it would have been 'done right'.  You asked, I answered.  Changing the subject now isn't going to work.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve said:


> Who made which promise?  Promises were made all aroundon both sides of the aisle.
> 
> Who broke the presidents promise ?  I'd say congress, obviously.  Thats the point.
> 
> Who writes legislation? Who votes on it?  Whose job is it?



Steve,

You don't think Mr. Obama bears some responsibility for this disaster of a law along with the nasty un-open, quid pro quo sausage-making process that was used to write it?  He was in close consultations with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid the whole time.  

Don't you think it's rather convenient that the unions which lined up behind Mr. Obama comprise a big part of the list of exempted organizations from ObamaCare?


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> This one.  As I've already stated.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/
> 
> ...


Bill, I've made two consistent points.  I'm not trying to change teh subject. Once again, if you don't see that your definition of "done right" is unique to you, I can't make that point any more clear.  

Regarding Obama, if you want to place all the blame in his lap, I won't stop you.   I'm just surprised that this simplistic, partisan position is coming from you and Bob.  



dancingalone said:


> Steve,
> 
> You don't think Mr. Obama bears some responsibility for this disaster of a law along with the nasty un-open, quid pro quo sausage-making process that was used to write it?  He was in close consultations with Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid the whole time.
> 
> Don't you think it's rather convenient that the unions which lined up behind Mr. Obama comprise a big part of the list of exempted organizations from ObamaCare?


Of course I think he's a part of it.  I have said as much in my posts and have not suggested otherwise.  What I do believe is that where legislation is concerned, the President has very little direct control over what ends up on his desk next to the ceremonial pen.  And so, to give Congress a pass on a product they have created is simplistic.  

And as I've said, even calling it Obamacare is a nod to partisanship and absolves the members of Congress of their part in the process, both Democrat and Republican.  

The same is true for all legislation.  Another good example is the Patriot Act, a deplorable piece of flawed legislation.  While Bush 43 certainly bears some of the responsibility, the lion's share falls, in my opinion, squarely on Congress.  They drafted the bloody bill and passed it through both the House and the Senate.  

Bob Hubbard said, "I don't blame him.  I blame all of them."  I agree with this, but as I said before, it rings hollow in light of the lambasting of Obama that immediately precedes it.  

You guys.  I'm not saying anything radical here.  In fact, I would bet I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said by you guys yourselves in other threads on other bills.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve, The President, be he Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc, gets all the flack. It's the price they pay for sitting in that seat.

I've tried to clarify why I place some of the blame on his lap.
I'd be here all night if I went idiot by idiot identifying blame.
So the lumps get lumped together and I just say Congress.

I posted the following on Facebook, it sums things up for me.
====
The current hot issue of the Supreme Court debating Obamacare is on a  lot of peoples minds, mine included.  I've made no secret that I support  the idea of "Repeal and Replace", and have put forth a few ideas on  what would have been better.

 Regardless of the decisions made,  it's almost a guarantee that they will be a 5:4 split, which will be on  party lines. A shame, and that does make the USSC look as biased as the Congress that passed the law.

 My issue has been with the mandate.  Much of what else is in that bill  helps people, people who need and deserve help. I disagree that most of  this should come from the Federal government, but maybe it is time to  grow things. I don't know. 

 I'm a firm supporter of States  Rights, even when that position keeps me from seeing a "win" on other  important to me issues. I don't believe in 'flip flop as convenient'  politics. Too much of that in office as it is I think.

 But America needs an health care over haul. 

 I think Congress owes it to us to go back to work, and fix this, so  that it is solidly Constitutional, provides people with the care and  coverage they need, at rates that are fair to everyone, patients,  doctors, hospitals and drug companies.

 If I have 1 flaw, it's a  desire for fairness.  I'll take little pleasure in an over turning, and  little in a vindication of the law. 

 What I want is a legal solution, that respects us all.

 So while I promise I will be mocking all sides, because I find some of  the cartoons amusing, don't think I find people hurting and suffering at  all funny.  They are the ones that all this unnecessary crap is really  hurting, and who our Congress let down when they failed to produce  something that was legal and functional from the start.


----------



## dancingalone (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve said:


> What I do believe is that where legislation is concerned, the President has very little direct control over what ends up on his desk next to the ceremonial pen.



I don't necessarily buy that.  Powerful and influential presidents can get what they want.  See FDR.  See Teddy Roosevelt.  Even see Ronald Reagan to an extent.  Obama had majorities in both houses of Congress.  If he failed to get a bill in the shape he wanted, that falls on his lap too. 



Steve said:


> And so, to give Congress a pass on a product they have created is simplistic.



I'm not giving them a pass on this.  Far from it.



Steve said:


> And as I've said, even calling it Obamacare is a nod to partisanship and absolves the members of Congress of their part in the process, both Democrat and Republican.
> 
> The same is true for all legislation.  Another good example is the Patriot Act, a deplorable piece of flawed legislation.  While Bush 43 certainly bears some of the responsibility, the lion's share falls, in my opinion, squarely on Congress.  They drafted the bloody bill and passed it through both the House and the Senate.
> 
> ...



I don't really see what the big deal here is.  No one is forgetting about Congress' role in this.  Obama as the president gets saddled with a big part of the burden and blame.  It comes along with the bully pulpit and it's fair considering he chose to make healthcare 'reform' the centerpiece of his first two years in office.  He SHOULD get some of the backlash.  It's well deserved.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 28, 2012)

Steve said:


> And as I've said, even calling it Obamacare is a nod to partisanship and absolves the members of Congress of their part in the process, both Democrat and Republican.










The Obama campaign begs to differ... 
I can't resize?! The pictured shirt is for someone with a freakishly long torso...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 28, 2012)

Transparency, not.






Steve, Obama's own people call it "Obamacare".
Video from reputable sources where he makes promises, then waffles before taking responsibility for the mess.

How are we lambasting him if he's taken the blame on himself and admits they broke their promises?


Oh, also the head of CSPAN's reportedly said they never were contacted about airing the health care negotiations. Haven't confirmed that yet.



So, partisan bill, written by lobbyists, in secret, behind closed doors, with lots of deal making, passed on party lines, late at night, right before an election, with most voting having never read the bill, with little 'wtf?' clauses being found all the time and removed prior to the vote, with many of those voting for it saying they have no idea if it was Constitutional, and that they weren't concerned about that anyway.

And some folks wonder why it's in the Supreme Courts hands now?


And the Head attorney for the Administration basically admits he too doesn't know if it's Constitutional in his closing remarks?


Really?

I mean....Really?

These are the best people we can find to run the country?  I think -WE- could do a better job.


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2012)

Ugh.  Okay.  I've said several times that my point isn't to suggest that the president is without blame.  

You know what?  Never mind.  I've made two points.  I think that they're very clear. If you guys disagree, that's okay.  But I'll be a little disappointed in you if you later suggest that the congress is somehow responsible for legislation again, unless you acknowledge at that time that I was right in this thread and you were wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 29, 2012)

Steve, I also said Congress is also to blame.

How many GOP votes did the bill get?  I forget the exact vote count from both houses  but I am pretty sure it got almost none. A bill this major, passes by 1 party with the other pretty much told "screw you". (And yes I'd feel the same way regardless of party).


(ok, I looked it up.)

Senate: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/senate/senatehealthcare/index.html
 Dem - 58 Yes 0 No
 GOP - 0 Yes 39 No

House: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/house/healthcare/
Dem - 219 Yes 39 No
GOP - 1 Yes 176 No

House: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/house/finalhealthcare/
Dem - 219 Yes 34 No
GOP - 0 Yes 178 No


Back to Obama, well, 


> The Heritage Foundation has been credited with introducing the  concept of the individual mandate during the debate over Hillary  Clinton&#8217;s healthcare reform almost 20 years ago, but has since come to  oppose it. It is not the only group that has changed sides on the issue:  Obama slammed then-rival Hillary Clinton over the mandate on the  campaign trail.
> &#8220;We still don&#8217;t know how Sen. Clinton intends to enforce a mandate &#8230;  you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of  Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased  health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can&#8217;t  afford it, even with the subsidies,&#8221; Obama said. &#8220;They are then worse off: They then have no health care, and are paying a fine above and beyond that.&#8221;



Yet that same mandate idea, oh I'm sorry, I mean the "personal responsibility clause" (as they are now calling it after being spanked in 3 days of court hearings) was the key part of what he signed. http://freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/

They are also calling a bill than as passed into law received -0- votes from the opposition "bi-partisan".  I guess under their logic I'm bi-sexual because I only like women.  :rofl:

So what we got was a bill, written by lobbyists, fast tracked through hearings, strong armed by then Speaker Pelosi, full of empty promises, passed unread by most of those voting on it, on straight party lines, with little public oversight, that formed a major shift in liberty and reorganized government control of our lives.

Personally Steve, I think the lot of them should be lined up against a wall and shot as traitors for this mess.
But I'm sure -their- health plans don't cover vitamin L.  /sarcasm


----------

