Furthermore, things like road construction are private as well in that private contractors are used to complete the projects and maintain them.

CBo says otherwise snack. Says it will cost us more. Maybe CBo is wrong, but their last update on this, was that it was NOT paying for itself, so more debt..mmmmmmm

The CBO has gone back and forth on the short term cost (within the next decade).

Only if you count that the taxes will be 10 years, and the benefits 6 years.

I have read it a LOT, and this is not going to reduce the deficit at all.

This government (not just this administration) is just going to keep spending us further into debt.

Well, I must say I'm happy about it being upheld...

I'm someone who, given how much I NEED health insurance due to all my medical issues, would have needed a full-time job in two years if it had failed.

I may not even be through with my B.A. yet in two years, let alone the fact I want to get a Master's, at least.

This gives me more time to go to school and get a better job and contribute to society in a better way.

What's more, given all those pre-existing medical conditions, if it were struck down, it'd have been pretty hard for me to get health insurance in the first place in two years rather than four or five.

So I'm happy.

And for those who argue "It's a slippery slope"--

It was said when blacks and whites were finally able to marry in peace...

"It's a slippery slope, what's next?"

It's being said NOW, with gay marriage,

"This is a slippery slope, what's next, man marrying animals?"

Healthcare obviously isn't like marriage, but two points I would glean from both examples:

1. Progress is nearly always achieved via a "slippery slope," and the Constitution is not set in stone as some above-all document; it's the overriding law of the land, yes, but it's still no holy document, surely not, as we've amended it 25+ times, and among those amendments were Freedom of Speech, Abolishing Slavery, the 14th Amendment, Universal Suffrage, and so on...just because it's not in the Constitution of the United States of America, a document drafted by men, doesn't mean that it shouldn't or can't be enacted in these United States of America--times change.

2. There *is* no true freedom and democracy, I'd submit, without the inherent risk of it tumbling down that "slippery slope" into something else...when you give more and more people the right to make decisions, there are chances they'll make bad ones, and there are chances it will ruin the country, or transform it into some fascistic nightmare, but the CHANCE ALONE DOES NOT MEAN THIS WILL OCCUR, and what's more, if you disallow the chance, you disallow the fullest extent of democracy...at some level, you MUST trust the people in a democratic system to be able to dictate change without falling down that slippery slope; if you cannot, I'd submit you cannot embrace democracy in it's fullest and most majestic form, and if they cannot avoid the slope and tumble down it in their own idiocy and ignorance, they were not deserving of the right to make choices to begin with.

This isn't totally related, but I have no other outlet to post this thought: Someone was talking to me about how they oppose food stamps for the poor because it creates dependency. In so doing they compared these people to animals at national parks who you are not supposed to feed for the same reason - dependency on handouts. She was acting like she had a slam dunk.

I wanted to say: "I'd rather live in a country where some of our people are dependent on government handouts than a country where any of our people are malnourished."

I also don't understand how a person like that can lambast the charity of the government and then turn around and praise private charities that do exactly the same thing - handouts. If your issue is efficiency, okay, we'll talk. But apparently your issue is the very idea of government handouts. Fuck that. /rant

And I couldn't really say that because it wasn't my place at the time. She's not someone you can/should really talk politics with.

Demoracy is the worst form of government ever created, how do you defend the horrible idea. We were a constitutional democratic republic that protects the rights of the individual. You should not have the right to vote away someones property and taxation is THEFT OF PROPERTY. If the president supreme court and congress reguardless of party continue to push into a democratic-socialist state(slavery) the people will rise up. I am an individual who has my own ambitions desires wants and needs not a slave to the collective and am tired of being forced to do things for the "common good". Healthcare should not be in the hands of the government and the constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. Ignoring it just means you don't care aboult laws at all. The republic is dying and we are moving into a socialist paradise where we are all equal, equally poor. I wish i could say Mitt Romney would do something differently but he's the same mentality.
Gary Johnson 2012

So then I said "Shut up, Mom."

smcbride, here is the article I promised earlier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-redefining-american-government-through-obamacare/2012/06/25/gJQAdmIp2V_story.html

I tend to think, though, that they were just wrong back then too, though conservative. Interestingly, attorney David Rivkin was presenting an argument much like the modern one about the commerce clause back then.

@liam - Wow, just, wow... And they call me self-centered.

Do you believe in a strong military to defend your freedom? Do you want the ambulance to come calling when you have a heart attack or storke? Do you want the firemen to come if your house is burning? Do you want the policeman to respond to your panicked 911 call when someone breaks oin your house? Do you want the road they all use to get to your house to exist?

Well, you have to pay for them somehow and that is *tax dollars*.

Obi of course drags race into EVERYTHING eventually, it is impossible for him not to.

Your first mistake is reading more than the first sentence of any Obi post.

lol, thank you sacred for that wisdom. I will not forget it

It's acceptable to read the first few words of each time he goes into "list mode" too. But not if they mention Shakespeare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C27FFe2O5AA&feature=youtu.be The plain truth about america

Looks like the 2012 election will now be a referendum on Obamacare and the economy.

The federal government absolutely has the right to tax, and the right to spend that tax money, including to provide health care if can pass the necessary legislation..., BUT it does *not* have the right to require anybody to buy anything. This five-to-four vote to uphold the requirement to buy health care is completely unconstitutional, including the penalty. The Supreme Court obviously knows this and addressed it by calling the penalty a tax. but if it's a tax (yeah right), then they're only going to tax people who don't have health insurance. Nasty.

That's my opinion even though my family personally benefits from Obamacare. *sigh*

I was thinking about that, how if Obama care passed, would it be a focus point o the election (after the economy).

I thought if it was struck down by the SC, it was a non issue, but if it PASSED, that it would be a big deal, because no Neutral polls I have seen, shows it even close to being 'popular'

Most show it around 56-44 or there abouts,


Should be interesting to see how this all plays out, even though Romney is a total AIPAC tool, and I got zero respect for him as a Politician (or very others for that matter), he is smart enough, and has enough very smart people around him to jump on this I think.

@'I personally like the idea that insurance companies have to accept everyone regardless of preexisting conditions. But, privatized life insurance is a joke in practice. Everyone gets sick and dies. It is necessary for the insurance companies to bend their interpretations, or deny coverage to prevent losing money. If they don't they have to pay out on everyone some day.'

This sounds like it is some valid and logical, but can you imagine a system (not called insurance) where everyone pays $100 per month (say) and all health care is provided for free. Now the healthcare operators (let's assume they are government employees) have a public responsibility to get provide the best health care to the most people for the amount of money they have coming in.

Now to your question of profitability - if they spend less than they make, then happy days, they've made a profit (maybe they can reduce the $$$ per month, or spend more on care, but in principle it can be profitable)

Now it is perhaps inefficient, and it is perhaps possible to create a more efficient system by having competing companies offer the best service they can... healthy private competition.

There is in principle no reason why it can't still be profitable. At least as far as i can see.

@'If I dont want it, and am willing to 'roll the proverbial health dice' why the HELl is it of any concern to you, or the government?'

You have no right to take that risk with your neighbour's health. You have a responcibility to contribute to your community. All of your wealth and health, your freedom to pursue happiness, your education and ability to profit from private commerce, they all stem from the fact that you are part of a community (state, country, city, family, whatever) You can't escape this.

You could practically go off and live in the wilderness of Canada or Northern Russia without other humans but your education will still have been supplied by others, you would not survive there without first growing up. And anyone you raise there will depend on you and you've immediately created a new community.

If you don't want to be part of a community, well that's fine. It may not be in any constitutional document, but i believe you are morally responciblie to help your community. Now perhaps we'd be better of if this help was given in person by social interaction and knowing people and how you contribute, but our urbanized society seems to depend on the monetary system to guarantee the value of the contribution...

You may disagree, and i would rather not live in a world where your disagreements make government policy.

That's my two cent, you can deny being part of a community all you like, or argue over the most effective way to provide health care, I don't know if this bill is a good solution, but I know I'd prefer an NHS to what i currently see in my country.

Good luck!

@Mujus 'The federal government absolutely has the right to tax, and the right to spend that tax money, including to provide health care if can pass the necessary legislation..., BUT it does *not* have the right to require anybody to buy anything.'

No longer comparing apples and oranges, what you're basically saying amounts to the same thing. Now the requirement may influence the market (you force purchases from a private entity then they have a captive number of consumers, right?) but the principle, as i tried to show above, is that you're trying to find the most efficient way to provide healthcare to everyone...

And you're fine with doing this through taxation... it shouldn't matter what you call it! You should aim to have the most efficient system you can...

I don't know that this is what this bill produces, but i don't see why you'd get hung up on the constitutionality of this policy if it is
1) good for the citizens
2) within the federal's right to do in some way...

1 depends on whether it is more effecient, and largely depends.
2 is something you have conceded, right?

I'm sorry, Stressedlines--

Between his winning over the Latin American community with his "Dreamers" bit, the AZ Immigration Bill at least a split decision, and ObamaCare being upheld...

You don't have to like him, but you have to admit Obama's on a roll right now, and I think Romney's in some serious trouble.

He's LOST the Latino base (he could name Marco Rubio his VP and he still wouldn't get anywhere close to challenging Obama on that critical block of voters) and he's in a bind politically--

With Obama winning like this, to distinguish himself, he has to move to the Right, but the nation doesn't want a Right-wing president right now any more than they'd want a Left-wing Nancy Pelosi type in office.

One of the biggest knocks on Obama was that he wasn't doing anything as President--

He can now hang his hat--fairly or not--on doing something (you can decide if it was good or not, but at least something) for those "Dreamers" and courting the Latino vote AND point to his signature piece of legislation which he said he'd get done and now say "I did what I said I would, I got it done, AND the SC upheld it as Constitutional."

Throw in repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and taking out Osama bin Laden--true, he himself didn't do it, but Presidents take the credit and blame for things outside their control alike, and when Bush hunts him for 8 years and fails to get him and Obama gets him in his first term, it looks decidedly good--and Obama can now stand up and say,

"Look at what I've done."

And what will Mitt Romney do?
Criticize?
Of course.
But where?

Criticize Obama on ObamaCare?
Obama can throw RomneyCare right back in his face.
Criticize Obama's lack of immigration reform?
Obama can point to the 800,000 he just let stay in the country and a huge block of voters who see him (and the Dems on the whole) as more welcoming than the GOP, which large swaths of the Latino community still see as hostile to Latino immigrants both legal and illegal.
Criticize him on exercising too much power?
Obama can point out people spent three years saying he wasn't doing enough.
Criticize him on foreign affairs?
Obama's had a terrorist kingpin taken out and a costly war ended in his first term.

The BEST Romney can do is criticize Obama on the economy...but then:

1. He has to come up with one hell of a great pitch, an economic plan that sounds so amazing it dwarfs all of the above,
2. He has to be able to shake the image of himself as a rich elite businessman of sorts, which isn't the most popular image for a candidate in a recession
3. He has to make that the central talking point of the campaign, and between immigration reform and ObamaCare and all the other issues in the campaign, he can make it a key issue, maybe even the #1 issue, but Obama can still pivot to a number of areas where he's succeeded and where Romney trails now considerably.

And then, the one you're going to hate...

4. He has to win over a large block of minority voters or he loses the race. Period.

And you may hate how everything in politics with me seems to come back to race in some form, Stressedlines, but in this case, that is DEFINITELY the case--

Latinos are *the* fastest-growing demographic in the US, AND they play a key role in battleground states from Nevada to Florida.

And the Republican Party has completely and utterly burned their bridges when it comes to that particular demographic...and even if you wanted to disagree to that end (and I'd be very curious as to what you could possibly say to that effect) you can't deny that's the perception in the US right now, that's the perception in the Latin American community, and every political theorist and strategist Left, Right, Center, and all points in between will confirm it--

PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING.

You have a virtual WASP running against Barack Obama--that's the popular perception.

The only deviation from that would be Mormon vs. Obama, and fair or not, that view does NOT help Romney's electoral chances.

He needs a family values candidate on the ticket, a strong Christian Conservative to ignite that aspect of the Right wing base behind him...

But he's so far behind on minority votes right now he also has a DESPERATE need to turn that around as well.

And I'm not sure he can do that at this point--naming a running mate of a minority skin color will seem (rightly so) like a gimmick at this point (especially if it's Marco Rubio and especially after the Dreamers Act) and besides that, at this stage in the game, what CAN he do?

Statistically, the black vote usually trends Democratic, and with Obama even more so (a generalization, of course, but not an unfounded one given polls)...

The GOP has done so much to alienate Latino voters and the Dreamers Act went over so well with that base that, if the reaction here in Latino Hotbed Los Angeles is any indication, they will be voting Democratic en masse...

And where does that leave Romney?

Grasping at straws to get every last white, core-Christian-Conservative vote he can in the hopes that Obama's stance on gay marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell will alienate that base enough that they'll consider a Mormon Republican with a Health Care package that's been characterized as ObamaCare-Lite the lesser of two evils...

And THEN hope that carries over enough to win swing states.

And I don't see that happening, I just don't at this point--

Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Florida--can you tel me you see Romney sweeping these, as he'll need to in order to have a shot at winning?



You and I can agree to disagree (or agree to debate, either way) over the individual issues of the candidates and their merits...

But you can't deny that Obama's had a GREAT month that's really backed Romney into a corner--

He HAS to win this now purely on presenting an astounding economic plan AND hoping some other front caves for Obama, be it the minority vote or healthcare or immigration or foreign affairs...whatever it is, something has to give in order to put a dent in Obama's base right now for Romney to even have a chance at beating an INCUMBENT candidate (that being yet another advantage of Obama's.)

I don't see it happening at this stage, the Electoral Map seems against him--

How can he win?

He loses the entire Pacific Coast, that goes Blue...
Most of the Northeast goes Blue, save likely Massachusetts as his home state...
He has to win the whole South, and unless he has a Core-Christian running mate, that's in question...

And then what?

Where can Romney best Obama?

Illinois goes Blue for Obama, and that gives more an Electoral advantage than Massachusetts does...

And then what?

Obama won Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, and the entire Northern US from Minnesota on eastward...

Where can Romney pick up votes THERE?

The MOST I can say for Romney is he'll probably take away Virginia and North Carolina from Obama, as he won those states in 2008 but will likely lose them this time between ObamaCare and his supporting gay marriage.

Where can Romney make up the ground to win?

"Looks like the 2012 election will now be a referendum on Obamacare"

Except the Supreme Court referendum counts a whole lot more.

not that I care who wins thsi election, because, really it does not matter in the big picture, but Is Romney not ahead in Ohio and Florida both right now?

I checked Rasmussen just now (who at least is pretty close to being on target, unlike Fox and MSNBC,

On there, Romney has only NC in his side. Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, virginia, Florida and Colorado are all within 2% of each other. Those are ALL states he won last time, so any stolen by Romney are gains, no?

Since the start of may, his approval on the economy is down 10 . I do not suspect that the SC vote today will help the stock market much tomorrow, but hey, maybe it will.

Economy is stagnant, and slowing even more it appears (I work in a KPI industry, so I know what I am talking about on this part, as our business, tends to reflect economic growth really well).

As it stands right now, for states that look to be firming in one camp or the other, it is 217-191 Obamas favor, so have to just look at it from there.

Every state in play right now, Obama won last time, so what does Romeny need to win it?

79 gives him the white house. Virginia, Ohio, NC and virginia will equal 75. 4 less than he needs. Any of the other 6 states in play will give him the White house, and then the neo-cons around here can jump around and be happy obama is dead, even though the replacement is not exactly a big change.

So I did a little more snooping, just to see what each of those states was looking like, and New hampshire is a really dangerous one for Obama, as is Colorado and Nevada.


Colorado is 47-43 obama, but 2 months ago, it was 53-40 obama, so that state is now in play, where it was not before.

Pernnsylvania is 45-39 obama,. Does not seem to be changing much.

Wisconsin was 47-44 Romney. SHocked me a little.

Mich is 47-43 obama, but 2 months ago it was 50-37 so Obama is losing ground there right now

Oregon. Why is this showing blue? I assume it will go blue, but for some reason, it is showing only +4 Obama. but there is no polls except the last one a few weeks ago. That is wrong I think.

Romney is up 7 in Missouri, which Obama did not win anyways, but that one is not only comfortable, but getting bigger. It was a deadhead 2 months ago.

Anyways, you say 'where'? Lots of places actually, I am some shocked to be honest with these polls, but hey, its a LONG time til November

It is like watching a Super Bowl, where neither team is one you care about. Still fun to watch..lol


Iowa is a dead head 45-45

Colorado splits votes, though, IIRC, so a few percentage points one way or the other doesn't matter as much there.

Side note: Big shock, Mujus fails Con Law. Supreme Court finds it constitutional, it is constitutional.

Period.

You may not like it, but please don't compound my low opinion of you by spouting off statements that I can very easily prove are false.

Really, Jack? You think an incorrect Supreme Court opinion is a logical impossibility?

It's like watching a country finally grow up, Americans finally engaging in meaningful debate about the health & welfare of its citizens.
It does seem to bring out the hillbilly in some of you though, Obama-Osama, they are very similar, are you sure they're not related?
A measure of a civilised nation is how we care for our old, our young, our sick and disabled. You should be happy that Obama is trying to drag you as a nation into the 21st century.

Obi, the latest stats show that Asians are the fastest-growing ethnicity in the U.S. at the moment.