• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did the Republicans secretly tell Roberts to uphold Obamacare?

WhipperSnapper

WhipperSnapper

Lifer
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans told Roberts that he should find a way to uphold Obamacare for several reasons:

(1.) The Republicans need it as a campaign issue.

(2.) Without Obamacare the Republicans might be forced to formulate and articulate a Republican solution which would basically be some variant of, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" and "Our system is better than that of those evil socialized nations even though we're spending a far higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare while having far less than 100% coverage."

(3.) Without Obamacare, as the U.S. health care situation worsens, the public might start to turn against the Republican party in mass and even <gasp> advocate for real socialized medicine.
 
I think you might be reading too far into this. It's certainly seems possible that he changed his position on the ACA, but for him to do so and deal the Republicans their most catastrophic legislative defeat in 40 years so that they could have a bit better campaign platform seems awfully far fetched.
 
Perhaps it's a legislative defeat, but a "victory" might be far more destructive than a defeat because it would result in the Republicans acquiring ownership of the health care issue and our nation's health care problems.
 
manimal said:
I cannot wait to see history look back at these times.


Roberts has some splainin to do
Click to expand...

Roberts has stated that he felt that the collective decision of 535 people should overway his own viewpoint.

but because he classified it as a tax; it did not allow Congress the commerce clause. It also avoided having to tear apart the issue; by putting the tax spin on it.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans told Roberts that he should find a way to uphold Obamacare for several reasons:

(1.) The Republicans need it as a campaign issue.

(2.) Without Obamacare the Republicans might be forced to formulate and articulate a Republican solution which would basically be some variant of, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" and "Our system is better than that of those evil socialized nations even though we're spending a far higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare while having far less than 100% coverage."

(3.) Without Obamacare, as the U.S. health care situation worsens, the public might start to turn against the Republican party in mass and even <gasp> advocate for real socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

Your post is essentially a healthcare version of "should we stay the course or cut and run".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
 
Maybe, just maybe, Roberts had the foresight to see what kind of damage to his legacy, the Repub Party's "integrity" and the resultant backlash that damage would cause his Party if he favored the conservative view and killed ACA.

Those voters that are now enjoying the benefits of the ACA and Medicare/Medicaid are certainly going to vote Dem and hope for Medicare for all if the SCOTUS had killed ACA, and we're talking millions here, spanning the full spectrum of political leanings.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans told Roberts that he should find a way to uphold Obamacare for several reasons:

(1.) The Republicans need it as a campaign issue.

(2.) Without Obamacare the Republicans might be forced to formulate and articulate a Republican solution which would basically be some variant of, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" and "Our system is better than that of those evil socialized nations even though we're spending a far higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare while having far less than 100% coverage."

(3.) Without Obamacare, as the U.S. health care situation worsens, the public might start to turn against the Republican party in mass and even <gasp> advocate for real socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
Secretly tell Roberts? Reads like paranoid delusions.

1) Just plain stupid.

2) Just plain stupid. You're parroting Alan Grayson who is nearly as bat shit crazy as Pelosi.

3) Just plain stupid. This isn't some kind of chess game.

51 votes to toss the whole thing out sure conjures up some wild fantasies.
 
It's funny. If Roberts had gone along with right-wing-nut "justices" like Scalia, everyone would have accused him of being a puppet of the right. Now that he went the other way, people are still trying to come up with rationales by which they can claim he was a puppet of the right.

Sorry, I don't think there's any conspiracy here. And by the way, the idea that this is a "secret victory for Republicans" is laughable wishful thinking. The same people saying that would have been screaming from the rooftops if the law had been overturned that this marked the end of Obama's presidency.
 
That's just my take on it. It's worth what you paid for it. I think it might have been interesting to see what would have happened if Obamacare had been tossed out.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
It's funny. If Roberts had gone along with right-wing-nut "justices" like Scalia, everyone would have accused him of being a puppet of the right. Now that he went the other way, people are still trying to come up with rationales by which they can claim he was a puppet of the right.

Sorry, I don't think there's any conspiracy here. And by the way, the idea that this is a "secret victory for Republicans" is laughable wishful thinking. The same people saying that would have been screaming from the rooftops if the law had been overturned that this marked the end of Obama's presidency.
Click to expand...

Other than the "secret victory" assessment, I agree with you. A number of legal commentators pointed out that even though ACA was upheld, the basis was not because of the Commerce clause...which should be worth noting given that some significant legislation was previously upheld by courts because of the Commerce clause.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Sorry, I don't think there's any conspiracy here. And by the way, the idea that this is a "secret victory for Republicans" is laughable wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

Maybe there wasn't a conspiracy or any sort of encouragement going on behind the scenes, but it's definitely an unwitting "victory". I think the Republicans would have ended up worse off, politically, if it had been struck down.

There must have been some Republican strategists out there that secretly hoped the Court would uphold Obamacare. After all, do the Republicans really want the public's focus to shift to "Republi-care"? (Republicare is, of course, the notion that you shouldn't get sick and that if you do get sick you should die quickly combined with the notion that health insurance company and hospital executives should be allowed to get rich while the populace suffers.)
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans told Roberts that he should find a way to uphold Obamacare for several reasons:
(1.) The Republicans need it as a campaign issue.
Click to expand...

It doesn't strike me as completely insane. I can imagine Roberts thinking to himself that he's outsmarted Obama by tagging him as a tax-increaser and thinking he might lose the election as a result. As always, the makeup of the court will differ significantly depending on whether Romney or Obama is elected. If the court becomes more liberal, Roberts' historical legacy would be less important.

That or he really just thought he was interpreting the constitution properly.
 
So now we have the human weathervane and Obama as tax increasers.

Sweet!

And who is going to exploit this exactly? Mr. I was for the mandate before I was against it?
 
MooseNSquirrel said:
And who is going to exploit this exactly? Mr. I was for the mandate before I was against it?
Click to expand...

Do you have enough faith in the American voter to realize that Romney supported a similar plan? In a lot of ways, Romney just has to deny it. Then what? Democrats start listing out similarities? Americans will fall asleep after a couple seconds.
 
Im torn because it was upheld but the commerce clause being thrown back at the congress is a good thing. The way it stands it doesn't take but a majority to overturn it now.

It limits the congress in the future and forced the law to be a new tax instead. If ACA had been proposed as a tax I seriously doubt it would have passed.
 
your obama med.Hoax is now officially classified as a "tax". Your obama and his willing accomplices have been running around for the last two years denying it's a tax. He lied..again.
 
WhipperSnapper said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Republicans told Roberts that he should find a way to uphold Obamacare for several reasons:

(1.) The Republicans need it as a campaign issue.

(2.) Without Obamacare the Republicans might be forced to formulate and articulate a Republican solution which would basically be some variant of, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" and "Our system is better than that of those evil socialized nations even though we're spending a far higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare while having far less than 100% coverage."

(3.) Without Obamacare, as the U.S. health care situation worsens, the public might start to turn against the Republican party in mass and even <gasp> advocate for real socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

Just another issue that neither of the asshole parties have a real solution for.

Medical costs (both gov and private) have been rising at an avg of 9.5% a year for something like 2 decades. This isn't solely due to it being "private" by any stretch of the imagination especially since the .gov is seeing the same increase (roughly 9.5% a year).

This means that in 7 years we will (both .gov and personally) be spending double what we currently are and in 14 years we will be spending quadruple. That means that in 14 years Medicare and Medicaid costs ALONE will be approx. 3.4 trillion dollars or almost the entirety of the FY 2011 Federal budget and a trillion dollars more than the Federal receipts in 2011. Obviously this isn't sustainable from either a .gov perspective or a personal one, simply repealing Obamacare or making it single payer does not fix the problem at all. Single payer might shave a percent or two off our current expenditures but I don't see how it stems the rate of increase as this obviously isn't all going to profit.

In short, we must do something and soon but I have yet to see an answer that actually solves the problem from either party.
 
Darwin333 said:
In short, we must do something and soon but I have yet to see an answer that actually solves the problem from either party.
Click to expand...

If we'll be spending 3.4 trillion on medical care, that's all stimulus money baby. People are going to be rich and have jobs with all that money! 🙄
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top