The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[DJ Vu 176]

I don't see any other issue that would inspire people to go out and vote against him.

The economy/unemployment, right?If the economy is bad and people don't have jobs, they blame the President, right or wrong.

[brvheart 1,752]

So it might end up a good thing all around if it is struck down.

There is no amount of spinning that would make this a good thing for Obama. It would be disastrous for him if the court struck it down. I think he could still be re-elected, but it won't be good in anyway.

[Roll the Bones 74]

The economy/unemployment, right?If the economy is bad and people don't have jobs, they blame the President, right or wrong.

Well, the economy is improving despite all the conservatives dire predictions so that isn't an issue. Republicans have been job killers so Obama will crush them on that topic. Terrorism? Obama killed Bin laden. the way I see it, this was their big issue.

There is no amount of spinning that would make this a good thing for Obama. It would be disastrous for him if the court struck it down. I think he could still be re-elected, but it won't be good in anyway.

Jumping up and down and yelling it real loud doesn't make it true. Just saying. It isn't spin btw, it is facts. The Dems tried to broach the topic of a single payer system numerous times but not one single Republican would vote for it, and besides they wanted their own version of health care (Romneycare) invented by the conservative think tank Heritage Institute.

[DJ Vu 176]

Well, the economy is improving despite all the conservatives dire predictions so that isn't an issue.

Phew!

[brvheart 1,752]

Well, the economy is improving despite all the conservatives dire predictions so that isn't an issue. Republicans have been job killers so Obama will crush them on that topic. Terrorism? Obama killed Bin laden. the way I see it, this was their big issue.Jumping up and down and yelling it real loud doesn't make it true. Just saying. It isn't spin btw, it is facts. The Dems tried to broach the topic of a single payer system numerous times but not one single Republican would vote for it, and besides they wanted their own version of health care (Romneycare) invented by the conservative think tank Heritage Institute.

THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF SPINNING THAT WOULD MAKE THIS A GOOD THING FOR OBAMA. IT WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR HIM IF THE COURT STRUCK IT DOWN. I THINK HE COULD STILL BE RE-ELECTED, BUT IT WON'T BE GOOD IN ANYWAY.**This entire post was a joke, SuitedAces21.

[brvheart 1,752]

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?”Whitfield: “Oh, my goodness. Okay, so I have got about 20 seconds or so left. How might this impact arguments later on this afternoon, Jeff?”Toobin: “Well, it's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they're going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well.”

[mrdannyg 274]

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: “This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?”Whitfield: “Oh, my goodness. Okay, so I have got about 20 seconds or so left. How might this impact arguments later on this afternoon, Jeff?”Toobin: “Well, it's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they're going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well.”

yeah, but, that's just, like, his opinion, man.

[akoff 0]

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeff Toobin: "This still looks like a train wreck for the Obama Administration, and it may also be a plane wreck. This entire law is now in serious trouble. It also seems that the individual mandate is doomed. I mean, Anthony Kennedy spent much of this morning talking about if we strike down the individual mandate, how should we handle the rest of the law? Now, it is less clear that they are going to strike down the whole law. There does seem to be some controversy in the court about that. Certainly there are some members of the court, Antonin Scalia, Justice Alito, who want to strike down the entire law, but it seemed almost a foregone conclusion today that they were going to strike down the individual mandate, and the only question is does the whole law go out the window with it?"Whitfield: "Oh, my goodness. Okay, so I have got about 20 seconds or so left. How might this impact arguments later on this afternoon, Jeff?"Toobin: "Well, it's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they're going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well."

this made me smile...not knowing until June is going to seem like a very long time but at least it appears that cooler heads will prevail...and if this could be doom of BHO for the fall. Well that would be too much to ask for.

[Balloon guy 158]

Scalia: Reading Obamacare illegalCites 8th amendment

[brvheart 1,752]

yeah, but, that's just, like, his opinion, man.

I was just citing a FAR RIGHT WING WACKO group called CNN to back up Randy's point.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I was just citing a FAR RIGHT WING WACKO group called CNN to back up Randy's point.

And I am sorry that you didn't or couldn't understand my opinion. I'll try again. I understand yours and everyone's knee jerk reaction that if they strike down the individual mandate, being Obama's crowning piece of legislation that it would be bad for him. MY OPINION is that it wouldn't be as bad, and possibly a benefit. It wasn't spin. It was MY OPINION and I (unlike you) outlined why which you failed to address other than to attempt to personally insult me.We all know many things can happen between now and November that could change the flow of the election. There could be a terrorist attack, a reversal of the economy, proof that he is a Kenyan, or whatever. I am addressing, today, what I percieve as the chain of events that would happen if it were to be struck down. (Individual mandate not entire law)Do you think that the insurance companies are not going to seek to have the clause that requires them to cover pre-existing conditions removed?Do you think we will revert back to a failing health insurance industry that does not work for the American public indefinately?Do you think that if asked to remove the pre-existing clause Obama won't use that as leverage to negotiate on the single payer mandate?Do you think that American public is going to rally around Republicans refusing to come up with a plan to cover Americans? Furthermore, do you think that if the mandate gets struck down people are not going to vote for Obama the next election and why?Do you think if it gets struck down that it will spur Republicans to the voting booth and why?I simply offered my opinion. No need to be testy.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I would also add that if the mandate or the entire law is struck down I believe it is an absurd case of judicial activism and they have no founding to so. This court has shown that it is out to change long standing precedents and vote along conservative lines regardless so it woulnd't surprise me if they do.

[DJ Vu 176]

I would also add that if the mandate or the entire law is struck down I believe it is an absurd case of judicial activism and they have no founding to so. This court has shown that it is out to change long standing precedents and vote along conservative lines regardless so it woulnd't surprise me if they do.

I don't know about all this, but it's pretty sad that we've gotten to a point where even the Supreme Court of the United States is believed to be politically motivated.Or maybe that's always been the case.Which would be equally sad.

[SilentSnow 1]

And I am sorry that you didn't or couldn't understand my opinion. I'll try again. I understand yours and everyone's knee jerk reaction that if they strike down the individual mandate, being Obama's crowning piece of legislation that it would be bad for him. MY OPINION is that it wouldn't be as bad, and possibly a benefit. It wasn't spin. It was MY OPINION and I (unlike you) outlined why which you failed to address other than to attempt to personally insult me.We all know many things can happen between now and November that could change the flow of the election. There could be a terrorist attack, a reversal of the economy, proof that he is a Kenyan, or whatever. I am addressing, today, what I percieve as the chain of events that would happen if it were to be struck down. (Individual mandate not entire law)1.Do you think that the insurance companies are not going to seek to have the clause that requires them to cover pre-existing conditions removed?2.Do you think we will revert back to a failing health insurance industry that does not work for the American public indefinately?3.Do you think that if asked to remove the pre-existing clause Obama won't use that as leverage to negotiate on the single payer mandate?4.Do you think that American public is going to rally around Republicans refusing to come up with a plan to cover Americans? 5.Furthermore, do you think that if the mandate gets struck down people are not going to vote for Obama the next election and why?Do you think if it gets struck down that it will spur Republicans to the voting booth and why?I simply offered my opinion. No need to be testy.

1.There is no way the ACA survives the mandate being struck down. The insurance industry will move hell and high water to kill it at that point even if the supreme court does not. 2.That's possible. I think this is a pretty risky strategy for Republicans/insurance industry though. The ACA gave them most of what they wanted- no single payer and a mandate. If they kill it then there is a much higher risk that we move to a system that the entire civilized world uses(and would be terrible for the greedy health care industry). You'd think that the general public would eventually realize that they are being screwed, but maybe the insurance industry thinks they have enough power to keep congress from doing the right thing indefinitely. My guess is that the insurance industry will decide the risk is too great and strongly pressure the supreme court to uphold the ACA.3.You would hope he would, but Obama has betrayed liberals so many times that you can't count on this. 4.I've given up hoping the American public will ever do the rational thing. If they had any sense at all they would demand a single payer option and vote out any politician against it. 5.I don't think it will hurt him that much. Most people voting against Obama are voting against him no matter what. The issues don't matter at all.

[akoff 0]

I would also add that if the mandate or the entire law is struck down I believe it is an absurd case of judicial activism and they have no founding to so. This court has shown that it is out to change long standing precedents and vote along conservative lines regardless so it woulnd't surprise me if they do.

If the definition of conservatism is not allowing our government force each and every American to purchase health insurance I personally am ok with that. Bottom line that to me is not arguable, the government can’t force you to buy anything…if that point isn’t clear to a person they aren’t thinking logically. Of course there are consequences to every choice you make, obviously to me it would seem silly not to have it but the government has no right to force the purchase on the public. Without the mandate they don’t have a way to fund the program…buh buh obamacare!! after this ruling our grandchildren will only be in serious mode instead of totally screwed. if you libs would just wake up this country might have a chance to remain exceptional.

[Balloon guy 158]

Severability Clause

[Roll the Bones 74]

If the definition of conservatism is not allowing our government force each and every American to purchase health insurance I personally am ok with that. Bottom line that to me is not arguable, the government can’t force you to buy anything…if that point isn’t clear to a person they aren’t thinking logically. Of course there are consequences to every choice you make, obviously to me it would seem silly not to have it but the government has no right to force the purchase on the public. Without the mandate they don’t have a way to fund the program…buh buh obamacare!! after this ruling our grandchildren will only be in serious mode instead of totally screwed. if you libs would just wake up this country might have a chance to remain exceptional.

The problem with your concept of us "forcing" Americans to make a decision is that by allowing them to make the decision to "not purchase" health insurance, is forcing other Americans to foot the bill for them, since they universally want health care when they need it.Congress has clearly deemed this kind of decision falls under the Commerce clause when they allowed it in cases such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to cite just a few examples.

[Roll the Bones 74]

1.Do you think that the insurance companies are not going to seek to have the clause that requires them to cover pre-existing conditions removed?1.There is no way the ACA survives the mandate being struck down. The insurance industry will move hell and high water to kill it at that point even if the supreme court does not.

That was my point. The insurance industry will be screaming.

2.Do you think we will revert back to a failing health insurance industry that does not work for the American public indefinately?2.That's possible. I think this is a pretty risky strategy for Republicans/insurance industry though. The ACA gave them most of what they wanted- no single payer and a mandate. If they kill it then there is a much higher risk that we move to a system that the entire civilized world uses(and would be terrible for the greedy health care industry). You'd think that the general public would eventually realize that they are being screwed, but maybe the insurance industry thinks they have enough power to keep congress from doing the right thing indefinitely. My guess is that the insurance industry will decide the risk is too great and strongly pressure the supreme court to uphold the ACA.

Funny the Republicans scream about the single payer mandate, yet in their own budget today they think it's okay if it's called "vouchers". The insurance industry can't go back if it's struck down though and I agree the general public doesn't realize they are being screwed, but that they would come around once they started actually understanding the issue.

3.Do you think that if asked to remove the pre-existing clause Obama won't use that as leverage to negotiate on the single payer mandate?3.You would hope he would, but Obama has betrayed liberals so many times that you can't count on this.

True, but I don't see that happening here. He would have the upper hand for once, or I should say again.

4.Do you think that American public is going to rally around Republicans refusing to come up with a plan to cover Americans? 4.I've given up hoping the American public will ever do the rational thing. If they had any sense at all they would demand a single payer option and vote out any politician against it.

True dat.

5.Furthermore, do you think that if the mandate gets struck down people are not going to vote for Obama the next election and why?5.I don't think it will hurt him that much. Most people voting against Obama are voting against him no matter what. The issues don't matter at all.

Obviously the key here is the independent vote and I think they understand the need for reform which is why I stated originally that this won't necessarily hurt Obama. It could ignite a whole new cause for his base.

[akoff 0]

The problem with your concept of us "forcing" Americans to make a decision is that by allowing them to make the decision to "not purchase" health insurance, is forcing other Americans to foot the bill for them, since they universally want health care when they need it.Congress has clearly deemed this kind of decision falls under the Commerce clause when they allowed it in cases such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, to cite just a few examples.

the funadmental difference as best as i can tell none of the references you make force each and every person to purchase something (health care). if you want to hire you must pay X, if you are building, mining whatever you must this standard (environmental) ect... there is a fundamental difference between saying if you choose to do this, you must follow these standards and saying each and every one of you much purchase this regardless if you feel you need, want or can afford it.if the SC allows the forced purchase of obamacare to go forward there is estentially no limit to what a government could force anyone to purchase...even for libs that should be an uncomfortable thing to have hanging out there.

[Roll the Bones 74]

To piss Brv off, I haven't had a long post in a while :)First let's be clear on the Commerce Clause. Congress shall have the power "to regulate Commerce ... among the several States" , is limited to deciding whether Congress "had a rational basis ... for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce" to merit federal action, and has "a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." Given that the health care industry is almost a fifth of our entire national economy, I think it clearly qualifies. Regulating it is clearly consititutional.You make the same two arguements that I always hear. First,

the funadmental difference as best as i can tell none of the references you make force each and every person to purchase something (health care). if you want to hire you must pay X, if you are building, mining whatever you must this standard (environmental) ect... there is a fundamental difference between saying if you choose to do this, you must follow these standards and saying each and every one of you much purchase this regardless if you feel you need, want or can afford it.

This assertion that the federal government is mandating an individual to do something is to me, and I think most lawyers, a distinction without a difference, as I mentioned. Sometimes an inaction is an action. Why is the employer who refuses to hire an African American any different from the individual who refuses to buy health insurance? You can say that the employer is in fact doing something -- he is refusing to hire an African American. But that is no different than refusing to buy health insurance.A businessman who enters into an agreement with a competitor to restrain competition in violation of the Sherman Act is refusing to do something as well, and we can go on.To say that this inaction doesn't effect interstate commerce is ludicrous. A healthy 23 year old young guy in Iowa that doesn't purchase insurance has a direct effect on the 60 year old woman in Maine. He is simply making a decision not to buy something, (he can afford) but that action has a direct effect on the rest of us. He is asking us to pick up his tab when he wants health care, which he inevitably will. (Please don't make the arguement about living in a country the refuses people).It makes perfect sense for Congress to attempt to deal with this problem by requiring people to have health insurance, just as states require people who own cars to have auto insurance.

[Roll the Bones 74]

I broke it in two parts so his head didn't explode.The second argument every keeps making, including the Supreme Court is the slippery slope one you make. If the federal government can require individuals to purchase health insurance, then there is no stopping point.

if the SC allows the forced purchase of obamacare to go forward there is estentially no limit to what a government could force anyone to purchase...even for libs that should be an uncomfortable thing to have hanging out there.

When we reason out arguments, we often do this to kind of test the wisdom of our decisions. If we do X, then what else will be have to do if we act consistently? Will we also have to do Y and Z? And if Y and Z are not good, then perhaps we shouldn't do X.I had to laugh at Scalia sliding down the slope that the federal government will make us all eat brocollit, or Alito slipping down the thought that we will all have to buy burial insurance.The slippery slope is a means of reasoning, not a conclusion as any first year law student knows, amirite Cane? If the decisions of individuals not to eat broccoli and not to buy burial insurance had similar effects on interstate commerce, then it might also be appropriate for the national government to intervene. But the hypotheticals are, quite frankly, ridiculous. We can obviously get off the slope before it reaches bad outcomes.The decisions of millions of individual Americans not to purchase health insurance (even though they can afford it) have a dramatic impact on the cost of health care for everyone else and on interstate commerce. This is clearly an appropriate matter for federal attention under the Commerce Clause. If the justices strike down the law, as I suspect, it will be an extremely dark day for our country imho. It will be so blatently partisan that the even the hacks will throw up. This is why 90% of the legal community expected the law to pass before they sat in amazement watching the horror unfold this week and these kinds of ignorant comments from the SC judges.

[InternetExplorer 2,609]

The economy/unemployment, right?If the economy is bad and people don't have jobs, they blame the President, right or wrong.

yeah, I think there's still time for a double-dip, which would definitely unseat him. spain could do it with a default, but I don't see it happening.http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServle...ame=CE_cesbref1by my math, if we add 228k jobs/month for the next 5 months, Obama gets to roll into the election claiming he created a million jobs in the midst of the worst recession since the depression. or something similar to that, I don't know, I'm not a campaign strategist.I suppose he could use the official end of the recession as his yardstick if he wanted to be a little froggy.

[DJ Vu 176]

A healthy 23 year old young guy in Iowa that doesn't purchase insurance has a direct effect on the 60 year old woman in Maine. He is simply making a decision not to buy something, (he can afford) but that action has a direct effect on the rest of us. He is asking us to pick up his tab when he wants health care, which he inevitably will.

How does the individual mandate work anyway? How do they force someone to have health insurance?

This is why 90% of the legal community expected the law to pass before they sat in amazement watching the horror unfold this week and these kinds of ignorant comments from the SC judges.

Made up stat!

[CaneBrain 95]

How does the individual mandate work anyway? How do they force someone to have health insurance?

You either have to prove you have insurance or you pay a penalty which is used to defray the overall cost of healthcare.I will agree with Randy in that even Hblask thought the mandate would get upheld with 80% confidence. The commerce clause NEVER loses. However, the Citizens United ruling flew in the face of decades of precedent and the court has never been more political. I was thisclose to being able to get health insurance without worry again. Alas. My wife is keeping her current job for a while...

[DJ Vu 176]

You either have to prove you have insurance or you pay a penalty which is used to defray the overall cost of healthcare.

When do you have to prove it?