Obamacare Upheld

The Supreme Court has completely upheld Obamacare, with one small exception. This is an enormous win for the President, and at this point he and his supporters should proudly take the name “Obamacare” and make it their own. It is his legacy.

I’m sorry for those of you who are angry, but I believe the court has ruled rightly here and am very happy about this. Although the best and most important parts of the legislation have not been enacted yet, I expect this to be a huge improvement in the lives of most Americans, even though there will still be some bumps and needs for improvement along the way.

All you righties crying in your beer, stop it. This is the system working like it should be. And all you lefties who said the Supreme Court was going to prove itself to be a partisan “judicial activist” court can also come down a peg and give the system, including the likes of John Roberts, more credit than (some of you) have.

*Update*: Am I the only one who thought all along that “this is pretty clearly a tax, and that’s OK?” I know the administration tried to deny that in but that always just seemed like obvious posturing to me?

Support independent journalism

  • Dishman

    I agree it was always a tax.

    It’s a tax on young, healthy people with no dependents.

    As for the huge improvement, I suspect there are “unintended” consequences which you will regret. I use the quotes because I suspect the consequences were very much intended.

  • his supporters should proudly take the name “Obamacare” and make it their own. It is his legacy.

    If they do it can only make the loss of the WH and Senate more firm.

    The decision has already handed Obama a defeat in November as well as given the Senate to the Republicans. With 60% against the mandate, it is hard to imagine any other outcome. Watch for Romney’s lead to grow.

  • Scott

    The “righties” (which includes Libertarians) aren’t “crying in their beer”, for the most part they’re responding calmly, soberly and responsibly; unlike the lefties who even before the decision were making personal attacks on the judges and even after were attacking (see the attacks on Judge Thomas).

    I actually watched FoxNews for 10 minutes (GASP!) after reading about the decision on the web to get a feel. The essence I got was: yup, it is a win for the President, but one he probably won’t want come November. Yes, despite his double-dealing (he lied to the American people that it wasn’t a tax and then argued the exact opposite in front of SCOTUS) the American people knew it was a tax all along. It’s part of the reason it’s so unpopular among likely voters.

    Now all Romney has to do is hammer it home “He raised taxes on all of you during a recession!”

    Personally I was a bit worried (from a political stand point) that it would be completely overturned. If it had it would have fired up Obama’s base while lulling Romney’s into quiescence. I had hoped that the horrid mandate would be overturned (simply for human rights reasons) and the rest left so the issue would be removed from play.

    So from one perspective this is good, it gives Romney one more issue to run on. Jobs, the economy, spending and taxes.

  • Scott: Why is it that every time I notice that there are unhinged people, someone feels compelled to come along and claim that there are no such? Last time it was Aziz, who claimed there were no unhinged liberals when they lost the Scott Walker recall (which 30 seconds of Googling would show existed in spades). Now you’re telling me there are no unhinged righties? Get real dude. What about these dorks or the twerps who did this?

    And if Ann Coulter hasn’t already said the Supreme Court has just made this a Communist nation, I’ll bet you one dollar she does so by the end of the week.

    Get over it man. Whatever your view is, you can always expect some fuggheads to make you look bad. It’s the nature of politics.

    I think you’re overoptimistic on Obama being defeated but we’ll see.

    *update* “With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts” — Congressman Jack Kingston (R)

    Yeah, no one unhinged at all.

  • Scott

    I did say “for the most part”. Coulter makes her money being hysterical (and not in a good way) as do some others. I surveyed FoxNews, asked some friends who are deep into the talk radio/internet world of the right and it was the consensus that most responded in an adult, responsible way.

    Some freaked out and most of these will realize that it is actually a good thing in the long run. Failing that, the fight’s no where near over.

    A few are irredeemable fuggheads.

  • Scott

    Anyhow, citing one of your links. I think what Roberts did was brilliant, even if I didn’t agree with him on this case.

    He’s set the groundwork to significantly rein in the use of the Commerce Clause while at the same time making Obama “own” Obamacare as a tax and nothing but a tax.

  • Dean. With millions on the internet at anyone time, you can google up any point you want to back. I don’t google for my opinions and doubt Scot or anyone else here does ( including you ).

    The only thing I see in this post that is amiss is your over the top smugness. Give it a rest please.

    As far as I am concerned, and I consider myself entrenched on the right, The decision is just fine for reasons I stated in my first post.

    The majority of the voters and the majority of doctors are not for the mandate, which will give the Republicans a sweep in the fall just to be sure Obamacare is repealed.

  • queenofallevil

    I would just like to provide this handy guide to Obamacare courtesy of the Progressive site FiredogLake. ..well worth the look.


  • Eric Rall

    Taxes are levied primarily to raise revenue, while penalties are levied primarily to discourage the penalized behavior. The distinction can be pretty fuzzy on the margins, but the individual mandate strikes me as being much closer in intent to the latter than to the former.

    This is not just a conceptual distinction, but a constitutional one as well. The taxing and spending clause in Article I section 8 reads “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

    No surprise that SCOTUS didn’t rule on this angle, though. Not only was it not raised (so far as I know) by the plaintiffs, but it’s an aspect of the constitution that’s been routinely ignored for an awful long time. Congress routinely uses the tax code to manipulate behavior, and AFAIK there have been no serious constitutional challenges to this since the Nullification Crisis in 1832. There’s also the Anti-Injunctions Act of 1867, which declares that constitutional challenges to taxes aren’t ripe until the taxes have already been paid.

  • Scott


    Obama’s Solicitor General specifically argued it was a tax, to which Justice Roberts agreed.

    That’s the core of the ruling upholding the individual mandate. If the court hadn’t had that argument before them we’d have a very different outcome.

  • Eric Rall

    Sorry, I botched a segue in writing my comment. You are of course correct that the question of whether the mandate was a tax or a regulation was indeed before the court.

    The issue that I meant to say wasn’t before the court was the theory that even if the mandate was a tax, Congress only has the power to impose taxes that are primarily intended to raise revenue.

    Likewise, the related objection that it’s unconstitutional even as a tax because of the Article I section 9 requirement that capitation taxes be apportioned between states based on the Census wasn’t before the Court, either.

  • The small exception is a lot bigger than you think Dean. Half of the expansion of health care coverage comes from Medicaid. The small exception gives states the right to opt out. Given that just about every state is having problems funding Medicaid at current levels, I think a lot of states are going to opt out of Medicaid expansion.

  • Sandi: All I’ll say is that if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

    Queen: Welcome back, evil one. I’m sure some of your minions have missed you.

    My old nemesis Jane Hamsher’s Firedog Lake post is a good example of one of many “liberal” “progressive” people who missed the boat on this thing. Jonathan Gruber has a good counterpoint. The bottom line is that once we’ve established everybody has to pay in as a requirement of citizenship in this society, we can make a lot more possible, with fine-tuning to fix problems later.

    Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn this thing if he’s elected. David Frum, who used to work for George W. Bush (God I still miss that man) explains pretty well why that ain’t gonna happen.

    The most important thing this legislation did is it dragged America kicking and screaming toward the rest of the modern world in making sure everybody gets covered. I mean sure, we’re up to 2012 now, and the full bill hasn’t kicked in yet, but I say better late than never.

    By the way, Darth Odie sent me this on Twitter, and I know you’ll like it. He says it’s the new Obama theme song. Unlike some of the whiners though, he sent it with a sense of humor. 😉

  • wow, Rose. Thank you for that link. My eyes are opened. I will now commence hating Obama. ROMNEY ’12!!

    Eric, parsing that line gives me this:

    Congress has the following powers:
    1. [ lay and collect (taxes | duties | imposts | excises) ] ; *
    2. [pay the Debts];
    3. [provide for (common Defence | general Welfare of the United States)];

    * all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

    Now, theres nothing there about taxes being levied for revenue vs behavior, there’s no restriction on intention.

    note that an excise tax is “on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges”. There are PLENTY of taxes that exist in that category which exist not to raise revenue but to incentivize/disincentivize behavior, such as sin taxes.

    But in a broader sense, you arent being taxes to inentivize buying insurance, you are being taxed to disincentivize free ridership, which imposes an unfair burden on the other people who have insurance. So arguably the lack of a mandate would violate the spirit of the uniformity clause.

    (curious how this debate parallels some islamic jurisprudence ones, but thats a tangent and a half)

  • Eric Rall

    I’m parsing it differently than you, reading “to” as introducing a subordinate clause rather than merely being the next item on the list. I.e:

    Congress has the power to lay and collect (taxes | duties | imposts) in order to:
    1. pay the debts, and
    2. provide for the (general welfare | common defence)

    Given the structure of the rest of A1s8, it seems likely to me that if taxing, paying debts, and providing for common defence and the general welfare were meant to be separate powers, they’d be on separate lines rather than combined together on a single line with a caveat to the first of the separate powers added at the end.

  • queenofallevil

    Thanks, Dean. Don’t think any of my minions are still here – most are on FB though.

    I’m not a fan of taxes and less of a fan of imposing them on people in a recession but the beauty of this being a tax is that it can be repealed. I’m glad that the SCOTUS didn’t create a new “right” to healthcare because then we’d be seriously screwed.

    I see you haven’t changed at all, still seeing things not there. LOL

  • mikeca

    Conservatives worked themselves into a tizzy over Obamacare for purely political reasons. Obamacare was a Republican proposal for how to fix the US health care system in the 1990s. Mitt Romney implemented an almost identical plan in Massachusetts in 2006.

    When Democrats and Obama adopted what had been a Republican plan, Republicans had to turn 180 deg and oppose it as the most evil, communist, socialist, freedom robbing idea ever proposed.

    Wake up guys and girls. The health care system in the US is a mess and it is getting worse.

    Personal or family health is simply not an insurable risk. If you or a member of your family is seriously ill or seriously injured, an insurance company can look at you and know it is going to cost at least $100k to insure your family next year. They cannot renew your policy for less than that.

    In most states, insurance rules forbid insurance companies from refusing to renew you policy or raising your rates excessively because you get sick. But you now have a pre-existing condition. You can never change your insurance coverage to another company. You cannot move out of state, because your insurance coverage is only good as long as you live in that state. If you move out of state, you will not be able to get coverage.

    Individual health insurance just doesn’t work. It is not an insurable risk. To the extent the US health care system works, it is because most people don’t buy individual health insurance, their employer buys health insurance for them. The insurance company looks at the health of all the employees and families and comes up with a reasonable price to cover all of them. There are a few seriously ill people in that pool, but most of them are healthy.

    What ObamaCare and RomneyCare do is create a new way of forming pools that will buy insurance for everyone in the pool, much like the way employers do today. These pools will be an alternative for people who don’t have access to employer pools. Most employers only offer 2 or 3 health insurance options. I expect the state pools will offer many more options.

    People not covered by employer health insurance will be able to move between states without risking losing their coverage. Presumable, most people will have insurance, and far fewer people will be showing up in emergency rooms for free health care.

    If you don’t like ObamaCare, then what are the alternative ways of fixing the system?

    I have heard two ideas:

    1) Move people away from employer coverage to personal coverage. As I explained above, without the state pools (or some other similar system) to buy coverage from, personal coverage just doesn’t work. This proposal makes the system worse.

    2) Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. This proposal is an end run around state insurance regulations. Health insurance companies would find the state with the least regulations, and insurance for the whole country would be written in that state. This would probably make health insurance plans cheaper, but they would not cover very much. (And what ever became of states rights? Isn’t this taking away the right of states to regulate their own health insurances markets? If you think ObamaCare transfers regulation to the federal government, well at least you have a Congressman and two Senators that you can try to get to change those rules. If your insurance is regulated in North Dakota, you are just out of luck unless you live in ND).

    These proposals both make the health care problem worse, not better.

    The health care system we have now is a mess. Tens of millions of people have no coverage and the problem is getting worse ever year. ObamaCare is the free market solution that lets insurance companies compete for your business in the state health exchanges and gives you the option of changing your insurer if you are dissatisfied. If the Supreme Court had declared it unconstitutional, then a tax supported single player system would have been the only constitutional solution to the problem. Is that what you want?

  • Scott

    Thoughts by the always enjoyable Megan McArdle (who’s an antidote to the always partisan Paul Krugman, sometimes self-contradictory in his partisanship):


  • Scott: Paul Krugman is, I think, a poison liberals should avoid. Like heroin. Yes he’s smart. Yes he occasionally gets off a good line–occasionally a really good line. But when it comes to his political writings, his economic training takes a backseat to an almost maniacal partisanship.

    And you’re right by the way about Megan McArdle. Like our friend Eric Rall (whom I wish would come around more often), she doesn’t let her libertarian streak get in the way of speaking sanely. 😉

  • Rose: that’s a lovely compliment to start my day. Thank you. BTW, repeal is a fantasy, so I advise you get used to the idea of Barack personally sitting on the death panels from here on out. with all due respect, I prefer Barack on my death panel than you or other conservatives.

    Eric: okay, I see your point,you’re right. I also was reading this which makes the same point I think you are trying to:


    which helped me clarify my understanding of the argument you are making.

    I guess where I disagree is that I see “the General Welfare” as inclusive of the heath care realm. Specifically since free-rider parasites cause direct cost – in increased premiums and actual healthcare expenditures, usually borne by county hospitals whose budgets run off local taxes – to the public.

  • Buddy

    Everyone (generally) who supports this legislation seems to assume that health care is just going to fall out of the sky for those that are currently uninsured.

    The way I see it, with the states having the ability to opt out of the medicaid expansion (and they will, they can’t make budget right now, you think they’re going to sign on for more expense?), this will effectively equate to rather massive tax increase on young, emancipated, married adults that are in lower wage jobs.

    The only way for the ‘mandate’ to work, is for those young, married adults that are in low wage jobs to be eligible for medicaid. If they aren’t, then they’re effectively going to receive a rather large tax bill (or a huge expense of insurance they can’t afford).

    I have several friends at work to which this law is going to cause rather large financial harm . They can’t afford the $500/month insurance bill to add their young adult children to their insurance. While the exchanges might help that, hell they can’t afford $250 a month, and I’d be amazed if the exchanges even came close to cutting the rates by 30% instead of 50%.

    In the end, while it was upheld, it exposed the law for what it was (a tax, and a rather regressive tax at that) and also placed effective constitutional limits on the commerce clause. The decision is a bit of a two edged sword for Liberals:

    From the ruling: “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause, That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

    This was not a 5-4 ruling, this was a 4-1-4 ruling, where Roberts pretty well sided with everyone on the conservative side with the exception of the mandate being a tax. This case has the potential have a huge impact on future constitutional law, and it seems that the days of ‘unfettered regulation by means of the commerce clause’ have found their line in the sand.


  • queenofallevil


    My point was simple, you don’t know me, you don’t know what I think. You have no idea whether or not I have changed over the years and yet you seem to think that painting me as a hater or blind partisan is fair. I am not a fan of taxation, especially during a recession. I am not a fan of Mitt Romney. The only thing you got half right is that I am not a fan of Obama – I don’t hate him though, I don’t know him .

    As to your link to the always annoying and usually wrong David Frum, I say, so what? That is his opinion and others disagree. Repeal is certainly possible under the right circumstances but obviously won’t happen quickly enough but there are other ways to neutralize this monstrosity.

    I prefer to decide my fate myself with the assistance of my doctor and my family and I do not want the govt’s input at all. I mean it is MY BODY so it should be MY CHOICE, right?

  • mikeca

    “I prefer to decide my fate myself with the assistance of my doctor and my family and I do not want the govt’s input at all. I mean it is MY BODY so it should be MY CHOICE, right?”

    I find this kind of reaction very strange. Today Medicare is that dreaded socialist, communist government run single payer health care system. It is only open to those people over 65, so younger people are not allowed to participate, but they are the population most likely to use the health care system.

    Are people on Medicare extremely angry and demanding that we get the government out of their health care system? Not as far as I know. The surveys I’ve seen indicate that people on Medicare are more satisfied with their health care experience than people who have employer based insurance. Does anyone think that people over 65 on Medicare cannot make health care decisions for themselves after talking with their doctor and family?

    ObamaCare has less government involvement in health care decision than Medicare. ObamaCare is a free market health care reform plan that attempts to use free market forces to control health care costs. In fact, the Paul Ryan Medicare reform plan changes Medicare from a government single payer health care system into a plan just like ObamaCare. If that is a good idea for those over 65, why isn’t it a good idea for everyone else?

  • Rose, I’m just needlin’ you because you’re the newbie around here 🙂 Welcome back to DW!

    But I can’t speak to how you’ve changed or not because all I really know of you is your comment and your older blog where you were pretty clear that you didn’t like Obama. And you still don’t, and you don’t like Rinomney, so you do seem pretty consistent from that. (I am assuming your critique of Romney and Obama alike stems from the same general disagreement with their principles and policies, or in Romney’s case, the lack thereof)

    Now, you were the one who mentioned repeal, but now you’re linking to Hawkins’ plan which has nothing to do with repeal, so I guess you are agreeing with me (and Frum) that repeal is impossible, even though you try mightily to convey the opposite impression.

    It obviously boils down to who wins in November. As it should – game on.

    Now, this is rather astounding to me:

    I prefer to decide my fate myself with the assistance of my doctor and my family and I do not want the govt’s input at all. I mean it is MY BODY so it should be MY CHOICE, right?

    well, now. I’m totally with you! And this is why you should really consider rethinking your non-support for Obama Care. Because that’s what it is all about right there.

    Seriously. There’s nothing in the bill that lets some govt bureacrat decide what care you do or do not receive. I understand you may think and fervently believe otherwise, but reality does not conform to your misinformation. Since you are a busy working woman and a mother to several children, I fully understand you don’t have a lot of spare time to go chasing after assertions on comment boxes, so allow me to help you out. What source do you prefer? FactCheck.org?


    or perhaps you trust Politifact more?


    (and check out their 2010 Lie of teh year while you’re at it: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/)



    Johnny Isakson, Republican Senator from North Dakota?


    (admittedly, it’s via that socialist pravda NPR, and involves that marxist Ezra Klein, so weight it appropriately)

    The American Academy of Neurology?


    Rep. Michelle Bachmann? (she vote for the same thing in 2008)


    I look forward to your change of heart–it’s good for the soul. I just did it myself in this very thread!

  • queenofallevil

    How does Obamacare intend to prevent small to middle sized businesses from downsizing their staff, decreasing their hours to part time and paying the 750 fine rather than being forced to insure everyone? See, cuz then the workers would be making less money and also lose what coverage they have now and be forced to buy coverage they can’t afford on a part time salary or pay a fine they can’t afford either. So, some former full time insured workers are gonna be really hammered in the ass…

    How is that to be prevented? Those threats are currently being made to my family members. So, you see…I’m was against it before as I thought it was a stupid idea – it’s gonna be a tougher sell now.

  • Matt Yglesias has a good piece on the many ways that Obamacare will help small businesses.

    Those who are already contractors and thus cannot get affordable insurance (like my lovely wife, who is entirely dependent upon me to provide insurance since she can’t possibly get it otherwise) and those who would like to be self-employed but cannot even contemplate it because the current scheme makes decent coverage impossible to obtain will stand to benefit the most. Very small firms will also benefit.

    Even those few cases where a business of exactly the wrong size winds up dropping medical coverage for its employees, there are provisions which will make it easier for people to get insurance without depending on their employers for it in the first place

    The fact is that medical insurance today is for many people a set of golden handcuffs: you wind up stuck in a job you may hate with a passion, because you can’t afford to lose the insurance. And that’s a result of a system that over the decades made us all dependent on big business to insure us; essentially the whole system has been rigged, intentionally or not, to make us dependent upon “The Man” (i.e. our employers big business) rather than easily able to take are of our own needs independent of our employer. That ties us too much to our employer, AND, it also adds a burden employers arguably should never have had to take on in the first place!

    You want to see more business startups, more entrepreneurship? Obamacare is a path toward that. It needs further modifications, it’s imperfect, but it’s an important start.

  • queenofallevil

    Sure but my husband w50orks for a large “small business” with more than 50 employees but not more than 150. It’s being whispered that if Obamacare doesn’t change radically or get repealed then all the full time staff, my husband being one of them will be reduced to part time status and tossed off the insurance plan. See, the fine is more cost effective for the company. Now, I am working 30 plus hours a week because his salary isn’t enough to over costs for all 5 of us any longer…it was but costs keep rising and salaries aren’t rising at the same rate.

    We can’t afford his job to be reduced to part time, we can’t afford the loss of our insurance and we certainly won’t be able to buy our own insurance as a result.

    People so hot for Obamacare seem to not realize that many of us in the middle are gonna be really hurt by this. But hey who care about us, right?

  • Scott


    I know many people in your husband’s situation and many people in your husband’s boss’s situation and no one of the hundreds I know who are going to be affected think they’re a “small minority” as Dean might say who will “still be helped”. I also know “progressives” who love the bill and I’ve presented them with all the human carnage they’ll cause. Once I work through with them that the bill really will hurt these people they just respond with the vomitous old leftist adage “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs”.

    Personally I think we should start a movement of voluntary taxation and resignation of people who support the bill with the money and jobs going to those who now have been hurt through loss of insurance, loss of job or loss of job opportunity.

    What say you Dean? Do you have the courage of your convictions? Will you write a fat check and resign your job to help out those who’ve been devastated by this bill?

    Didn’t think so.

  • When you address those of us who’ve been financially devastated by medical bills we can’t possibly pay, or those who’ve had a child or other loved one lose a limb or die because of lack of decent medical coverage, and the people who’ve already lost their homes because of our current system, maybe I’ll be more moved by your whispered rumors of what might maybe happen, hasn’t happened, and can be averted in more than one way–averted if Congress acts responsibly instead of like a bunch of crybabies who won’t cooperate with the President if they don’t get everything they want exactly the way they want it.

  • -averted if Congress acts responsibly instead of like a bunch of crybabies who won’t cooperate with the President if they don’t get everything they want exactly the way they want it.

    Congress is supposed to give the people what they want: not the President.

    The majority of the people do not want Obamacare.

    It looks to me like if Congress does what the Progressives want, they are responsible. If they do what the people want, and it isn’t what the progressives want, t hen Congress is irresponsible crybabies.

    • A majority of Congress passed it. Republicans had a chance to ask for all sorts of changes that they could have gotten then that they’re now going to spend the next few years fighting inch by inch to get, if at all.

      Obstinacy only gets you so far.

  • Scott


    They DID and Obama ignored them. Then they raised hell (mostly on FOXNews which shows that channel’s vital function to the Republic) and he had a very short meeting where he rudely interrupted them and dismissed their concerns.

    And then it barely passed on a strictly partisan vote.

    Face it, it’s unpopular. It raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars (and not just for people who don’t obey the Individual mandate, but also on investment).

    Things that were left out were Tort reform and portability.

    Premiums ARE going to skyrocket due to so many people overusing the system and so many doctors practicing so many new cases of lawsuit “preventive” medicine of ordering dozens of unnecessary tests. Doctors ARE going to be overwhelmed. The ERs ARE going to be swamped and become the majority’s only care possible.

    This is a horrible bill that will damage the economy and healthcare and you just don’t see the obvious.

    Perhaps if you had read the bill you’d know.

  • Scott

    Seven new taxes on the middle class under Obamacare:


    Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option. The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax.

    Higher taxes! Fewer jobs! 20 million having to pay out-of-pocket because their employers dropped their health insurance!

    Boy, I love all the effects of the Obamatax law.

  • I expect that all to hit right around the time of The Rapture.

  • queenofallevil

    Dean so you think that the way to counter financial devastation of some is to cause the financial devastation of others?!?!?!?!?!!

    Really? You really think that is fair?

    I don’t need you to be moved by what is going to happen to me and my family of which is also YOUR family. My husband was told flat out exactly what is going to happen by the decider himself as was most of the senior staff.

    So, if you think it is fair that we lose our coverage, get financially devastated and get levied with tax penalties while working our asses off and trying to raise 3 sons( 2 w/special needs) so others can get some freebies. Fine, be not moved but don’t expect people like me struggling to stay in the middle to cheer on the financial rape looming above us. Go Obama…to Hell.

  • queenofallevil



  • Scott


    I suggest you read the bill before you mock those of us who have. You really make yourself look like an ignorant, partisan fool by not doing so.

    I have been reading the bill for some time. Much more than that, I’ve been studying it carefully. And I’ve been “Wargamming” the bill with lawyer friends right, left and politically-disinterested about the real world effects .

    What I can tell you is that the Brietbart, Boehner etc. are dead-on in their reporting and their editorializing. While sources like Ezra Klein, President Obama and MSNBC are either straight-up lying to you about it or merely pushing their brand of dishonest propaganda.

    But, seriously, put down the Ayn Rand novel and pick up the ACA and study it carefully. Until then your opinion is completely dismissible.

    I mean, it’s funny that Pelosi told us the Congress had to pass the bill for us to find out what’s in it. Now that we’re studying it we’re being mocked by people for even reporting what’s really in it.

  • I have a hard time taking Breitbart seriously as an authority; it’s like a lefty quoting Daily Kos. If you know my voting record and my stances on the issues you know I’m only a reluctant Obama voter at best, that I didn’t vote for him in ’08 and that my real feelings about Obama add up to “very reluctantly planning on voting for him.”

    For anyone who’s interested and foolish enough to think it matters, you can find the full text of the Affordable Care Act here, with some addendums already applied also listed there. I very much doubt a single person in this conversation has read the entire thing, and I doubt anyone in this conversation ever will. It would be a waste of energy to do so since you don’t just pick up any significant item of Federal legislation and think you can interpret it properly, especially an item that’s already been modified and will receive still further modifications as time passes.

    For anyone who wants to see various NON-partisan, fact-checked analyses, I suggest starting at Factcheck.org. There you’ll see a deconstruction of a whole lot of partisan bilge from both sides on this thing.

    Hysteria aside, if in 2014 the dire predictions of tens of millions of people losing insurance and being unable to afford new insurance comes to pass, you can come back and tell me how you warned me and I just wouldn’t listen and I am therefore part of putting you out of house and home or whatever. But you’re not going to browbeat me into believing you.

  • Scott

    To say that Factcheck.org is “NON-partisan” is laughable. Not only is it a project funded by the Annenberg project that Obama and Ayers helped found but it has been caught in the last few years shilling and distorting their “fact-checking” for Obama.

    Try again. Try reading the bill.

    For 99% of the Federal bills out there I’d say it is a “waste of time” to read. But a few pass into the category of exercising so much new Federal power that they must be read.

    Especially if you want to have an informed opinion of them.

    Anyhow, I just looked at some of Factcheck.org’s “debunking” and I really have to wonder if they read the correct bill.

  • So you’ve read the bill from cover to cover yourself? Or are you issuing me a challenge you have not followed yourself?

    If you have read it, have you also read the addenda already applied, the relevant court decisions that revise it further, and the proposed addenda already being bandied about?

    Also, do you have a law degree?

    In the meantime, regardless of their funding source, I’ve found FactCheck indispensible for about 10 years now. I found it handy in refuting the rabid Bush haters, and had a liberal claim it’s a right-wing site. Regardless of their funding, I’ve found their data pretty damned reliable. YMMV.