Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Adder

A significant blow to America's influence in the world.

Damn. RIP indeed.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

So I read about half of the VA court decision striking down the individual mandates, but in doing so was reminded that the jurisprudential limit on the scope of the commerce clause is "whatever 5 of the sitting 9 think," and decided to wait for a decision that actually matters.

The GOP should be careful how it attacks the mandate. Perhaps the Commerce Clause doesn't allow compulsory purchases. The constitutionality of a single payer option, the sole remaining structure for lowering rates via govt intervention, however, is beyond question. Republicans may be cornering themselves here.

But then, that cornering wouldn't happen for several years, which in political terms means it's utterly irrelevant.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Businesses care only about reducing costs, not increasing revenues? If the customers keep their money, that's not considered part of your losses?

Interesting. I can see why you've been such a resounding success in business.

Gouging isn't a great way to retain long term customers. For further reading, see: Most Law Firms.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The GOP should be careful how it attacks the mandate. Perhaps the Commerce Clause doesn't allow compulsory purchases. The constitutionality of a single payer option, the sole remaining structure for lowering rates via govt intervention, however, is beyond question. Republicans may be cornering themselves here.

But then, that cornering wouldn't happen for several years, which in political terms means it's utterly irrelevant.

Yes, some on the left have taken heart in that, but I don't think "we've gotta have single payer because it is the only thing left" is going to make it meaningfully more popular with the electorate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Andrew Sullivan cites a WaPo poll:

Sanders would do well to get back in touch with his buddy, Ron Paul, and focus on attacking the Fed. This filibuster thing is a waste of time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, some on the left have taken heart in that, but I don't think "we've gotta have single payer because it is the only thing left" is going to make it meaningfully more popular with the electorate.

Less popular than "Buy this or we'll slap a penalty on your ass"?

[Adder]

Mitt says instead of unemployment benefits from the government, the unemployed could maybe have savings accounts or something. Brilliant.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sanders would do well to get back in touch with his buddy, Ron Paul, and focus on attacking the Fed. This filibuster thing is a waste of time.

And attacking the Fed isn't?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Less popular than "Buy this or we'll slap a penalty on your ass"?

Yes. Which is why the individual mandate was enacted and single payer wasn't.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Mitt says instead of unemployment benefits from the government, the unemployed could maybe have savings accounts or something. Brilliant.

Mitt doesn't understand why they can't just live off their trust funds while they look for more work.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The GOP should be careful how it attacks the mandate. Perhaps the Commerce Clause doesn't allow compulsory purchases. The constitutionality of a single payer option, the sole remaining structure for lowering rates via govt intervention, however, is beyond question. Republicans may be cornering themselves here.

But then, that cornering wouldn't happen for several years, which in political terms means it's utterly irrelevant.

Well, the bigger problem for the Rs is that if they kill the mandate without killing the rest of the bill (especially the no preexisting conditions, no caps parts) then private insurance will probably die, and it'll be really easy for government to pick up the slack. I've seen a lot of liberals pretty excited about this backdoor into Medicare for everyone.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Well, the bigger problem for the Rs is that if they kill the mandate without killing the rest of the bill (especially the no preexisting conditions, no caps parts) then private insurance will probably die, and it'll be really easy for government to pick up the slack. I've seen a lot of liberals pretty excited about this backdoor into Medicare for everyone.

If the Supreme Court reaches that conclusion during the next Congress, don't you think the Rs will be able to find enough votes to repeal the whole thing on fears of rapidly increasing insurance premiums? Would Obama have the guts to veto it?

It would be interesting, though.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes. Which is why the individual mandate was enacted and single payer wasn't.

I don't really know if that's the case. It's been so politically unfeasable not because of the electorate but because of the special interests (read: insurance companies). I think most corporations and other companies would actually be pretty happy to drop coverage all together if they could. (One friend who owns a fairly substantial company here was moaning that we just didn't go for Medicare for all; he says his people would rather have the money than coverage.)

Most old people are pretty happy with Medicare. Monkey a little with the reimbursement rates, maybe experiment a little with a better form of capitation, and docs probably would be pretty happy too, since Medicare is a pretty fast payor and really easy to deal with.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I don't really know if that's the case. It's been so politically unfeasable not because of the electorate but because of the special interests (read: insurance companies). I think most corporations and other companies would actually be pretty happy to drop coverage all together if they could. (One friend who owns a fairly substantial company here was moaning that we just didn't go for Medicare for all; he says his people would rather have the money than coverage.)

Well, I was thinking primarily of the scare tactics around "government run health care," cries of socialism, and the attacks on Hillary Care.

But this time around it was never seriously on the table.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Adder

If the Supreme Court reaches that conclusion during the next Congress, don't you think the Rs will be able to find enough votes to repeal the whole thing on fears of rapidly increasing insurance premiums? Would Obama have the guts to veto it?

It would be interesting, though.

No and yes. I think that the Rs in the House can do whatever the hell they want to, but they don't have the Senate and Harry Reid wouldn't let that vote get to the floor. And if by some miracle it did manage to get through after 2012 and Obama is sitll around, he'd veto. It's his centerpiece legislation and part of his legacy.

BTW, yesterday or the day before Massachusetts released a finding that 98 percent of the state is covered.