U.S. 2012 Election

[Brad Sallows]

Before Romneycare existed, there were preconceptions about how well it would work.  After the fact, most people - including Romney - know more about the unforeseen consequences.  Obama can thrash all he wants - he's the one defending unpopular legislation, and the act has already been weakened in increments as various pieces have turned out to be piss-poor ideas.

Apparently the proposals on Romney's table include:
- increase competition across state lines
- devolve more authority to states
- widen the tax credits for buying health insurance
- encourage creation of subsidized high-risk pools
- change Medicaid to a block grant system
- other unspecified Medicaid/Medicare reform
- allow HSA funds to be used for insurance premiums

The merits of any particular point are debatable; the fact that concrete proposals exist and are aimed more at controlling costs than spreading coverage is not.

The Court decision was not a massive win for Obama and will not help Democrats.

Democrats assumed the act would be upheld on the basis of the Commerce Clause.  That would have been a "win".  Failing that, they looked to the Necessary and Proper Cause.  That would have been a "modest win".

That the act was upheld on neither clause, and had to be upheld on a contorted interpretation of taxation powers despite the many references explicit in the act to "penalty" and the repeated denials of its authors and supporters that it was a tax, makes it a "weak win".  Furthermore, the Medicaid expansion stick was whittled away.

The dissenting opinion is strong, and reveals just how weak a straw Roberts was forced to clutch (and refabricate) in order to throw the problem back at the legislators.

Although outright repeal of the act is still a long shot (Senate filibuster), gutting the act by removing the tax is not.  Longer term, the deficit/debt math kills the act - and a lot of other mandatory spending - anyways.

Democratic candidates are, and have been, running like scalded dogs to distance themselves from the act for months, and that has not changed.  Apparently they do not think it will help their chances of re-election.  Obama, too, would rather talk about other things.

We can all spin as much as we like, but the silence, excuses, and evasions of the acts authors and proponents tells the story quite plainly.

 

[cupper]

the fact that concrete proposals exist and are aimed more at controlling costs than spreading coverage is not.

The only concrete proposals coming from the Romney camp are a rehash of what is already in place under the ACA. As for anything you listed, none of it addresses rising costs within the system itself.

and the act has already been weakened in increments as various pieces have turned out to be piss-poor ideas.

In what ways has the act been weakened since the legislation was passed, other than the courts limits on the federal funding provisions for medicaid?

The Court decision was not a massive win for Obama and will not help Democrats./quote]

Don't know where you have been for the past two days, but all of the pundits on the major news outlets, conservative and liberal both are giving the Administration a BIG win. A complete elimination by the court was the only other result that could have come out of this, based on the dissenting opinions. That would have been a complete disaster for Obama and re-elction. You can't spin that any other way.

Democratic candidates are, and have been, running like scalded dogs to distance themselves from the act for months, and that has not changed.  Apparently they do not think it will help their chances of re-election.  Obama, too, would rather talk about other things.

Again, this is a win for Obama and the Dems, because it shifts focus away from the perceived bad state of the economy. As long as the GOP, Tea PArty and Romney are flapping their arms in fained horror and disgust over SCOTUS declaring something so OBVIOUSLY UNconstitutional to be otherwise, they aren't talking about unemployment and the state of the economy. By bringing the Tea Party back out from the bridge it crawled under is going to pull the independents away from Romney and back to Obama. If there is anything the ecloctorate likes to see, it is a winner, and right now it ain't Romney.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, something like 60% of Americans dislike Obamacare, so the party that pledges to eliminate it will get a lot of support. Many TEA Party movement groups report a fresh flood of volunteers and monetary support due to the ruling. As well, now that the SCOTUS has defined the Individual Mandate as a tax, the GOP can run another parallel track to the economic performance platform:

"You think things are bad today, wait until you and the economy are hit with the biggest tax increase in peacetime history; the Obamacare individual mandate"

 

[Redeye]

Actually, something like 60% of Americans dislike Obamacare, so the party that pledges to eliminate it will get a lot of support. Many TEA Party movement groups report a fresh flood of volunteers and monetary support due to the ruling. As well, now that the SCOTUS has defined the Individual Mandate as a tax, the GOP can run another parallel track to the economic performance platform:

"You think things are bad today, wait until you and the economy are hit with the biggest tax increase in peacetime history; the Obamacare individual mandate"

The interesting bit is that people dislike "Obamacare" but they seem to like all the provisions in it, which shows how effective the agitprop machine against it is. When you frame the question as "Should people with pre-existing conditions have access to proper health insurance?" "Should kids be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26?" and things like that, I suspect that you'd get an interesting set of responses. I think there's some organization working on polls to that end, looking forward to seeing them.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

The interesting bit is that people dislike "Obamacare" but they seem to like all the provisions in it, which shows how effective the agitprop machine against it is. When you frame the question as "Should people with pre-existing conditions have access to proper health insurance?" "Should kids be able to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26?" and things like that, I suspect that you'd get an interesting set of responses. I think there's some organization working on polls to that end, looking forward to seeing them.

I`m sure that with the same logic one could ask questions such as ``Do you like democracy``, ``should dictators who shoot chemicals at their own peoples by deposed``, and ``Do you think that a government that ignores the orders of the UN should be deposed`` and come to the conclusion that most Americans support or supported the Iraq War.

As for Romney, `Romneycare` was a good solution for Massachusetts, but as he has stated, is not a good solution for the US as a whole.  Obama`s political mistake was forcing it on states that clearly didn`t want any part of it instead of making it optional.  If the fine people of the state of Georgia don't want it, than that's their choice.  Obama`s hubris that he knows best is what will hurt him on this one.

 

[mikewalker28]

It's funny how, no matter who i vote for i still have to pay tax.

Some things never change !

 

[Brad Sallows]

I consider the intention of DHHS to not enforce the CLASS provisions to be a weakening of the act, notwithstanding that the repeal bill seems not to have made it past the Senate.

Appeal to opinion of pundits has not much weight.  I read the expectations and predictions of the various legal academics and analysts myself.  The act's proponents were sure of themselves, had big expectations, and fell well short; the acts opponents were cautiously optimistic but rarely willing to forecast above 50/50, and then only for removal of the mandate.  Roberts's rewrite gave opponents an easier path to removal of the penalty, and the decision affirmed the unconstitutionality of the grounds on which the proponents sought to have the act upheld.  The opponents got something - indeed, something of substance - rather than nothing.

For purposes of judging the relative degrees of success, complete elimination was not the only other result.  Do not confuse what we now know about the dissenting opinion after the fact of its issue with what people believed to be likely before June 28.  Avoidance of disaster <> "big win", when the minimum expectation was a "bigger win" (ie. upheld on Commerce clause).

I doubt Republicans will find it difficult to campaign on two issues - health care and the economy - at the same time.  Four months is a lot of time to explain to people just how much their taxes are going up and just how high unemployment is.

If you think independents will necessarily avoid rather than join the TP, I think you have bought too much into the "TP extremist" caricature.

 

[Redeye]

I doubt Republicans will find it difficult to campaign on two issues - health care and the economy - at the same time.  Four months is a lot of time to explain to people just how much their taxes are going up and just how high unemployment is.

If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.

Provide statistics that show that the Republicans ruined the economy..... Obama has had 4 years to fix it, and aside from spending tons of money, increasing the debt more than any president in history, and blaming Bush hasn't really accomplished much.  I dont see much of an economic solution provided from the Dems that isn't comparable to what the Republicans are offering. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from; and b) that when Americans look at what PPACA/Obamacare (a name which was intended to be derisory but the Dems have now taken ownership of, smart move) is composed of things that I'd wager most Americans would find less than objectionable. But I guess we'll see how it turns out. They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.

They We (because we are just as bad) will spin the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will choose to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.

 

[vonGarvin]

If they do that, then the Democrats should have little to worry about, really, since stats can be used to show the a) the GOP wrecked the economy and have no workable plan to fix it that isn't handing out more tax cuts to rich people, something that seems to be a good place for them to build from anything

There, fixed that for you.

They also have that Romney is a liar, a flip-flopper, a Mormon, and all sorts of more dirty pool cards they can plan should they choose, though that's a sad comment on the state of American politics more than anything.

WTF does that have to do with anything?  I mean, other than showing your colours as an anti-theistic bigot?  Mormons have strong family values, believe in personal responsibility for actions and suffer from bigotry.  You know, people think that their beliefs are weird, therefore, they are weird, and that they all have fifteen wives.

As for him being a liar and flip-flopper, I think that just means that he's met the basic minimum requirements to be a politician. 

 

[Redeye]

They We (because we are just as bad) will spin the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will choose to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/Themes/Milnet/images/bbc/divider.gif

That's actually what I was getting at. Yet, looking at a lot of things - government budget balances, economic indicators like stock indices, corporate profits, etc, all those can be fairly easily used to make that argument. When you're dealing with the masses who don't go beyond the face value, it can work.

 

[Redeye]

There, fixed that for you.WTF does that have to do with anything?  I mean, other than showing your colours as an anti-theistic bigot?  Mormons have strong family values, believe in personal responsibility for actions and suffer from bigotry.  You know, people think that their beliefs are weird, therefore, they are weird, and that they all have fifteen wives

It has nothing to do with me, but it may well become a campaign issue, if it goes that "low". It actually came up during the primaries, several times, though it evidently didn't impact there. I couldn't care less what religion he is - but guess what... a considerable chunk of American voters do, in particular the conservative, evangelical Christian set. From a cold, calculating perspective, the Democrats would be happy to air this because it might make some of those people stay home rather than vote, and not voting for Romney is as good as voting for Obama.

Go ahead and google something like Romney Mormon Election Impact - see how much you get - lots of articles from a variety of perspectives.

Incidentally, Mormonism was pretty big on bigotry themselves, until they magically had a "revelation" that made them change their tune on African-Americans. But I'm not interested in getting into that, it's beside the point.

 

[Brad Sallows]

In the end, then, there isn't really anything to distinguish the candidates:
- Mormon vs disciple of Jeremiah Wright
- liars
- flip-floppers
- poor economic managers
- proponents of poor health care bills

I guess it will come down to whether Americans like their new taxes and believe Democrats are the best people to deal with the remaining economic issues that have not been vanquished after four years of tireless effort.

 

[Haletown]

From the "What could possibly go wrong" file . . .

"although the legislation Mr. Obama signed in 2010 spells out most aspects of the law, federal officials can materially change it depending on how they write regulations "

So a country that is massively in debt, running staggeringly huge deficits believes it is a good idea to let civil servants write regulations for a new entitlement program.

Makes perfect sense on Planet Crazy. 

Not so much in the real world.

 

[PuckChaser]

Its ok, they can just tax the rich to pay for it! That's the solution to everything.

 

[a_majoor]

Its ok, they can just tax the rich to pay for it! That's the solution to everything.

Hey, that's the NDP platform! No stealing....

 

[Edward Campbell]

They We (because we are just as bad) will spin the statistics to suit each campaign's purposes. The people will know that the advertising, from both parties, is false but they will not care; most people, a big majority in any case - will choose to believe the lie that conforms most closely to their prejudices preconceived ideas. The elections (theirs in 2012 and ours in 2015) will be won by advertisers ~ the candidates (national, regional and local) who 'win' public office will be those who told the most attractive lies.

And, regarding the 2012 US election, see this story in the Globe and Mail which is headlined: Democrats brace for the worst with Romney poised to out fundraise Obama.

According to the Globe journalist the Romney campaign will, yet again, as it did in May, raise more money than Obama's team.

Apparently Obama is pleading with supporters give more and more, saying: "“I’m asking you to meet or exceed what you did in 2008 ... because we’re going to have to deal with these Super PACs in a serious way. And if we don’t, frankly I think the political [scene] is going to be changed permanently…The special interests that are financing my opponent’s campaign are just going to consolidate themselves. They’re gonna run Congress and the White House.”" And he's saying, "“I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far ... I’m not just talking about the Super PACs and anonymous outside groups – I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.”"

Monet talks in politics - especially in a nation that is 'informed' by television.

 

[cupper]

Too bad the GOP and the Romney Campaign can't coordinate their message.

Romney campaign, at odds with GOP, says mandate is not a tax

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/romney-adviser-breaks-from-gop-message-says-mandate-is-not-a-tax/2012/07/02/gJQAF76JIW_blog.html?hpid=z3

An adviser to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney broke from the messaging of other Republicans Monday, arguing that the health-care mandate in the Affordable Care Act is not a tax.

“The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court, he agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia, that very clearly said that the mandate was not a tax,” Eric Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC. “The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”

Since the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was constitutional as a tax rather than under the Commerce Clause, Republicans have attacked Democrats from that angle.

Romney is in an awkward position, because his individual mandate in Massachusetts also imposed a penalty on those who did not buy insurance. If such penalties are taxes, than he raised taxes as governor.

That means that on this one issue, Romney agrees with Democrats, who are resisting labelling the mandate a tax despite the ruling.

“The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

“Now it’s official,” a recent anti-Democratic ad from the outside group American Crossroads said. “Obama increased taxes on struggling families.”

But Romney himself has steered clear of this argument. In his statement after the ruling, he did not comment on the individual mandate penalty as a tax.

In a statement Monday, the Republican’s campaign dared Obama to embrace the law as a tax while again avoiding that label.

“The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty,” said Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg. “Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position: Is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?”

Congressional Republican aides tell the Plum Line that the two messages are not in conflict. Republicans, one aide argued, agree with the dissent — that the mandate is not a tax but an unconstitutional overreach — but now that it is defined as a tax, it can be criticized as such.

But that line of attack is more easily maintained by Republicans who never imposed any such mandate.

 

[cupper]

Interesting poll results taken after the Court ruling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-political-fallout-from-health-care-reform--in-three-charts/2012/07/02/gJQALKBhIW_blog.html