Obama’s new three-front war on ObamaCare

posted at 12:01 pm on July 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama may have won a legal battle at the Supreme Court over ObamaCare, but he also ended up with a huge political fight on his hands just as the presidential election begins to catch the attention of voters.  Those voters are not big fans of ObamaCare, regardless of its new status as a constitutional tax.  A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows their sample evenly split on the ruling, but slightly opposed overall to ObamaCare, and independents are significantly negative about both:

Most Americans agree on one thing related to the court’s upholding the law – that they feel “strongly” about the outcome – but the consensus ends there.

Overall, the poll finds attitudes split down the middle on the court ruling, with 43 percent holding favorable impressions of the ruling, and just as many, 42 percent, holding unfavorable ones.

The partisan gap is stark: Fully two-thirds of conservative Republicans have strongly unfavorable views of the judgment, and nearly as many liberal Democrats – 61 percent – hold intensely positive ones. Among political independents, 36 percent have overall favorable impressions; 43 percent overall negative views.

Partisans are also fairly well lined up behind their parties’ presidential candidates on the issue: 80 percent of Democrats have favorable views of President Obama’s plans for health care; most, but fewer Republicans – 62 percent – have positive views of Mitt Romney’s ideas.

One potential trouble spot for both campaigns, however, is that independents tilt away from both approaches. Independents lead away from Obama’s plans: 38 percent favorable to 52 percent unfavorable. The percentage of independents with negative views of Romney’s plans outnumbers positive impressions by twenty percentage points (46 to 26 percent, with a sizable 28 percent expressing no opinion).

Bear in mind that the poll’s sample data has yet to be published.  Given what we know about their usual partisan breakdown, this is likely to be hiding some bad news for Obama.  The seven-point gap among independents should reflect better in the overall rating, especially given the mirror-image results among Republicans and Democrats, unless Democrats got oversampled yet again.  Even taking this at face value, Obama didn’t gain anything politically from the favorable court ruling.

As I argue in my column for The Week, Obama stands to lose a lot more in the political arena.  He now faces a three-front war over ObamaCare in the next few months, which is one reason why Jack Lew and other Democratic surrogates want to change the subject:

1. The return of the Tea Party

The Tea Party was born before Congress began debating the health-care overhaul in the summer of 2009, but the proposal galvanized the protests into a full-fledged movement. Until the court upheld ObamaCare, Tea Party activists had little reason to organize or donate on Romney’s behalf, as they viewed him with distrust after his own health-care reforms in Massachusetts. But now, Tea Party activists have no way of getting rid of the ACA except by defeating Obama in November. Commentator and early Tea Party supporter Kevin McCullough told me that he has heard from every Tea Party group with which he’s worked about the need to elect Romney, a big change from earlier in the year when some of these same groups threatened to sit out the 2012 elections if Romney won the GOP nomination. The Supreme Court’s decision guarantees that the Tea Party will go from lukewarm to fired up.

2. The resistance of Republican governors

In a move that didn’t garner much attention at first, Roberts’ decision did overturn one key component of the ACA. Before the court’s ruling, states that refused to comply with a Medicaid expansion that provides most of the coverage for the uninsured would have risked losing at least a significant part of their existing federal Medicaid funding. Roberts limited the penalty in the ACA to only the funds for the expansion — which means that states no longer pay a penalty for refusing to expand Medicaid.

Now that the federal government can’t threaten to reduce base Medicaid funding in retaliation for refusing to enact the expansion, a number of Republican governors have announced that their states will not participate: Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Perry of Texas, among others. …

3. The ire of the Catholic Church

Call this one the War of Choice in the health-care battles, irony fully intended. Obama took a powerful voting bloc that gave him a nine-point edge in 2008 and its Catholic bishop leaders that support universal health care, and turned them into bitter foes just months before the election. Had the court overturned ObamaCare, the HHS contraception mandate would have disappeared too, and with it the only reason for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to be politically engaged in this cycle.

The last is the easiest to solve, as I explain in the column, but so far the White House shows no sign of buckling on the contraception mandate.  It’s a very strange political choice, and one that will complicate matters for Obama tremendously as he tries to repair his 2008 coalition.  Now that the Roberts court has handed him a big legal victory, Obama can’t even run against the Supreme Court — but Romney can, and undoubtedly will to the extent that he wants to talk about anything else but jobs and the economy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Thank God the Roberts smirk isn’t there…

OmahaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Perry of Texas, among others. …

Nikki Haley of South Carolina

SouthernGent on July 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Mr double down in chief

cmsinaz on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?

nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Online Streaming Rush Limbaugh Radio Show!

Sixth Show dowm!!

The Rush Limbaugh Show on 560 WFRB
Conservative from Frostburg, MD
********************************

http://tunein.com/search/?id=c292321&filter=&so=26

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Architect of ObamaCare admits he was 100% wrong about cost savings:


Gruber then: Obamacare will “for sure” reduce insurance costs

Before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act became law, Gruber published a widely-cited analysis, using his Gruber Microsimulation Model, in which he asserted that in 2016, young people would save 13 percent, and older people 31 percent, on their insurance premiums. Gruber’s numbers were used to rebut an October 2009 analysis from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which projected that non-group (a.k.a. individual-market) premiums would increase by 47 percent over the same period.

Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent

As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases—Wisconsin in August 2011, Minnesota in November 2011, and Colorado in January 2012—Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.

In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent.

Some low-income individuals would benefit from Obamacare’s subsidies; for those individuals, the impact of these premium increases would be blunted. But if premium costs go up at a rate faster than people expect, taxpayers will be on the hook for billions upon billions of extra subsidies.

“It is true that even after [subsidies] some individuals are ‘losers,’” Gruber told The Daily Caller, “in that they pay more than before reform.” But why did Gruber change his mind? A “discriminatory” market is to blame, he says, in which “the sick just stayed [uninsured].”

Forbes

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM

So how many people will simply ‘opt-out’ of ObamaCare on “religious grounds”, thus avoiding any penalty?

GarandFan on July 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Ugh,on a roll,thats down,not(dowm).

Btw,Rush is on HopeyHealthCare Right Now…
the End of America!(His Words).

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Now the LSM is admitting (through polling) that Romney leads by at least 8 points in 15 “swing” states (which means it’s really much worse than that).

The guy apparently can’t rub two pennies together in fundraising, unless it’s from Hollywood or the ghey community.

Their “victory” handed to them by Roberts screws up their whole plan of running against SCOTUS, and puts the dreaded T word (“ta- penalty”?) front and center 4 months before the election. They were planning on the “big reveal” (we find out what’s in it) once he was elected to his 2nd term. Oops.

Tell me again how this election is even going to be close? It’s Romney’s to lose.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on July 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?
nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

They need to replace it with tort reform and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Furthermore, the new cost projections will expose the cost-shifting onto the states used by ObamaCare advocates to hide the real price tag of Obama’s reform.

The Feds will pay 100% of the medicaid expansion through at least 2016, and more than 90% thereafter.

The people who would be insured under this are already getting medical care, the tab is just picked up by hospitals. You better believe that the hospitals will put a ton of pressure on the State governors to accept the expansion money.

red_herring on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Don’t worry…

… Congress exempted themselves from Obowmacare so they will be OK.

You can all rest easy now…

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

If Obama is re-elected then we’re pretty much done for as a country.

cartooner on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

So how many people will simply ‘opt-out’ of ObamaCare on “religious grounds”, thus avoiding any penalty?
GarandFan on July 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I’m ready working on it as we speak.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Tell me again how this election is even going to be close? It’s Romney’s to lose.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on July 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

They have already tipped their hand.

The Obama campaign really has no issue to run on, other than a few things targeted to specific demographic groups.

Their only choice is to launch a Palin-like personal smear campaign against Romney, his family, his former business, and his Church.

That is what they will have to do because they have nothing else.

The media will do all they can to pick up that ball and run with it.

That is Hope ‘n Change 2012.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I saw on Fox this morning that something like 26 states will not go along with the medicaid(I believe that was the number). I have a feeling this will doom bho about as much as anything else he has been doing since elected? At least I can sure hope it does and bho gets the boot.
L

letget on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

So what happens when Obama wins re-election in circumstances as weird and suspicious as what just happened with the Supreme Court?

What then, guys?

HB3 on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I’m ready working on it as we speak.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

We’re all Reformed Amish now!

gwelf on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

They need to replace it with tort reform and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The irony of that is it’d mean the federal government would basically neuter States’ abilities to regulate insurance. That being said, i think it’s a no brainer for lowering costs. Too bad the state governors would probably fight it tooth and nail.

red_herring on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

Those voters are not big fans of ObamaCare, regardless of its new status as a constitutional tax.

Always call it an extra-Constitutional tax, because it is NOT Constitutional.

If Roberts decided this with no pressure he is insane.

If he decided under threat the USA is no longer free.

By judicial fiat, the Roberts Court has created and conferred an extra-Constitutional unlimited taxation power upon the Congress.

This new power is exactly like the taxing power of old; the power of applying a mandatory, non-apportioned direct tax upon all citizens, based upon an indirect-tax construct, that enriches a set of private, government-sanctioned monopolies as well as the government itself, and sets up a bureaucracy that can freely grant exceptions and immunities to politically connected favorites.

The lawless injustice of the Roberts decision and its future destructive consequences are immeasurable.

The media and Obama should spontaneously combust for making the USA Venezuela. The people should wake up, or perish in punishment for allowing them to proceed.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Also, Romney and his fool Fehrnstrom, or such, are political midgets. Roberts handed them a political gift on a platinum platter and they blew it into the wind.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

There’s a fourth war: in Congress. With many Republican congresscritters vowing repeal (despite Mitch McConnell’s Eeyorishness), Obamacare is under seige from a fourth front.

Mohonri on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?

nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Yeah, by the following reforms:

1. Allow private health plans to be sold across state lines.
This increases competition and lowers prices. Insurance companies will come up with more and more varied products, allowing policy holders to customized their coverage.

2. Limit punitive damages in malpractice suits.
This lowers the cost of malpractice insurance and therefore the cost of care.

3. Constitutional amendment forbidding taxes or penalties for INactivity.
This prevents any more foolishness like what the Supreme Court just handed us.

4. Recall of Chief Justice John Roberts.
These people need to learn who is REALLY in charge around here, and that playing fast and loose with our founding document to protect your status on the DC cocktail party circuit is not going to fly.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

red – the states cannot afford it and the hospitals know it. In Indiana Daniels said it will be up to the legislature as he has agreed to get out of public politics after being announced as the next Purdue University president. No way it passes – and Pence won’t agree to it anyway.

The beauty of this? All the poor will move to states that expand medicaid – all the businesses will move out to non-expansion states. Let the progs live in their wonderland with zero dollars – and a congress that won’t help them with funding.

Zomcon JEM on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Perry of Texas, among others. …

Mark Dayton of Minnesota.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I crack myself up.

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

customized s/b customize.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Nikki Haley of South Carolina

SouthernGent on July 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Indiana and a few other smaller states too

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

The partisan gap is stark: Fully two-thirds of conservative Republicans have strongly unfavorable views of the judgment, and nearly as many liberal Democrats – 61 percent – hold intensely positive ones.

The only reason the left wing fascist goose steppers in this country favor the obamacare tax is because they think (giggle) that only the “rich” will pay it and they’ll get another freebie entitlement.

The joke will be on them as they stand before the death panels.

Wolfmoon on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

The beauty of this? All the poor will move to states that expand medicaid – all the businesses will move out to non-expansion states. Let the progs live in their wonderland with zero dollars – and a congress that won’t help them with funding.

Zomcon JEM on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Good point. Very good point.

Bishop on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Obama’s new three-front war on ObamaCare

…I think Ed hit them in order too!

KOOLAID2 on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I’m ready working on it as we speak.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Yup, me too, member for a few months now.

hillsoftx on July 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

The Feds will pay 100% of the medicaid expansion through at least 2016, and more than 90% thereafter.

The people who would be insured under this are already getting medical care, the tab is just picked up by hospitals. You better believe that the hospitals will put a ton of pressure on the State governors to accept the expansion money.

red_herring on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

With all that surplus money the Federal money has, of course!

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

4. Recall of Chief Justice John Roberts.
These people need to learn who is REALLY in charge around here, and that playing fast and loose with our founding document to protect your status on the DC cocktail party circuit is not going to fly.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

There is no provision in the Constitution to recall a Supreme Court Justice, since they are appointed by the Executive, and confirmed by the Senate.

The only way to force out a SC Justice is to prove they have engaged in unethical and unlawful activities, and carry through an impeachment. That’s it.

A recall is a special election, to reverse a previous election.

You can’t recall that which was never elected in the first place.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Also, all here, Ed too, please, please, please, quit calleing it Obamacare. It has nothing to do with care of any kind.

Call it ObamaTax, or come up with a more cleve name. The right needs to be united in mocking Obama and his fiasco out of town.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?

nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

They need to replace it with tort reform and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Tort reform, allowing to compete across state borders, allowing to re-import drugs, and the most important of all – repeal of EMTALA. That’s where the largest pile of manure is buried.

Archivarix on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I’m ready working on it as we speak.
jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Yup, me too, member for a few months now.
hillsoftx on July 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

How do you like it? I’m a little confused as to how it works.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I don’t want my husband to play ball-but if he tries to get out of it on the basis that he’s a Christian blah blah-it won’t wash w/ me. I’m not ‘Christian’ but I still won’t cooperate. I’m a citizen-not a slave! NONE of us are slaves-and we shouldn’t be treated as such

annoyinglittletwerp on July 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Nikki Haley of South Carolina

SouthernGent on July 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Indiana and a few other smaller states too

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

I would expect Tennessee’s new Republican Governor would join that group as well.

He better, if he knows what’s good for him.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

That is what they will have to do because they have nothing else.

Actually, that’s not all. But we all have to hope Glenn is wrong and we’re not facing brown shirts at all the polling places where conservatives vote.

PastorJon on July 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Enjoy yourselves. It’s prohibited to be shown on Fox, by Obama.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

On Chess & Checkers:

One of the Chief Justice’s admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story.


Sowell’s.

Axe on July 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Those voters are not big fans of ObamaCare, regardless of its new status as a constitutional tax.

I wish someone would poll on how many people are buying SCOTUS’s tax argument, that the mandate is a tax. I suspect they’re not, which means the Romney strategy is probably correct.

changer1701 on July 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Mitch McConnell says it’s too hard…

… so why even try?

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Re-write, with more coffee

Also, all here, Ed too, please, please, please, quit calling it Obamacare. It has nothing to do with care of any kind.

Call it ObamaTax, or come up with a more clever name. The right needs to be united in mocking Obama and his fiasco out of town.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?

nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

I’d say SOME reforms are necessary, but the free market should reign supreme. The only things I like are the pre-existing condition (which has never been a problem for me with blue cross) and insurance companies should be allowed to balance their risk pools across state lines.

Mandates to carry insurance? No. Hell no. How about torte reform? That’s something the left likes as much as boiling oil dumped on the crotch area being that they are in the pockets of trial lawyers. How about kicking as many illegals out as possible? That’ll stop some funds from feeding the wrong mouths too.

Wolfmoon on July 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Actually, that’s not all. But we all have to hope Glenn is wrong and we’re not facing brown shirts at all the polling places where conservatives vote.

PastorJon on July 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Something like that could be a problem in some isolated deep blue urban areas, such as we saw with the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia a couple of years ago.

There just aren’t enough of them to do that everywhere.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

2012 – A Thug versus a Prince in Gloves

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

They need to replace it with tort reform and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

And get rid of all the mandated coverage things and let people buy insurance that fits them, from a group. I should be able to buy insurance for what I need from a “healthy man in his 40s who works out” national group, like I buy my life insurance. I shouldn’t HAVE TO have pap smear, pregnancy, and birth control coverage as part of my plan, as well as many of the other things my group plan currently covers through work that I will NEVER use, but raises the price for all of us.

PastorJon on July 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Their only choice is to launch a Palin-like personal smear campaign against Romney, his family, his former business, and his Church.

That is what they will have to do because they have nothing else.

The media will do all they can to pick up that ball and run with it.

That is Hope ‘n Change 2012.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

That’s what I expected out the gate as soon as Romney had clinched the nomination. It’s becoming clear though that they don’t have the money or time to do it, however, and they may also not have the organization to do it either. Romney now has some shot at winning.

4. Recall of Chief Justice John Roberts.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Never going to happen. At a minimum you’d need the entire Republican Party behind you, and given the number of people on this site – a website for Republican activists – who are defending Roberts and his decision enthusiastically, I don’t see the party uniting on this issue any time soon.

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

How do you like it? I’m a little confused as to how it works.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Wish HA had P.M. feature..short of it, I had 40+ hrs research, reference verification, etc. before signing up..no “claims” as of yet, all else has been as laid out…20% increase in members since O’caretax was passed..

hillsoftx on July 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

4. Recall of Chief Justice John Roberts.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Never going to happen. At a minimum you’d need the entire Republican Party behind you, and given the number of people on this site – a website for Republican activists – who are defending Roberts and his decision enthusiastically, I don’t see the party uniting on this issue any time soon.

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

There is no provision in the Constitution to recall a Supreme Court Justice, since they are appointed by the Executive, and confirmed by the Senate.

The only way to force out a SC Justice is to prove they have engaged in unethical and unlawful activities, and carry through an impeachment. That’s it.

A recall is a special election, to reverse a previous election.

You can’t recall that which was never elected in the first place.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

But look how Yahoo brings it to the stupid public.

And here is the ‘gift’ the Romney fools keep giving by not defining it an “extra-Constitutional” tax, and sticking by it.

Instead the allow the media and the Obama-thugs to say “see, you are an Etch-A-Sketch…never mind the we lie our heads off”.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM

4. Recall of Chief Justice John Roberts.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Can I humbly suggest to start with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer? By the time we get to that, Darth Vader Ginsburg will likely be recalled by the higher authority anyway.

Archivarix on July 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Actually, that’s not all. But we all have to hope Glenn is wrong and we’re not facing brown shirts at all the polling places where conservatives vote.

PastorJon on July 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Something like that could be a problem in some isolated deep blue urban areas, such as we saw with the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia a couple of years ago.

There just aren’t enough of them to do that everywhere.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

If there is just punch them in the mouth

Conservative4ev on July 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

The only way to force out a SC Justice is to prove they have engaged in unethical and unlawful activities, and carry through an impeachment. That’s it.

A recall is a special election, to reverse a previous election.

You can’t recall that which was never elected in the first place.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Well spotted. I meant “impeach.” (I guess the recent effort against Scott Walker gave me “recall on the brain”.)

Yeah, I know. Fat chance, because no one wants to get their hands dirty.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

The Feds will pay 100% of the medicaid expansion through at least 2016, and more than 90% thereafter.

red_herring on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Gee, where do the Feds get the money? Hmmm… Is it going to be all the “Free Riders” the dems are claiming this law is enacted to catch? The ones they are claiming only comprise 1% of the population? You believe everything you are told without question, don’t you?

Night Owl on July 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Can I humbly suggest to start with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer? By the time we get to that, Darth Vader Ginsburg will likely be recalled by the higher authority anyway.

Archivarix on July 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Supreme Court Justices cannot be recalled.

Medical incapacitation or death, voluntary retirement or impeachment by Congress.

That is it, by the Constitution.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

This election is a referendum on Obama.
PERIOD.

gerrym51 on July 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

There is no provision in the Constitution to recall a Supreme Court Justice, since they are appointed by the Executive, and confirmed by the Senate.

The only way to force out a SC Justice is to prove they have engaged in unethical and unlawful activities, and carry through an impeachment. That’s it.

A recall is a special election, to reverse a previous election.

You can’t recall that which was never elected in the first place.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I’m quite aware there’s no provision, but if there’s enough of an uproar it might be possible to do it anyway. If the Democrats and Supreme Court can ignore the constitution, I don’t really see that Republicans have adhere to it either.

As I said, however, it’s a pipe dream because a good chunk of the Republican party is enthusiastically supporting the Roberts decision as some sort of wonderful victory for the Constitution.

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Well spotted. I meant “impeach.” (I guess the recent effort against Scott Walker gave me “recall on the brain”.)

Yeah, I know. Fat chance, because no one wants to get their hands dirty.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Well the problem with that is the bar for impeachment is quite high.

Disagreeing with the rulings won’t do it.

You have to prove in a Senate trial that illegality or severe impropriety was committed, and get the votes to convict in order to remove from the bench.
Take the case of Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL).

He was a federal judge, and was impeached off the bench for some reason, can’t recall what it was right now.

So, he ran for Congress. Great country, ain’t it?

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I saw on Fox this morning that something like 26 states will not go along with the medicaid(I believe that was the number). I have a feeling this will doom bho about as much as anything else he has been doing since elected? At least I can sure hope it does and bho gets the boot.
L

letget on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

In the WSJ today, I read that FL’s GOP speaker of the house intends to fight Scott on this. In addition, FL hospitals are lining up behind expansion because they want the dough.

The argument seems to be that declining states won’t be getting their fair share. Funny, what sense does it make to expand a program when it requires the feds to borrow 40% (or more) of the amount to do so?

Something I don’t get is how hospitals are lining up for expansion when Obamacare, at the same time, will be cutting their reimbursement rates. Won’t it amount to a wash?

Obamacare is a clusterfark.

BuckeyeSam on July 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

So what happens when Obama wins re-election in circumstances as weird and suspicious as what just happened with the Supreme Court?

What then, guys?

HB3 on July 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The odds of Obama getting reelected are slim, in fact. The odds of Romney and Republicans putting and end to Obamacare are also slim. Either way I think we’re stuck with it, but not without consequences.

rickv404 on July 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Well the problem with that is the bar for impeachment is quite high.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

That it is. Maybe we can claim he was senile. ;-)

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

A recall isn’t possible, but the threat of a massive political public uproar against the Court as an institution seems to be what swayed Roberts off of voting with the Dissenters and switching at the last hour.

So, apparently we have learned that can have an effect even though it isn’t in the Constitution anywhere.

Seems that sort of tactic is a one way street though, it only goes right-to-left, not left-to-right.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Mitch McConnell says it’s too hard…

… so why even try?

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Welcome back! Hope you and little 7% had a lovely holiday. I’m still on mine. ; ) I peek in here lately at HA and its pitiful. The daily whine. The crybaby club. Man when did Conservatives start that Kos nonsense. Even Limbag is whining. Weak kneed folks. Time to buck up and put this crap behind us. Stay on message. The largest tax increase in the history of the world! Mock 0, every chance you get. This morale last much longer and I will start to understand the concept of 0 having a chance to win. Anyhow sorry to blend a rant with a welcome, but I didn’t want to be OT. Don’t let em get your humbles 7%. I trust they won’t. ; ) Welcome back friend.

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

They need to replace it with tort reform and allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

And remove individual/employer contribution caps on Health Savings Accounts. And allow companies to offer another health plan option which contributes the full amount of what they’d normally spend on their plan into their employee’s HSA, and allow HSA dollars to be spend on health plan premiums.

But you want to know the biggest way to save? Encourage transparency in procedure pricing by provider. Healthcare Blue Book does this and works fantastic! Apply the open market principles to providers and watch prices fall and quality increase as they have to compete.

dominigan on July 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Republican governors have announced that their states will not participate: Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Scott of Florida, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and Rick Perry of Texas, among others. …

Martin O’Malley…oh wait…CRAP!!

Stevel on July 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The odds of Obama getting reelected are slim, in fact. The odds of Romney and Republicans putting and end to Obamacare are also slim. Either way I think we’re stuck with it, but not without consequences.

rickv404 on July 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Doesn’t most of this boondoggle not go into effect until 2014? We need to remind the Republicans that there’s also a midterm election in 2014 with all Representatives and several Senators up for reelection. After 2012, they have two years to prove they deserve it.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

That it is. Maybe we can claim he was senile. ;-)

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Haha, maybe temporary insanity induced by the Washington DC media establishment. :)

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

So, apparently we have learned that can have an effect even though it isn’t in the Constitution anywhere.

Seems that sort of tactic is a one way street though, it only goes right-to-left, not left-to-right.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Good summary.

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

I don’t think we know what the message is anymore. We are getting a lot mixed signals.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

but Romney can, and undoubtedly will to the extent that he wants to talk about anything else but jobs and the economy.

Weakest tea in all the brew

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM

We need a full scale uprising/coup in the republican party!!!

We need to throw every single Progressive/RINO/Bush/Dole/McCain lackey out of their elected offices and then start on the party apparatus as well.

THIS problem will not be solved until there is a COMPLETE REVOLT INSIDE THE gop!!!

WE are PAUL REVERE.

PappyD61 on July 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

“Let’s just move on.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NNOrp_83RU

RedNewEnglander on July 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

These Governors that are blindly spouting just say no to Obamacare, are doing a great harm to the repeal movement. They instead need to be showing the pain that their states budgets will experience. Tax increases, new taxes, even the unthinkable taxes like a state income tax in Florida and Texas.

meci on July 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Good summary.

Doomberg on July 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Thanks. It is so jarring to compare the media coverage from a week before the decision, and a couple of days following the decision.

Roberts is Hitler’s favorite jurist one day, and suddenly becomes the Savior sacrificing himself for all of us despite right wing pressure the next day.

Truly ridiculous.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Also, Romney and his fool Fehrnstrom, or such, are political midgets. Roberts handed them a political gift on a platinum platter and they blew it into the wind.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Leave it to you to fall hook, line & sinker for the MSM spin. The Romney Camp said Romney agrees with the dissenting justices that the mandate is an unconstitutional penalty not a constitutional tax. MSM spinned that into “Romney agrees with Obama: mandate is a penalty not a tax.”* And of course, you fell for it. Go look at mittromney.com First page is about Obamacare.

*Never mind that Obama insisting that it is a penalty not a tax means he is saying the mandate is unconstitutional, that is too complicated for people to follow.

Dark Star on July 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I believe the hospitals get reimbursed at a higher rate than typical state medicaid, which is why they went for Obamacare, a raise in Medicaid reimbursements – you see they were bought off as well. If you watch carefully the real villians in this whole fight are the hospitals.

Zomcon JEM on July 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Don’t worry…

… Congress exempted themselves from Obowmacare so they will be OK.

You can all rest easy now…

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Obama and his family too – for this alone they should all be pitchforked. No ‘representative’ of the people s/b exempt from the laws they force onto the people.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

meci on July 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

It will take too long, the Federal government (us) pays for it 100% the first year and 90% for several years after. It will be too big of entitlement before the pain is felt.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

This election is a referendum on Obama.
PERIOD.

gerrym51 on July 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

gerrym51:It has to be,or else Hopey will go into OverDrive,with a
Wrecking Ball!:)

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

meci on July 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

They couldn’t raise taxes high enough – this bankrupts every state in the union, within a decade. The speaker of the House in Florida needs to be defeated – work on that Tea Party will ya?

Zomcon JEM on July 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Does anyone here think Obamacare should be replaced with anything once repealed? Wouldn’t it just be best to replace it with nothing?

nazo311 on July 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Not urgent. The trap the Republicans are falling into including Governor Romney is agreeing to have a grand plan on the table ready to go. We don’t have to do that, we have to drive home the FACT that NO Obamacare is better than Obamacare.

What we had before Obamacare is better than Obamacare. Obamacare is a manure pile a mile high, and it will take a while to clean up. We have to assure the private economy that it is gone and not coming back so the economy can recover and grow again without that nightmare hanging over it.

Then we leisurely do small five-page bills to fix a few things as others have posted here.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

I don’t think we know what the message is anymore. We are getting a lot mixed signals.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Over thinking it and dwelling in the negative won’t help. I’m sorry if my attitude seems insensitive as one commenter described it. But all this negativity here the last 4 days ain’t gonna help, and it sure as heII won’t change anything. Anyway I won’t be party to it. I just wanted to say hi to 7% and welcome him back. ; )

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Send Obamacare right back through SCOTUS.

Speakup on July 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Oh, and, the beatings will continue until morale improves!

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

What we had before Obamacare is better than Obamacare. Obamacare is a manure pile a mile high, and it will take a while to clean up.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

To steal from Reagan, stop shoveling because there ain’t no damn pony in that pile of horse$hit.

We need to go all Hercules and flush the stables with a massive, cleansing dam break.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

The odds of Obama getting reelected are slim, in fact.

rickv404 on July 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

What makes you say that, especially after what happened last week?

HB3 on July 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Dark Star on July 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

You are more foolish and undescerning than the gnat-brains from the left around here. It’s really sad but good luck.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Exactly. November!

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

undescerning undiscerning

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

there ain’t no damn pony in that pile of horse$hit.

Brian1972 on July 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I now have a new Facebook status. I thank you, sir.

CurtZHP on July 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I read that FL’s GOP speaker of the house intends to fight Scott on this.

BuckeyeSam on July 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Dean Cannon? Hmm, looks like I’ll be placing a call to his office.

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Dark Star on July 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Don’t take my word. Go see a few threads in the HA headlines, on to Romney/tax/penalty topics. You are surrounded, but blind.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Not if you aren’t here. Everybody needs to do what they need to do to cope. If it takes dwelling on the negative to get motivated, so be it.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Also, all here, Ed too, please, please, please, quit calling it Obamacare. It has nothing to do with care of any kind.

Call it ObamaTax, or come up with a more clever name. The right needs to be united in mocking Obama and his fiasco out of town.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Also, as per Rush’s show this afternoon, make a concerted effort to spell out exactly and in reality what this law means for all of us very specifically:

1. Rationing of care. This will indeed happen, despite what people trying to soft-pedal it are saying.

2. Loss of privacy between you and your doctors with anything remotely related to your health. HIPAA? What’s that when there are going to be thousands of unelected bureaucrats able to see your medical records with one keystroke?

3. The severe economic impact of it on employers and employees.

And on and on.

This has to be hammered home in such a way that counters the message low-information voters are receiving even now via the media. We must make the complex understandable, forcefully and constantly.

PatriotGal2257 on July 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Dean Cannon? Hmm, looks like I’ll be placing a call to his office.

Flora Duh on July 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

My good lady, here’s the name…and info

House Speaker-designate Will Weatherford said he hadn’t yet spoken with Scott or Senate President-designate Don Gaetz, but predicted the House would take a “rational, deliberative” approach to deciding whether to expand coverage.

“I was no big fan of Obamacare, that’s for sure,” Weatherford said. “But we also have to recognize that it has been upheld by the court.”

Weatherford said he hopes the election in November will relieve Florida of the need to make a decision – Republican Mitt Romney has promised a repeal – “but we can’t really count on that,” the Wesley Chapel Republican said.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Under Roberts, Congress could not pass a law requiring union membership. They could however pass a law taxing you an amount equal to the union dues your not paying until you join.

meci on July 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

If it takes dwelling on the negative to get motivated, so be it.

Cindy Munford on July 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Yeah that type of therapy doesn’t work for me. It is a buzzkill however. I’m off to try and convince whomever I can to vote Romney. See you tonight on QOTD maybe. ; )

Bmore on July 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Tort reform, allowing to compete across state borders, allowing to re-import drugs, and the most important of all – repeal of EMTALA. That’s where the largest pile of manure is buried.
Archivarix
 on July 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

the notion of reimporting drugs is a canard. Prices are high here due to several factors; liability, we can “afford” it etc. Pharmacy cuts special rates to other countries to increase volume of sales which in turn lowers our prices in the long run. No different than Microsoft charging us more for windows 7 than Russia at pennies on the dollar. This strategy increases else’s volume and minimizes bootleg buggy copies. Do you really want to reimport drugs and raise the risk of counterfeit drugs? We already have a wave of counterfeit drugs entering our market and allowing reimportation would flood the market. It is what it is and there are other measures, namely tort reform to bend the costs of drugs down.

AH_C on July 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2