If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?

If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of President Obama 's health care law , it will have unraveled a legislative compromise that many liberals had viewed with suspicion from the beginning.

In one of the ironies of recent politics, Mr. Obama was a late convert to the merits of the individual mandate that now appears to be in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

But the president’s embrace of the mandate — and his willingness to abandon a so-called public option to get a health care deal — was a hard pill to swallow for many of his Democratic supporters.

The Affordable Care Act promises to provide health insurance to millions who lacked it. But it also stops far short of the idea that health care is a basic right for everyone living in the country. And it embraces the market-based system of private health care delivery that has long existed in America.

[history]

First they'll cry about what a travesty it was to strike it down just because its unconstitutional. Then the dems will hold more secret meetings and lock out the republicans just like they did when this stinker was passed. They'll probably try to find another way to make an end run around the constitution and shove it up our collective asses again, while continuing to lie about its content.

[General Robert E Lee]

They will appeal, but they will allow it to sit on the back burner for a while, and focus all of their efforts on the November election, jobs propoganda, and oil regulation, in an effort to appear to move to the right and win some votes.

[The Kangaroo]

Meh. It looks bad, but oral arguments seldom reflect what the decision will be. Ross Douthat thinks the act will be upheld, but if it is not, it will be better for Obama in November. I think on the second part he's right.

As for the first, I can't understand how those who do not object to mandatory auto insurance have a leg to stand on objecting to HCR.

Either way, it ain't over.

[AntiMelting]

The Kangaroo wrote:

Meh. It looks bad, but oral arguments seldom reflect what the decision will be. Ross Douthat thinks the act will be upheld, but if it is not, it will be better for Obama in November. I think on the second part he's right.
As for the first, I can't understand how those who do not object to mandatory auto insurance have a leg to stand on objecting to HCR.
Either way, it ain't over.

I don't have to buy a car.

[Bringmedinner]

Vehicle insurance is not a Federal mandate. Someone's health cannot be seen as a liable threat to someone else.

Democrats, especially those with Communist leanings and commitment may be solidly behind forcing people to buy things they may not need, a distinction even noted by social engineering Justices on the Supreme Court. It is solidly Democrats advantaging the myriad of free money, free services previously enacted by Democrats, yet a great majority of them cheat on their taxes, use farm fuel for highway use, make up inflated work receipts for things they never accomplished for federal handouts, etc. Democrats legislated laws allowing them to make up their own receipts, etc. and it is Democrats cheating honest taxpayers into supporting their freeloading. The destructions realized now on a national fiscal level are the results of Democrats arranging and advantaging systems of cheating their own honest neighbors, even forcing institutions to enable such cheating. Outright fraud is committed on a daily basis and Democrats want to raise taxes on those actually honest in order to maintain a system of freeloading and usury. The underground economy is something encouraged by Democrats alone and heralded by Communist Democrats as the way to tyrannize and hoodwink a populace intentionally misled in a system of education designed to do so, also legislated by Democrats and those getting free money for supporting these travesties.

[The Kangaroo]

AntiMelting wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have to buy a car.

But you do have to ride in one (or a bus or taxi, etc.) making you part of the problem and thus liable.

[what irony]

What's really interesting is that it was the Republicans for 20 years who tried to move forward with the individual mandate - the very thing they are now professing to be so unconstitutional is the very thing that was the centerpiece of their 1993 healthcare reform.
Now that the Democrats are finally understanding how important it is and coming around to the Republican way of thinking - now, the republicans don't like it.

[lolol]

obama might get the black panthers to put a bounty on any that voted against it, thats the chicago way.

[The Kangaroo]

lolol wrote:

obama might get the black panthers to put a bounty on any that voted against it, thats the chicago way.

The morality of "The Chicago Way" is vastly superior to yours.

[history]

The "morality" of back door deals, insider information, screwing over the public, selling senate seats and being run by the mafia is vastly superior to the generally pastorial setting of rural Kansas...? Um...ok George.

[AntiMelting]

The Kangaroo wrote:

<quoted text>
The morality of "The Chicago Way" is vastly superior to yours.

You're losing the fight, and you can't stand it.

[history]

The Kangaroo wrote:

<quoted text>
But you do have to ride in one (or a bus or taxi, etc.) making you part of the problem and thus liable.

No sir. You don't have to. There are many that walk and ride bikes in this small town year round. No fuel worries, no maintenance worries, no insurance and tax worries and healthy exercise. Private ownership of a vehicle is a luxury and a choice.

[history]

what irony wrote:

What's really interesting is that it was the Republicans for 20 years who tried to move forward with the individual mandate - the very thing they are now professing to be so unconstitutional is the very thing that was the centerpiece of their 1993 healthcare reform.

As we walk down memory lane let's also remember that it was the Democrats who were against it as unconstitutional. Funny how things turn.

[HTS]

Bringmedinner wrote:

Vehicle insurance is not a Federal mandate. Someone's health cannot be seen as a liable threat to someone else.
Democrats, especially those with Communist leanings and commitment may be solidly behind forcing people to buy things they may not need, a distinction even noted by social engineering Justices on the Supreme Court. It is solidly Democrats advantaging the myriad of free money, free services previously enacted by Democrats, yet a great majority of them cheat on their taxes, use farm fuel for highway use, make up inflated work receipts for things they never accomplished for federal handouts, etc. Democrats legislated laws allowing them to make up their own receipts, etc. and it is Democrats cheating honest taxpayers into supporting their freeloading. The destructions realized now on a national fiscal level are the results of Democrats arranging and advantaging systems of cheating their own honest neighbors, even forcing institutions to enable such cheating. Outright fraud is committed on a daily basis and Democrats want to raise taxes on those actually honest in order to maintain a system of freeloading and usury. The underground economy is something encouraged by Democrats alone and heralded by Communist Democrats as the way to tyrannize and hoodwink a populace intentionally misled in a system of education designed to do so, also legislated by Democrats and those getting free money for supporting these travesties.

The democratic party today is nothing less than Marxism. It is founded on a complete absence of morality, compassion, and respect for our constitution.

[Aphelion]

The Kangaroo wrote:

Meh. It looks bad, but oral arguments seldom reflect what the decision will be. Ross Douthat thinks the act will be upheld, but if it is not, it will be better for Obama in November. I think on the second part he's right.
As for the first, I can't understand how those who do not object to mandatory auto insurance have a leg to stand on objecting to HCR.
Either way, it ain't over.

Manditory auto insurance is to protect those whom you damage thier vehicle or property with your vehicle. The Health Care law only burdens citizens with the purchase of a product that has no protection or benefit to anyone other than the person mandated to purchase it.

There is a difference.

[Aphelion]

The Kangaroo wrote:

<quoted text>
But you do have to ride in one (or a bus or taxi, etc.) making you part of the problem and thus liable.

Extremely faulty logic

[Unbelievable]

The Kangaroo wrote:

Meh. It looks bad, but oral arguments seldom reflect what the decision will be. Ross Douthat thinks the act will be upheld, but if it is not, it will be better for Obama in November. I think on the second part he's right.
As for the first, I can't understand how those who do not object to mandatory auto insurance have a leg to stand on objecting to HCR.
Either way, it ain't over.

There is NO mandatory auto insurance. I don't have a car so no one is mandating me to purchase auto insurance.

There is not one single thing the government mandates we purchase and it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force any of us to purchase something.

[Unbelievable]

what irony wrote:

What's really interesting is that it was the Republicans for 20 years who tried to move forward with the individual mandate - the very thing they are now professing to be so unconstitutional is the very thing that was the centerpiece of their 1993 healthcare reform.
Now that the Democrats are finally understanding how important it is and coming around to the Republican way of thinking - now, the republicans don't like it.

Who said they were right back then?

Just because most Americans are against it now does not mean they were for it 20 years ago.

[Unbelievable]

General Robert E Lee wrote:

They will appeal, but they will allow it to sit on the back burner for a while, and focus all of their efforts on the November election, jobs propoganda, and oil regulation, in an effort to appear to move to the right and win some votes.

I don't believe a Supreme Court ruling can be appealed, can it?

[The Kangaroo]

AntiMelting wrote:

<quoted text>
You're losing the fight, and you can't stand it.

Losing what?

You think losing bothers me? If you do you're not very bright.

We lost 3 elections in a row, in 1980, 1984, and 1988, and we behaved appropriately unlike trash like you who tried to impeach Clinton and undermine Obama.