I feel as though you overestimate its popularity. This bill was the biggest reason why the Republicans took the house. Reform is good and needed, not all reform is good though. This bill had some things I liked and some things I didn't. Overall if it were overturned I think it would be to the benefit of all so that some kind of reform that requires both parties to work on it as opposed to a house, senate and white house dominated by one party making it so.

 

If this bill is overturned there wont be another attempt for a generation. There are a few things I would like to change in the law, but I think it offers a great starting point. I think that the vast majority of what is in the law is very popular. The individual mandate is not popular and bad communications have let the mandate become the face of the law. I understand why a mandate isn't popular. I also believe that a mandate to buy something that I already want to buy is a small price to pay for everything else that is in the law.

True. But Obama is going to spin it to his advantage and about 50% of the people want this bill.

 

Poll from late last year had just about half wanting it repealed and just a bit less wanting it kept in place. The were within 3-4 percentage points of each other. Not sure if something has been done in the last 3 or 4 months to see what it is currently.

Given the tone and threats from Senate Democrats today it seems they will not take lightly to an unfavorable decision.

 

Dems Warn Of ‘Grave Damage’ To SCOTUS If ‘Obamacare’ Is Struck Down | TPMDC

 

...said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), a former attorney general of Connecticut. “The court commands no armies, it has no money; it depends for its power on its credibility. The only reason people obey it is because it has that credibility. And the court risks grave damage if it strikes down a statute of this magnitude and importance, and stretches so dramatically and drastically to do it.”

 

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said the law has been thoroughly vetted.

 

 

“As a senior member of the Finance Committee,” he said, “I can tell you that we had one of the most rigorous and transparent legislative processes that I have witnessed in almost 3 decades here in the Congress.

 

Okay, stop laughing at this statement.....really....

I feel as though you overestimate its popularity. This bill was the biggest reason why the Republicans took the house. Reform is good and needed, not all reform is good though. This bill had some things I liked and some things I didn't. Overall if it were overturned I think it would be to the benefit of all so that some kind of reform that requires both parties to work on it as opposed to a house, senate and white house dominated by one party making it so.

 

I am just going by what the polls say as to the bill's popularity.

 

As to the past election, I really don't think the health care bill had much to do with it. It was a typical mid-term election for a first term president and the Republican wins were more about dissatisfaction with Congress than anything else.

 

I do agree that the bill being overturned would allow debate and a better bill except for one thing - the mandate is necessary to make any reform work and if that is ruled unconstitutional, then I am not sure what can be done.

I am just going by what the polls say as to the bill's popularity.

 

As to the past election, I really don't think the health care bill had much to do with it. It was a typical mid-term election for a first term president and the Republican wins were more about dissatisfaction with Congress than anything else.

 

I do agree that the bill being overturned would allow debate and a better bill except for one thing - the mandate is necessary to make any reform work and if that is ruled unconstitutional, then I am not sure what can be done.

 

If the bill is struck down, I think that single payer is the only answer. I don't want it to go that way but that may be the only choice.

I think more common (not politicians) people are against Obama Care. Health care changes yes, but not for what this calls for.

 

I like choice, I like picking my Dr. and insurance provider and being able to go to the Dr. and see them when I need to and not have to get a number and we will call you back in a few weeks.[/QUOTE]

 

 

Could you please tell me what in the ACA stops you from doing this?

 

 

Not sure what ACA is, but nothing stops me from doing it now, but Obamacare will stop it.

You think that would change with the implementation of the new health care plan? Do you believe there are also death panels?

 

Not exactly death panels, but I don't think the severely bad off will be a major priority. I find it hard to believe a country like us would let people suffer and die to save a buck.

 

I do think wait time would increase a lot.

 

 

Not sure what ACA is, but nothing stops me from doing it now, but Obamacare will stop it.

 

Affordable Care Act (ACA). What in the act will stop you from picking and seeing your doctor just as you do now?

 

Affordable Care Act (ACA). What in the act will stop you from picking and seeing your doctor just as you do now?

 

I gathered he was talking about the ability to call and schedule an appointment with little delay. I think the wait time for appointments will increase by big numbers.

If his plan doesnt work and gets shot down by Supreme Court, will Obama or the Dems try to get revenge somehow by not co-operating with anyone.

 

Will there be reprucusions on everyone?

 

There's a novel idea. One side not cooperating with the other.

They can't afford to "not work with anyone". No one can. But I am sure health care reform will be a huge rallying cry for the Dems in the up coming election if this is overturned. Obama can not lose on this decision. If the court upholds it, he wins because he fulfilled a major campaign promise and is proven right in how he put the reform together. If the court overturns it, he gets motivated, eager supporters for the upcoming election from the 50% plus of the electorate that want health care reform.

 

You mentioned that 50% plus of the electorate want health care reform. That's health care reform of some type, correct?

 

Here's an article with recent survey results that is much on point IMO: Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

 

From the article: "Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed."

 

You see the repeal by SCOTUS as a rallying cry of voters for Obama. Yet only 39% of likely voters oppose or strongly oppose its repeal.

 

I see the repeal being a rallying cry for the 56% at least somewhat in favor of the repeal because: President Obama proposed and pushed unconstitutional legislation (which hurts any candidate's legitimacy-"good Lord man, President Obama supports stuff that's unconstitutional; what's he going to do next if he gets re-elected: take my rifle, enact a policy allowing Americans to be killed without a trial on American soil if his administration suspects those Americans of being terrorists, etc., etc.?") and because conservatives will turn out in droves to make sure the next President doesn't have the opportunity to appoint liberal judges to SCOTUS.

 

Probably just a perspective difference in our outlooks on likely results if it's repealed.

You mentioned that 50% plus of the electorate want health care reform. That's health care reform of some type, correct?

 

Here's an article with recent survey results that is much on point IMO: Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™

 

From the article: "Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed."

 

You see the repeal by SCOTUS as a rallying cry of voters for Obama. Yet only 39% of likely voters oppose or strongly oppose its repeal.

 

I see the repeal being a rallying cry for the 56% at least somewhat in favor of the repeal because: President Obama proposed and pushed unconstitutional legislation (which hurts any candidate's legitimacy-"good Lord man, President Obama supports stuff that's unconstitutional; what's he going to do next if he gets re-elected: take my rifle, enact a policy allowing Americans to be killed without a trial on American soil if his administration suspects those Americans of being terrorists, etc., etc.?") and because conservatives will turn out in droves to make sure the next President doesn't have the opportunity to appoint liberal judges to SCOTUS.

 

Probably just a perspective difference in our outlooks on likely results if it's repealed.

 

My posts in this thread are more about how the Dems are going to spin it. As to the poll numbers, that differs from what I have seen in other polls. When was that poll taken? Perhaps voter sentiment is shifting?

 

I gathered he was talking about the ability to call and schedule an appointment with little delay. I think the wait time for appointments will increase by big numbers.

 

That will be true only if the demand for health care goes up so much that the supply of doctors can't keep up. Think about that for a minute. I don't want any more people to get health care because it will increase my wait time. I have another idea. I think food costs me too much. I want all of you to stop eating so food prices will go down for me.

 

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the individual mandate is the central constitutional question. To me, the premise that it isn't constitutional for congress to require everyone to make provisions to pay for their own health care, but it is constitutional to require ME to pay for your health care when you fail to do so just doesn't make any sense.

^Easy solution, don't provide care if the person can't pay for it. Will also help solve your food problem as well.

 

That will be true only if the demand for health care goes up so much that the supply of doctors can't keep up. Think about that for a minute. I don't want any more people to get health care because it will increase my wait time. I have another idea. I think food costs me too much. I want all of you to stop eating so food prices will go down for me.

 

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the individual mandate is the central constitutional question. To me, the premise that it isn't constitutional for congress to require everyone to make provisions to pay for their own health care, but it is constitutional to require ME to pay for your health care when you fail to do so just doesn't make any sense.

Your going to be paying for those people if the bill stands. You think those getting a free ride now are all of sudden going to come up with the premiums to pay for the coverage they are forced to get? The answer is no. They will get a credit or voucher or something that will pay for it. Guess where that money will come from?