Roberts vs Obama: Affordable Health Care Act goes to SCOTUS

I wonder if the Left/Obama/Kathleen Sebelius didn’t shoot themselves in the backside when they decided to apply a chainsaw

"I wonder how many metaphors we can mix"

confirming what we already know

i don't know whether to be upset, angry or just apathetic. i think the third is best for my ongoing mental health but it's hard not to be bummed out by this entire situation

http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-29/gop-ad-uses-doctored-scotus-audio/

brought out in sharp relief the unprecedented degree of coercion inexorably inherent

I sentence this writer to death.

Benjamin Zycher is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a
senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

So do you have to submit writing samples with phrasing like that to join those groups, and to write for the National Review; and/or does the National Review edit them to add in more such language?

they just lay eggs in yr brain iirc

it seems to me that if SCOTUS overturns ACA, a) it will be crystal clear how right-wing this court is and b) the argument that even DINO presidents should be supported to protect rulings like RvW in the SCOTUS will gain new emphasis

the Supremes have been whittling away at roe v. wade since, like, the 1990s ... it's their whittling away at Commerce Clause jurisdiction that makes me livid.

but yeah yeah i know it's roe v. wade that gets more people ready to take it to the streets and to reach into their pockets than boring shit like the Commerce Clause.

Citizens United and Bush v. Gore should have convinced everyone but Supreme Court arguments w/r/t presidential elections still get eyerolls from a lot of liberals.

GOP realizing it needs, er, options should SCOTUS scrap the AHCA.

Jesus Christ are they dumbshits, if it gets dumped they'll still try to bring 95% of it back but try to NOT call it "Obamacare." really, the left needs to start owning that piece of rhetoric for all the good parts.

The party has conceded (a) we need to keep kids on parents' insurance until 26 (b) we need healthy people in the pool otherwise (c) health care costs will continue climbing. Therefore the federal government is powerless to insist?

I give no credit to Dems for brains.

If there was a real public option here, I'd care a whole lot more.

I care a whole lot, because of family members who are unable to get private insurance because of their pre-existing conditions. : /

do they not realize they can just go to the emergency room?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/blackrobed_partisans036475.php#

Showboating 5th Circuit Judge vs. Obama on healthcare commentary (Obama since this linked blogpost, added more nuance to his comments)

How Toobin turned into a crybaby last week.

The Associated Press, everybody:

“If Republicans have moved to the right on health care, it’s also true that Obama has moved to the left,” reads an AP wrap on the Obama speech. “He strenuously opposed a mandate forcing people to obtain health insurance until he won office and changed his mind.”

ah yes the mandate, developed by those infamous leftists at the heritage foundation

"None of this is going to hinge on any of the arguments made in the court so all the hand-wringing about how shitty the SG's performance is are just lame. Jeff Toobin should know better frankly.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Tuesday, March 27, 2012 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink"

Apparently he knew better and just decided it was better to be talked about.

The Associated Press, everybody:

“If Republicans have moved to the right on health care, it’s also true that Obama has moved to the left,” reads an AP wrap on the Obama speech. “He strenuously opposed a mandate forcing people to obtain health insurance until he won office and changed his mind.”

― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, April 4, 2012 5:32 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

amazing

(Aimless addresses Congress:)

Gee, guys! You know what would be a neat-o idea? Letting anyone who wants to be covered by Medicare do so, and run it like an insurance company, only not for profit, so the premuims could be kept low, and use the power of collective bargaining to reduce costs on stuff like pharmaceuticals. Sounds great, huh? And the beauty of it... no mandates! Simple as pie.

Guys? Yoo-hoo! Hey! Come back here! I want to know what you guys think of my idea.

"But patients would face more up-front costs and would therefore have incentives to become more discerning consumers of health care, he said."

The phrase "discerning consumers of health care" makes me want to beat someone with a tire iron, tbh

Aimless, people would still try to buy that insurance once they became sick or had an accident. Because you can't make me pay for insurance!!

i am a discerning consumer of sickness

tbh, I still want a single-payer goverment health care system. It's the sanest alternative by a wide chalk. But politically speaking that idea is going nowhere fast under the present regime.

otm

This former clerk of Chief Justice Berger briefly addresses what's most worrisome about the AHCA. Digby's expressed her fears too.

noooo way social security gets any 'market elements' post-great recession

Got a refund check today because Mega didn't spend 80% of premiums on patient care in 2011. HAW!...oh wait.

funny thread title in retrospect

indeed

I wonder how many people are going to get these surprise checks and if it'll have any discernable nationwide stimulus-by-proxy effect.

Can anyone help me refute this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337658/pity-young-katrina-trinko

living people paying more so people don't die, shed a tear

don't young ppl get covered under their parent's insurance until they're 26?

In other words, here’s what Obamacare “gives” young adults: a requirement to subsidize the health-care costs of their elders, who have had decades to increase their salary and save.

what a world

in other other words here's what Obamacare "gives" young adults: when they're old their health-care costs will be subsidized

why are we taking care of these old people, they should have saved

some guy called into npr here recently and was explaining that he worked really hard and didn't make a lot of money and didn't see any benefit he got out of government programs. the host asked, incredulously, "surely you'll benefit from social security when you retire?" he responded, "i work so hard i don't have time to think about the future."

Roll up your jeans, guys, and step into the comments pool.

The future doesn't think much of you, either, buddy

btw I misread the website as nationalgeographic.com for some reason and was pretty sad for a minute there.

the US already has a relatively decent subsidized healthcare program for the elderly called Medicare -- it starts at 65. I'm not sure I understand why the premiums for young people -- who for the most part earn the least -- should increase so drastically while the premiums of people ages 61-64 should increase almost not at all. If it were true, it would be both inequitable and economically foolish. But because this is the National Review I imagine there's something being left out of the analysis.

Premiums for young people on average will increase because a bunch of people are running around without health insurance right now and they'll be paying more than $0

premiums have been careening upward well before HCR; the insurance industry is good at making money. I'm skeptical that the ACA impairs their profits in such a way that they have to jack up premiums any more than they would otherwise.

insurance industry is doing a-ok under ACA, you bet

Premiums for young people on average will increase because a bunch of people are running around without health insurance right now and they'll be paying more than $0

― mh, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:46 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is definitely true, but it's not the scenario the article purports to address.

premiums have been careening upward well before HCR; the insurance industry is good at making money. I'm skeptical that the ACA impairs their profits in such a way that they have to jack up premiums any more than they would otherwise.

― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:48 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is also definitely true. My premium went up about 9% this year. It will be interesting to see whether the increase is any greater with ACA in effect.