Health care law ‘here to stay,’ president insists

[The Donkey]

Since the law was validated as a tax, the senate would only need a %51 majority to repeal it. I'm confident we will see yet another shift of power into the hands of the republicans.

The Supreme Court did not really validate "the law" as a tax: what it did was to hold that the "healthcare mandate" provision in the law was within the Constitution's Article I taxing authority.

For the purposes of the Senate's internal rules, the whole law cannot be a tax for the same reason that SCOTUS held it is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act: the law SAYS that it is not a tax and the statutory language governs.

As the WAPO article I link to above explains, most of the law cannot be repealed under reconciliation. But some key provisions in the law could be gutted that way, and that would cause other provisions not to work right: and yes, a hostile President and two hostile houses of Congress could -- through reconciliation, regulations and lawyerly shenanigans -- seriously screw up the law's implementation.

My guess: those republicans would find that things do not go so well for them after that.

More significantly: things would not go so well for anybody.

 

[The Donkey]

Good point, but it could still be a state issue. Then we should see significant rate cuts in states that have passed Tort Reform, especially if insurers are allowed to compete across state lines.

1. State medical malpractice reform mainly gives you a few more doctors willing to practice a few high risk medical specialties within the State, but at a high cost to a few patients. Be vewy, vewy skeptical about claims that it significantly lowers patients' health insurance rates.

2. Curiously, after trying to reconcile his new-found opposition to nationwide Romneycare on the basis of state's rights, and supposedly agreeing with the Supreme Court's conservatives about the Constitution's limits on Congressional powers, the republican standardbearer still wants to replace the ACA -- in significant part -- by having the federal government impose medical malpractice reform on the states.

 

[PrayingForWar]

1. State medical malpractice reform mainly gives you a few more doctors willing to practice a few high risk medical specialties within the State, but at a high cost to a few patients. Be vewy, vewy skeptical about claims that it significantly lowers patients' health insurance rates.

2. Curiously, after trying to reconcile his new-found opposition to nationwide Romneycare on the basis of state's rights, and supposedly agreeing with the Supreme Court's conservatives about the Constitution's limits on Congressional powers, the republican standardbearer still wants to replace the ACA -- in significant part -- by having the federal government impose medical malpractice reform on the states.

As far as I know Tort Reform mainly lowers malpractice insurance which is a very significant cost passed directly onto the consumer. After recently signing mountains of forms in an ER, that had more to do with liability issues I asked the nurse about them. She says there are several lawyers on hospital staff that review the forms and are constantly amending them. Between the government and trial lawyers I don't see what's left for the actual care givers salary.

Either way my contempt for obozo and his rat Holder is so intense I really don't care what Romney says anymore. We need a regime change so badly it doesn't matter. We can get rid of Romney in 2016 if he's half as bad as the moonbat messiah and is minions have been.

 

[OC for ME]

The wording of each poll question is not direct, either or, yes no, up down.

Example(s):

1. I'd like you to rate the chances that you will vote in the presidential election in November: Are you absolutely certain to vote, will you probably vote, are the chances 50-50, or less than that?

The question should be phrased; Will you vote for president in November? Yes or No or Do Not know.

2. If the presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Barack Obama, the Democrat) and (Mitt Romney, the Republican), for whom would you vote? Would you lean toward (Obama) or toward (Romney)?

Bogus question, the election is not being held 'today'.

The question should be phrased: Will you vote for Obama or Romney or Other in November?

Etcetera....

The only poll that counts is the result of the vote in November. Polls other than the 'vote' can 'say' anything and are therefore meaningless.

The ABC News/WashPo poll is bogus.....

 

[WalkingWolf]

Polls are not a source of information, polls have become a tool to sway the direction of the vote. It is look over here at this shiny object, follow the shiny object, vote for the shiny object. Unfortunately most voters vote for the shiny object.