Why Health Care Is a Losing Issue for Republicans

Mar 30, 2012 Full story: www.theatlantic.com 26

Win or lose at the Supreme Court, the GOP is likely to suffer at the ballot box as long as health is a central issue in future campaigns.

Over at his relatively new Daily Beast digs, David Frum argues that Republicans are in trouble if they lose the Supreme Court challenges to the Affordable Care Act. He says that if the law is ruled constitutional, then "healthcare comes roaring back as a campaign issue," and a potent one, for "because of the prolonged economic downturn, more Americans than ever have lost -- or are at risk of losing -- their health coverage." What are Republican candidates going to tell those people?

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#1 Mar 30, 2012
If the court strikes down obamacare it is because 27 states not the Republicanism party sued the federal government. If the supreme court strikes it down it will be because it is unconstitutional not because they support Republicanism.

If you are in favor of subverting the constitution to support a law which is unconstitutional because it is popular what is the limiting principal of that.

What if something else becomes popular which in unconstitutional, loss of civil rights, freedom of the press, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?

When questioned by the news on the direction the court may be heading Vice President Biden would not even talk about the merits of the case only the effect on the people of losing Obama care.
Questioner

San Angelo, TX

#2 Mar 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
...
If you are in favor of subverting the constitution to support a law which is unconstitutional because it is popular what is the limiting principal of that.
What if something else becomes popular which in unconstitutional, loss of civil rights, freedom of the press, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
...
It is the court that subverts or upholds (depending on your opinion) the constitution because it defines its practical meaning and implementation. Remember the constitution before being amended allowed slavery, the opposite of freedom. Court decisions are political and determined by the beliefs of the members of the court, who are fallible people not gods, there is no guarentee that the courts decision will be for the longterm good of the country.
Alan

Philadelphia, PA

#3 Mar 30, 2012
DIRTY MURDER INC. AMERITHRAX GANGSTER TERRORISTS (“PSYCHO-KILLERS”,“THE LOGIC OF DEATH”) STILL ATTACKING, OPPRESSING, TERRORIZING, AND THREATENING MORE OMERTA TYPE DIRTY ORGANIZED CRIME FOR THEIR AGENDA!

STILL TARGETING UNARMED INDIVIDUALS WITH DIRTY ADVANCED SPY (WARE), CYBERNETIC, LASER WEAPONS AND MIND CONTROL EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING INDUCED NIGHTMARES AND MENTAL SNIPING / TERRORISM “O'YEAH!”) OFTEN BOTH IN THEIR HOMES AND IN PUBLIC! USING MUCH OF THIS FOR OPPRESSION, ORGANIZED CRIME, AND SEGREGATION!

STILL BRINGING ON MORE GUN, RAPE, GANG, AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE! STILL EXTORTING AND THREATENING LIVES!

O'YEAH!

STILL THREATENING MORE VIOLENCE AGAINST THE POLICE AND THOSE WORKING WITH THE POLICE, THE PRESS, ETC! STILL THREATENING SACRIFICING MORE CHILDREN, MEN AND FAMILIES FOR THEIR AGENDA!

STILL TERRORIZING, THREATENING, ABUSING AND SQUEEZING THEIR VICTIMS FROM THE PAST! LIKE (ROMAN CATHOLIC) MEN AND OTHERS THEY HAVE HUSTLED ON THE ALTER! AND TARGETED THEIR CAREERS! INCLUDING THOSE THEY SAW AS A THREAT TO THEIR DIRTY AMERITHRAX / HEDGE FUND / 401K etc. EMPIRE!

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/401k-...

STILL THREATENING INTER-ETHNIC AND INTER-FAITH RELATIONS LIKE ATHLETICS (WOMEN'S BASKETBALL, INTERNATIONAL SOCCER / THOSE WITH COMPETING SPONSORS).

STILL THREATENING COMPETITORS DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN (IMPORTED NON- GENERICS AND GENERICS, UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE (BRASIL, ENGLAND ETC.), MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROPONENTS, ETC.!), NON-PROFIT HEALTH CARE, INSURANCE PROVIDERS, AND ONLINE COMPETITORS!

HAVE PROFITED GREATLY SINCE BIO-TERRORIST AMERITHRAX ATTACKS AND MUCH
DIRTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GAMBLING / POWER TRIPPING!(PHARMACEUTICAL, BIO-TECH, EDUCATION, REAL ESTATE, ETC!) HAVE TAKEN OVER MANY JOBS AND NOW CONTROL A LOT OF HEALTHCARE AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS THROUGH THOSE JOBS!

(MERCK, IBM, CELGENE, RUTGERS, DISNEY, ETC.)

“In the pharmaceutical and medical industry, according to U.S. EEO Commission’s 2005 Report, around half of the employees (48.8%) are now women.”
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ebs/

NOW AGAIN (UNDER OBAMA) THREATENING (SET) SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY MALE EMPLOYEES AND COMPETITORS!
http://www.nationalmathandscience.org/program...

STILL THREATENING INTEGRATED REAL ESTATE / URBAN COMMUNITIES!

STILL TARGETING COMPETING RELIGIOUS MEN LIKE ROMAN CATHOLICS AND MUSLIMS! AND THOSE THAT HAVE RELATIONS WITH ASIAN FEMALES!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merck_headquarte...

DIRTY “LOGIC OF DEATH” AND PLANNED NON-PARENTHOOD STILL THREATENING SACRIFICING MORE FOR THEIR AGENDA AND ORGANIZED CRIME!

O'YEAH!

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#4 Mar 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
If the court strikes down obamacare it is because 27 states not the Republicanism party sued the federal government. If the supreme court strikes it down it will be because it is unconstitutional not because they support Republicanism.
If you are in favor of subverting the constitution to support a law which is unconstitutional because it is popular what is the limiting principal of that.
What if something else becomes popular which in unconstitutional, loss of civil rights, freedom of the press, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
When questioned by the news on the direction the court may be heading Vice President Biden would not even talk about the merits of the case only the effect on the people of losing Obama care.
You freeload four ways.

The commerce clause; applied in this law, prevents you from freeloading. It takes away your freedom to steal from your neighbors.

This Supreme Court just might find as you wish.
After all, they already appointed GW Bush as our first appointed president; and they threw away half of the Second Amendment.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#5 Mar 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
If the court strikes down obamacare it is because 27 states not the Republicanism party sued the federal government. If the supreme court strikes it down it will be because it is unconstitutional not because they support Republicanism.
If you are in favor of subverting the constitution to support a law which is unconstitutional because it is popular what is the limiting principal of that.
What if something else becomes popular which in unconstitutional, loss of civil rights, freedom of the press, right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?
When questioned by the news on the direction the court may be heading Vice President Biden would not even talk about the merits of the case only the effect on the people of losing Obama care.
27 states headed by Republicans. I sure as hell don't feel like I got a say in the matter.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#6 Mar 30, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You freeload four ways.
The commerce clause; applied in this law, prevents you from freeloading. It takes away your freedom to steal from your neighbors.
This Supreme Court just might find as you wish.
After all, they already appointed GW Bush as our first appointed president; and they threw away half of the Second Amendment.
If the law got rid of freeloading you would still be wrong since it is not one of the limited powers of the federal government to decide who freeloads and how. But that aside the freeloaders still freeload, they freeload because their unpaid bills run up everyone else's and under obama they still freeload by getting government vouchers or simply don't get the insurance, they say ok you can fine me but you wont get anything.

The bottom line is if your state wants to enact something like this they can and Massachusetts already has. But the federal government does not have the power to do it under the constitution. If you want to allow the federal government to do it anyway because you think it is good for the country what is your limiting principal.

If something else is illegal for the federal government to do but 51% think it is good for the country is that ok too. Do you really want to go down that slope.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#7 Mar 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
If the law got rid of freeloading you would still be wrong since it is not one of the limited powers of the federal government to decide who freeloads and how. But that aside the freeloaders still freeload, they freeload because their unpaid bills run up everyone else's and under obama they still freeload by getting government vouchers or simply don't get the insurance, they say ok you can fine me but you wont get anything.
The bottom line is if your state wants to enact something like this they can and Massachusetts already has. But the federal government does not have the power to do it under the constitution. If you want to allow the federal government to do it anyway because you think it is good for the country what is your limiting principal.
If something else is illegal for the federal government to do but 51% think it is good for the country is that ok too. Do you really want to go down that slope.
No, Commerce.
Interstate Commerce.
My health insurer is on the other coast.

We've already seen that wefare in the south is a bus ticket north.
We don't need to repeat more southern freeloading with medical care.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#8 Mar 30, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
If the law got rid of freeloading you would still be wrong since it is not one of the limited powers of the federal government to decide who freeloads and how. But that aside the freeloaders still freeload, they freeload because their unpaid bills run up everyone else's and under obama they still freeload by getting government vouchers or simply don't get the insurance, they say ok you can fine me but you wont get anything.
The bottom line is if your state wants to enact something like this they can and Massachusetts already has. But the federal government does not have the power to do it under the constitution. If you want to allow the federal government to do it anyway because you think it is good for the country what is your limiting principal.
If something else is illegal for the federal government to do but 51% think it is good for the country is that ok too. Do you really want to go down that slope.
Ther is no "slope."

Nobody will force you to eat asparagas.
Thaty is the most inane argument I've heard.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#9 Mar 30, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Commerce.
Interstate Commerce.
My health insurer is on the other coast.
We've already seen that wefare in the south is a bus ticket north.
We don't need to repeat more southern freeloading with medical care.
You can't buy health insurance from another state, insurance is not commerce according the the supreme court and it has been that way since 1945.

I have blue cross blue shield, blue cross blue shield is located in Chicago or Washington but they represent 38 individual companies, if you live in Michigan then you are with blue cross blue shield of Michigan. All health insurance is state by state regulated. It is not interstate commerce, not even considered commerce by the court.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#10 Mar 30, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Ther is no "slope."
Nobody will force you to eat asparagas.
Thaty is the most inane argument I've heard.
I never said anything about asparagus, it is broccoli and if it is so insane of me how come 3 of the justices have mentioned broccoli. When Justice Kennedy wanted to know what in law was limiting principal of the argument was he did not get an answer either.
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#11 Mar 30, 2012
Halito

Winnemucca, NV

#12 Mar 30, 2012
What's the Man Act?

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#13 Apr 2, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said anything about asparagus, it is broccoli and if it is so insane of me how come 3 of the justices have mentioned broccoli. When Justice Kennedy wanted to know what in law was limiting principal of the argument was he did not get an answer either.
You should ask your Congressman to initiate impeachment against thsose "broccoli justices." Yes, it is insane, in that there is no comparison.

Whether or not you eat broccoli, or asparagas, will not cause me to pay more for my vegitables; nor will your failure to consume your greens cause my local hospital to go bankrupt.

If you contract Beriberi through your poor diet, it will only affect you; unless you are a freeloader. You being a FREELOADER will mean that I have to, once again, be your daddy and pay your bills.

So, eat your broccoli, pay your insuarnce, support univeral health, and go to your room.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#14 Apr 2, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't buy health insurance from another state, insurance is not commerce according the the supreme court and it has been that way since 1945.
I have blue cross blue shield, blue cross blue shield is located in Chicago or Washington but they represent 38 individual companies, if you live in Michigan then you are with blue cross blue shield of Michigan. All health insurance is state by state regulated. It is not interstate commerce, not even considered commerce by the court.
You confuse commerce with administration.
You also confuse inane and insane.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#15 Apr 2, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You should ask your Congressman to initiate impeachment against thsose "broccoli justices." Yes, it is insane, in that there is no comparison.
Whether or not you eat broccoli, or asparagas, will not cause me to pay more for my vegitables; nor will your failure to consume your greens cause my local hospital to go bankrupt.
If you contract Beriberi through your poor diet, it will only affect you; unless you are a freeloader. You being a FREELOADER will mean that I have to, once again, be your daddy and pay your bills.
So, eat your broccoli, pay your insuarnce, support univeral health, and go to your room.
So adult onset type II diabetes is not a problem in this country, nor is obesity? You think these things don't effect health care cost. You get there eating Twinkies not broccoli.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#16 Apr 2, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
So adult onset type II diabetes is not a problem in this country, nor is obesity? You think these things don't effect health care cost. You get there eating Twinkies not broccoli.
This is a foolhardy comparison.
Our hospitals are not closing because of twinkies (although some would argue no so for St. Vincent's.)
Our health insurance is not reduced for eating more broccoli.

There is no law in comprehention mandating that you must eat broccoli or twinkies.
When there is, then you can wake up.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#17 Apr 2, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You confuse commerce with administration.
You also confuse inane and insane.
Really then try to call an out of state insurance company and get a price quote for insuring yourself or your family. It won't happen it is state by state like I said.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#18 Apr 2, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Really then try to call an out of state insurance company and get a price quote for insuring yourself or your family. It won't happen it is state by state like I said.
Administration, not commerce.
Where do the profits go?

But good for you for having a thought.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#19 Apr 2, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Administration, not commerce.
Where do the profits go?
But good for you for having a thought.
I am sorry I forgot I was talking to mr bill and assumed you would pick up on that since we are talking about the federal government regulating the insurance.

It is not interstate commerce. How can it be interstate commerce if you can't buy it from another state.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#20 Apr 2, 2012
Obamacare and the push to legalize marijuana through pretending it is medicinal are two peas in the same Leftist pod. These freeloading dope heads want us to pay for their hormone altering, autism causing, brain chemical changing, endocrine system inhibiting marijuana as an entitlement.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Best of Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gavin DeGraw to Release "Best Of" Album October... Aug '14 HelloMyNameIs 1
Thanks for Everything (Jun '14) Jun '14 Stan HQ 1
The Best of Winter Soups: Cream of Tomato and B... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Tres Chic 2
The Best of Winter Soups: Asian Sweet Corn and ... (Jan '14) Jan '14 Tres Chic 2
Little Mix Filming "Move" MV & Finally Gets Gol... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Charlee_Tomlinson 1
The 'Best of Estes' (Jul '13) Jul '13 Seriously dude 12
Nick DeRiso's Mid-Year Best Of 2013 (Rock and P... (Jun '13) Jun '13 tigger31086 1
More from around the web