Obamacare Upheld, Roberts Joins the Left

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jun 28, 2012.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Interesting, and I suppose you do understand "the whole concept of what this country was founded under" - Galt?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I am facinated by this notion held by so called conservatives that they hold some secret knowledge or understanding that only they can understand and know. It is a notion promulgated by right wing media (Fox News, Limbaugh & Company, et al.). And this secret knowledge protects them from anything inconsistent with right wing dogma, which is just about everything. That is one of the reasons the right wing hates institutions of higher learning (e.g. hatred of economists).
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    They're like Roddy Piper in the film They Live; once they put on the sunglasses, they can see what's really going on. They know that the rest of us are willingly marching into some sort of Orwellian dystopia, and dragging them along with us. Every day, we drift farther and farther away from the ideals of the founding fathers, which were apparently demonstrated best by life in nineteenth century America.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. keith1 Guest

    President Roberts has a good tone. And there has not been a court judge president....yet?

    The Republicans most modern proud moment was giving us Ike. Their least proud moment was giving us Oswald, and "the white house plumbers": Cheney and Rove.

    The Democrats proudest moment was Kennedy giving us the Moon and Johnson, which gave us civil rights...which gave us Obama. Their least proudest moment was Lewinsky.

    Democrats generate the greater amounts of "good reverberations".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    And speaking of the good old days of the nineteenth century:


    That is what Galt and his ilk want to return to. I doubt they would have the courage to stand by their convictions if it were ever to be put to the test.

  8. keith1 Guest

    The wealthy feel aloof to associate with the lesser..."depreciating classes"...in any "shared" enterprise, such as a "community or civilization".
    If they can't have their special plaques to set them apart, then they will have the services as "public", with the understanding that they do not have to pay.
    As a benefiting "free-loader", the wealthy feel adequately compensated for having to "bend to association" with that...yuck...filthy lesser ilk.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    you know as someone who takes on the moniker of a fiction terrorist written by a sociopathic nut job with zero understanding of how the real world works is saying that we'll take that as a compliment. ayn rand and you are no beacons of freedom just a font for saying the powerful shouldn't be held accountable.
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The Rhetoric of Intransigence

    Source: The New Yorker
    Link: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/06/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html
    Title: "Something Wicked This Way Comes", by Atul Gawande
    Date: June 28, 2012

    Atul Gawande, in addition to being a staff writer for The New Yorker, is a surgeon and associate professor at Harvard Medical School and School of Public Health; he also serves as the associate director of the Brigham & Women's Hospital Center for Surgery and Public Health. He has also served as an advisor to Bill Clinton. In 2006, Gawande became a MacArthur Fellow.

    In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius (a.k.a., "the Health Care Decision"), Gawande offered some reflections:

    A few days ago, while awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on the Obama health-care law, I called a few doctor friends around the country. I asked them if they could tell me about current patients whose health had been affected by a lack of insurance.

    “This falls under the ‘too numerous to count’ section,” a New Jersey internist said ....

    And what follows is a litany of health care conundra characterizing the need for reform such as the Affordable Care Act; but then, having framed his perspective, Gawande considers philosophical issues involved in the furious debate that has occupied so much of the nation's political attention in recent years.

    He notes Rittle and Webber's 1973 discussion of "tame" and "wicked" problems, the difference being the ease of definition and solution. Health care, as one might imagine, is, by this consideration, a wicked problem.

    Solutions to wicked problems, by contrast, are only better or worse. Trade-offs are unavoidable. Unanticipated complications and benefits are both common. And opportunities to learn by trial and error are limited. You can’t try a new highway over here and over there; you put it where you put it. But new issues will arise. Adjustments will be required. No solution to a wicked problem is ever permanent or wholly satisfying, which leaves every solution open to easy polemical attack.

    Two decades ago, the economist Albert O. Hirschman published a historical study of the opposition to basic social advances; “the rhetoric of intransigence,” as he put it. He examined the structure of arguments—in the eighteenth century, against expansions of basic rights, such as freedom of speech, thought, and religion; in the nineteenth century, against widening the range of citizens who could vote and participate in power; and, in the twentieth century, against government-assured minimal levels of education, economic well-being, and security. In each instance, the reforms aimed to address deep, pressing, and complex societal problems—wicked problems, as we might call them. The reforms pursued straightforward goals but required inherently complicated, difficult-to-explain means of implementation. And, in each instance, Hirschman observed, reactionary argument took three basic forms: perversity, futility, and jeopardy.

    The perversity thesis is that the change will not just fail but make the problem worse. The futility thesis is that the change can’t make a meaningful difference, and therefore won’t be worth the effort. We hear both of these lines of argument against the health-reform law. By providing coverage for everyone, it will drive up the system’s costs and make health care unaffordable for even more people. And, some say, people can get care in emergency rooms and through charity, so the law won’t do any real good. In fact, a slew of evidence indicates otherwise—from the many countries that have both universal coverage (whether through government or private insurers) and lower per-capita costs; from the major improvements in health that uninsured Americans experience when they qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. The reality is unavoidable for anyone who notices what it’s like to be a person who develops illness without insurance.

    The jeopardy thesis is that the change will impose unacceptable costs upon society—that what we lose will be far more precious than what we gain. This is the sharpest line of attack in the health-care debate. Obamacare’s critics argue that the law will destroy our economy, undermine health care for the elderly, dampen innovation, and infringe on our liberty. Hence their efforts to persuade governors not to coöperate with the program, Congress not to provide the funds authorized under the law, and the courts to throw it out all together.

    The rhetoric of intransigence favors extreme predictions, which are seldom borne out. Troubles do arise, but the reforms evolve, as they must. Adjustments are made. And when people are determined to succeed, progress generally happens. The reality of trying to solve a wicked problem is that action of any kind presents risks and uncertainties. Yet so does inaction. All that leaders can do is weigh the possibilities as best they can and find a way forward.

    In many—seemingly most—cases, the underlying mechanisms describe a basic difference between historical liberalism and conservatism. Certes, while some of the social mores of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries might well seem conservative to us today, they were viewed as considerably more liberal in the hands of reformers who struggled against European imperialism; many views of dark skin in the United States swirling around slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction—indeed, pushing forward into the Civil Rights era of the twentieth century—have undergone similar transformations. "Separate but equal", the infamous American segregation established in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) that lasted until 1954, was certainly a progressive outlook compared to the 1857 outlook that African slaves and their descendants were excluded from Constitutional protection (Scott v. Sanford), and emerged from the "rhetoric of intransigence" that combatted the results of Amendments XIII-XV, which in turn arose from the ashes of the Civil War.

    The liberalism and progressivism of years past becomes the conservatism of today and tomorrow.

    But one characteristic aspect of the evolving political labels is that, while the rhetoric of intransigence does not exclude liberalism entirely, it generally favors conservatism.

    And as Gawande suggests, the rhetoric of intransigence is alive and kicking in the ongoing debate about American health care policy.

    To wit, Gawande notes that while most Americans "believe people’s health-care needs should be met; they’ve sought to insure that soldiers, the elderly, the disabled, and children, not to mention themselves, have access to good care", they also tend to "draw their circle of concern narrowly". The result, of course, is that "the fate of the uninsured remains embattled—vulnerable, in particular, to the maneuvering for political control".


    For all that, the Court’s ruling keeps alive the prospect that our society will expand its circle of moral concern to include the millions who now lack insurance. Beneath the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act lies a simple truth. We are all born frail and mortal—and, over the course of our lives, we all need health care. Americans are on our way to recognizing this.

    And Gawande ends with a play on words: "If we actually do—now, that would be wicked."

    There is a fundamental presupposition in liberal circles that conservative intransigence in the health care debate is about cruelty, greed, and other antisocial sentiments. To be certain, elements of the debate reinforce the presupposition: this is a conservative plan, devised by the Heritage Foundation, offered as a counterproposal to single-payer healthcare; this is a plan enacted by a Republican governor who now denounces its elevation from state to nation as part of his presidential campaign; many conservatives are enraged that a Republican-appointed Chief Justice upheld the ACA instead of rubber-stamping conservative political desires. But what is the result? As liberal advocates have noted, not only do conservatives reject their own plan, they have little, if anything, of substance to offer that will address the health care problems facing our society. What was once simply greed (if we must cover everyone, let us push them onto the private rolls) has transformed into an appearance of outright cruelty (how dare you try to cover everyone).

    Without some substantial offering from conservatives, there remains the appearance that Republicans simply want people to suffer. This is the produce of the rhetoric of intransigence.

    Thus the health care debate appears to embody the age-old difference between liberal and conservative, between status quo and progress. Do we greet tomorrow with open arms, or struggle to bind the hands of time that we might forever revel in the imagined glories of yesterday?
  12. keith1 Guest

    --Republican who passed the Sixteenth Amendment (Taxation).
    --Was Potus first, then Cjotus later.

    Perhaps Roberts envies such credentials as well. (Watch for some "Cabinet experience" offering from Obama, in his next term).
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member



    Tea Partier Phil Kerpen offers what we might consider some predictable sentiments on NFIB v. Sebelius:

    It's clear that we cannot count on courts to provide any meaningful check on the powers of the federal government. But we cannot afford to wallow in that unfortunate fact. Now that nearly every aspect of our lives is subject to interference and control by politicians, we must engage even more forcefully in the political realm and win there. As we learned Thursday, nobody else is going to do it for us.

    That certain bitterness—what my mother's generation referred to as "sour grapes"—is understandable to anyone with a modicum of empathy. But it is hard to not chuckle at the whining about how "nearly every aspect of our lives is subject to interference and control by politicians". The Tea Party has not been leading the charge for marriage equality, but, rather, when offering up any substantial opinion on the issue, supporting political interference in people's sex lives and family structures. It is an interesting contrast: Politicians should interfere in the question of who you love, but God help us if they try to do anything to make sure you aren't left to die when you get sick.

    In the long run, this is one of the reasons why Tea Party opponents view the movement with such contempt.

    Still, though, Kerpen is hopeful; he tries to salvage some political leverage:

    So now the president's promise not to tax the middle class has been exposed as fundamental deception at the heart of his health care law. Now Congress must repeal the law and pass real health care reform that empowers patients and doctors and doesn't rely on a dishonest mandate tax.

    Setting aside the point that single-payer health care is the most viable alternative to the Heritage Foundation's individual mandate, we might note that if Kerpen's sentiments are widely shared by his fellow Tea Partiers, Mitt Romney is in trouble come November. Or, as Steve Benen put it on Thursday:

    Among other things, the Republican presidential hopeful insisted, "Obamacare raises taxes." It is, as it turns out, the talking point of the day on the right, bolstered unexpectedly by the Supreme Court's ruling itself. As the five-justice majority concluded, the individual mandate is less a forced purchase and more a tax penalty for those who refuse to get insured.

    "A ha!" conservatives have been saying for the last three hours. "That means Obama raised taxes when he signed health care reform into law!"

    On a substantive level, this has all the sophistication of a second-grade spelling bee, but there's a fairly specific policy reason Republicans might think twice about their new rhetorical toy: it's called Romneycare.

    As I assume everyone knows by now, Obamacare and Romneycare are effectively the same policy, sharing the same basic structure, including the individual mandate Romney used to be fond of. What happens in Massachusetts when someone doesn't want to buy insurance? They, you guessed it, pay a tax penalty, just like under the Affordable Care Act.

    In fact, if someone in Massachusetts refuses to buy insurance, they pay the penalty on their income tax return, just like under the Affordable Care Act ....

    .... Everyone on the right who seems to think the Supreme Court handed them a powerful talking point needs to realize that their presidential candidate is subject to the identical condemnation. If today's ruling means Obama raised taxes, it means Romney raised taxes.

    If the Tea Party is so unsettled by "a dishonest mandate tax", as Kerpen puts it, then Mitt Romney cannot expect their vote.


    Kerpen, Phil. "Emotional Roller Coaster on the Supreme Court Steps". The Cagle Post. June 29, 2012. Cagle.com. June 30, 2012. http://www.cagle.com/2012/06/emotional-roller-coaster-on-the-supreme-court-steps/

    Benen, Steve. "A tax by any other name". The Maddow Blog. June 28, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. June 30, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12461349-a-tax-by-any-other-name
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    What the Supreme Court decision taught us was a lesson in the art of bait and switch. It was always a tax, but since nobody could justify a tax during a recession and get the votes, it was called a mandate to deceive the masses.

    The Supreme Court decision simply cleared up the deception and called it what it was all along. The lesson to be leaned is don't take politics at face value. The liberals are noted for dual standards and deception. This will come back and bite them.

    The problem I have with the health care tax hiding behind a mandate, is it puts the squeeze on the shrinking middle class. The liberal think they are sticking it to the rich, but that will only work in the short term. They will simply push the cost onto the consumer. The poor get a cost of living increase from the blood money, while the middle class pays the tab. In the process more will fall by the wayside until the socialist state appears.

    What we should ask the leadership who wants this is tax is; will they and their families sign up for the care everyone else will inherent? Will all elected officials and government workers get the same deal or will they get something better?

    Michael Moore is a strong advocate. When he gets a heart attack from being overweight will he use the system he endorses or will he seek private care in the free market? Once you get the answers part two of the deception will be revealed.
  15. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

  16. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    Insufferably moronic!!
  17. John T. Galt marxism is legalized hatred!! Registered Senior Member

    There will not be a private care on the market!!!!
  18. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Very amusing, considering that you once cited Jonah Goldberg's insufferably moronic book Liberal Fascism.

    I'm not really sure what you think you're accomplishing with your defecate and run posting tactics. Are you capable of coherently expressing just exactly what it is that you're so outraged about?
  19. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Predictable is certainly one word for it.
  20. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    I don't know if it has already been mentioned before so if I'm repeating someone I'm sorry. Since Mr. Romney has already put this same health care plan into operation in Massachusetts wouldn't it have cut the republicans own nominees throat for President to not allow this from being approved?:shrug:

    They would have had to revise the health care plan in Massachusetts if this law was struck down and start all over again.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Not necessarily

    Not necessarily. State governments can do some things the federal government cannot, and vice-versa.

    Unfortunately, I cannot be more specific in this case, as I do not regularly study the constitution and statutes of Massachusetts.
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No what this shows is level of misinformation held by people such as yourself. The “tax” is the penalty assessed on those who have the ability to purchase healthcare insurance but don’t. Those people are called “free riders”. And all of us who have acted responsibly wind up paying for their healthcare. So the penalty, which has been enacted under the tax code, is intended to make those people pay something for the healthcare costs they are passing on to others.

    Additionally, the penalty (AKA “TAX”) only affects 1 percent of individuals. So that means 99% are not subject to the “TAX”.

    For starters, the mandate has never been hidden. And the penalty has never been hidden. The fact that the Justice Roberts found that the penalty is constitutional under the tax code does not mean that there was any deception by Democrats. Because the evidence is quite clear, Democrats have been quite open about this healthcare reform law. Now contrast the way Obamacare was passed with the way Republicans passed Medicare Part D and tell me with a straight face that Democrats were deceptive.

    Additionally, what you don’t understand is that those aforementioned “free riders” are passing on their healthcare costs to everyone else (AKA the consumer) right now. If you knew anything about Obamacare you would know the only ones paying more are those using tanning beds, those earning over 200k and those currently free riding our healthcare system. This is not about the rich versus the poor. This is all about making an increasingly inefficient and ineffective healthcare system more effective and more efficient. And we have a plethora of models that demonstrates it works including Romneycare.

    Our elected officials already have this deal. The people of Massachusetts already have this deal. Why don’t you ask them how they like their healthcare? Because that is Obamacare, contrary to all the hype and misinformation fed to you by the right wing media and 200 million dollars in special interest misinformation advertising, Obamcare is not a takeover of healthcare. It does not interfere with the patient – physician relationship. It does not eliminate insurance companies. What it does is eliminate the free riders as previously mentioned and requires more efficient use of information, something that has occurred in virtually every other industry around the world for decades.

    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  23. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    But Romney was the Governor who signed the health care bill into law. That puts the bulls eye on his decision to enact that law.

Share This Page