Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 24
  • Last Modified:

A Supreme Court loss will help Democrats?

James Carville:

While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.

I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said

Is Carville correct?
0
carsRST
Asked:
carsRST
  • 13
  • 10
  • 7
  • +2
4 Solutions
 
beetosCommented:
No, probably not the best thing that ever happened to the party.  



A little more context, ie why he was saying that would be helpful:

"He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."

Carville, who gained fame working on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, predicted health care costs will only increase in the future, in which case Republicans will be to blame for leading the drive to expel a federal program designed to help Americans cover those costs.

"Then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin," Carville said. "

So just like Republicans have been attacking Democrats over health care,  Democrats would be able to do the same if the Affordable Care Act was repealed.  

Right now I keep hearing that insurance costs go up every year, and it gets blamed on the ACA, even though they'd been going up ever year long before the law was even considered.  The same will happen in the future whether the ACA is enacted or not, but if it is repealed, the blame will shift.  

That situation would carry on for years until health care is addressed again, which isn't likely to be soon.    I believe that's what Carville was referring to.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Right now I keep hearing that insurance costs go up every year, and it gets blamed on the ACA, even though they'd been going up ever year long before the law was even considered.  The same will happen in the future whether the ACA is enacted or not, but if it is repealed, the blame will shift.

All conservatives blame ObamaCare for the rise in health care costs, like they weren't going up before??

Then they blame ObamaCare for the rise in health care costs when it hasn't even been implemented yet.

Face it, health care costs are going up as they always did and always will regardless of ObamaCare.

(You may now post your links to state how ObamaCare is making the costs go up more than they would otherwise, which is ridiculous as nobody knows one way or the other to be honest.)
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>All conservatives blame ObamaCare for the rise in health care costs, like they weren't going up before??

Obamacare's sole purpose is to move to a single payer system.  At that point, the government has almost unlimited control over our health and can make the decisions as to whom is worthy for a treatment and who is not.  

They could have made free market changes that work, but they chose not to.


>>Face it, health care costs are going up as they always did and always will regardless of ObamaCare.

True.  So time to allow me to buy insurance across state lines, allow a nurse nurse practitioner to do basic medical duties, tort reform...
0
[Webinar On Demand] Database Backup and Recovery

Does your company store data on premises, off site, in the cloud, or a combination of these? If you answered “yes”, you need a data backup recovery plan that fits each and every platform. Watch now as as Percona teaches us how to build agile data backup recovery plan.

 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>At that point, the government has almost unlimited control over our health and can make the decisions as to whom is worthy for a treatment and who is not.  

The corporate insurance companies have that say now. All the y care about is denying whatever they can. So what's the difference?
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>The corporate insurance companies have that say now.   So what's the difference?

If there's no difference, why bankrupt the American people with a law no law maker read?  Why push through legislation that can't live up the Constitution?  What not pass reform that allows me to buy an insurance policy in Ohio?  Why not stop frivolous lawsuits that increase premiums?

I much prefer the private market to the government.

Allowing the government to control will stop medical innovation or stop the making of life saving drugs.
0
 
beetosCommented:
The private market IS the problem;  their goal is to maximize profits, not quality nor quantity of health care.   In fact, the less they pay for the better for them, so they have incentive to deny, not to provide health care.

All of your solutions; tort reform, buying across state lines, etc.  have inherent problems and are not drop in solutions.   I'm not saying some form of them couldn't be helpful, but to suggest that "hey, just do this" and it will simply make things better is an uniformed position.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
In a short time, the CBO doubled the cost of Obamacare.  Imagine what it will do to hard working tax payers once fully implemented and the actual cost comes in?

I'll never understand your obsession, Beetos, to having a system, like the government, run such a large operation when it failed at running so many other things.
0
 
beetosCommented:
I'll never understand your obsession, Cars, to having a system, like the "free market", run such a large operation when it failed at running so many other things.


You seem to think the gov't is incapable of anything.  

Even the Tea-partiers like Medicare.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
Health insurance sucks. It always did. It always will. It will continue to go up. Period.

A)  If the government runs it, then more people will be able to get it.

B)  If the private industry runs it, then the service will be better.

Democrats like option A. Republicans like option B. Both have pros and cons. It's just what side of the fence you are on.
0
 
beetosCommented:
I disagree with the notion that private industry could do it better.   From my experience, they unnecessarily convolute their services and procedures to maximize their profits.

They tend to send me reams of legalese paperwork.   And if you ever have to submit claims on your own, good luck!  

Doctors have been complaining for years about the extra staff required to deal with insurance.

And of course on the other end, the ins companies make things purposely difficult to avoid paying out when possible.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>I disagree with the notion that private industry could do it better.

Private industry made the US the most powerful nation on the planet.   See Greece as to what bigger government does.



>>They tend to send me reams of legalese paperwork.

Due to government regulations.



>>Health insurance sucks.

Competition would fix that.
0
 
beetosCommented:
So your answer, if I'm getting this right, is to do away with insurance regulations, let the insurance companies do what they want, and somehow this will lower costs, increase availability, and improve service?
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
Get rid of government regulations, encourage competition, tort reform.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>I disagree with the notion that private industry could do it better.

Private industry almost always does everything better than the government would. Only time government is needed to do something is when there is no profit in it, (social services, NASA, Military, Police, etc.)

>>Get rid of government regulations, encourage competition, tort reform.

Private industry does NOT regulate themselves. Getting rid of regulations is not the answer and neither is stifling regulations. It requires a balance. Unfortunately balance is not something the government is good at.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>Getting rid of regulations is not the answer and neither is stifling regulations.

Beetos was bitching about the paperwork caused by regulations.  Then he backpedaled when I explained what caused the extra paper.  Regulations cost money, and that cost is passed on to consumers.  Adds ZERO value.



>>Private industry does NOT regulate themselves

Competition within the private industry does regulate itself.  Competition and profit drives efficiencies, which drives lower costs, which saves consumers money.



Remember the $16 muffin and the $600 toilet seat?  That's what we get when the government runs the show and has no competitors.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Regulations cost money, and that cost is passed on to consumers.  Adds ZERO value.

The paper your receipt is printed on costs money too. Cleaning the floors costs money. It's all passed on to the consumers. They are necessary though and so is some regulation. Having no regulations would be like having no laws.

Sorry I don't want to live in the wild west of health insurance.

>>Competition within the private industry does regulate itself.  Competition and profit drives efficiencies, which drives lower costs, which saves consumers money.

You mean like all the banks did and the wall street tycoons that caused the financial collapse with their shady deals. No regulations and then you will see higher costs, not lower.

If your idea worked in reality then my cell phone bill wouldn't be through the roof for my family. There are cheaper ways to structure the bill, but the entire industry is set on the way that makes them the most money. Same thing with television. A La Carte selection of channels would be cheaper and everyone would love it, but they make more money with their big packages giving you channels you don't care about.

Industries will always do what makes them the most money, not what is best for the end user. Totally open unregulated free market is not the answer in health care.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>You mean like all the banks did and the wall street tycoons that caused the financial collapse with their shady deals.

Banks are and were the most heavily regulated industries in the world.  Government policies of pushing loans to those that can't afford it are what caused the issues.
0
 
beetosCommented:
All hail the free market!  Industry can do no wrong!  Corporations are not only people, they're better than people!


Free market good, AWK,  government bad AWK!
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Banks are and were the most heavily regulated industries in the world.

They were heavily regulated and still found a way to do shady deals. They found a way and did something stupid to make more money knowing it had a bad fallout waiting to happen.

>>  Government policies of pushing loans to those that can't afford it are what caused the issues.

That is one of the causes, but the banks are also another cause. The combination is what caused the collapse.

I agree with your cause, but you have to be honest and agree the banks hold just as much responsibility as the government does.
0
 
sbdt8631Commented:
>>allow me to buy insurance across state lines
This would require a federal law governing health care.  Whoops, can't have that, can we?

>>allow a nurse nurse practitioner to do basic medical duties
They do where I live.

>>tort reform
Depends on what you mean by tort reform.  Unfortunately, it usually means limiting corporation liability no matter how egregious the offense.
0
 
beetosCommented:
>>Banks are and were the most heavily regulated industries in the world.

Except that they have millions to spend to revoke or get around those regulations.   Glass-Steigel(sp)?   Wasn't that intended specifically to prevent the kind of melt down that we saw?  


Didn't banks KNOW they were selling crap, and take their own money and bet against what they were selling?
0
 
sbdt8631Commented:
>>Private industry almost always does everything better than the government would. Only time government is needed to do something is when there is no profit in it, (social services, NASA, Military, Police, etc.)

These services, social, police ...,  could also be described as those services that are needed by everyone in society and are performed for the common good.  Many of us would include medical care in that category and propose that it should not be governed by a profit motive.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
Ironic that the Obama administration wants the Supreme court justices to read the Obamacare legislation when Democrats wouldn't read the bill themselves before voting on it.


SCALIA LIKENS READING OBAMACARE TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>SCALIA LIKENS READING OBAMACARE TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

And your point?

Tons of legislation is incomprehensibly long. That's not an ObamaCare thing or Democrat thing.

This is to the judges and every congressman and senator!

It's your job! Read it!
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
My preference would be for the Supreme Court to reveal the final vote right before the election.  People have short memories and this would provide a good reminder of (1) how much contempt Democrats have for the Constitution (2) just how screwed up liberals are.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>My preference would be for the Supreme Court to reveal the final vote right before the election.  People have short memories and this would provide a good reminder of (1) how much contempt Democrats have for the Constitution (2) just how screwed up liberals are.

If ObamaCare is upheld it would only help Obama right before the election as it validates his healthcare plan was right.

The average person would get nothing more from the judgement than that. They don't care about how liberals or democrats look or the constitution.

If the judgement goes against ObamaCare then I think it would hurt Obama, but not enough to make him lose the election.
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
Either way I believe it will help Obama.

1.  If rejected, it shows what the Dems were trying to do for the uninsured, those with preexisting conditions, dependent children under 26 years, those who worry about lifetime insurance caps, etc.

And, I'm not aware of any plan the GOP has to provide these benefits.  That, in itself, makes good campaign talk.

2.  If not rejected, the GOP will campaign to have congress repeal "ObamaCare."  The Dem position will be to point out what they are taking away.  That, in itself, makes good campaign talk.

It's a no lose for Obama and the Dems who will be running.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>If rejected, it shows what the Dems were trying to do for the uninsured,

Only problem is Obamacare is extremely unpopular.  Most WANT it repealed.  There goes that argument.



>>If not rejected, the GOP will campaign to have congress repeal "ObamaCare."

That's what gave the Republicans control of the House.  worked then.
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
"Only problem is Obamacare is extremely unpopular.  Most WANT it repealed.  There goes that argument."


Yup, yup, yup, but most really like its provisions.

The following explains a lot about what the polling question is, and our disagreements.

The two constants in health care polling
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10889714-the-two-constants-in-health-care-polling
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>The two constants in health care polling
>>http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/27/10889714-the-two-constants-in-health-care-polling


but they love protections for those with preexisting conditions.


It's like walking in to an insurance agency right after a car accident.  Or getting coverage right before going to the emergency room.

This will result in very high premiums for everyone else.
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>This will result in very high premiums for everyone else.

Yes it will, and no liberal thinks it wont.

The liberal mentality is that it should be done to help those in need.

The conservative mentality is they are on their own and it's my money.

That's the straight difference between liberal and conservative on pretty much all issues. Arguing about if it will cost more is a moot point because it will Arguing whether it is fair is also a moot point as it is just two different mindsets.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
>>The liberal mentality is that it should be done to help those in need.

Only 16% of the population is without health insurance.

A lot of those are younger, healthy people who would rather spend their money on other things.  For the rest we have medicaid and medicare - of course Obamacare cut $500 BILLION from medicare.

Why ruin the majority for a very small minority?
0
 
Anthony RussoCommented:
>>Why ruin the majority for a very small minority?

What's the big deal if about 50 million people don't have health coverage?

50 million is a small minority?
0
 
WaterStreetCommented:
Cars
[...}
It's like walking in to an insurance agency right after a car accident.  Or getting coverage right before going to the emergency room.

This will result in very high premiums for everyone else.


by: AnthonyRusso responded

>>This will result in very high premiums for everyone else.

Yes it will, and no liberal thinks it wont.
1.  The business model for most any kind of insurance is that there is a large, and wide enough, demographic pool of insureds so that premiums can be kept low while higher risk insureds are covered without materially raising the rates of all insureds.

2.  Under the current law, nearly all Americans will be part of the same insurance pool -- the "mandate" provision.

3.  The business model for the current law anticipates that nearly every American is going to require health care and, most importantly, if they are uninsured then all of us end-up paying for it through higher premiums.  Even before "ObamaCare," hospitals have been required to treat even those who cannot afford it.  Those without insurance or the means pay are free-loaders.  *smile* Republicans don't like free-loaders either.
0
 
carsRSTAuthor Commented:
Just to show you how screwed in the head they are, here's a quote from B Hussein today:

President Obama preemptively slammed the Supreme Court as a bunch of "unelected group of people" who will have turned to "judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint" if they decide to strike down his signature legislative achievement, the healthcare reform act.

Liberals are so messed up that they consider upholding the Constitution as judicial activism.
0

Featured Post

Free Tool: SSL Checker

Scans your site and returns information about your SSL implementation and certificate. Helpful for debugging and validating your SSL configuration.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

  • 13
  • 10
  • 7
  • +2
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now