RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Sagacious and Savvy: The Supreme Court Decides Obamacare – Today?

By Bronwyn on June 25, 2012 at 5:30 AM in Current Affairs

UPDATE: NOW we have to wait until Thursday for the ruling. So much for planning ahead. And here I thought it was good to get a post up early today. Ha.

From WaPo story: “Obama’s legal tactics seen as possibly hurting chances to save health-care law” (Click image to view story.)

This is the last Monday when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) normally announces its fateful decisions on Mondays and Thursdays before it closes shop for the summer. The last Thursday, June 21, came and went with not a peep.

The odds are that today we will learn if the so-called Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) survives in part (minus the now-infamous “mandate”) or if all of the Act is struck down by SCOTUS.

If Obamacare is struck down, what will happen next? Will the decision affect you personally? How? Will the decision affect your job or your business, if you’re fortunate to have either and fortunate to get health care insurance?

How will the SCOTUS decision affect the close presidential contest between incumbent president Barack Obama and his challenger, former governor Mitt Romney? Do you think the impact on Obamacare — particularly the parts already in play, such as extended benefits of parents’ insurance plans to children through their twenties — will affect how people vote in November?

Should Obamacare go down, there will be a huge stinking, nasty mound of shit contempt emanating from President Barack Obama and his White House crew.

Obama already has it in for the Court. He even attacked the members of SCOTUS — right in front of them — during his State of the Union speech two years ago. The Court members who had made the effort to see Obama deliver his SOTU were rightfully offended by Obama’s rudeness. It was one more instance that proves that Obama has no respect for the Constitution and its carefully defined branches of government. If Obama had his way, he’d ignore both Congress and the Supreme Court.

Some Democrats vow, if SCOTUS strikes down parts or all of Obamacare, that they will begin work on a new health care legislation immediately.

Please post any news you hear.

  • jrterrier

    What is most disturbing is the President’s attempt to demonize the Supreme Court in anticipation of what is expected to be a ruling holding Obamacare unconstitutional. The country can survive a ruling either way but to make the Supreme Court less legitimate is more damning and will have more long-term adverse effects than a win or loss. That is unforgiveable.

    • Flop_Flipper

      Given Obama’s tendency to throw people under the bus, it’s no surprise that he would attack the Supreme Court. I’m looking forward to watching him spin the loss that is coming. I expect him to attack the Supremes again then pretend as if none of it matters to him. Oh, and he will probably issue an Executive Order nullifying the Constitution. I’m only half kidding.

    • http://twitter.com/jbjdjbjd jbjd

      Good point. How many Americans understand our government is founded on the principle of 3 co-equal branches? ‘Dissing’ Congress is just as bad as dissing the high court. Co-equal. As in, ‘Mr. President, you’re not the boss of me!’

  • Dissentispatriotic

    Seems that Obama ticked off the Supremes mightily when he singled them out for his scorn during the SOTU speech in 2009. There have been a string of unfavorable rulings against the government’s position recently. We’ll see if that presages the two biggies set to be announced this week.

  • Dissentispatriotic

    On Richard Holbrooke and the intense hatred that this Obama NSC team had for him, an article in the WaPo spelled out just how hateful and conniving they are. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/little-america-infighting-on-obama-team-squandered-chance-for-peace-in-afghanistan/2012/06/24/gJQAbQMB0V_print.html

    • scottymac54

      It also illustrates the fact that Hillary Clinton has consistently been the most competent, well-informed, intelligent candidate for President we could have possibly had in this country, regardless of hyper-partisanship.
      Then again, it’s more important to complain about her hairstyle, or makeup….

      • buzzlatte3

        Sorry, Hillary ain’t in the running. And even if she were do dems seriously think that this country would vote for an extension of Obama? You haven’t been paying attention.

        • scottymac54

          You might be surprised.

          • buzzlatte3

            Sorry, Hillary was a liability to begin with in 2008. I’m a registered dem and I will N-E-V-E-R vote for either Obama or Hillary. Get it? I’m not the only one. Brazille said she didn’t need voters in 2008, was that a hint of corruption or stupidity? When you say you might be surprised, it makes me think that the dems are going to steal the election through corruption.

            • scottymac54

              I really don’t care, BL. Both candidates are unsuitable, in my eyes, and I have no intention of voting for either one, but especially Romney.
              Just because Obama is the worst president ever (and he is) doesn’t mean I’ve changed my values, my political outlook, or my worldview because he materialized on the scene (I’ll leave to your imagination to figure out why so many managed that tricky U-turn, and their motivations).
              Incidentally, when I said “you might be surprised”, it was in your response to you writing, “You haven’t been paying attention”….

              • buzzlatte3

                Ah, a peek behind the curtain.

                • scottymac54

                  That’s pretty much the whole point. There IS no curtain, because I pulled it down off the rod long ago.
                  For me, getting rid of Obama is not enough.
                  I see Hillary as the most viable solution, in terms of demonstrated competence and intelligence.

                  • buzzlatte3

                    I disagree on Hillary. I don’t have faith that she would be interested in rescinding Obama’s executive orders and government overreach.

                    • scottymac54

                      I don’t believe Romney or any of the Republican candidates would, either, as their collective goals more or less line up with the controlled opposition.
                      It’s been a lackluster year for national candidates in general, IMO.
                      On the other hand, my one serious beef with Hillary is her NWO-ish chumminess with elites, which does seem to go hand in hand with disregard for the Constitution, so who knows?
                      Don’t mind me, I’m just especially disgusted with our partisan political cesspool, in general…:)

  • Flop_Flipper

    If Obamacare is struck down it will affect me intensely. I will be at my wits end. Here I’ve spend most of my disposable income this past weekend and I need some new dancing shoes. Because when that blessed moment comes I intend to dance in the streets.

    • FLDemFem

      Come to FL, you can dance barefoot in the rain. We are having lots of it at the moment…and a couple of days to go.

      • Flop_Flipper

        Much too hot and dry here. But if it rains and I can’t get new shoes, my bare tootsies will do just fine.

        • buzzlatte3

          Let me know what time the band starts.

  • HARP2

    Well that didn`t take long did it Scotty

    Egypt’s Morsy says he’ll review peace treaty with Israel

    In
    interview with Iranian media, Egyptian President-elect says he will not
    take executive action on Camp David accords without input from gov’t;
    adds he wants to expand bilateral ties with Iran to create “balance” in
    region.

    Egyptian President-elect Mohammed Morsy will review
    his country’s peace treaty with Israel, Iran’s semi-official Fars news
    agency quoted him as saying Monday. The interview marks something of a
    departure from comments he made in his election victory speech, during which the Muslim Brotherhood candidate vowed to “preserve international accords and obligations,” in what appeared to be a reference to the peace treaty with Israel.

    • Flop_Flipper

      I thought I also read that he intended to strengthen Egypt’s ties with Iran as well.

    • KenoshaMarge

      Well expecting a politician, from any country on any issue to keep their word is rather naive dontcha think?

    • scottymac54

      Source?
      FWIW, this is news to no one.
      This was spoken about and openly acknowledged by all interested parties, including State, both Netanyahu and the Barak faction….
      All that will change, is there will be seventy thousand idiotic details and broken deals for them to bicker over until eternity…..I know the Arabs have one singular obsession, the “gas pipe” to Israel, which AFAIK has been cut and remains out of order, and if they can be held to account for it, contractually (because of third party).
      I obviously have concerns over the border crossing, the tunnels, the missiles now hitting Ashkelon, but my primary concerns are the military utilitizing the existing “food deserts” within Cairo and Alexandria to coerce the citizenry, and the fate of the Copts, who will suffer under any eventuality.
      You can worry about how this timely crisis/opportunity can be used as a pretext to invade Iran…
      I continue to approve of the official response of the White House, and Hillary Clinton, thus far.
      When they show competence, why not admit it?

    • Hokma

      I suspect that the review of the peace accord with Israel will be more for show and less in substance.
      The actual leaders in Egypt understand thir own economy and it has been relilant on tourism, the U.S., and on its synergistic relationship with Israel.
      So short term I would not expect too much to change, but long term it depends on how much power the orthodox and fundamentalist part of The Muslim Brotherhood exert and if they are able to take control of the military. Then we could have the second coming of Iran.

  • elizabethrc

    67% of the country do not want, never wanted this bill. That is a figure that even Obama, the delusional, cannot escape.
    When he could have been working on important issues, he spent most of his presidency trying to mold a ‘legacy’ through Obamacare. What he’s done is damage that legacy, trash the Democratic party and piss off the American people. The latter two don’t matter to him and the former is so beyond the realm of his ability to face reality about who he is and how lacking he is that he’s going down in flames. He’s half way there, already.
    I’ve seen Obama make so many mistakes, cast so many insults upon America and Americans in the taking away of our liberties, and the diminishing of our importance around the world, and it amazes me that his enablers continue to push the myth of Obama. He seems less surefooted to me and certainly he seems to be shrinking when in the presence of world leaders, unlike his earlier strutting at those events.
    How he deals with defeats shows the petulant, immature (perhaps arrested development???) nature of the man. It isn’t pretty to think that the President of this country operates on such a juvenile emotional level.
    That red button still exists and I hate to think that he has the ability to push it unilaterally, given his proved disdain for the Constitutional process.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jo-Freespirit/100000801917982 Jo Freespirit

      What she said !!

    • KenoshaMarge

      Americans don’t like being told they “have” to do anything.
      I still am pi$$ed off every-time I “have” to put on a seat-belt. (Didn’t at first but two tickets convinced me that compliance is the better part of valour.)

      • lola828

        BS…

        Americans are told what to do every single day. Whether it is following the rules and laws of the country or buying car insurance. You are forced to pay taxes which cover medicare coverage.

        You are mandated to pay your taxes and to pay for military expenditures and wars every single day.

        Great you are a liberaterian. But, as a taxpayer why do I have to pay for all the healthcare costs related to those who do not wear seatbelts or don’t want to wear motorcycle helmets? or do not buy health insurance? There are plenty of studies that show that seat belts and helmet laws save taxpayer plenty of healthcare costs.

        http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-06-18/news/9002190695_1_motorcycle-riders-helmet-laws-motorcycle-safety-foundation

        “At one California medical center, tax money paid for 82 percent of hospital charges for injured motorcyclists. In a Seattle hospital, public funds paid more than 60 percent of the $2.7 million required to care for 105 injured motorcyclists. ”

        http://www.google.com.vn/#hl=vi&site=&source=hp&q=seatbelts+save+taxpayers+money&oq=seatbelts+save+taxpayers+money&aq=f&aqi=q-w1&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.925.6522.0.6891.32.18.0.0.0.0.483.2138.2-2j3j1.6.0…0.0.mcMyt7H0IWE&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a4aa0bbe9417fce8&biw=1680&bih=934

        • scottymac54

          “But, as a taxpayer why do I have to pay for all the healthcare costs related to those who do not wear seatbelts or don’t want to wear motorcycle helmets? or do not buy health insurance?”
          Because, you’re part of a society that enables you a fair to good level of personal choice, because you have certain responsibilities as a citizen to meet, and because the foibles, weaknesses, and choices of others are absolutely none of your business.
          If you want to opt out entirely of an effective single-payer health plan and forfeit your right to any insurance plan whatsoever, that’s fine, because you can pay cash on the barrel, at the highest rate, exercise your “right” to choose, for the same care every other citizen receives, and your contribution will help fund those less able.
          Now, let’s talk about Obama’s pitiful compromise, where he let the insurance corporations and giant pharmaceuticals WRITE his “plan” for us….

          • FLDemFem

            I don’t have insurance, and paid for my cancer treatment myself. I

            • scottymac54

              Honestly? I hope your treatment was successful and as manageable as possible.
              I sincerely hope your battle is over.

              • FLDemFem

                Yes, honestly. I had a double mastectomy and because I hate hospitals, I had it as an outpatient procedure. Was home in my own bed that afternoon. That saved a lot of money too. I healed up fast from the surgery, faster than normal according to my surgeon, and he credited being at home after surgery for that. They got it all and I did chemo just to make sure. Now I take my meds to keep it from coming back and get a blood test and check up every six months. For a while it was once a month, now it’s down to every six.

                • scottymac54

                  Well, I’m sorry you had to have such an invasive procedure, but the upside is that your decision to go ahead probably minimized any further risks….ditto with piggybacking the chemo, despite the discomfort that can bring…
                  See, yours is a perfect example of the benefits of “self-insuring”, and having a direct, one-on-one doctor relationship, with limited “processing” delays and a minimum of bureaucratic bullshit.
                  I also think being home definitely helps. The hospitals here have deterioriated noticeably, in terms of quality of caregivers, the physical plant, and cleanliness (my sister actually contracted MRSA in one).
                  In my experience, communication between doctor and patient becomes much more candid and succinct, once the managed care element isn’t the elephant in the room (although, regrettably, I’d be unable to afford it now).
                  Stay well.

          • FLDemFem

            I don’t have insurance, and paid for my cancer treatment myself. It cost half of what it would cost an insured patient. Why? Because the doctors and hospitals have to pay lots of extra staff to dicker with the insurance companies over each and every payment. The best health care reform would be a mandate for insurance companies to pay what is billed and pay it on presentation of the bill. Low-balling and dickering is what drives up health care costs. Eliminate them and health care costs are cut in half. Easy as pie.

            • scottymac54

              I don’t disagree with the essence of your statement and I’ve actually advocated for what you’re putting forth, years ago, when reform was still possible. And I still consider it preferable to Obama’s mess.
              I just see single-payer as more efficient, workable, flexible, and, most importantly, more even-handed, which, to me, is all key to better health.

            • buzzlatte3

              I pay my doc visit, one per year, out of pocket and get a 40% discount from the insurance company price. When I needed minor surgery a few years ago, I paid out of pocket and got nearly a 50% discount from the hospital and a 30% discount from the surgeon. All in all, it was a whole lot less than insurance premiums. My dad used to work for the feds in an insurance program for the USDA. He always said if congress needed to investigate something it should be insurance companies. LOL!

        • Hokma

          “buying car insurance”
          As an American citizen you are not required to buy car insurance. However as a citizen of any state if you choose buy a car then you the state required you buy a minimum level of auto insurance for the privilege to use that car. If you don’t want to buy insurance you can still keep the care, without license plates, on your driveway for everyone to see.

      • Flop_Flipper

        Safety is a much better reason to put on a seat belt.

        • KenoshaMarge

          There was an incident in my childhood when I was accidentally locked in a cedar chest. It was hours before anyone found me and I have a terror of being confined in any way ever since. I am near panic with a seat-belt on.

          I hate them and I hate that I have no choice in whether to chance injury or be panic stricken every time I have to go anywhere.

          I stay home most of the time now. I used to take the bus or a cab a lot of the time since I didn’t have to wear a seat-belt . Age and a very bad knee have made getting on a bus difficult. A cab? Gets kind of expensive.

          Just a personal idiosyncrasy.

          • Flop_Flipper

            Damn Marge, I had no idea. Sorry to bring up painful memories. I’m not a big fan of confined spaces either and particularly do not care for large crowds.

            You can get one of those emergency seat belt cutters. Maybe that might make you feel safer?

            • KenoshaMarge

              No problem Flop_Flipper.

              I also don’t care for large crowds. I don’t know why that is, I just don’t.

              Sometimes there is just more to a person’s feelings about something than others know.

        • FLDemFem

          Yes, it will keep you safe after the airbag deploys. Or not.

    • lola828

      Where did you get the 67% Number? That is BS. Latest polls says:

      Pew Research Center. June 7-17, 2012. N=2,013 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.5.

      “Do you approve or disapprove of the health care legislation passed by Barack Obama and Congress in 2010?”

      Approve 43%
      Disapprove 48%
      Unsure 9%

      And many of those who have been against the ACA bills are those that believe it did not go far enough and should have included a public option.

      Conservatives will pay a price for striking this down. End of the day people know that Obama is and was trying to do the right thing by tackling what is about the number one issue in this country for many people.

      • elizabethrc

        Good old Lola. We can always trust you to manipulate the stats to obfuscate the truth. Apparently you chose a poll which agrees with your point of view.
        The truth is the truth and you can try to manipulate it as much as you like, but the vast majority in the country do not like being forced to do anything, including the government deciding their healthcare issues for them.

        • lola828

          Why don’t you give me a link to the poll that supports your 67% number?

          You can look at all the polls on healthcare reform here and none of them support your BS 67% number:

          http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

          Here is another recent one.

          Reuters/Ipsos Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. June 7-11, 2012. N=1,099 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

          “As of right now, do you favor or oppose the health care reform bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2010?”

          Favor 45%
          Oppose 44%
          Unsure 12%

          There will be a cost to conservatives for striking down these healthcare reform bills.

          • buzzlatte3

            Rasmussen Reports June 23-24, 2012 54% want law struck down. Anecdotal report by me: No one I know wants the government health care law or to be enslaved by it.

            People will need to be responsible for their own health! Wow! What a concept!!!

            Personal responsibility vs being told what to do, how to live, when to die, what drugs to take, what the gubmint will give you, how much your life is worth to the gubmint, when you are too old to be useful, what surgeries you can have and can’t have (if you took care of yourself in the first place – you wouldn’t need them), how much I gotta pay for dypshyts like you LOLa that can’t imagine being responsible for yourself. Vicious circle, isn’t it. What’s that about getting off the grid and out of the matrix….this is a good place to start.

            • buzzlatte3

              By the way, Rasmussen’s poll on whether the government has the consent of the people is at a paltry 22%. You think that the majority will want the healthcare law to stand? Think again and think of the true ramifications…

              • lola828

                Rasmussen the quality polling company that always seems to support conservative issues and the conservative agenda and Republicans. Why do they always have such different numbers than all the other polling companies?

                • buzzlatte3

                  It’s done electronically. No room for human error or fudging the responses unlike other polls.

            • lola828

              54% is not 67%… maybe it is too you, but not to me.

              We will see what happens when people realize that they cannot get insurance with pre-existing conditions or the 3 million kids who got insurance so far under the law no longer have it or when families cannot keep their kids on their policies longer.

              By the way what exactly is your problem with the law?

              “Personal responsibility vs being told what to do, how to live, when to die, what drugs to take, what the gubmint will give you, how much your life is worth to the gubmint, when you are too old to be useful, what surgeries you can have and can’t have (if you took care of yourself in the first place – you wouldn’t need them), how much I gotta pay for dypshyts like you LOLa that can’t imagine being responsible for yourself. Vicious circle, isn’t it. What’s that about getting off the grid and out of the matrix….this is a good place to start.”

              Your insurance company is already doing all those things for and to you and if you ever cannot get insurance for economic reasons or because of a pre-exisiting condition, you will be wanting those ACA bills.

              • buzzlatte3

                There’s where you’re wrong, assuming everyone needs insurance. I thought little lib-LOLa-looneys like you were all about raging against the machine, yet you’ll easily hand over your freedom of choice, your ability to decide your course of treatment, and your money to the government for what? Unnecessary tests, pharmaceutical corporations selling drugs for 1000s of percent over manufacturing costs, and a panel who will decide your case based on statistics and money???

  • Flop_Flipper

    I found this video that is sort of OT, but is it really?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1h5qS6VVIo&feature=player_embedded

  • KenoshaMarge

    I found this article interesting in regard to the Obamacrats attacks on the Supreme Court.

    Dems’ risky assault on Supremes
    link: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/slapping_friend_9MIbfQ0D3VCnvMsCTyxnDK

  • lola828

    It will be once again over-reach by the SCOTUS if they strike down any part of the healthcare bills that were put in place by the duly elected government of this country. It will be a tragic for democracy and all those who currently are and were going to benefit signifcantly from this healthcare reform. Almost all credible legal experts have said that the mandate falls under the commerce clause and is constitutional. This may set a new precedent regarding the commerce clause.

    It will be another nail in the coffin for the SCOTUS, an institution that has become nothing but a political institution dominated by ideologues. Another example of a great government institution that has been corrupted by politics.

    It will also be on conservatives in this country to explain to 34 million people in this country who were going to get insurance coverage for the first time why they may now not. It will be on the Republicans to tell us what the alternative is.

    • FLDemFem

      Where do you get this drivel?

      • buzzlatte3

        LOLa gets this drivel from the politburo talking points of doom and projected gloom. Ugh, bet they’ve even taken to drinking vodka with every meal and calling each other comrade.

    • scottymac54

      “It will be on the Republicans to tell us what the alternative is…”
      God Forbid.

    • Hokma

      “put in place by the duly elected government of this country”
      and who passed an unConstitutional law. Who watches over them? Read the Constitution or a 3rd Grade U.S. History book ro learn about things like checks and balances and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be a revelation for a moron like you.
      “Almost all credible legal experts have said that the mandate falls under the commerce clause and is constitutional.”
      Actually it is the opposite. But I’m game. Almost all would be about 85% – 95%. List them.
      Name one other product or service that an American citizen is required to purchase because they are an American citizen?

      • lola828

        “Read the Constitution or a 3rd Grade U.S. History book ro learn about things like checks and balances and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be a revelation for a moron like you.”

        Except the court no longer cares about the constitution. They are now just making political decisions pushing a far-right ideology. They are an activist court.

        You need to research “commerce clause”.

        The smartest legal minds in the country do not think the mandate is unconstitutional. It falls well within the commerce clause.

        Here is my list of 104 legal professors from all over the country. They represent the best legal minds in the country and a who’s who on constitutional law and heatlhcare law:

        http://aca-litigation.wikispaces.com/file/view/104+Health+Law+Professors+amicus+%2811-398%29.pdf

        “One hundred professors from many of the country’s major law schools signed a statement arguing that those seeking to overturn the law “seek to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law” and “there can be no serious doubt about the constitutionality” of the insurance mandate. ”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/business/the-health-care-mandate-and-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all

        Funny how conservatives supported the mandate for 20 years and now they think it is not constitutional. How do you explain that?

        What about freeriding? Why should taxpayers have to pay for people who have no health insurance?

        • Hokma

          “They represent the best legal minds . . .”
          You either did not actually read this drivel or you are far dumber than previously thought.

          “The market for health care in the United States operates on a national level.”

          No it does not. Name one national healthcare company? Name one national hospital group? Name one national physician group? So their credibility is zero just based on their first assertion.

          “Many Americans, however, spend at least some part of their lives without health insurance.” Many? What does that mean? Exactly how many?

          “California Dental Ass’n v. FTC” Dental association? Are they kidding?

          “PPACA is a comprehensive regulatory effort to improve the functioning of the national market for health care.”
          Again, the healthcare market is not and never was national. If you are in New York, you cannot get insurance that is available in Florida, which is part of the problem.

          These friggin; geniuses, when referring to “non-elderly” did not even count well.

          I looked some of these geniuses and they are a calvacade of far left ideologues. If they were lawyers they would not be teaching (those who can’t do teach).

          That was about the most ignorant frivel I have read on the topic.

          Also for your information, organizations like the AMA have become far left political groups and most doctors no longer belong to them. So the AMA does not represent doctors.

          This was not a legal document – it was a purely political ideological document – and not a very good one.

          • lola828

            I would take the opinion of 104 legal experts over Hokma any day. What are your qualifications? FOX News?

            • Hokma

              104 legal experts???? Other than you and them, where are they noted as “legal experts?” That document is a sophomoric joke as are you and them.

        • Hokma

          I actually read that ACA crap. You apparently did not actually read it or you are far more dumber than previously thought.
          They start out by saying the healthcare is a national institution. With that assertion they lose. There is nothing national about healthcare. There is no national hospital. No national docyor group. And no national health insurance. Everything is state, city, or local.
          The document is a political ideological diatribe – not a thoughtful legal dissertation.
          Smartest legal minds? I looked up a randome number of these lawyers and they are no more than a calvacade of far left ideologues. Remember, those who can’t do teach.

  • scottymac54

    Bronwyn, right off the bat, there’s been quite an exodus of physicians, internists, pediatricians, GPs….a lot of what we now refer to as “primary care physicians” are leaving the profession entirely.
    Many of us in NYC and the environs have long had to go, not just “out of network”, but basically pay cash on the barrel, because it’s almost unheard of for any decent provider to take insurance of any sort.
    Meanwhile, you pay your continually escalating premiums to the corporations without being able to submit claims, just in case you require surgery, hospitalization, etc.
    The few remaining affordable doctors who take Medicare, Medicaid, etc., are now grouped together with others into substandard clinics that are, generally affiliated with one of the myriad of teaching hospitals in the greater New York area.
    Service is generally poor, and they are generally not grouped together in a logical way, in terms of specialty.
    Basically, if you are middle-class or poorer, you’re forced to defer care in one area, in order to meet more immediate needs….and I don’t know a single parent, or caretaker to an elderly parent, who hasn’t deferred their own medical treatment, in one way or another, if they believe attending to their own treatment will deprive their loved one of the same.
    Somehow, you manage, but the quality and availability of care has markedly deterioriated over the past two years.

    • buzzlatte3

      Doesn’t really harm those that don’t have a lot to do with western medicine. But, yes, the availability has decreased.

  • Popsmoke
    • Flop_Flipper

      Yeah, but a lot of it is nothing more than partisan bullshit.

      • buzzlatte3

        I still remember being told by a professor in college that I and everyone else in class needed to buy a subscription to The Atlantic in order to understand where he was coming from in his lectures. I read it in the library. I found it to be nothing but a lot of leftist garbage and that was 3 decades ago. So excuse me if I don’t go there.

        • Popsmoke

          No go to the New Republic where you have garbage from the right. Look both publications have good and bad articles and writers. Just to blow off a story which has merit because it comes with a right or left wrapper is just silly.

          • buzzlatte3

            Now Poppy, you should know better than to tell an American what to do. I’ll choose what and where I read, thanks. Perhaps if you brought out the salient points that have merit to all, it would help sell your view.

            • Popsmoke

              What the hell did I say that did not make sense? You this thick headed? I read every publication that has a story of interest to me no matter its politics swing.

              Salient points? Did you bother to read the article? Fallon makes several of them. All I said was interesting read. But I guess you and the other meatball should be the ones who decides what is read on this site.

              For a college grad your pretty one dimensional.

      • scottymac54

        As opposed to everything else, which is so “fair and balanced”?

      • Popsmoke

        Its only partisan if reader disagrees… Where is what was listed false?

        • buzzlatte3

          Tell you what, you go spend an hour on Drudge and the Daily Caller, then come back and report which parts you disagree on. Then I’ll entertain reading your article.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5LZSPYBO4QY2EQFQ7TC6SDMK24 Janet

    Most of us didn’t want his Obamacare, won’t effect my vote, I’m still not voting for Obama.

  • HELENK2
  • HELENK2
  • buzzlatte3

    hotair.com reports that CJ Roberts is writing the summary of the decision on the Ocrap health law. Doesn’t bode well for it being upheld.

  • Pingback: Sagacious and Savvy: The Supreme Court Decides Obamacare … | Political Blogs Watch

  • morris1030

    I was not happy when Obama dissed Supremes at SOTU, but likewise Scalia going rogue is not exactly supreme judicial judgement. Activist behavir on the bench? Unusual.