home

Obama Administration Seeks Immediate SCOTUS Review of ACA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:52:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NYTimes:

The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case concerning the 2010 health care overhaul law. The development came unexpectedly fast and makes it all but certain that the court will soon agree to hear one or more cases involving challenges to the law, with arguments by the spring and a decision by June, in time to land in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

This is an interesting development, and to me, surprising. Policywise, I am not sure I see the urgency. As a matter of politics, I need to think about this one. (Alternate thought, POTUS team believes SCOTUS wants to hear the case in 2012. IF so better to look as if you want it too.)

In terms of legal tactics, I think it is not smart. Scalia and Kennedy seem less likely to vote with the Administration in an election year to me. Better for the case to be decided in 2013 it seems to me.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Open Thread: A New Year | Epic Collapse >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Administration Seeks Immediate SCOTUS Review of ACA | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As a matter of politics... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    ...I don't get it at all.  This is the same Obama who just said F.U. to precedent and appointed 5 Republican-choice U.S. Attorneys.  

    Seriously, little to nothing that Obama does "proactively" EVER makes sense.

    Another Opinion (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:21:17 PM EST
    Link

    Imagine if Obama loses the election and Perry or Romney were tasked with defending ACA's constitutionality.

    I actually think that this is an indication of the fact that Obama now has serious doubts about whether he will win re-election and is trying to protect his signature achievement.

    Parent

    Could be, I suppose (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:28:44 PM EST
    But his "signature achievement," a massive giveaway to private insurance (who have been raising rates like mad since passage) isn't viewed by many people as much of anything but that giveaway (when it isn't viewed as Obamacare socialist whatever by the nut fringe).  He was stupid beyond belief to not START with medicare for all as his position.  Inexcusably dumb.  Doesn't matter if he couldn't get it, you ALWAYS start high and work down.  Start low and you'll just go lower.    

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    We will always have different opinions on the value and worth of ACA.  

    I think ACA is an incredible accomplishment and that medicare for all was a position that would have made its passing less likely.

    I guess we'll just disagree about it and never know who was right.

    Parent

    Oh, we'll know all right (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:07:18 AM EST
    Just not until after it all actually goes into effect in 2014.

    Tell me, though, do you expect these wildly rising premiums to actually go down after whatever stratospheric heights they reach by 2014?

    Parent

    I don't think they will go gown. (none / 0) (#94)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 06:20:21 PM EST
    I think they will rise less quickly.

    Parent
    Obama could not have started with Medicare (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:22:49 PM EST
    for all or Single Payer.

    He did not campaign on such a plan.  Nor did Hillary or Edwards.

    Sure, start high, but you also need to have some credibility.

     

    Parent

    No seat at the table for single payer, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    no negotiations televised on C-SPAN and back room deals with pharma and medical industries by WH.

    To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

    Obama 2009



    Parent
    The C-SPAN promise (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    never seemed realistic to me....

    The bigger issue was the loss of a government option...

    Parent

    Your statement that Obama couldn't (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    start with Medicare for all or Single Payer because he didn't campaign on those options was the issue I addressed in my response.

    Evidently Obama could implement processes and plans that were 180 degree opposite of his campaign rhetoric. He did not campaign on making back room deals with drug companies, the insurance companies and the medical industries yet that is what he did.  The need to have some credibility didn't seem to be a factor.

    Parent

    The Big Lie (none / 0) (#71)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:58:50 AM EST
    "...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility.... a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying." - Hitler

    Parent
    Wow, if that is the reason. (none / 0) (#27)
    by honora on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:59:22 PM EST
    That would be very telling.  In effect, they are doing something that will hurt their chance for re-election, because they are so worried that they will lose. I don't really believe this WH is driven by altruism, but if true I would be proven wrong.

    Parent
    And this is for you, BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    Since I know you'll enjoy it. (LINK)

    Parent
    Shot Across the Bow! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:31:28 PM EST
    Neither SCOTUS nor the administration want this case decided before the election.  Both want to make it look like they do.

    The administration is firing first.  A shot across the bow.

    Even if SCOTUS calls their bluff, and the administration has to drag their feet to prevent a decision before the election, they can always claim they were the ones that called for it.

    Not 11 dimensional chess.  But pretty basic politics.

    The administration (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:39:52 PM EST
    can't do anything to "drag their feet" to prevent a decision before the election if the Court decides to take up the case.  The Court term runs from October to June, with the last of the opinions being handed out over the summer.

    Once the Court takes the case, the administration cannot dictate when an opinion comes out.

    Parent

    Not AFTER it's heard ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:56:24 PM EST
    but in the ramp up.  Look at all the Nixon and Bush cases for models of the tactics.

    Parent
    I don't understand what you mean (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    Once it's on the Court's calendar, there isn't really much the administraton can do.

    And if the SC doesn't hear it, the 11th Circuit's decision stands

    Parent

    Again (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:46:46 PM EST
    Dhalia Lathwick collects the opinions from a number of experts over at Slate:

    Link

    No one really thinks they are bluffing.  Too serious an issue.

    Parent

    The shills have spoken! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    I'm amazingly underwhelmed by their analysis.

    Parent
    Oh, Dahlia Lithwick! (none / 0) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:09:20 AM EST
    Pass the smelling salts!  I'm so overwhelmed to hear the true oracle has spoken!

    Parent
    Three reasons to go to the SC (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:49:10 PM EST
    WaPo

    Good article IMO. (none / 0) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:00:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Perhaps the Pres. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    prefers SCOTUS relieve him of the burden of defending the ACA on the campaign trail. What could he do---shrug.

    doesn't matter when (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by pluege2 on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    since scalia and the rest of the 5 republicans on SCOTUS only care about the corporate agenda it seems like when SCOTUS hears the case doesn't really matter even though scalia, thomas, and alito will be dying to make obama look bad and lose the 2012 election.

    And since obamacare was 90% sop to Big Insurance, its likely to stand, ESPECIALLY the mandate. Too much easy corporate money at stake to lose of their obama-hate.

    I think they're taking a gamble that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:40:03 PM EST
    they'll win (and better to just get this stupid litigation over with). It really shouldn't be much of a gamble.

    I agree with this. (none / 0) (#64)
    by dk on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it will be an 8-1 decision.  The Democratic appointees will vote to support the party, and the Republican appointees (except Thomas) will vote to support the health insurance company executives, who after all are the primary beneficiaries of the legislation.

    Parent
    I agree. The fact that the (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    primary beneficiaries are the insurance companies, and medical industries will be the deciding factor. No other ideology even comes close.  

    Parent
    A travesty (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    that it is actually expected that the judiciary -- which is the third branch of government -- will execute their responsibilities along party lines.

    Parent
    Justice Stevens thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    on the matter.

    On the issue of timing, their cause got an unexpected boost from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said voters would be better off if they knew the law's fate law before casting their ballots next year.

    The 91-year-old Stevens said in an Associated Press interview that the justices would not shy away from deciding the case in the middle of a presidential campaign and would be doing the country a service. "It would be better to have that known about than be speculated as a part of the political argument," Stevens said in his Supreme Court office overlooking the Capitol.

    . . .

    He would not say how he would vote on the issue of the law's constitutionality, although he said the court's 6-3 decision in a 2005 case involving medical marijuana seems to lend support to the administration's defense of the law.

    Stevens wrote the opinion that held that the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce. A central dispute in the health care case is over Congress's power under the Constitution's commerce clause to mandate the purchase of health insurance.
    The idea that the strategy is predicated on (none / 0) (#31)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    the belief that it is better to get SCt resolution before the election has been bandied about by some thoughtful strategists in the past several days. Thanks for posting what appears to be an accord by retired Justice Stevens.

    It does make sense to let the public see what their SCt will do before voting in the next Presidential election. It elevates the seiousness of the issue & the significance of the Court.

    Parent

    Politically, Obama could win (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    either way.

    If the Supreme Court upholds the law, that would take much of the air out of the arguments against the mandate.....and would show that Obama was right on the consitutionality issue.

    If the Surpeme Court strikes it down, the issue of the mandate would have already been decided......and thus cease to be an issue.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:53:16 AM EST
    if the supreme court strikes it down, it's going to give a lot of leverage to the Republicans who have been screaming that it's "unconstitutional".

    Parent
    And enthusiasm (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:26:09 PM EST
    among those of a more liberal persuasion with another reminder of the importance of SCt appointments on a broad & very real level.

    Parent
    Many of those of a liberal persuasion (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:34:04 PM EST
    don't like the bill either.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:10:32 PM EST
    A less than persuasive argument for many liberals. I think it would be fair to say there might be moderate and conservative Dems who don't like it either.  

    Parent
    Pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:18:51 PM EST
    Everybody hates it, except the insurance companies and Obama devotees.

    Parent
    You forgot (none / 0) (#78)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    those who were facing a $$ cap on insurance before or thoses aged 25 now who get another year on parents' premium or those with "pre-existing" conditions or....

    Parent
    I was thinking of (none / 0) (#79)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    Those whose rates have gone up, those who still can't afford insurance, those whose rates will go up, those whose level of offerings will go down, those whose employers have cut back or eliminated insurance...

    All those things you mention could have been taken care of in smaller, cheaper, bi-partisan bills, which wouldn't have taken a year to pass and would have allowed Obama to keep enough goodwill and momentum to address other minor problems we face like....jobs.

    Parent

    hahahahah (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by CST on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    "bi-partisan bills"

    that's funny.

    Also, the things she mentioned are a big part of the reason rates have gone up (pre-existing conditions).  At least that's the excuse they are giving.  All the good stuff in the bill is the excuse for raising rates.

    The whole idea for the mandate is that it would balance that out and help lower rates.  That's the one thing that people really hate, and it's also one thing that hasn't kicked in yet.

    The bottom line though is that people want to have their cake and eat it too - frankly a reasonable thing when it comes to healthcare.  A single payer bill or a strong public option might have given us that.  But breaking the bill up into only the "good little parts" the way you mention here would absolutely not do that.

    Parent

    Even funnier (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:18:12 PM EST
    The whole idea for the mandate is that it would balance that out and help lower rates.

    If you really think that's gonna happen. So after raising the rates over 4 years, the insurance companies are gonna magically turn around and lower rates. Right.

    And the bi-partisan bills isn't funny - it's fact.  Both parties agreed on increasing the age of young people staying on parents' insurance, and except for Boehner and some in the Hosue leadership, most Republicans considered eliminating the pre-existing conditions exceptions as central to any bill.

    Many of the most respected health care voices in the GOP have historically treated the idea of eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions as an obvious plank in any reform effort. A Democratic opposition researcher provided the Huffington Post with several examples.

    Even deeply conservative figures like Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okl) insisted as recently as August that "everyone agrees" that legislation should "eliminate pre-existing conditions" as an excuse for denying coverage.

    Coburn's colleague in the Senate, John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), explained in July that after listening to people in his home state, he understood that Congress needed "to take care of things like pre-existing conditions so that that doesn't stop them from getting insurance."

    Another Senate Republican who was heavily involved in negotiating health care reform, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, has unequivocally declared that the government has "to prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions and charging higher premiums to people who are sick."

    Even the Republican Whip in the Senate, Jon Kyl of Arizona, has stressed the need to make sure that patients "cannot be denied care because [they] have a pre-existing condition..."

    On the House side as well, many Republicans will find themselves at odds with the legislation that their leadership is about to introduce.

    Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), who is widely regarded as one of the sharpest health care policy wonks in Republican circles, told MSNBC back in May that consumers needed to have "access to affordable coverage, regardless of [their] pre-existing condition." Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich), meanwhile, has insisted that Republicans "must address" the issue of pre-existing conditions. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has called for the creation of a "straightforward national plan that covers pre-existing conditions."

    Of course, even then...

    Still, at this juncture in the health care reform debate, even the private insurance industry has conceded that it will likely have to end or drastically alter its pre-existing condition policies (provided that there is a mandate that all people -- healthy or not -- purchase insurance in the first place).

    Breaking up the bill could have been done.  Even Nancy Pelosi entertained the idea.

    Parent

    republicans (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    historically have said a lot of things they no longer say.

    And them saying it should be done is very very different from actually voting for it to be done.

    Parent

    So have Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    What's your point?

    And your other point was that the recent rate increases were because of the insurance companies having to cover their costs for covering pre-existing conditions.  So, I point you to numerous statements by Republican members of Congress that said they all wanted to elimiate the exceptions for pre-existing conditions - not 20 years ago, but those quotes were from the time the bill was being debated.  Now, Republicans, just as Democrats, talk out of their butts all the time, sure, but I'm guessing they were pretty serious about that because their constituents are also affected by pre-existing conditions.

    The fact of the matter is, the comprehensive bill, choked off any possibility of any other types of bills (such as those that focused on JOBS) of getting through.  A bad bill went through, and then all political capital (and will, for those members of Congress in vulnerable seats) was shot.

    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    I've never been a huge mandate lover, I'm just saying that's why it's there.  Personally I would have preffered a more "passive" cost control with the introduction of a public option that would have introduced competition into the market on a cost level.  Ironically, that's also what Obama campaigned on.

    But your last quote at the end also explains exactly what I said.  Sure, get rid of pre-existing conditions, but only with the mandate.

    In any event, nothing in your link negates what I said about the "good stuff" causing the cost increases.  So your quip about rate hikes, in the same sentance where you want to break up the bill into only the "small good parts" still misses the point.  Which is those are the things that cause rate hikes.  Hence the more comprehensive bill.

    Parent

    Lots of things "could have" (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:14:07 PM EST
    been done earlier...much earlier, many years earlier.  But, they weren't. The ACA got those much needed reforms. That is real.

    And, yes, I most definitely want to witness & realize the rest in my lifetime.  I do not, however, deny the good that happened...that is very real to many real people. (I'm guessing we both want the same universal good results.)

    Parent

    Exactly, MKS (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 09:26:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:42:12 PM EST
    at some point in time the Admin is going to have to defend the damn bill.  I mean, you would think, were they proud of it, at some point they would find a way to get excited about.  I think it does more good than bad but at risk of presenting Suskind as some new progressive megaphone, it's amazing how it doesn't really resemble the initial priorities of Obama's team.  Or anyone else's.  Fine.  But if the perfect is the enemy of the good, well, get people excited.  The ACA is like a cold fish at this point.

    I suspect the Administration feels any decision (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by BobTinKY on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:47 AM EST
    will advance their interests.

    If ACA is upheld, they win.  If it isn;t they rail against the corporate takeover of the Supreme Court and how important it is that Dems appoint the next justice(s).

    Obama's about getting elected and re-elected.  Substance & accomplishments are secondary.

    Actually, (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:43:54 PM EST
    I've read some commentary from some really smart people that concluded with the opinion that a "win" in the SC by the Administration would lead to  certain defeat for Obama in the general election.

    The thinking was that the Republican base, already more enthusiastic than the Democrats`, would increase exponentially by an Obama win in the SC, and would, therefore, lead to a 2010 type slaughter in the election.

    Anyway, food for thought.


    Parent

    "They" predict (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    The Court will hear arguments around January,a nd a decision will be handed down in late summer - right as the campaign season is heating up and people are actually starting to pay attention.

    Maybe this is a "b@lls to the wall" Hail Mary pass by the administration.  Going all in.

    That schedule makes no sense to me (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 08:18:47 PM EST
    Cases granted this month will be heard in January, not cases filed this motion. (The December calendar is already set, with cases granted thru last June.) For a Petition filed in late Sept., the Response is due in 30 days; late Oct.  Reply due in 10 days; mid-Oct.  S.Ct. Rule 15.  Justices' Conference in early Nov. (conferences to review what new cases to take are scheduled for 11/4 and 11/10); assume granted.  Petitioner's brief due in 45 days, not earlier than third week of Dec.  Respondents' brief due in 30 days, mid-to-late Jan. Reply due in another 30 days (Feb.) unless oral argument is already scheduled. See S.Ct. Rule 25. No arg before March, in all likelihood ... not January.  Nevertheless, that schedule produces a decision on or about July 1, 2012.  

    Parent
    Does it make a difference which case the (none / 0) (#7)
    by republicratitarian on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    Supreme Court hears? Are they more likely to say it's constitutional if they get one of the lower court cases that said it was constitutional? Or the opposite? I've seen several decisions going either way. Is it more of a benefit to the President for the Court to hear a case that said the ACA was unconstitutional or constitutional? Or does it even matter?

    The Solicitor General's office wants to control (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    the S.Ct. litigation, representing the Administration.  So, in response to your questions: "Are they more likely to say it's constitutional if they get one of the lower court cases that said it was constitutional? Or the opposite? I've seen several decisions going either way."  Not for that reason, but some of the cases that rejected challenges did so on tangential issues, like standing and the Tax Anti-Injunction Act.  The cases that struck down the legislation, or key parts of it, are cleaner shots to the heart, and are more likely to result in a decision that resolves the controversy once and for all.  The President would prefer that, I'm sure.

    "Is it more of a benefit to the President for the Court to hear a case that said the ACA was unconstitutional or constitutional? Or does it even matter?"  If the Court takes a case where the lower court struck down the legislation (particularly, the Eleventh Circuit decision), the Solicitor General will be the petitioner and thus get to file its brief both first and last (reply) and to argue first and last (rebuttal).  They thus get more of a chance to frame the issues.  In that tactical way it's a little better for the President if the Supremes take a case that went against the AHCA in the court below.


    Parent

    Thanks for the explanation Peter (none / 0) (#99)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:26:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Gustys move on the part of the administration (none / 0) (#13)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:55:42 PM EST
    Especially since several SCOTUS members may still have tender spots from being poked in eye with those fairly unprecedented SOTU comments.

    One technical point and one question (none / 0) (#19)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    It appears that National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) filed with SCOTUS first with DOJ a bit slow on the uptake.

    Question:  Reports say the DOJ filing (besides defending the mandate's constitutionality), claims that the challenge to Obamacare is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that prohibits lawsuits trying to stop the assessment or collection of a tax.

    Doesn't the ACA have language stating the "fee/fine" for not having insurance is specifically not a tax?

    I think (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    Those are the 4th Circuit cases, whereby:

    The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled that the law's penalty for not buying insurance after 2014 is essentially a tax and thus cannot be challenged in court until consumers start paying it. The panel cited the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, which requires taxpayers to pay a tax and ask for a refund before they can challenge it in court.

    But the case in question is from the 11th Circuit.

    Parent

    The report I read specifically (none / 0) (#22)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:23:28 PM EST
    addressed today's DOJ filing, hence the 11th ruling vs the 4ths.

    That's why I'm curious.

    Parent

    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    When I Google "challenge to Obamacare is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act," it only comes up with the 4th Circuit casdes.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    whitehouse.gov blog for one (none / 0) (#25)
    by BTAL on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:38:15 PM EST

    Unfortunately the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Affordable Care Act's individual responsibility provision. We strongly disagree with their decision and today, the Obama Administration will ask the Supreme Court to hear this case, so that we can put these challenges to rest and continue moving forward implementing the law to lower the cost of health care and make it more secure for all Americans.  We hope the Supreme Court takes up the case and we are confident we will win. Here's why:

    - The Affordable Care Act, through the individual responsibility requirement, will require everyone, if they can afford it, to carry some form of health insurance since everyone at some point in time participates in the health care system, and incur costs that must be paid for. For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, their insurance premiums will decrease over time.  Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it and new tax credits and other provisions in the law will make health insurance affordable for middle class families. That's why the Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016.  

    Link

    Parent

    That link (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    Doesn't mention anything about the Anti-Injunction Act.

    Parent
    How? (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 10:44:07 PM EST
    Only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it and new tax credits and other provisions in the law will make health insurance affordable for middle class families.

    If you are unemployed or underemployed how would this work? A tax credit? How can anyone determine the credit amount unless they know all of the individual's bills and responsibilities?? This looks like what we use to call a Charley Foxtrot.

    Parent

    Administration (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:12:36 AM EST
    attorneys long ago abandoned the idea that it's not a tax in order to defend the legality of the mandate.  And no, I don't think the legislation specifically denies it's a tax, just characterizes it as a fee.  I could be wrong about that, but that's what I remember.

    Beyond me to wade through the legislation, but I'm sure it's on the Web somewhere if you want to search for the word "tax" and see what you can turn up.


    Parent

    It seems (none / 0) (#20)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    to me that if the administration had not scuttled the public option, this would all be moot.

    But mandates - that has a nasty ring to it imo.

    A bit of nostalgia:

    [A]ny plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, cost and track records of a variety of plans - including a public option to increase competitio n and keep insurance companies honest - and choose what's best for your family.

    Obama - July 2009

    Compare and contrast (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

    Obama - July 2009

    Not only will those with Medicare Advantage plans face greater out-of-pocket costs, so will beneficiaries who remain in the traditional Medicare program and cover Medicare's gaps with a supplemental policy. The health reform law requires that people who buy Plans F and C, two of the most popular standardized Medicare supplement plans, will eventually assume a greater portion of their medical costs through what's called "higher cost-sharing."


    Parent
    Far greater is (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:16:06 AM EST
    the number of people whose employers are being priced out of offering insurance and/or whose premiums have gone up to unsupportable level, even with employer contributions.  None of those people will be able to keep the health care system they used to have.

    Parent
    A more honest [as if!] thing for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:05:28 AM EST
    to have said would have been:

    If you like your health care plan, that could possibly be - most likely will be - just too damn bad.  Why?  Because if you get your plan through your employer, you aren't going to be the one who decides whether to keep it, or change it: your employer is.  Period.  All you get to do is be grateful you still work for a company that has a plan, of any kind.  Actually, you can be grateful you still have a job.  Which is why your employer knows that you aren't going to complain too much if next year is the third or fourth year in a row when your employer has changed carriers - and you once again are thrown into the morass of who's in the network and who isn't, whether you can see the same docs you were seeing last year without paying more out of pocket for going out of network.

    Because that's reality, and only someone who doesn't have to worry about these pesky little details could have said what he did with a straight face.  I know when I heard it, I laughed out loud.

    I don't participate in my firm's plan - I have my own - but the firm is changing carriers yet again, cost-sharing is going up, again, and so on.

    But I'm sure that, magically, when the official everything's-in-place start date for the ACA arrives, everyone will be paying less, we will have greater access to care, and health outcomes will propel the US to the top of the statistical charts where we can thumb our collective noses at all those stupid countries with some form of a single-payer system.

    And our economy will be healed.

    Sure.

    Parent

    I tried to focus on one of the areas (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:31:06 AM EST
    where the Obama's administration actively chose options that will force people out of their current plans into plans that provide much less affordable health care.

    IMO the two main areas where they did this was by imposing an excise tax on plans that provide good coverage and by the imposed changes to Medicare that I mentioned above.

    The Obama administration may not have been able to keep their promise on employer coverage where they do not control the environment but they did control whether or not to impose an excise tax and whether or not to force Medicare recipients into plans with high deductibles. Those situations were completely under his control. IOW Obama was flat out lying when he made that statement.  

    Parent

    This is his pattern, one which (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:39:17 AM EST
    too many people still refuse to see.  Obama makes very public statements that give the illusion that he's on the side of the average person, while he actively works, generally in the background, to devise policies that reveal that he is anything but.  He's done this again and again and again.

    I've said all along that he's had choices, and the ones he's made tell the real story of who he is and what matters to him.  Someone who's in it for the people - beyond getting them to vote for him - builds on the things that work for the people, instead of working to weaken or even eliminate them in an effort to keep the power in the hands of the corporations that have their hands firmly around the necks - and wallets - of the people.  Someone who believes that people have a right to make a living wage doesn't support policies that depress wages.  Someone who believes the strength of the democracy rests in the strength of the people uses the Constitution to restore and strengthen rights, not to erode them in favor of the power structure.  

    It's simply not possible to believe a word that comes out of the man's mouth; the truth lies in his actions.


    Parent

    cost sharing (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by sj on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    What a diabolical term.  A euphemism for corporate "profit keeping" and for "claims denying".

    Cost sharing my a$$.


    Parent

    And this: Dem. candidate debate (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    v. ACA:  link

    Parent
    Unbelievable... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 06:24:13 PM EST
    I never liked Obama, but reading stuff like this makes me like him less and less.

    And seeing Hillary Clinton looking at him with that goofy smile she adopted at those "debates"... ooof. I could hardly keep my lunch down when she would say, all aflutter, how thrilled she was to be on the same stage as
    B A R A C K   O B A M A.

    What a nightmare campaign.

    And we're stuck with it.


    Parent

    Exactly-- (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by honora on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:20:23 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton is the problem.  If only she had not created this problem.  Of course, Obama is without fault.  

    Parent
    Why bring Hillary into this discussion? (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:29:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Don't often agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:32:37 PM EST
    but no need to bring Hillary into the discussion.

    Parent
    I think she is relevant as she (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:45:47 PM EST
    advocated mandate and Obama sd no.  Then yes.  Perhaps he should have her argue the case at SCOTUS.  

    Parent
    In this context she was (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 08:02:54 PM EST
    definitely relevant. I jumped the gun on that one.  

    You are right and I am wrong.

    Parent

    I remember that and thought (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:56:07 PM EST
    she had the better argument at the time.  So, she won on that.

    But it will not matter that she was for it first....

    The best avenue now (perhaps) would be to try and rein in the drug companies by allowing re-importation etc.....

    Parent

    I brought (none / 0) (#41)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:59:00 PM EST
    her into the discussion because in the link provided by Oculus above, Obama is condemning Hillary Clinton for supposedly advocating something that he now promotes - the mandate.

    After viewing the link, I was reminded of Hillary Clinton's bizarre fawning over Obama after and sometimes during these debates. Maybe she thought it was good politics, but I found it absolutely dreadful.  And it further diminished my respect for her candidacy.

    You're right that the focus of this thread should remain with Obama and the wreckage of a healthcare bill with which he has confronted us. It was not my intention to change the focus to Clinton.

    Parent

    Well, lentinel, I find your choice of (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by oldpro on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 09:13:53 PM EST
    words like "bizarre fawning over Obama" to be dreadful and such a characterization diminishes my respect for your powers of observation and your resultant opinion(s).

    I often advised my candidates (both primary and general) to 'friendly up' at public forums to their opponents -- for two reasons:  one, the public likes it and two, it frequently made the opponent nervous and irritable and unsure of whether and how to attack my candidate's positions without attacking them personally, something it takes a lot of experience and determination to accomplish.  Newbies like Obama have a hard time with it and so do their partisans who sometimes describe it as you have.

    Oh, well.  As a tactic, YMMV.  Worked like a charm for my people.

    Parent

    Some of (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:53:58 PM EST
    this is subjective. I realize that.
    But when Obama says that he admires McCain for his service, and that kind of bullsh*t, it is somewhat different than the kind of genuflection that Clinton did towards Obama.

    He was going through the motions. Obviously to disarm the opposition. To outmaneuver them.

    Hillary Clinton's praise of Obama, how proud she was to be standing next to this fraud, was full of some feverishly joyously passionate energy that was not only misplaced, but truly unsettling. Actually, it was kind of sickening. A different level of b.s.

    This is just my subjective opinion.

    Parent

    You do remember (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:24:26 PM EST
    That Hillary got scorched if she even looked at Obama in a way that some people thought did not convey respect, right? She couldn't attack his positions, she couldn't make comparisons, she (or Bill, for that matter) couldn't even make factual historical statements without being called a racist, etc. Besides that, as a female, if she was "too agressive", the b-word came out.  Remember that?  She had to tread even more lightly than any other candidate had to do with their opponents. What would you have had her do? Call him names at the debates?

    Parent
    Why (none / 0) (#93)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 06:02:09 PM EST
    would she have to say anything about Obama?
    She didn't feel she had to say anything Biden?
    Or any of the other fly-weights on the stage.

    So she bowed to pressure.

    OK.

    I understand that.

    But I'm not interested in voting for that sort of politician.

    I thought she took a terrible bruising from the Obama factions.
    And no one said anything about it. They were very protective of poor little Obama, but the sexist abuse leveled at Clinton was ignored.

    I'm just saying that I see no reason why she had to make such glowing pronouncements about Obama when all he did was dump on her.

    Parent

    See my mea culpa (none / 0) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 08:11:31 PM EST
    in comment #42. Jumped the gun. Hillary was part of the particular event referenced in the link provided by Oculus and therefore became part of the discussion. My bad, as they say (If people still say that).

     

    Parent

    The fact that she breathes occasionally (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 01:14:19 AM EST
    "diminishes your respect for her candidacy."  Let's be honest.

    Parent
    Honestly, (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:34:35 AM EST
    I wound up rooting for Hillary Clinton because I was increasingly appalled by Obama.

    But I could not have voted for her because of her vote for the enabling of the war in Iraq - and her disingenuous explanation for her vote. She was my Senator at the time, and I was calling her office to urge her not to vote for it. It was obvious to me that Bush was going to use the resolution as a green light to begin a war, but Clinton later claimed that she had no idea that he would do that... Please. At the time of the debates, Obama was sticking it to Clinton about her vote, and her defense was truly pathetic to me. Sad.

    And during the debates, it was apparent to me that the media and the "moderators" were giving an undeserved spotlight to Obama. He was getting far more time than "marginal" candidates like Kucinich - whose ideas deserved to be aired. And Obama was on the march - calling everybody by their first names, Joe, Hillary, etc. He certainly wasn't going about propping up the other elected officials on the podium.

    It was not that she had some words of praise for her opponent, it was the enthusiasm with which she would proclaim it. If she thought Obama was so hot, why was she running against him. He obviously didn't think that much of her. In fact, as things went along, the word "hate" would seem more apt to describe the feelings of the Obama camp toward Clinton.

    Even so,  I sometimes think that she would have been a better president than what we have now. She certainly would have been better on domestic policy - and I believe she would have had more credibility with the Congress. But when she mutters the mumbo-jumbo of the Obama administration regarding the "war on terror", or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I abandon once again any hope that I might have once had for her.

    Parent

    Honestly, lentinel (2.00 / 1) (#75)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:38:03 PM EST
    The more you said about your position on HRC, the more it appears to confirm that her positions/candidacy would never be viewed favorably by you. Reading your statements about Obama, likewise, I'm left to wonder which major & living American politician you would find acceptable? Let me suggest that if the response would be noone (or related things like "but, but you are not fair or above-board or similar pejorative by asking") then isn't is fair to take your disdain for the real candidates/real people in the field with "a grain of salt?"  At some point, we are going to be talking about real people & real alternatives....

    Parent
    Here's the thing, Christine: (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Anne on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    Hillary's campaign didn't have to be viewed favorably by lentinel, or anyone else.  Neither did Obama's, just as there's no requirement that Obama's presidency be viewed favorably.  I think he sinks of swims on his performance, and each of us has to come to that judgment for ourselves.

    And while it's fair to ask who lentinel would find acceptable, it's also equally fair, and probably essential to our ever getting anyone who is acceptable, that he (I'm making an assumption that lentinel is male - forgive me if I'm wrong about that) and all voters, for that matter, not settle for someone just because he or she is the only choice.

    And, speaking only for me, I think that grain of salt you mentioned should more appropriately be taken with the mediocre-to-craptastic candidates we're being presented with, as opposed to the opinions of a voter who, quite rightly, I think, deserves to be able to vote for someone who has demonstrated an affinity for representing his interests.

    We're never going to get there if we keep being lectured to as if there were something wrong with us, as opposed to there being something terminally sick and wrong with both the system and the candidates it's producing.


    Parent

    To: sj (none / 0) (#85)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    While I'm aware of your position about commentary....

    By way of explanation: There are some people, like myself, who consider that criticism about persons, places, or things that is sustained & continuing over time reaches a "so what" point if the critic--at some point--cannot/will not offer alternative(s) to the defined "problem." In the immediate case, if the critic traces the criticism to a person/persons repeatedly, at some point the alternatives question is reasonable.

    Egad. It is the upbringing thing to some extent. The words of dad, aunts, uncles saying: "Christine, if you don't like it, what would you do OR Who would do it better?" Lots of people approach problems in that manner, sj.

    Parent

    to: christinep (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by sj on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    I am a problem solver by nature and by training.  But as part of that training I have learned that just because a problem doesn't have a resolution right now it doesn't mean that you forget about it or mark it "Done."  It is very possible to have identified size and scope and resolution to a problem and still not be able to resolve it.  And it is absolutely true that there are some problems that can only be solved by an "other/not-me"

    The presidency is an exceedingly high stakes "game".  In my view, playing the "who would do it better" mini-game at this point in time is an exercise in vanity, pure and simple.  It sets up red herrings to chase and straw men to follow.  The big O is the Dem candidate.  There is not another soul out there on the horizen to challenge him.  This is a fact and it is  by design.

    I have real issues.  Playing "who would be a good challenger" -- as if I could make that happen on my own -- is a freaking waste of my time.  If that's what you want you may as well just pass the Valium.  Maybe that way my brain would shut down and get slow enough to pi$$ away some perfectly good thinking time.  

    That kind of conversation is perfectly fine over a beer or two or three.  As a so-called "serious" endeavor it is completely laughable.

    You may have reach (or may have already reached) "so what" territory.  To that I say, "so what?"  You want to know what I think?  I am approaching the point where I think every incumbent -- every. single. one. -- should lose their re-election.  Every last one of them should lose their own jobs.  And then the replacements should strip them of their pensions and life-time health care.  

    Okay, then.  How am I going to make that happen?  I know the arena isn't going to change until the citizenry has figured out that when the lions are unleashed they're really the the playing the part of the Christians.  Even though they think they are spectators.  Because that's the real game.  How many of us will be devoured before we stop chanting "We're Number One!" and actually start fighting for survival, not just to win.

    So in answer to your question above

    I'm left to wonder which major & living American politician you would find acceptable?

    As of right now, as of today, the answer is: not a one.  Not a single one. It is clear as day that' they have been bought and paid for and the "being voted for" part is just a formality.

    But I still live in this country and so although I have no advocate I will continue to act as a voice of one crying in the wilderness.  Or maybe it's Cassandra.  Destined to see the truth and never be believed.

    BTW It isn't commentary that I have a problem with.  Obviously.  I just wrote a rather lengthy one (for me).  It is the use of anecdote in place of critical thinking that I have no patience with.  It is the "so and so agrees with me that such and such etc... this and that.. etc" that I have a problem with.

    It is an upbringing thing of some sort.  How infuriatingly arrogant of you to assume that those of us who are not passive and accepting of the current world just don't have good breeding like you do.  

    Although in fairness I expect that when you started having those conversations with your Dad and your aunts (which I frankly don't care about) we still had the Hubert Humphreys and Bobby Kennedys and Lyndon Johnsons and Malcom Xs and assorted other voices which represented actual choice.

    Now everyone appears to be neutered.  And if they aren't yet, they will be soon.  And, like Anne, I've had it with being lectured to as if there was something wrong with us as opposed to there being something terminally sick and wrong with both the system and the candidates it's producing.

    Parent

    Do you know (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:56:18 AM EST
    She was my Senator at the time, and I was calling her office to urge her not to vote for it.

    How many of her constituents called her office and urged her to vote FOR it?

    But when she mutters the mumbo-jumbo of the Obama administration regarding the "war on terror"....

    While some of the decisions that have been made in our name have been very bad, and declaring a war on a battlefield tactic is dumb, do you honestly believe that there aren't people, who do not belong to any particular government or state, that are out to do us harm and we should try to prevent that?  Or should we play nice and pretend that if we smile nicely at them, they will come and hold our hands and sing Kumbaya and rainbows will appear?

    Parent

    Red Herring... (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    The issue is not whether we have enemies or how we should handle them.

    The issue I was addressing was Senator Clinton's rationalization for voting for the enabling resolution because she never thought that Bush would use it as a go-ahead for a war in Iraq.

    I think that was pure bs.

    She didn't want to admit that she just went along with the pseudo-patriotic frenzy being stirred up by Bush and Cheney. She was afraid to say it, I suppose, because of what happened to Romney's papa when he said he went along with the Vietnam war because he had "been brainwashed". What Romney said was honest. But he was pilloried as being weak and dropped out of the presidential picture.
    What Clinton said was dishonest. And I'm giving her credit by saying that she was being disingenuous because I don't believe that she could have been that stupid to not realize that Bush would take that resolution and run with it. There is absolutely NO ONE I knew - from friends to bartenders to cab drivers - who didn't know the implications of ramming that resolution through Congress.

    And as for your other comment about the nature of phone calls she may have received urging her to vote one way or the other:
    She could have offered that as her excuse/reason for voting the way she did. But she didn't. She gave her reason her naivete regarding Bush and his warmongering buddies on Capitol Hill.

    It's too bad.

    You won't believe me, but I was in her corner and supported her before that horrible vote... but not after.

    And regarding her utterances at this time - she, as S of S, repeats the same jargon as her unlamented predecessor, as Obama does his unlamented predecessor. And it is really God awful to hear.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    You bought into Obama's fantasy that he was anti war because he allegedly gave a speech (that no one can find any evidence of) about being against the war?  Here's a good rundown of the reality of things besides the standard talking points.

    I don't want to re-argue the 2008 primaries, but for consistencies sake, how do you reconcile your anger of her vote in the Senate with these comments?

    You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she's the most disciplined--one of the most disciplined people--I've ever met. She's one of the toughest. She's got an extraordinary intelligence. And she is, she's somebody who's in this stuff for the right reasons. She's passionate about moving the country forward on issues like health care and children. So it's not clear to me what differences we've had since I've been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test.

    I'm just curious and not rrying to start an argument, but I'm genuinely interested in how you reconcile those statements.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    I didn't buy into the fantasy of Obama's being an anti-war candidate. I thought it was truly hypocritical of him to launch into Clinton during the primaries on that issue - as if he would have voted any differently had he been in a position to do so.
    Look at his dismal record in the Senate.

    I always have thought Obama was a fraud - a concoction - a fantasy. I tuned into the democratic convention in 2004 with some anticipation because Obama was going to address it, and he had some reputation of being against the war in Iraq. What I heard was a lot of flag-waving crap: We're all patriots - for or against the war, we're Americans and mom and apple pie God bless America.

    The speech was really dumb - and exposed him for what he is: an unprincipled opportunist.

    The speech was hailed as being "electrifying".
    It is to laugh.

    So I  would sometimes look to Clinton - because I believe that she is intelligent and experienced in the ways of D.C.
    But she continuously let me down as well.
    I still think that she has more brains in her little finger than Obama does in his entire carcass, but her brains are short-circuited by her environment and her ambition - which continually leads her in the wrong direction.

    As the French say: In brief: a plague on both their houses.

    Parent

    Miss the point (none / 0) (#72)
    by diogenes on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    Obama wants the law overturned before the election.  That way the people who are mad at it won't be so pushed to vote against him and he can blast the Republicans for denying people "health care for all".  He could also propose a new "universal health care plan" without going into details and campaign on that rather than defending the fiasco he's saddled with now.

    Also food for thought (none / 0) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 11:45:14 PM EST
    See my above post.

    Parent
    Obama Administration Seeks Immediate SCOTUS Review of ACA | 95 comments (95 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment