Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 11 of 11

Thread: White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge

  1. #11
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 PM

    Re: White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    White House Faces Political Dilemma on Health Law Challenge

    Not sure what the white house can do to prevent SCOTUS from hearing and deciding this issue before the election but it comes as no surprise that they won’t want this to be decided before the election because the individual mandate is going to be struck down as unconstitutional.

    Obama had to know that his resistance to an early referral to SCOTUS would put the case on their doorstep during the last year of his current term didn’t he? Is he really so amateurish on constitutional law, or has he planned for this all along?

    He probably won’t be re-elected due to the dismal economy and unemployment rates but there will be no way he can survive SCOTUS overturning Obamacare 6 months before the election.
    I'd just like to point out that there's a difference between overturning the mandate, and overturning Obamacare as a whole. Most Americans like the other stuff that is in that bill, but the reason the individual mandate was put in it was so that those other things could be paid for, and so that there wouldn't be any free-riders.

    As economists (including conservative economists and policy analysts, i might add) figured out back in the early 90s, if you wanted universal healthcare and still wanted a sustainable system that would preserve a role for the markets, an individual mandate was pretty much the only way to go about it.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 08-21-11 at 12:03 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts