Still want it overturned?
- Thread starter ITALIA
- Start date
ITALIA
Mayor
You don't like our military? NASA?
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Your problem is, they probably won't bother to read your link.
Too much work, you know, all that reading.
Too much work, you know, all that reading.
YouCantHandleDaTruth
Governor
Mitt RobbedMe has already indicated we need LESS people who instruct our kids and protect America's society soooooo.....
Yeah
fairsheet
Senator
The top post (in general) seems to be a bit of a little known "secret". The Fox/MSM is more comfortable with making these things "Team D" vs. "Team R".
ANYone who thinks there's some sort of simple, overarching, and irrefutable "Constitutional Principle" at the heart of all this, is dreaming. A sufficiently motivated Court could easily find plausible Constitutional grounds for upholding OR overturning The PPACA. The problem...as I see it anyway though, is that overturning it portends so many downstream unintended consequences, that it's difficult to see how even this Court, might be sufficiently motivated to overturn it.
A similar, albeit DISimilar example might be, Bush v. Gore. There again - the Constitutional grounds were anything but obvious and plain. And, a sufficiently motivated Court could easily have decided either way. BUT...since Bush v. Gore was a one-shot deal, with virtually no implications for any other election prior or post, it was easy for The Court to side with Bush, since that decision essentially existed in a legal/Constitutional vacuum.
ANYone who thinks there's some sort of simple, overarching, and irrefutable "Constitutional Principle" at the heart of all this, is dreaming. A sufficiently motivated Court could easily find plausible Constitutional grounds for upholding OR overturning The PPACA. The problem...as I see it anyway though, is that overturning it portends so many downstream unintended consequences, that it's difficult to see how even this Court, might be sufficiently motivated to overturn it.
A similar, albeit DISimilar example might be, Bush v. Gore. There again - the Constitutional grounds were anything but obvious and plain. And, a sufficiently motivated Court could easily have decided either way. BUT...since Bush v. Gore was a one-shot deal, with virtually no implications for any other election prior or post, it was easy for The Court to side with Bush, since that decision essentially existed in a legal/Constitutional vacuum.
GordonGecko
President
Romney if elected will not in toto "repeal Obamacare"....too many popular and NEEDED items in there.
The anti-ACA folks on the Right won't really mind though.....as long as Mitt stays a Republican....and/or white.
The anti-ACA folks on the Right won't really mind though.....as long as Mitt stays a Republican....and/or white.
republicans in congress are panicking over the prospect of the ACA being overturned. they talked big about "repeal," tried "repeal and replace" yet know that if they actually had to "replace," they'd end up keeping the majority of the provisions in ObamaCare......because the public really, really likes them.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
JuliefromOhio: if they actually had to "replace," they'd end up keeping the majority of the provisions in ObamaCare......because the public really, really likes them.
LeRoy: But, see, then it'd be a REPUBLICAN idea.....and that makes it SOOOO much better!!
LeRoy: But, see, then it'd be a REPUBLICAN idea.....and that makes it SOOOO much better!!
fairsheet
Senator
This may sound facetious....but seriously....IF a President Mitt were to propose to repeal "Obamacare" in its entirety, then reinstate it IN its entirety, but under the name "Romneycare", the Fox/GOP would be just pleased as punch.
Cerulean Mutt
Mayor
They've painted themselves into a corner.
To keep the goodies in Obamacare that everyone likes, their corporate masters in the insurance industry are going to insist on a mechanism (read: subsidy) to make them whole after being forced to give away the store. So that leaves the GOP with dilema - repeal Obamacare and increase taxes to pay for the subsidies, or repeal Obamacare without a mechanism to pay for the subsidies and let the deficit balloon ala the Medicare Prescription Drug Company Benefit.
I'm betting the former, because all this talk about reducing deficit spending coming from Republicans is just that - talk.
To keep the goodies in Obamacare that everyone likes, their corporate masters in the insurance industry are going to insist on a mechanism (read: subsidy) to make them whole after being forced to give away the store. So that leaves the GOP with dilema - repeal Obamacare and increase taxes to pay for the subsidies, or repeal Obamacare without a mechanism to pay for the subsidies and let the deficit balloon ala the Medicare Prescription Drug Company Benefit.
I'm betting the former, because all this talk about reducing deficit spending coming from Republicans is just that - talk.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
Fairsheet: This may sound facetious....but seriously....IF a President Mitt were to propose to repeal "Obamacare" in its entirety, then reinstate it IN its entirety, but under the name "Romneycare", the Fox/GOP would be just pleased as punch.
LeRoy: Yup. Yup, you're absolutely, completely, and totally correct.
LeRoy: Yup. Yup, you're absolutely, completely, and totally correct.
I hope you do realize that even with the mandate, no one could force you to purchase health insurance.
fairsheet
Senator
The guvmint has had and has exercised the power to mandate that persons buy goods or services, since day one back in 1789. And shit....without that power, there would've been no reason to form the guvmint in the first place.
