home

Simple Answers To Simple Questions

DougJ asks:

If a Republican Congress had [passed] the [ACA] bill, and a Republican president had signed it, how would the vote have gone, in your opinion? I’d especially like to hear from the lawyers.

There would have been no case and no vote. The constitutional argument was manufactured by Randy Barnett and only became respectable because GOP pols signed on to it.

Next question.

< Obama Signals on Drug Reform | O'Mara Publishes George Zimmerman Medical Records, Exhibits >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:32:19 PM EST
    I said here a couple of days ago:

    Ginsburg was clearly right in all respects (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    The points of law in her opinion would have carried unanimity on the court any time before the 1990s and still should have received overwhelming support today (indeed, had the ACA been a brilliant triangulation by Karl Rove, they would have).


    No case and no vote for sure (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:17:13 PM EST
    But I don't, at least, have any question but that the court has become so ideological and therefore partisan that many of them would have stopped and at least looked at it and looked for reasons that it could pass muster if it had come directly from the Heritage Foundation through a GOP congress and president.

    If the Dems do it, it's prima facie bad.  If the GOPers do it, maybe it's actually OK after all.

    And I equally suspect that if this bill had come out of a GOP Congress and president-- which it very well could have-- the left would have universally been beside itself in outrage.  But because it's Obama and the Dems, we make all kinds of good excuses why it's the best we can get under the circumstances.


    I don't believe (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    people left of center would have complained about extending care.  There may have been some grumbling about the superiority of single-payer but I believe there would have been general acceptance.

    Certainly BTD, andgarden, etc. are absolutely correct.  If the GOP had passed such a bill there never would have been a challenge in federal courts.

    It's the function of hard right Conservatives (the whole Republican Party)to prevent Democrats from governing under any circumstances.  They don't care about the nature of the legislation, even if that legislation is Conservative oriented; they'll oppose it to regain power.

    Parent

    FWIW (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:33:00 AM EST
    I think you're wrong about this.  This whole mishegoss is so bad and so reinforcing of the stranglehold the for-profit insurance companies have on health care, I think the reaction from the left would have been similar to the idea of privatizing Social Security.

    Parent
    It's a smart question IMO (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by lilburro on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    and I agree with the answer.  But I wonder if McCain/Palin would even propose a bill like this, or if the GOP would be willing to tackle problems on this scale.  I know a lot of it is hatred of Obama, but IIRC correctly what McCain actually proposed was way worse and toothless than the ACA (having states compete for the crappiest coverage, no help on the pre-existing conditions issue) [USA Today, I'm sure there are better references out there, but, just as a quick refresher].  Regardless of whether you think Obama's plan will work or whether the Medicaid extension will be refused, the ambition was still there.  Both parties are increasingly cronies of industry but I think the GOP is way past even bothering to help people on this level.

    Speaking for myself only (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:13:27 PM EST
    I applaud the ambition - the initial ambition of the idea, before it got bogged down into a psychological experiment by the administration into a "Please don't hurt me." I think Obama put forth this plan and thought his pure awesome-ness would help it sail through in a matter of weeks.  That didn't happen and it dragged on and on.

    The main problem was that while health care costs are a huge problem in the macro economy, people were looking for something - like a jobs plan, or something to kick start the economy that was crumbling down around them.  Instead, we had the fights about minutae in the ACA, and then banksters were given a free pass and then huge bonuses, all the while record numbers of people were losing their jobs and their homes.  

    Maybe if some of that ambition had been redirected at those problems, Obama wouldn't be in a tight race - something that was unimaginable 4 years ago and that should never ever have happened.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 11:59:40 AM EST
    a Republican president had proposed this bill, the Democrats might have fought a wee bit harder for the public option.

    They might have held to the position, once stated by Barack Obama,

    "If a mandate was the solution, we could use it to solve homelessness by mandating that everyone buy a house."

    On the other hand, the Democrats have taken to mild hand-wringing instead of fighting for anything. So we would have wound up with what we now have anyway.

    Thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:59:44 PM EST
    obviously biased, but everyone knows that:

    1. Single payer didn't happen.  People disagree as to why, so let's just agree to disagree.  Bottom line is that Obamacare, if looked at as a stand alone achievement, is huge. HUGE!  There is no escaping that fact and the secret benefit to the SC decision is how many times people are seeing things like "30 million new people with coverage" and "expansion of medicaid" and "the GOP is rejecting measures that will cover millions".  Those that argued that Obamacare was a massive step, but just the first step in laying the ground for single payer or other more progressive policy are being vindicated.

    2. As of today, most democrats and independents are very supportive of Obamacare.  Isn't it obvious that once people start to see more benefits, it will gain more and more support (as medicaid and other programs did). What we are seeing here is really the bottom of Obamacare's popularity.  When people talk about this being a conservative healthcare plan, it would be wise to consider what this will all look like in 10 years.  We need to be embracing the hell out of this program as the first progressive step towards good things. Let the GOP bury themselves by siding against an obvious winner.  Sometimes liberals can't avoid destroying a gift being given to them.

    3. It's 30 million additional people covered!!!!!  (I feel like this statement alone should end a lot of arguments, but frustratingly you have to make the same statement repeatedly because people begin to forget what we are trying to do.  Studies show that thousands of lives will be saved as a result of Obamacare. THOUSANDS.  When you cut through all of the "well single payer would have been better" and "well it helps the insurance companies" etc., the fact that trumps all of it for me are lives saved.

    That's the whole point.

    Save more lives = good

    Allow people to die unnecessarily = bad.

    Start from those goals and a lot of the complains seem ridiculously silly.

    People (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lentinel on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:34:10 PM EST
    don't disagree about why single payer didn't happen.

    I know why it didn't happen.
    No one in the administration fought for it.

    It was decided to accept the republican mandate idea instead.

    Parent

    Single payer was never going to happen... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    ...the issue is that, once elected, President Obama could've advocated for single payer and (potentially, we don't know) gotten something in between PPACA and single payer. Or maybe he would've gotten nothing and the way it turned out was Panglossian.

    What we do know is that regardless of what position the President staked out, Joe Lieberman was going to be three hops to the right of it regardless. The ideology of Blue Dogs is relative, not absolute, so you might as well make it relative to something progressive.

    Parent

    You forgot one (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    It finally makes free riders pay their way!

    SCOTT SHAFER: If someone said the decision was going to be 5-4 and it's written by Roberts, you'd think it was bad news...

    NANCY PELOSI: I always had confidence in Roberts in this respect. His decision is consistent in his writings on the extent of the court's role, and he was true to his beliefs, his writings, and his statements on the subject. I always felt confident that if this were fair and square, if justice were to prevail, we had a very good shot. Not regarding what he thought of the policy but what he thought of its constitutionality.

    SCOTT SHAFER: They did say this is a tax, and that's why it's constitutional.

    NANCY PELOSI: I don't' care. I mean I shouldn't say it quite that way. What we wrote in the House is similar to what he described.

    I would say it's goodbye to the free riders. There are people who are free riders who now have a responsibility to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

    If you're a healthy younger person, you have resources, you just decide you're not going to apply for health insurance. You get sick or in an accident, your health care costs are a burden to everybody else. You go to the emergency room and that increases everybody's costs.

    That's just not fair, especially if you multiple it by many many people. The ones who can opt out because they feel invincible - I've had them blowing through my office. People who thought they'd never be in an accident or get breast cancer or never thought they'd get a diagnosis of rare blood this or that. And then they're up the creek.

    The point being you can call it whatever you want, but it is a penalty for free riders, who get health care without paying for insurance, increasing the cost to others.

    Wait - I thought this was about helping poor people and working people?

    Parent

    It's both (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    We should cover as many people as possible AND we should try to eliminate free riders in order to make this as fair as possible as we do it.  Otherwise people will just show up and join when they are sick.

    Consider your mind blown.

    Parent

    The free riders (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    are the folks who get Cadillac healthcare plans.  They have no idea what health care costs.  

    The "free riders" Nancy speaks of are basically equivalent of the mythical welfare queens.  Most people who end up in the ER PAY FOR IT...and they pay thru the nose because their charges are much higher than the charges that insurance companies negotiate.

    And the bill doesn't do anything elimnate people at low income levels who have to use the ER as their primary care.  They will either be inside of or outside of the Medicaid realm, they won't have insurance, they'll waive the mandate TAX and they'll be using the ER just like before.

    Free rider == The Democrats welfare queens.

    Parent

    What is a Cadillac health plan? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Addison on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:57:05 PM EST
    I hear the term, I suspect everyone has their own definition. I additionally suspect it usually boils down to "better than mine".

    Parent
    Free Riders (none / 0) (#54)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    are real.  Just like the fact that there are "welfare queens".  Hell, I have them in my family and speak to them regularly.  Now do conservatives play up those concepts to make them a fatal flaw in an unfair way?

    Of course.

    But we are falling into their trap by saying things like free riders and welfare queens are a complete myth.

    Because if you are like me and you personally know people who fit both descriptions, it casts doubt on the integrity of anyone calling them an absolute myth.

    That's when conservatives make headway.  People cheat the system.  Lots of them do.  We don't have to pretend they don't exist to be strong progressives.

    Parent

    Got any numbers (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:34:49 PM EST
    As to how many people are actually "free riding" vs. people who actually can't afford insurance, which is why they don't have it to begin with?  Do you think Nancy has those numbers?

    Parent
    Well we've never had (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    a requirement that people with preexisting conditions be covered or this type of expansive coverage.

    But everyone, republicans and democrats alike, acknowledge that in a system like this, free riders are an issue because that's just the nature of any risk market like this.  

    You can look at numerous market examples to see this occurring.

    Is your argument somehow that in a world where you can't be turned down for coverage, that there won't be a material number of Americans who pay in nothing and then sign up at the first sign of serious sickness or accident.

    You are arguing that Nancy Pelosi somehow has to have numbers to prove what is completely obvious to everyone, on both the left and right.

    But let me give you some facts just to answer the question: free riders quadrupled in Mass. after the implementation of Romneycare because the tax was so slight.  It wasn't enough to stop free riders.  So the issue once you acknowledge as most do that free riders is a problem, is setting the penalty high enough so that it just makes sense to buy the insurance.

    If your argument was over the penalty amount, that's something that is fair ground for debate.

    But questioning whether free riders exist is not helpful because almost everyone acknowledges that.

    Parent

    And BTW (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    My SIL is going to remain a free rider/"welfare queen" on your govt's silly plan.

    She is outside of subsidy-ville.  According to Kaiser, the estimated cost to insure her is over $8000.  She will lose her house if she has to put that money each year toward medical insurance rather than house payments...that money wouldn't go toward health care, it would go toward medical insurance.  After that, she would have to pay a $1700-3000 deductible (again according to Kaiser) before she gets a dime of care paid for.

    She is going to try and get the mandate waived. If she can't, she's going to put herself out there as one of the first to test whether the govt can throw you in jail or otherwise peanlize you for not paying it.

    Free riders/welfare queens or whatever you call them, this is the reality that YOUR government has created for a host of people.  Your government did this insanely evil thing.

    And BTW, she pays for her own health care.  She is not a welfare queen, free rider in your words.

    I hope you fecking can sleep at night. Because I can't.

    How do you fix the pre-existing condition situation?  With GOVT insurance, ABG, not by forcing people to buy something they can't afford.  Only someone who lives a life of privilege such as you can remain conscience free under this law.

    Parent

    So they will penalize her (none / 0) (#51)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:11:12 PM EST
    and that's the way it should work.  To be honest, I do not believe that there are many people who will:

    (1) Be required to pay the mandate

    AND

    (2) Be so poor as not to not qualify for the subsidy.

    Bottom line: To be required to pay a penalty, the least expensive available policy would exceed 8% of their income.

    As with car insurance, what is expected to happen is a flood of insurance possibilities providing for basic coverage for all levels who may be impacted by the mandate.  

    I believe that your certainty that your friend will be disadvantaged is demonstrably premature.  When you can report that she is actually in the situation you describe, you can talk about how other sleep well at night.

    But here is a heads up:

    If Obamacare saves 30K lives a year and the penalty is that people like the one you describe have to pay a penalty because affordable insurance isn't available,  I will sleep very well thank you very much.

    Better to be broke and alive than have the money would be dead.

    The net lives saved trump almost everything. If you are arguing that Obamacare well save fewer lives than the status quo, then maybe you have a point about whether I should be sleeping. But that's not your point so before claiming to know exactly what's going to happen to your friend, maybe we can see where we are in 2 years when the exchanges have developed that were designed to address the exact problem that you highlight.

    Til then you are just talking hypotheticals.  I sleep well on hypotheticals.

    Parent

    What if you live in a state where (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    the Republican leadership refuses to (1) expand Medicaid and/or (2) establish the exchange from which you could select insurance?

    Will people not otherwise exempt from the requirement have to pay a penalty if there is no exchange in their state?

    If affordable insurance isn't available, what help do those people get in paying for their health care?  There's no subsidy for care, only for insurance.  So, it isn't enough to be exempt from a penalty, it has to be about making actual care more accessible and more affordable; if that's not happening, nothing's changing for those people, except they are still teetering on the edge of disaster from one expensive illness or accident.

    In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to ignore what's wrong with the legislation - the task now is to make it right.  That's going to be a herculean task in states where the GOP insanity and hatred of poor people reigns and it refuses its citizens the opportunity to get affordable care.

    Parent

    our governor rick scott (none / 0) (#72)
    by Amiss on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 11:29:51 PM EST
    Says he will elect out of aca. This man has a 9% approval rating here in Fla!

    Parent
    You are conflating two issues (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 06:55:00 AM EST
    I've seen here it before - I can't imagine what people who don't understand the plan are doing.

    (1) Be required to pay the mandate

    AND

    (2) Be so poor as not to not qualify for the subsidy.

    It's not an "AND" - it's an  "EITHER / OR".  You will EITHER pay the mandate OR you will try and qualify for the subsidy because you have purchased an insurance plan.  

    Parent

    My argument (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    Is that Nancy Pelosi is using Republican terms like "free riders" to defend a bill that was based on a Republican plan.  She is bashing the very people the Democrats used to represent - working class and lower class.

    I'm not saying "free riders" don't exist, but that's not what this bill was aimed at (at least, that's what we were told).  And to make it sound like the majority of "free riders" are "free riders" because they choose not to buy insurance until they need it is simply ludicrous.

    The fact that Democrats are now defending not only a Republican-plan but Republican talking points is ironic, and yet so very sad.

    Parent

    I don't call (none / 0) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    "free riders" a GOP or Dem term.

    It's just a fact.

    Parent

    People who have no insurance are only (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    getting a free ride if they don't avail themselves of any actual care, because not having insurance does not translate to "free care."

    If anything, people who have no insurance who do need care end up paying more - a lot more - than those with plans, because no one negotiates the cost of services for those without insurance.

    The real problem we have with this and every other private insurance-based model is that a lot of people are still faced with choices like, "what should I pay first - the rent or the health insurance, the mortgage or the health insurance?"  They are skimping on the food budget - and I don't mean giving up tenderloin for tuna, I mean giving up meat for macaroni - in order to pay for shelter.  And now, for a lot of them, they will have to add health insurance into the mix.

    And worse, we've done nothing to solve the real problem that where you live will continue to have a lot to do with the level of access and affordability you have.  That's just wrong.

    This is kind of eye-opening:

    Even if the law goes into effect as scheduled in 2014, red state governors can vow not to implement its component parts. This covers not only the Medicaid expansion, but the insurance exchanges, the marketplaces where customers can shop on the individual market and compare policies, and reap subsidies for the purchase of coverage at the low end. There was supposed to be a fail-safe in the law; if governors rejected setting up the exchanges, they revert to the federal government, which would set them up for the states. However, there's one key detail that was left out of that equation. There's no money to pay for that.

    So why isn't Jindal reluctantly complying rather than hand a small measure of sovereignty over to the federal government? Because as the result of a drafting oversight, Congress neglected to include automatic appropriations for federally facilitated exchanges (FFEs). That means there's money on hand to help states that want to set up the exchanges themselves, but the government's options vis-a-vis states that can't or won't act on their own are more limited [...]

    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) can reallocate money appropriated to HHS' generic operations account internally, to put more toward establishing FFEs. But in anticipation of the need for greater funding, HHS included a request for $1 billion for program operations in its fiscal year 2013 budget, according to administration and Senate officials. The Senate Appropriations Committee, controlled by Democrats, has recommended just over half a billion for this account. But House Republicans could use their leverage to block providing HHS with any funds they think the administration might need to implement the ACA.

    Republicans have engaged in the defunding wars over Obamacare on other fronts. But similar to the Medicaid expansion, funding for the federally facilitated exchanges would represent a new appropriation, not just filling the old buckets. That makes it infinitely more difficult to succeed, as does the fact that not implementing makes the bill cheaper, which will be attractive to budget-conscious appropriators.

    So, what then?  What if you are someone whose state will not only not expand Medicaid to cover you, but will also not establish the exchanges from which you might be able to get some kind of minimum insurance?

    There's no question that there are components to the Act that will help people, but you simply cannot ignore the flaws, nor can you ignore the consequences of the SC decision or the intransigence of Republican-led states that are going to deny a lot of people access to care they can afford.

    Enough already with the sparkle dust; it's no consolation to those living in red states that their brethren in the blue states are going to fare better under this law than they are.  And it's doing nothing to beat Republicans at their own petty game.

    This is what happens when you try to build on an already dysfunctional system - you can never escape that it's rotten at the foundation and is destined to fall apart.

    Parent

    Anne (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:14:59 PM EST
    The law before the SC decision did a lot of what you point to as an issue.  The court just struck it down.

    Also, we know that Obamacare is flawed. Obama says it is. Pelosi says it is.  I don't know one democrat who says it is not flawed.  

    But we need to start defending the good stuff in it instead of spending all of our time focused on the imperfect parts.

    Because it makes no sense to have two parties in opposition unified in bashing the biggest step forward in a long time.

    Parent

    People's Lives (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:21:01 PM EST
    are being changed.

    If we get side tracked into how imperfect Obamacare is, we lost track of what will happen and what has happened and how many lives have already been saved.

    Retrospective whining (2.33 / 3) (#66)
    by diogenes on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    You're just whining because the Democrats were too gutless to call the "mandate" (i.e. steath tax on the healthy who wouldn't but insurance unless forced to) a tax in the first place, rendering the entire case moot.

    Simple Answers Can Be Wrong (none / 0) (#1)
    by burnspbesq on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    You don't think Randy Barnett would have paid the penalty with his 2014 return, filed a refund claim, and sued when his refund claim was denied?

    I think you underestimate his devotion to his crackpot theories.

    No SCOTUS case (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    I should have been clearer.

    Parent
    Seemed pretty clear to me... (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:22:09 PM EST
    If this is a GOP creation, it never gets to the Supreme Court, never.

    Instead, they erect a marble statue of Bob Dole somewhere.

    Parent

    Erect? Nice word choice for Bob Dole. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:06:02 PM EST
    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:02:21 PM EST
    I have a lot of respect for Barnett, very smart principled guy.

    Just wrong about the Constitution imo.

    Parent

    Although he is a Professor of (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:34:20 PM EST
    Constitutional Law.  

    Parent
    I had a Harvard educated (none / 0) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    history teacher in high school who was wrong about history, IMO.

    Parent
    I forgot the snk. tag. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    oculus (none / 0) (#57)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:52:52 PM EST
    Try this:

    <snark> snarky statement </snark>

    Parent

    Using (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    the faux HTML to bound the snark helps slow witted people like me to recognize snark.

    Parent
    [snk.] (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 02:05:15 AM EST
    Ideologies on the court (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robocop on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:41:43 PM EST
    Doug seems to be asking if the justices voted on the law, or did they vote according to who passed the law? I think most of them voted on the law.

    Had this been a GOP bill, I think Roberts would have voted against it. I really think he was under tremendous pressure to make the court appear less partisan after Citizens United (and the recent State equivalent).

    Also, I think Alito would have voted to uphold it. The other justices, I believe, would have voted exactly as they did. And in the end, we would have the same result.

    Cui bono? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:31:44 PM EST
    "I think most of them voted on the law."

    So no chance any of them voted based on who makes money off of the law?

    Parent

    If the Supremes ruled (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    based on wanting various interests to make money it would have been affirmed 9-0.

    Parent
    "Under pressure" by whom? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    I keep asking this question and not getting a good answer.  Nobody's in a position to put "pressure" on the chief justice of the supreme court in any meaningful way.

    What, he felt "under pressure" by Al Sharpton on MSNBC??  Who calls a SCOTUS chief justice or corners him at a cocktail party and harangues him about cases under consideration?  Can he possibly be influenced by the earnest but half-baked, factually sloppy and logically incoherent NYTimes editorials?

    Why would he feel "pressure" from sources of that kind rather than by his ideological soulmates at the WSJournal?

    Any pressure he felt could only have come from his own conscience and perhaps by his distaste at associating himself too tightly with what he I think now realizes is the batshit crazy ideological wing of the court. I suspect he mostly agrees with their conclusions, but is repelled by the nakedly ideological way they instantly come to them without reflection.

    He's clearly quite enamored of his carefully developed self-image as a sober intellectual, which is very much at odds with the angry, snarling emotionalism of Scalia and Thomas (assuming for the moment that Thomas actually ever says or writes anything and doesn't just nod energetically when Scalia's delivering a tirade).

    Parent

    The pressure of posterity (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:55:42 PM EST
    and how "the Roberts court" will appear in history books, lawbooks, etc.  That's all.  The guy always has seemed very self-conscious about image.

    Parent
    How about if the bill had the imprimatur (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    of the Federalist Society?

    Parent
    In the hypothetical.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:54:23 PM EST
    Is Ditka on the court? Is it the mini-Ditka or the full size Ditka?

     I know you don't get paid for this, but really, even free Q and A questions should be harder than that.

    Meaning...I can't even get past the hypothetical (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:55:51 PM EST
    with a GOP Congress and POTUS passing that bill. Maybe in 1986, not in 2012.

    Parent
    Lordy (none / 0) (#11)
    by sj on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    I agree with you.  And that just makes me tired.  

    Parent
    Diktat? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    Ditka, I'm thinking football . . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    but what do I know. My degree is in paint n' pastels :)

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#19)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:46:06 AM EST
    If a Republican Congress had [passed] the [ACA] bill, and a Republican president had signed it...

    History would record a swing towards the Democrats in 2012
    .

    Yep, this bill was passed by (none / 0) (#20)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    Romney (a republican) in one of the most liberal states in the country and it did not help him get a second term.

    Parent
    He didn't run (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 10:16:38 AM EST
    for a second term.

    Parent
    Because he knew he would not win. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    thats what happens (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:06:56 PM EST
    When you spend your time as gov. running around the south bashing your home state to anyone who will listen.  Not to mention "evolving" to an anti-choice position in Ma.  He didn't want the job.  Had nothing to do with healthcare.

    Parent
    Romneycare was popular back then (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    Romneycare was popular in Massachusetts back then and even more so now.

    There were many reasons Romney's favorability tanked even before Romneycare was passed.

    Parent

    The biggest political difference (3.00 / 3) (#23)
    by lousy1 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    Is that the Romney plan had strong bipartisan support and was generally appreciated by the people of Ma.

    Parent
    Whereas Obamacare ... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    ... was opposed and demonized by Republicans because it was proposed by a Democratic POTUS, despite being  virtually identical to the Republican plan of 1994.  Massachusetts Democrats, OTOH, could support Romneycare despite the fact that it was proposed by a Republican governor.

    Republicans on Obamacare?

    Despite the fact that they like most of its provisions, ...

    ... not so much.

    Parent

    That is only because it is not a (none / 0) (#29)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    conservative plan.  If Obama proposed a conservative plan, he would have gotten some support for it.

    Parent
    It was (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    a Conservative plan.  Came from the Heritage Foundation.

    Parent
    Just because the Heritage foundation (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:27:54 PM EST
    or a Republican governor developed a lot of the ideas, does not make it conservative.  For example, it would anger me if someone said deregulating wall street is a liberal ideology because Bill Clinton did it.  Or the Vietnam war was a liberal foreign policy initiative because LBJ escalated it.

    Ideological conservatives would never expand public insurance (Medicaid), create centrally planning functions (Obamacare has 15 - 20 new agencies in addition of the HHS department regulating what is offered through exchanges), or use the IRS to coerce people to buy insurance.  A true conservative plan (tax credits to buy very high deductible plan, insurance competition, take away law suits...and anyone that does not fit the above, let them die...etc.) would have gotten republican support.

    Parent

    I didn't say (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    it was an ideologically Conservative plan.  

    Conservatives would never use government to expand health care insurance.  Conservatives really don't give a damn about expanding coverage at all.

    I said it was a plan that came from a Conservative organization.  

    Parent

    ??? Your post said (none / 0) (#64)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 02:28:49 AM EST
    "It was a conservative plan."

    Parent
    And ... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:49:42 PM EST
    yes, a plan from an organization of Conservatives.

    You insist on bickering over something like this?

    Yes - Conservatives would let people die in a famine, drown in a flood, refuse aid after a tornado, let old people suffer without medical treatment, drive the elderly into poverty, refuse assistance to the unemployed, require property to vote, dump zoning laws, forbid organized labor, eliminate any regulatory power, eliminate public schools, etc., etc., etc.

    However, the general fundamentals of the ACA were from a plan by a business oriented Conservative organization.

    There - business oriented Conservative organization.  Does that meet with your approval?

    Parent

    Strange, considering ... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 07:38:39 AM EST
    ... that Republicans supported Romneycare in Massachusetts and (nationally) the Republican plan in 1994 (virtually identical to the Obama plan).

    Parent
    Are you refering to mass Republicans? (none / 0) (#69)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:03:32 PM EST
    All 22 of them?


    Parent
    22? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 10:22:32 PM EST
    Strange that only 22 republicans could carry Massachusetts for Reagan in 1980, not to mention so many recent Republican governors - William Weld, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift and Mitt Romney.

    Parent
    Did Bill Clinton's caving into (none / 0) (#70)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 08:08:16 PM EST
    an overwhelmingly popular reform of welfare after vetoing several nearly identical bills from the Gingrich congress make it Clinton's welfare reform?


    Parent
    It was also the timing, I think. (none / 0) (#35)
    by EL seattle on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    When Obama was elected, some people were seriously suggesting that the Republican party would soon be extinct. Obama and the Democrats had so much momentum that it was a new era, and the dinosaurs should just get on the bus or get out of the way. In that sort of environment, I think that a heels-in-the-ground instinct towards resistance is fairly predictable (and sometimes even understandable).

    At the same time, it was understandable for Obama and the Dems to try to take advantage of whatever momentum/majority/opportunity they had at the time to push though legislation that would define them as the dominant party and winners for the future.

    Parent

    Because it was not a conservative plan (none / 0) (#30)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    Well, that's maybe true (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by sj on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    Because as near as I can tell the true conservative plan is "Don't get sick.  If you do get sick, pay for it yourself."

    It is, however, originally a Republican plan, reborn.

    Parent

    Republican yes, conservative no (none / 0) (#46)
    by Buckeye on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 02:22:49 PM EST