Surprise! Mandate’s fate may ride on Kennedy

Tom Goldstein, a veteran litigator before the U.S. Supreme Court and publisher of ScotusBlog, listened to the morning’s argument over the ObamaCare mandate and posted the following assessment:

“Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.”

I know firsthand that trying to discern a judge’s mindset based on the questions that he or she asks is tricky business at best. The judge may be asking tough questions of one side merely to hone his or her own later arguments in support of that side.

For example, consider the divergence between two witnesses to the discussion, first from Lyle Denniston, also of ScotusBlog:

If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Toobin of CNN concludes from the questioning that Kennedy is “a lost cause” for the Obama administration:

“This was a train wreck for the Obama administration. This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong… if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate.”

– Jay Bookman

397 comments Add your comment

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

March 27th, 2012
12:28 pm

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

March 27th, 2012
12:31 pm

Sorry, but it will be UPHELD!!!

Becky

March 27th, 2012
12:34 pm

I don’t think the fact it will be upheld is sorry at all! Can we now change to calling this by its true name-Universal Health Care????

Erwin's cat

March 27th, 2012
12:35 pm

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
12:36 pm

Great questions from Clarence Thomas today!

Oh, wait, the lump hasn’t asked a single question in 6 years?????

WTF

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
12:37 pm

Jay

I heard Toobin on CNN, and he thinks that there’s a better chance of Roberts siding with the mandate over Kennedy based on his observations.

Becky

March 27th, 2012
12:40 pm

Seriously, what is the deal with Clarence Thomas not asking a question in 6 years? Did he speak enough at his embarrassing vetting trial?

Erwin's cat

March 27th, 2012
12:41 pm

Becky and Finn,
Why does he have to ask any questions?…he’ll listen to their arguments and decide based on that! He doesn’t need to help frame their argument.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
12:42 pm

Clarence’s wife must tell him which side to come down on. I wonder if she writes his decisions for him, too??

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 27th, 2012
12:47 pm

“Why does he have to ask any questions?…”

So we know that he’s a participant rather than a slug?

Matti

March 27th, 2012
12:47 pm

If men want to date each other, that’s their business, not ours.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
12:48 pm

what is the deal with Clarence Thomas not asking a question in 6 years

Because… he’s equal parts Teller, and Silent Bob?

JohnnyReb

March 27th, 2012
12:49 pm

If the Federal Government is allowed to force a citizen to make a purchase, there will be no limit to what the Feds can do. There goes the Constitution and the country as founded.

The bigger question is, why would ANYONE be willing to give up Liberty for government controlled health insurance greater than what already exists?

Keep Up--Te gusta losing woofinpoofs?

March 27th, 2012
12:51 pm

If they fail to uphold it will be a change of longstanding law.

Stonethrower

March 27th, 2012
12:51 pm

Justice Thomas is an intellectual giant and doesn’t need to ask questions.

Aquagirl

March 27th, 2012
12:55 pm

There goes the Constitution and the country as founded.

Time to drag out the fainting couch.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
12:55 pm

Ok, here’s a little exercise. Think of the five nastiest things the US government ever sanctioned in the past 200+ years.

Now think about democratically elected officials working out a law that would require American citizens to assume some responsibility for their own healthcare costs.

And now, try to figure out how to read this…

If the Federal Government is allowed to force a citizen to make a purchase, there will be no limit to what the Feds can do. There goes the Constitution and the country as founded.

without laughing.

They BOTH suck

March 27th, 2012
12:55 pm

Stonethrower

I would say that all the SCJs are all “intellectual giants” . The problem comes in when someone disagrees with a decision based on their own political bias and notions have how things should be………. at least IMO

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 27th, 2012
12:56 pm

“Why does he have to ask any questions?”

because that’s part of his JOB.

mm

March 27th, 2012
12:56 pm

“If the Federal Government is allowed to force a citizen to make a purchase, there will be no limit to what the Feds can do. ”

Yeah, forcing a women to have an unwanted and unnecessary procedure (ultrasound) is covered in the constitution.

And here’s a good one for you righties:

In 1986, Reagan signed a bill into law that forces hospitals (even against their will) to treat anyone that walks into the emergency room, even if they can’t pay. I can’t wait to watch you twist yourselves into knots defending that one.

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
12:57 pm

government controlled health insurance

The government does not nor will it control insurance. The insurance industry will still be a private sector group. They will have the added regulations that they can’t drop or refuse to cover people. In return, the government promised them an endless supply of customers. It has nothing to do with liberty at all. People who frame it as such fail to realize it’s more about business and the mighty dollar.

Lord Help Us

March 27th, 2012
12:58 pm

Maybe it’s just me, but Kennedy appears to be the only one that is not already ideologically predisposed. Maybe we need nine justices like Kennedy that are truly concerned with the constitutionality, not promoting and ideological slant.

This episode will likely only provide further evidence that the SCOTUS is compelled by current politics. Heck, 20 years ago when Heritage was promoting the individual mandate, I believe the SCOTUS would be the mirror image of how it is currently destined to rule. Again, with Kennedy as the swing vote…

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
12:58 pm

When Justice Thomas spikes a football, he hits oil.
SuperMan wears Clarence Thomas Pajamas.
Clarence Thomas doesn’t wear a watch, HE decides what time it is.
Clarence Thomas can get breakfast at McDonald’s after 10:30 A.M.
Clarence Thomas ordered a Big Mac at Burger King, and got one.
Siri doesn’t work on Clarence Thomas’ iPhone 4S, because NOBODY talks back to Clarence Thomas.
Clarence Thomas can get Chick-Fil-A on Sundays.

Erwin's cat

March 27th, 2012
12:58 pm

“because that’s part of his JOB”

No, no it’s not

USinUK - missing the dogwoods ... not the pollen count ...

March 27th, 2012
12:58 pm

“he’s equal parts Teller, and Silent Bob?”

… but without the substance

Shawny

March 27th, 2012
1:01 pm

It should be struck down, but not for the reason most liberals would assume.
Read this excellent piece from David Brooks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/opinion/brooks-step-to-the-center.html?_r=2&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120327

It talks to centralizing government authority, which is very dangerous. Libs talk about loving their rights and liberties, but this is one more step in taking many of those away.

Do read it…good piece.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:01 pm

PLEASE let this mandate get overturned!

“If the Federal Government is allowed to force a citizen to make a purchase, there will be no limit to what the Feds can do.” – I read it and kept a straight face. I get the whys/whats of the mandate. But if we are forced to buy a private product or pay a fine, what’s next?

Oscar

March 27th, 2012
1:01 pm

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
12:55 pm
_______

The point made was they may uphold the law if the can find a way to limit the ruling so it will not be expanded to other commerical products.

Oscar

March 27th, 2012
1:03 pm

But if we are forced to buy a private product or pay a fine, what’s next?

_______

Nothing will be next if the opinion is correctly drafted to limit its application to this one product. And that can be done.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:03 pm

if the can find a way to limit the ruling so it will not be expanded to other commerical products.

Oh, heck–after Bush v. Gore, these guys oughta be able to do THAT in their sleep!

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

March 27th, 2012
1:04 pm

“Yeah, forcing a women to have an unwanted and unnecessary procedure (ultrasound) is covered in the constitution.”

But, but, socialism, Marxism.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:05 pm

“Libs talk about loving their rights and liberties, but this is one more step in taking many of those away.” – I completely agree with you on this issue.

Jay and others who are all up in arms about gov’t in women’s wombs but are fine w/ gov’t in your kitchen while talking to your wife about what to do about health insurance are hypocrites.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:07 pm

But if we are forced to buy a private product or pay a fine, what’s next?

I guess I don’t understand what’s so scary about this particular product (really a service, but I won’t nitpick.) I can’t recall riots in the streets over mandated car liability coverage, or Medicare for that matter (which entails goo-gobs of private services being forcibly funded).

And keep in mind, the cynic in me would just as soon this thing IS overturned because I’d vastly prefer a single payer system, and it’s just possible that the mandated private insurance component of the ACA is nothing more than an impediment to an inevitable adoption of what we will probably wind up calling “Medicare for all,” one day.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:07 pm

“Nothing will be next if the opinion is correctly drafted to limit its application to this one product. ” – So much for not playing favorites………

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:07 pm

Alito must ask himself, “What would Harriet Miers do?”

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 27th, 2012
1:07 pm

If the government can’t mandate health insurance…they can’t mandate anything.

Like paying taxes or establishing speed limits or disallowing personal nukes….

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:08 pm

“car liability coverage”
YOU

DON’T

NEED

CAR

INSURANCE

IF

YOU

DON’T

OWN

A

CAR.

NEXT!

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:08 pm

disallowing personal nukes….

those aren’t allowed? uh oh.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:09 pm

If the government CAN mandate health insurance…they CAN mandate anything.

THAT is the scary part, Granny.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:09 pm

PD, really? you think not owning a car is a viable option for the vast majority of working Americans?

Common Sense isn't very Common

March 27th, 2012
1:09 pm

Question.

When the FCC went to digital television was the SC involved?

Were you required to purchase cable TV, HDtv or a digital antenna?

If not you did not get TV reception everywhere, did this make sense?

Oh, that’s right you could just do without :-)

Jefferson

March 27th, 2012
1:10 pm

Win some, lose some, some are rained out.

Jefferson

March 27th, 2012
1:11 pm

I do laugh in the general direction of the drama kings though….

Bernie

March 27th, 2012
1:12 pm

The Tea partiers know that they have a voice in at least one Justice. Clarence Thomas’s wife has insured that support. As a TEA PARTy Leader, she has a distinct advantage that no other American has.
She climbs into BED and “SLEEP” with HIM EVERYNIGHT!

Mick

March 27th, 2012
1:12 pm

**Cheney’s transplant, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, was apparently covered by both Medicare and his federal insurance as a former vice president.**

Go baby go…

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:12 pm

“Oh, that’s right you could just do without ” – I’ve been w/out cable for a year now and don’t regret it one bit. Netflix streaming/dvd over a satellite dish that goes out when the wind blows ANY DAY!!!

getalife

March 27th, 2012
1:13 pm

Long live ObamaCare.

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
1:14 pm

PLEASE let this mandate get overturned!

Yep, once that happens, the insurance company will go back to their old ways of excluding coverage, dropping coverage, and jacking up the price for reduced coverage. Instead of 1/6 of our GDP, health care will soon become 1/2 of our GDP. The “socialist” idea of single payer will sound like water to a person stranded in a desert then. Funny that the GOP is pushing this country towards a medical system that it opposes in a most extreme way.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:14 pm

disallowing personal nukes…

What??? Dang. Ok. let’s let this be our little secret, k?

mm

March 27th, 2012
1:14 pm

Still no takers on the Reagan question? Remember, corporations are people.

JOE COOL~DoWnToWn THUG

March 27th, 2012
1:14 pm

“If the government CAN mandate health insurance…they CAN mandate anything.”

Well i say lets end the mandate to to treat patients that show up at the hospital without insurance…. then we’ll see all this changed in 2 weeks once thousands die in the ER waiting room.

Jay

March 27th, 2012
1:15 pm

“When the FCC went to digital television was the SC involved?

Were you required to purchase cable TV, HDtv or a digital antenna?

If not you did not get TV reception everywhere, did this make sense?

Oh, that’s right you could just do without.”

Common, you raise an interesting point. As a matter of fact, when TV stations converted to digital, the federal government helped to subsidize the purchase of digital antennae for those who did not get cable, so those folks wouldn’t be left out. The law implementing that policy was passed in 2005, under a Republican Congress and president.

Reaching back even farther, when phone companies, electric utilities and gas utilities were formed, they were required by law to offer service to everybody, not just those whom it was profitable to serve, and extending those services to harder-to-reach communities in small towns and rural areas was many times subsidized by fees placed on those in easier-to-serve urban areas.

Don't Forget

March 27th, 2012
1:15 pm

Peadawg, one of the points that seemed to be agreed upon was the idea that you COULD require insurance coverage once you enter the healthcare system by going to a doctor or an ER because you would then be participating in that area of commerce. Your thoughts?

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

March 27th, 2012
1:15 pm

Peadawg

It’s only scarey to the folks who are scared.

I’m cut from much braver and more practical cloth.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:16 pm

Oh, stands beat me to it!

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:16 pm

Oh, that’s right you could just do without

…right. because having television programming at home is *totally* analogous to having the means by which one can reasonably expect to be able to earn a living in the United States.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:16 pm

Brosephus™
March 27th, 2012
1:14 pm

You mean there’s NO other way to tackle rising healthcare prices then to force the American people to buy a private product or pay a fine? Pahlease.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:17 pm

Could they please mandate the use of deodorant? PeaDawg is stinkin’ this joint up!

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
1:17 pm

a satellite dish that goes out when the wind blows

Sounds like a piss poor installation job. DirecTV streams a more powerful signal to the Southeastern part of the US to compensate for weather issues. My satellite doesn’t go out unless it’s right at severe weather conditions. If my satellite goes out in the rain, that’s usually a sign that there’s some serious water coming down or on it’s way down.

Common Sense isn't very Common

March 27th, 2012
1:17 pm

Pea – so you have the ability to receive digital signals.

If you lived in a rural area and couldn’t afford it what would you do?

The gov’t ran some channels off the air that couldn’t afford to upgrade the signal at their station.

Hard to get storm warnings without some type of reception.

mm

March 27th, 2012
1:17 pm

Remember folks, unless the SC oversteps on this one, the only thing to be shot down is the mandate. If that happens, the only losers will be the insurers (no more new customers). And they will blame the cons.

getalife

March 27th, 2012
1:18 pm

That talking head toobin is usually wrong.

Contrarian

March 27th, 2012
1:19 pm

Becky – no, we cannot call it “Universal Health Care” for that’s not what it is. If I have to pay private, for profit insurance companies for coverage that will enable me to obtain services from private, for profit providers, there’s nothing universal about it.

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:19 pm

The mandate needs to be shot down so we can attempt to go to single payer.

Logical Dude - slut and ho

March 27th, 2012
1:20 pm

Hey, if Medicare is acceptable by the Supremes, then so will this Healthcare bill.

Now, if the Supremes don’t like the steps this bill takes to cover everyone, then I foresee the end of Medicare as well.

Personally, I have “pre-existing conditions” and I like the rule that makes insurance companies cover me. I’ve had to cut through the silly red tape when moving insurance carriers because they thought they didn’t have to cover me. Basically, the rule was (is?) “if you have previous insurance, we’ll cover you, ifyou don’t, then we won’t” . . . which to me says “bugger off ya ingrate, we’ll just assume you didn’t have insurance until YOU prove it. If I had previous insurance or not, what does it matter to a CURRENT insurance carrier? Would I need different levels of care whether I had coverage or not? Not for me, no.

I like having the pre-existing conditions eliminated from qualifications for healthcare. Now, it DOES bug me that the government also would make me purchase something whether I want it or not. It does sound like a step in the wrong direction in personal liberty. But as a good person, I’d rather take care of those who need a little leg up during the bad times. I’m willing to pay a tiny little extra to have a healthier country.

mm

March 27th, 2012
1:20 pm

“You mean there’s NO other way to tackle rising healthcare prices then to force the American people to buy a private product or pay a fine? ”

Sure, Medicare for all. Otherwise, make the freeloaders pay instead of going to the emergency room at our expense.

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:20 pm

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
12:55 pm

Ok, here’s a little exercise. Think of the five nastiest things the US government ever sanctioned in the past 200+ years.

Now think about democratically elected officials working out a law that would require American citizens to assume some responsibility for their own healthcare costs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

But as I understand it, it ISN’T requiring Americans to assume responsibility for their own healthcare costs, it’s forcing EMPLOYERS to assume all responsibility.

It’s NOT an employers job to give healthcare. If the Gov’t wants to do it then let them, but don’t force employers…….

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:20 pm

“I’m cut from much braver and more practical cloth.” – No. You just love that daddy gov’t watching over you in this case.

That’s personally not for me.

Don’t Forget
March 27th, 2012
1:15 pm

If I’m reading it correctly, I’d be ok with that. That would be more along the lines of car insurance. You don’t own a car, you don’t need car insurance. You don’t go to the doc or ER, you don’t need health insurance. Forcing everyone to purchase health insurance regardless of the situation is where I draw the line.

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:21 pm

Yo Brocephus, check out my new handle………

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:21 pm

however…

I’ve been w/out cable for a year now and don’t regret it one bit. Netflix streaming/dvd over a satellite dish that goes out when the wind blows ANY DAY!!!

There but for the Mrs. and my ABD go I. (They like their TeeVee programming as it’s delivered, and I guess that’s a battle I’m not prepared to fight. Yet.)

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:22 pm

“Could they please mandate the use of deodorant? PeaDawg is stinkin’ this joint up!”

No, that’d be the fishy smell coming from your..um…yeah….

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:22 pm

Jay: Why don’t you do a huge article on Obamacare like you did on the Fair tax? I’ll buy you lunch and a concert ticket………

They BOTH suck

March 27th, 2012
1:23 pm

“You mean there’s NO other way to tackle rising healthcare prices then to force the American people to buy a private product or pay a fine? Pahlease.”

Ever since Obama and the Dems came up with “obamcare” many on the right say we do need change, just not this change

Please provide a synopsis of what Republicans did to reign in cost and increase coverage for more indivduals when they controlled Congress from 94 thru 2006, especially during the Bush yrs where they had Congress and the WH……..

They did do something right? The talk about change is not mere talk, right?

You can start with TX on the state level if you like… Boy prices are going down so fast since tort reform…… Oh, they are not….. you might want to start elsewhere

Don't Forget

March 27th, 2012
1:23 pm

No matter what happens, the sun will continue to rise every morning.

Jefferson

March 27th, 2012
1:23 pm

If people won’t play the game, they will change the rules.

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:24 pm

dB: You use netflix and Hulu plus and you can get everything. I’ve been thinking of doing it and then wussed out at the last minute and re-upped with Comcast…….

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:24 pm

stands for decibels
March 27th, 2012
1:21 pm

Plus, every show I watched on t.v. I watch online now whether it’s House, Army Wives, Psych, whatever. You can always find the episodes online somewhere.

The only thing I miss is SportsCenter, PTI, Around the Horn, etc.

Recon 0311 2533

March 27th, 2012
1:25 pm

I thought Kennedy asking ” if this law wouldn’t fundamentally change the relationship between the American citizen and his/her government”? That seems to be a shared concerned among the more conservative justices. The majority of observers appear to be leaning toward rejection of the mandate.

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
1:25 pm

You mean there’s NO other way to tackle rising healthcare prices then to force the American people to buy a private product or pay a fine?

The ACA isn’t going to slow costs down. As long as both parties, providers and patients, are being squeezed by a middleman who’s sole interests are profits, there will be no controlling costs. That’s where you and others who want the mandate overturned fail to realize that you’re pushing faster towards a single payer system than any die hard liberal would ever have to.

The GOP has put forth the same remedies they have always tried, like tort reform. Texas has proven tort reform will not produce any results at slowing costs. Selling across state lines, as some have suggested, opens the insurance company up to regulation under the interstate clause, which is part of the reason why some conservatives oppose the mandate.

The only way to get some semblance of control over costs in the system is to remove the source of the rising costs, which is the profit driven middleman. Long ago, when health care was more of a not-for-profit industry, I don’t recall people having costs rise nowhere near as fast as they do now. You’re not gonna turn our system back into a non-profit industry, so the only other option would be single payer.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:25 pm

it’s forcing EMPLOYERS to assume all responsibility.

really?

http://healthreform.kff.org/The-Basics/Employer-Penalty-Flowchart.aspx

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:25 pm

Don’t Forget

March 27th, 2012
1:23 pm

No matter what happens, the sun will continue to rise every morning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And what in the HELL does that have to do with anything? If you were a 14 year old kidnapped girl who was chained to a bed and repeatedly raped for days on end would you take heart that tomorrow the sun will rise?

Matti

March 27th, 2012
1:26 pm

If the mandate is repealed, I’m guessing my Republican Congressman (an alleged doctor himself) will be penning a bill prohibiting doctors, hospitals, and other medical facilities from raising the costs they charge insured patients to cover the costs of those who cannot or will not pay. Right?

I mean, they can’t MAKE me pay a higher price for medical treatment to cover the freedom lovers who are shocked (shocked I tell you!) to discover that they did need hospitalization after all, and jeepers, it was more than they could afford (even though they were certain such a scenario would never occur in their lives.) I mean, Sam Olens and all the others in Washington fighting for my freedom right now would never let folks who DO exercise personal responsibility pay the costs of those who refuse. Right?

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:26 pm

“Please provide a synopsis of what Republicans did to reign in cost and increase coverage for more indivduals when they controlled Congress from 94 thru 2006, especially during the Bush yrs where they had Congress and the WH……..

They did do something right? The talk about change is not mere talk, right?”

You’re not getting any argument from me on that one.

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
1:27 pm

Fred

Thanks for making me spit up a good mouthful of coffee. Damn good waste of gingerbread latte creamer too….
:)

mm

March 27th, 2012
1:28 pm

“But as I understand it, it ISN’T requiring Americans to assume responsibility for their own healthcare costs, it’s forcing EMPLOYERS to assume all responsibility.”

Uh, wrong.

But if you want to go down that road, allow everyone to buy health insurance at the same group rates as corporations. Then get the corporations out of the game. With all of the new customers, the rates should continue to fall.

Don't Forget

March 27th, 2012
1:28 pm

Relax Fred, I’m just saying it’s not the end of the world either side seems to think it would be. No meltdowns are necessary.

They BOTH suck

March 27th, 2012
1:29 pm

Peadawg

To be clear, I do not think the ACA is the end all of end all in terms of coverage and cost………
With that said, if the SC allows the law to stand, Republicans and those who vote all or majority Republicans need to blame Republicans

They had the opportunity to do something and FAILED to act. Now want to cry because action was taken… This notion of “we have a better plan”, ” we can do this not just Obama’s way”, etc , etc……. didn’t come about until those Republicans knew Obama meant business and was pushing as he said he would be before he was elected……..

They BOTH suck

March 27th, 2012
1:30 pm

“gingerbread latte creamer “??

man you are yuppying it up down there at the airport…………..

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:30 pm

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:25 pm

it’s forcing EMPLOYERS to assume all responsibility.

really?

http://healthreform.kff.org/The-Basics/Employer-Penalty-Flowchart.aspx
++++++++++++++++++++++++

db, That chart is stupid and doesn’t represent all the alternatives. I don’t know what kind of business you run and how much profit you derive from it, but paying 2 grand per employee will bankrupt my buddy. He just doesn’t have that much profit in the company.

stands for decibels

March 27th, 2012
1:31 pm

Fred, PD, just curious–what hardware are you using to stream that stuff? any recommendations? (I’m ill equipped in that area at the moment and am looking for a cheap/easy way to get my feet wet, without (say) tying up a laptop).

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:31 pm

They BOTH suck
March 27th, 2012
1:29 pm

Good point.

They BOTH suck

March 27th, 2012
1:31 pm

Peadawg

At 1:26

Thanks for the reply. Once again the current bill imo is better than nothing, but there was real chance for even something better but Repubs did nothing when they had the chance and wanted to fight, fight , fight when someone else took the ball and ran with it

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:32 pm

Brocephus: It gets better. Not only was I called a white hater, but a page later I was called an Uncle Tom.

I think I’m treading on a classic of stupidity from two different posters………. this is better than being called a neocon or a leftist like I usually am……..

Finn McCool (Class Warfare === Stopping Rich People from TAKING MORE of OUR MONEY)

March 27th, 2012
1:33 pm

Good flowchart, Stands

Fred ™ Being Black since 8:57 this morning

March 27th, 2012
1:33 pm

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:24 pm

stands for decibels
March 27th, 2012
1:21 pm

Plus, every show I watched on t.v. I watch online now whether it’s House, Army Wives, Psych, whatever. You can always find the episodes online somewhere.

The only thing I miss is SportsCenter, PTI, Around the Horn, etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Even though you were an obnoxious asshat to me earlier I’ll help you out lol. Try ESPN3.com they show most of those shows.

mm

March 27th, 2012
1:34 pm

“The majority of observers appear to be leaning toward rejection of the mandate”

85% of the members of the ABA polled yesterday thought it would be upheld.

ty webb

March 27th, 2012
1:34 pm

and in keeping with precedent with regards to the politicization of tragic shootings…Zimmerman was a registered democrat.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:35 pm

“Try ESPN3.com” – I used that A LOT (as well as Locos Bar) during football season. I didn’t they did SC, PTI and all that too. Thanks!

Brosephus™

March 27th, 2012
1:35 pm

They BOTH

Today’s a rare off day. I don’t take the good stuff to work. Officers love coffee. ;)

———————-

Fred

I got that other thread up in a different window. Now I gotta go back and read around that time frame.

Peadawg

March 27th, 2012
1:36 pm

didn’t know*