• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Did the Republicans secretly tell Roberts to uphold Obamacare?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
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.
Why is it that Obamacare seems to always be 100% benefit, 0% cost in the words of defenders...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,593
23,705
136
Why is it that Obamacare seems to always be 100% benefit, 0% cost in the words of defenders...
Can you name a single person who has ever said that? Even one?

It's posts like this that really do exemplify what I mean about politics not being about policy but being about sports teams.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
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! :rolleyes:
I am being quite serious. It is basically the entirety of our 2011 budget without a single dime spent on .mil, social security, dept of anything, the white house light bill, and every other Federal expenditure besides medicare and medicaid.

We simply can not afford the current rate of increase in medical expenditures either on the .gov level or the private level.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
Why is it that Obamacare seems to always be 100% benefit, 0% cost in the words of defenders...
That would only be the case if we went to single payer.


Am I a crazy conservative that wants single payer? Yes



What eskimo said about your comment stands. Half of the counter arguments in here as of late are fantastical or fantasy.....
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
That would only be the case if we went to single payer.


Am I a crazy conservative that wants single payer? Yes



What eskimo said about your comment stands. Half of the counter arguments in here as of late are fantastical or fantasy.....
While I do not look forward to the .gov controlling my "health insurance", at this point single payer is really our only option. I am sure we will still have private "Cadillac" plans but given our current system I see no other option.

Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that single payer alone will stop the 9.5% a year increase in costs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,593
23,705
136
Now it looks like that rogue president Obama himself made him do it. He hurt Robert's feelings and Roberts was scared of another SotU scolding.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304535/well-it-worked-didnt-it-michael-walsh
That's some impressive foaming at the mouth there by our good friends at the NRO.

I really do love how he complains that those on the left view themselves as reasonable and that conservatives are thereby viewed as crazy in an article that is totally unhinged and crazy.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,937
20,885
136
Roberts didn't say anything about the ACA being a good for the US--he simply said that it was lawful.

That is the sole job of the SCOTUS; and as I shocked that I am that, of all people, he actually did his job on this, I applaud him.

I am certain that he doesn't like the ACA, but that did not influence his decision.

Likewise, the decision does nothing to sway the opponents, as it never would have. He probably realizes this (if he even considered it).
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
While I do not look forward to the .gov controlling my "health insurance", at this point single payer is really our only option. I am sure we will still have private "Cadillac" plans but given our current system I see no other option.

Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that single payer alone will stop the 9.5% a year increase in costs.
Exactly. The costs issue I actually think will come in line because of all the uninsured getting coverage and not being leeches to the system.

Having everyone personally responsible for their health care means I dont have to be responsible for them.

Look at costs in Hawaii. I have family in the HC industry there and they are telling me that things actually got cheaper there when they rolled out their solution.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
Why is it that Obamacare seems to always be 100% benefit, 0% cost in the words of defenders...
Lol. A lot of Liberals hate Obamacare. They really want socialized medicine. At best Obamacare is a small bandaid on a big problem or a pathetic attempt to treat a symptom rather than cure a disease. However, it is better than the Republicans complete lack of a plan other than to stay the course on health care or to implement free market medicine.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,429
20
81
While I do not look forward to the .gov controlling my "health insurance", at this point single payer is really our only option. I am sure we will still have private "Cadillac" plans but given our current system I see no other option.
.gov as opposed to .com or .biz? Are government death panels really worse than private insurance company death panels where the panel members receive commissions for denying coverage?

Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe that single payer alone will stop the 9.5% a year increase in costs.
Every other industrialized first world nation has some form of socialized medicine and they all spend 12% or less of their GDP on health care and much less in terms of actual dollars per capita and they have 100% coverage. Right now the U.S. is spending about 17% of its GDP while tens of millions of people are uninsured or under-insured.

Other nations' costs might increase each year, but if the U.S. were to adopt real socialized medicine and ended up at the top of the list with 14% of GDP and 100% coverage, that would still be far better than 17% of GDP with tens of millions of people without coverage and with medical bill-induced bankruptcies.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,288
503
126
.gov as opposed to .com or .biz? Are government death panels really worse than private insurance company death panels where the panel members receive commissions for denying coverage?



Every other industrialized first world nation has some form of socialized medicine and they all spend 12% or less of their GDP on health care and much less in terms of actual dollars per capita and they have 100% coverage. Right now the U.S. is spending about 17% of its GDP while tens of millions of people are uninsured or under-insured.

Other nations' costs might increase each year, but if the U.S. were to adopt real socialized medicine and ended up at the top of the list with 14% of GDP and 100% coverage, that would still be far better than 17% of GDP with tens of millions of people without coverage and with medical bill-induced bankruptcies.
Those other countries can negotiate prices the US can't when it comes to prescription drugs, one of the biggest health care costs.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Those other countries can negotiate prices the US can't when it comes to prescription drugs, one of the biggest health care costs.
Then you also have the costs associated with R&D and equipment/supplies

The medical system has almost been required to over test which drives up costs.
Then there is the need/demand for the newest/best equipment. That drives up costs.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,663
1,605
126
As much as I do not like Roberts, I think he simply went by the law as he seen it.
He wasn't forced, arm twisted, or influenced by anyone.
Roberts simply believed this was the correct ruling going by available law.
And I would wager another major right wing melt down is soon coming after the high court takes up SS marriage issue.
Time after time very republican right wing courts have stated SS marriage rights are constitutional.
Handing down unanimous decisions favorable to SS marriage.
I would easily expect another unanimous favorable decision on SS marriage from this court. Yes... Clarence Thomas included.
And after that?
Probably hordes and masses of right winger religious fundies, blazing torch in hand, storming the gates of the US Supreme Court.
This assumption with electing a president will place justices on the high court favorable to their cause has just been blown out of the water.
THAT is what the right wing republicans are now in total meltdown shock about.
The reason they keep saying "make Obama be a one term president" is because they believed Obama would place more so called liberal justices on the high court.
Now, after this healthcare decision and the expected future favorable ruling on SS marriage, who is president really doesn't matter.
Justices in general on supreme courts everywhere have followed the law when handing down rulings.
And once again this has now happened with healthcare reform.
Both liberals and conservatives have a hard time dealing with this, in that justices can not be owned.
Republicans really thought they owned and had this conservative court in their pocket.
They found out the hard way that was not so.
If you think republicans are in hissy fit shock over the Obamacare ruling, just wait until the high court takes up SS marriage. And then hands down an unanimous pro SS marriage ruling.
And why will their ruling be favorable to SS marriage?
Thee argument... Religious and Bible application.
The shoot down? ... Atheist can and have legally married since there was such a thing as marriage.
Case closed.
:D
:D
:D
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY