Political Fallout After Obamacare Decision

[David]

Laura Ingraham ‏@IngrahamAngle

3 doctors I know in DC area (2 of whom are not registered Rs) sent total of $6k to @MittRomney yesterday. Code Red! Patient flat lining...

[David]

Did Republicans lose the health care battle but win the health care war?

SOURCE

[David]

Newsweek polls always skew Left, I find this very encouraging.

SOURCE

[David]

Democrats divided on pitching health care to voters while court ruling emboldens GOP opponents

SOURCE

[David]

A Rasmussen daily tracking poll showed President Barack Obama did not receive a bounce from the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare.

The November election tracking results are the same after the SCOTUS decision as they were before, according to Rasmussen. Obama received 45 percent of the vote among those surveyed on Sunday and remained tied with Romney.

The poll also found the anti-Obama intensity among conservatives has increased since the ruling, while the ratings for the Supreme Court actually decreased. According to Rasmussen, 36 percent “said the high court was doing a good or an excellent job” last week. This week, only 33 percent said so. Further, 28 percent said the “court is doing a poor job,” which was up 11 points from last week.

[Rifleman]

I happen to believe that the method most Republicans/Conservatives, actual or perceived, are portraying this could make the difference. Just watching Fox News Sunday, and parts of Meet the Press, and This Week, are discouraging in that regards.

It's not that what they were saying wasn't true, it was simply a lacl of enthusiasm for doing so. A few points:

1. The supposed parts of Obamacare that most people like: insurance of pre-existing conditions; allowing "children" to age 27 to remain on their parents' policy; and "Universal coverage, were purposely timed as far as implementation while the bad and devastating parts were timed to occur after Obama's hoped re-election indicates a systematic plan to preserve the "law" from being repealed.

2. Essentially, the Dim response is "Yea! Cheer, Horrah! We won because Obama LIED"!! Yet on this morning. the White House Staff Chief insisted that the penalty WASN'T a lie, it was just legal "mumbo jumbo." Either way, this is worse the the "infamous" boy who cried 'Wolf' "! Someone who will lie about something ralatively minor surely will lie about major things.

3. As long predicted, Obambies are already trying to defend Obamacare on the basis of Romneycare. While I don't like Romneycare, and ROmney refused to distance himself from it, there are quite easy ways to distinguish the in state Romney care with National destruction Obamacare. Apparantly Romney hasn't articulated these differences well, but there is still plenty of time to do so, in a thoughtful and intellectual way.

3.a. The other point is that Romney has made a campaign promise to repeal Omamacare NOW, and is running on that promise, so whatever resemblance exists it's largely moot.

4. Yes, it looks like this ruling is a political wn for Repblicans, provided they win! If they can't capitalize on it, besides the catastrophy that will result, they will likley lose political power permanantly.

5. The perceived "benefits" of Obamacare, I mentioned in #1, could be achieved separate from the entire law. However, I believe, a government mandate requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is not the way to do it. Since private insurance is actual insurance the increased cost of claims as a result, increase everyone's premiums, AND will increase everyone's taxes. Like usual, with Obama, there is a lie involved. The people with the prexisting conditions, are unlikley to be able to afford the premiums themselves, or will increase the cost of premiums to their employers. Otherwise, they would be kicked back on Medicaid anyway, which is going to be exanded to the breaking point.

6. Republicans are stating but not explaining the exact reasons that Obamacare will trash the economy and destroy millions of jobs, they just state that it is so. They could also easily point to examples of how Obamacare IS already destroying the economy, or exactly HOW DimocRATS have delayed or diesmantled parts of Obamacare ALREADY to try to keep it together through the election! And for some, if you need examples; here they are:

A. Waivers. Parts of Obamacare already in effect would have already resulted in numerous people losing their health insurance already. The reason? Small lower cost policies that offer limited coverage are now illegal under Obamacare. So Obama had granted numerour waivers to allow mostly really large businesses to keep these policies for the time being rather than expose the truth of private insurance policy loss that will result long term.

B. Medicare payments. This is another Obama lie. The other lie, that Obamacare doesn't create a deficit, was figured together on the assumption, that Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals be lowered two years ago. If that had happened, folks would have found out quickly HOW Obama was going "to save money on Medicare". What would have happened is that Seniors would have Medicare coverage but would be difficult or impossible to find a doctor or hospital that would accept Medicare. The new cutbacks have been extended twice, for a year, IIRC, but at some pointwill kick in, and if they don't the money Obama stole from Medicare will cause a shortage or large deficit to Medicare.

C. Long term care insurance. This is long term care insurance for the elderly and is part of the law, but even Obama admitted that it was unsustainable and dropped it. Of course, then since long term care can't be insured, Obama will go back to death panels and health care neglect and homicide as a policy matter.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

1. The supposed parts of Obamacare that most people like: insurance of pre-existing conditions; allowing "children" to age 27 to remain on their parents' policy; and "Universal coverage, were purposely timed as far as implementation while the bad and devastating parts were timed to occur after Obama's hoped re-election indicates a systematic plan to preserve the "law" from being repealed.

Forcing insurance to cover up to 26 yo and pre-existing conditions forced the companies to raise their rates. That was designed to make Obamatax look more appealing and put competing companies out of business.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Either way, this is worse the the "infamous" boy who cried 'Wolf' "! Someone who will lie about something ralatively minor surely will lie about major things.

Hmmm! Who else does the bring to mind? .

[David]

How much time should Romney invest discussing opposition to Obamacare? I am torn. It's an unpopular law. Polls universally show the public doesn't like Obamacare. But, will it take the focus off the economy? Romney needs to stay on message. Make this a referendum on the state of the economy. Obamacare can be framed as part of the economic message.

[Mad_Dog]

Originally Posted by David

A Rasmussen daily tracking poll showed President Barack Obama did not receive a bounce from the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare.

He doesn't care. Getting Obamacare passed has been the soul purpose of the Democrat party with the Obama administration. It's why the nomination came down to him and Hillary, their "minority" status offered extra protection against anyone who opposed this monstrous law.

It doesn't matter anymore. We'll never get this monster off our back. The USSA is a done deal. Obama has done what he was hired to do.

[jaguardude]

Political fallout as a result of the Obamacare decision ?? It goes like this: I shall vote for anyone or anything running against any Democrat, from a real person to a fire hydrant.
Can't wait for November.............need to check with an illegal alien about how to go about voting twice.

[David]

Originally Posted by jaguardude

Political fallout as a result of the Obamacare decision ?? It goes like this: I shall vote for anyone or anything running against any Democrat, from a real person to a fire hydrant.
Can't wait for November.............need to check with an illegal alien about how to go about voting twice.

Whether we emerge from this Twilight Zone period whole as a nation or spiral downward into deepening political and social madness remains to be seen.

Those two bizarre events together deepened the certainty that this coming November’s 2012 election is as pivotal as the election of 1860 that preceded the American Civil War.



SOURCE

[David]

A lot of truth in this. Conservatives directing anger at CJ Roberts are on a fool's errand. Regardless of how you feel about his decision it's time to energize for November. We have the power to deal with this.

SOURCE

John Roberts Does Conservatives Big Favor By Letting Obamacare Stand - Forbes

[David]

Romney Campaign at Odds With G.O.P. on Health Care ‘Tax’
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR 1:23 PM ET

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care mandate, Republicans are accusing President Obama of increasing taxes.

[David]

Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move?

SOURCE

[Mad_Dog]

More WaPo bullcrap. In many ways, they are worse than the New York Times. Remember, Politico was founded by the more conservative writers for the Washington Post, and that thing is a leftist circle jerk. The remaining WaPo writers are about as left as you can get.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by David

Republicans’ repeal push: Is it the right move?

SOURCE

Who's this Chris Cizzila guy and why is he calling for Republicans to wimp out?

After that horrible eminent domain decision a few years ago, Congress could have dealt by enacting legislation to clarify eminent domain as a concept and practice. Instead they did nothing.

This time, at least some are talking about specifics about the repeal of Obamacare.

No, we dont need yet another cowardly Congress acting as if there is nothing to be done.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Forcing insurance to cover up to 26 yo and pre-existing conditions forced the companies to raise their rates. That was designed to make Obamatax look more appealing and put competing companies out of business.

Of course! When "actual" insurance is involved, anything that increases the risk and overall costs MUST increase premiums! The whol;e idea is to put the Insurance companies out of business, and usher in "single payer." Before than, millions of Americans will lose their insurance and those on expanded Medicaid, and "underfunded" Medicare won't be able to find doctors. If you get seriously ill from about 2014 to ?, you may not survive.

Hmmm! Who else does the bring to mind? .[/quote]

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course! When "actual" insurance is involved, anything that increases the risk and overall costs MUST increase premiums! The whol;e idea is to put the Insurance companies out of business, and usher in "single payer." Before than, millions of Americans will lose their insurance and those on expanded Medicaid, and "underfunded" Medicare won't be able to find doctors. If you get seriously ill from about 2014 to ?, you may not survive.

Hmmm! Who else does the bring to mind? .

[/quote]


Both of you miss the entire point of the 26 year olds. The fact that three MAJOR insurance companies announced that whatever the outcome of the SCOTUS case, they would continue to permit 26 year olds to remain on their parents' policies is indicative. Lots of you healthy people, people who dont get sick, paying premiums! MORE PROFIT!

Cry me a river, insurance companies. This one is a money maker, as at least THREE major carriers finally figured out. Gawd forbid the government had to force them into figuring out a way to make more money.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Both of you miss the entire point of the 26 year olds.

You think that because you live in your own little bubble and can't conceive anything beyond it.

Originally Posted by Bemused

The fact that three MAJOR insurance companies announced that whatever the outcome of the SCOTUS case, they would continue to permit 26 year olds to remain on their parents' policies is indicative.

The point is it didn't need a 2500 page bill to accomplish that, good or bad.

Originally Posted by Bemused

Lots of you healthy people, people who dont get sick, paying premiums! MORE PROFIT!

And for you unhealthy people who should be responsible for paying for you health needs? Companies are in business for profit. Forcing them to pay for someone who had no investment in the company is wrong. It's sort of like you being forced to pay for the maintenance of the street in front of your home. If you are at the end of a Cul-De-Sac, your costs would be almost nothing. But if you are on a main highway, you'll go broke. So most public roads are supported by common fees, usually taxes. If we are going to be a compassionate society, providing care for anybody, it should be the burden of all to pickup the costs. So the government should tax everybody and reimburse private companies when they are forced to carry someone with preexisting conditions. The problem is our laws exempt the public from most such costs. People can't sue a public entity because taxes going up might make people look at what public employees did to create that burden.

Originally Posted by Bemused

Cry me a river, insurance companies. This one is a money maker, as at least THREE major carriers finally figured out. Gawd forbid the government had to force them into figuring out a way to make more money.

I assume you favor taxing the hell out of oil companies as well because they are making money.

[FoundingFather]

Insurance companies aren't making a killing. I think we've had this discussion here (maybe when ObamaCare was first discussed?). If I recall correctly, they make on average something like 10-12% profit, and many big (non insurance) companies make more than that with nobody complaining.

I think it's the fact that they put limits on costs and thus "deny" people treatment that gets all of the attention.