Wow... 48% of Dems want Obamacare all or part overturned?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

http://www.wane.com/dpps/health/healthy_living/supreme-court-in-a-no-win-position-on-obamacare_4206439

Excerpt from David Gergen:

Court finds itself in a bind

Consider the quandary the high court faces in trying to keep the public on its side.

Last week, a New York Times/CBS poll revealed that a majority of respondents -- 68% -- believes the individual mandate to buy health insurance, the central feature of the law, violates the Constitution and wants the court to overturn the law in part or in whole. Even a plurality of Democrats (48%) want a partial or full overturn. So if the court decides to uphold the law, it will sharply contravene current public opinion.

But what if the court indeed decides to strike down the mandate and possibly other parts of the law? In the near term, yes, that could be widely welcomed by the public. But over time it could stir up a different fire, one that could do further damage to the reputation and prestige of the court.

Despite its occasional waywardness, the Supreme Court has traditionally been viewed as the least partisan and most independent of the three branches of government. That in turn has built a reservoir of public trust so that, in controversial cases, most Americans believe that the justices have worn a blindfold, carefully weighing the law of the land. Thus they respect the law, an important source of legitimacy for our only nonelected branch of government.

[Fawke Em]

1. Many people want the give-away to private insurance companies

removed. They want the public option back on the table.

That number is not that unusual when you remember that aspect.

[JHB]

3. Yes, people should remember that number includes "or in part"

It doesn't break down the "why"s of it.

[liberal N proud]

2. Propaganda is effective

[MadHound]

5. Ah, so anybody who is against a mandated monopoly is a propaganda victim?

Nice to see that you think so highly of your fellow Democrats' intelligence

[doc03]

17. If you don't have the mandate, who pays for the people who

are taking a free ride when they get sick?

[MadHound]

28. Do you think that it is right, legal and just

That an American citizen would be mandated to by a commercial product, from a private corporation, simply as a condition for their existence?

Remember, the ACA, including the mandate, started off as a Republican policy. Since when should we embrace conservative policy, even if it comes with the approval of a nominally Democratic president?

[doc03]

35. Fine if someone doesn't want health insurance and

won't pay the small penalty then don't give them health care. I have no problem as long as I don't
have to pay for someone else with higher premiums or higher taxes. Since we can't get a single payer
national health plan it's the best we can do under the circumstances. You can't wreck your car then go
out and buy insurance. Your family can't go out and buy life insurance on you after you are dead. So what's
your alternative repeal the whole plan and go back to where we were? You will never get 100% of what you want in this country as long as Wall Street owns the government.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. How is it different than the laws that say you have to have car insurance. Just asking. nt

[Angleae]

72. Because no one is required by law to have a car.

Therefore, no one is required to have car insurance. You are required by law to live.

[sendero]

73. But you do have a living body..

... so by definition you will need health care.

I'm no fan of this bill overall - mostly because it is so insanely complex that nobody really understands all of the consequences of its implementation.

But everyone will need health care and the only way it can be paid for (short of nationalizing the system which I would do in a heartbeat if it were up to me) is for people to pay into the system when they are young and healthier.

[stevenleser]

49. That is not the typical objection from the public. If it was, I could respect that. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Some Democrats want everything or nothing, so it will most likely be back to nothing.

Many don't see the benefits the Medical Loss Ratio will give them that will end ProfitCare. They don't see the advances ObamaCares will have on bringing in universal single payer, eventually. They want everything now or nothing, so they'll most likely end up with nothing and we're back to square ONE. Not all Democrats are Progressives. Many, even if they don't know it, are REgressives. That's what I read in that 48%.

[MadHound]

6. No, it's more that many Democrats balance the good with the bad,

And find that the scales tip far too much to the bad to support support the ACA. Handing the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, with prices controls that are few and weak, is simply asking for further destruction of the middle class, not to mention the precedent that such a move represents.

I think that if you had seen the public option, and stronger price controls thrown in, not as many Democrats would be against ACA. But as it is, a lot of people find it hard to swallow.

[BlueCaliDem]

50. Yep. Back to nothing is better. eom

[eridani]

9. Seven states have already gotten exemptions for MLR, and more are applying

Regulation by MLR has already been tried in 15 states and has been an abject failure every time. It is for all practical purposes useless. The only way of regulating health care costs is for the government to do it directly, as with every other civilized country.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. As of Dec. 2011, the HHS has rejected waivers for four states already.

Six have been approved with adjusted percentages according to that data in that month, but they have small populations and can't make a huge difference that the impact of the MLR will have on health insurance costs.

http://www.avalerehealth.net/news/spotlight/medical_loss_ratio-state_waivers.html

Better one bird in the hand than two in the bush, and let's not forget, ObamaCares hasn't been fully implemented yet.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. You understand that the waivers are temporary, right?

These seven states are being given more time to comply, not out-and-out "never have to comply" waivers. You do understand that, right?

[eridani]

60. Sure. They can get new waivers after the old ones expire

And I suppose you understand that regulating costs by MLR has been tried at the state lever 15 times and has failed every single time?

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Actually you demonstrate you know nothing about the waiver process.

Go see how the waivers are being given out, then get back to me.

[eridani]

67. Why not give me an example of a state that has tried regulation by MLR

--and succeeded. All that have tried so far have failed.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Why not deal with the actual waiver process instead of spreading BS about it? n/t

[eridani]

69. Bottom line--regulating by MLR does not control costs, period. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

70. If that was the only thing going on here, you might have a point. Now, the waiver process.

Checked into it yet?

[FBaggins]

7. Gergen can't be that naive

The court doesn't worry about "keeping the public on their side" (and annecdotes about office pools on states won in an election hardly demonstrate otherwise).

He also wrongly assumes that overturning the law would necessarily be a political decision. IMO it should be 9-0 and congress should be the one worried about public opinion for letting politics influence them to pass such a clearly unconstitutional law.

[ProSense]

8. Bullshit

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002784980

[eridani]

11. This is not different from what the OP said

20% +28% = 48%

[ProSense]

12. Nonsense

"This is not different from what the OP said: 20% +28% = 48%"



42 + 28 = 70 percent of Dems want to keep the law (including 28 percent who want to scrap the mandate only)


OP: "Wow... 48% of Dems want Obamacare overturned?"

That statement is bullshit!

[DesMoinesDem]

22. LOL

You are grouping people that want to overturn a major component of the law with people that don't want to overturn the law. That makes NoSense. The article clearly states that the 48% represents Democrats that want a partial or full overturn of the law.

[ProSense]

25. Yeah,

"You are grouping people that want to overturn a major component of the law with people that don't want to overturn the law. That makes NoSense."

..."overturn the mandate, but keep the rest of the law."

Some prefer the MSM spin, especially those opposed to the health care law. See, keeping the rest of the law is a BFD. Ask Howard Dean, who supports the law, but doesn't think the mandate is necessary. Others disagree, but there is one thing they all agree on: Keep the law. It's the biggest social reform in decades.

On another note: "NoSense." Is that original? I could swear I've seen it before. Ah familiarity!

Welcome to DU, and enjoy your stay.

[DesMoinesDem]

29. Thanks for the welcome.

Although I've been here over a year. I guess my post count is low, but I'm only one person.

[Capt. Obvious]

31. The Link-Drone gets another civilian

Isn't that lovely? "Enjoy your stay"

[ProSense]

40. My bad

"The Link-Drone gets another civilian...Isn't that lovely? 'Enjoy your stay'"

Looks like I missed extending a welcome to you, and you seem so nice. Even though I love anniversaries, it's better to say welcome before a full year goes by.

Welcome!

[Capt. Obvious]

41. Thanks again

You already gave me one.

And you told me to enjoy my stay too.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. Good point. thanks. let me change. nt

[uponit7771]

34. Yes it is, 48% do NOT want the WHOLE law overturned the OP doesn't qaulify

[qanda]

10. The part about buying insurance or being penalized is ridiculous

[raps]

13. Just allow insurance to be sold across state lines

Create a minimum coverage plan that all providers must comply with and enable plans to be sold nationwide instead of by individual state. You reduce overhead of the private firms which right now have separate branches for each state they provide in and it will dramatically increase the pool size of all the available plans by incorporating the separate ones for each state into one nationwide plan. So you have lower overhead for the provider and a larger pool of people paying into the streamlined system.

[DinahMoeHum]

14. Ding ding ding - we have a winner!

Increasing the pool is the key to making the insurance affordable.

[Capt. Obvious]

15. And then all insurance will be based in Delaware

[GoCubsGo]

19. Yep.

They'll all move to the state with the least-stringent regulations. It worked quite well for the credit card companies.

[uponit7771]

37. +1, conservatives are so uninformed on a number of issues it's flooring

[FarLeftFist]

20. They're one step ahead. They will move to Delaware and still not lower prices.

And without a mass group of people buying insurance the prices will just continue to rise. Believe me, they've figured out PLENTY of loopholes. They have people whose sole job it is to find loopholes.

[kenny blankenship]

53. They wrote the legislation. You bet they can find loopholes.

Last edited Wed Jun 13, 2012, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

They don't just find them, they're the ones who put them in there in the first place.


There over Max Baucus' left shoulder, camera right, you see Wellpoint Vice President for Public Policy, Liz Fowler, masquerading as a Senate Staffer with the job description of Chief Counsel for the Senate Finance Committee. She more than any other person (corporate or natural) wrote the bill that America wants repealed.

[jeff47]

23. You don't know much about the history of credit cards, do you?

Once they could be sold across state lines, states rushed to be the most accommodating to credit card companies. That's why all credit cards are issued by companies in Delaware or South Dakota. And why Delaware and South Dakota have laws that greatly favor credit card companies.

It's also why no matter where you live, your credit card is regulated by Delaware or South Dakota law. Doesn't matter if California wants added consumer protections. The credit card companies aren't in California and don't have to comply with California law. And since you're not a resident of Delaware or South Dakota, you really don't have a say in those laws.

Repeating this process with health insurance would not be a good idea.

[joeglow3]

24. Why haven't other insurers (i.e. auto) done that?

[jeff47]

26. For auto, you usually aren't actually buying it across state lines

Yes, it might say "State Farm" or "Allstate" on the policy, but it was bought from an agent in your state.

Another example: When I moved from CO to NY, my GEICO insurance changed to a different company, despite both being GEICO. I'm now insured by their New York wholly-owned subsidiary instead of their Colorado wholly-owned subsidiary.

[raps]

27. state laws

The laws regarding the required levels of insurance differ from state to state. The provider must create different policies for each one to meet the requirements of the state.

[joeglow3]

47. True, but everyone can enter the state if they meet those requirements

Why would you not see the same thing here?

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Because what would happen in reality is just the opposite of what you claim.

One state has/will pass a law that allows circumvention of the pathetic 85% rule and all the insurance companies will incorporate there. Then we have a mandate to buy a product but with no guarantee of quality nor protection from usurious rates.

And how do I know this? Because they've done it before. That why Joe Biden was known as Senator Citi.

[The Link]

44. Race to the bottom.

That will lead to lower quality care for all.

[eridani]

61. Repuke talking point bullshit

All that means is that insurance companies will all incorporate in the state with the fewest consumer protections.

[doc03]

16. Since when is 48% a plurality? The 52% that don't want

a partial or full overturn would be the plurality.

[jpbollma]

18. I know a lot of Democrats

and I don't know any who want this law repealed.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. The survey says only 42% of Democrats think SCOTUS should keep the whole law.

Making 10% undecided, I guess.

But in that case, 48% is more than 42%, so the 48% is a plurality.

But I feel like the reason why is that the individual mandate (w/o a public option) is just a giveaway to the insurance companies. So these Democrats are thinking get rid of this law and get one with a public option included, or even a single payer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. I'm ambivalent

If the law stays we get herded into corporate coffers.

If the law goes we *could* re-launch the case for single-payer but politically it will be a harder sell. Voters don't like it when policy makers fiercely defend a dead policy then turn around and say you really wanted this other policy all along. It makes them suspicious and rightly so.

[Skinner]

30. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law and the constitution.

The people with the black robes are supposed to be the experts on this stuff. What the public thinks is irrelevant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. True. It would be disconcerting if things like polls and protests could sway judges. n/t

[ileus]

32. I want single payer...

[Romulox]

33. I think many of us, deep down, understood that mandatory for-profit insurance was a Faustian deal

at very best.

[Orangepeel]

46. It's not mandatory for-profit

Some of the largest insurance providers are, at least technically, not-for-profit. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to take advantage of people. Plenty of technically nonprofit organizations are run by greedy bastards.

I point it out because it seems like some people who argue against the constitutionality of the mandate base their argument on the "for profit" part and that's not accurate.

Maybe they mean "private" although I don't think that's necessarily true. I believe that the ACA allows states to include public options in their exchanges. I think it would be accurate to say that in some states there will be a de facto requirement to buy from a private company for everyone who can't opt out due to income or religious objection.

[Romulox]

48. There is no provision in the US Constitution that allows for forced purchases--but only from

quasi "non profit" organizations.

I think it would be accurate to say that in some states there will be a de facto requirement to buy from a private company for everyone who can't opt out due to income or religious objection.

No. "De facto" means "in fact", but the requirement to purchase insurance is indeed "de jure"--"in law". Thus, there is a de jure requirement to purchase health insurance, which de facto will only be available from private insurers in many, if not most, places.

[Puzzledtraveller]

59. Well said, and not hard to understand.

I have a harder time understanding those that defend and uphold this POS legislation as a great thing. It actually gives me the impression that we are so desperate for a win, that we will take any win. The attitude that seems to prevail with many which is "this is it" well, that is a pathetic and defeatist attitude if ever there was one. The politicians know this, it is why they will continue to throw us scraps and laugh at us when we grovel for them.

[RZM]

36. I think that's a misleading number

A good chunk of that 48 percent want something that goes much further, such as single payer. While they tell a pollster they want something else, if it's between the current law or nothing, they would prefer the current law.

Kind of a metaphor for the left's relationship to the Democratic party.

Of course some of that 48 percent are conservative leaning Democrats. What the split is exactly is tough to say with just this information.

[Orangepeel]

38. Lots of people think "it's a bad idea and it shouldn't be that way" = "unconstitutional"

Whether or not the ACA is a bad idea is arguable. Whether or not it is unconstitutional is also arguable. But most people who intend to argue the latter seem to be really arguing the former.

[treestar]

42. The Court has to go by the law

It does not matter what the polls say.

[librechik]

43. Thank you FoxNews and others for grievously misleading their viewers

and never talking to them straight about the healthcare issue. Bought out by the lobby.

[B Calm]

45. Medicare for everyone is the only solution!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. That's not a solution for the stockholders who own stock in the health-care companies.

We, of course, don't elect angels.

How many of our elected politicians, and parties related to them, own stock in such companies? Whatever the number is, that is a reason why we will never have Medicare for everyone.

The mandatory-purchase of health insurance plan was origionally a Republican idea. Now, because it has a (D) behind it, we are supposed to support it as well.

[AJTheMan]

62. "the supreme court has traditionally been viewed as the least partisan..."

Ha, just had to take a moment and laugh there. Considering that we have essentially four conservative ideologues and four progressive ideologues with one centrist in the middle, it's hardly fair to say that the court is the "least partisan."

[TheFarseer]

64. remember that Obamacare

is a cobbled together, compromised, corporate backed pile of crap that really pleases no one.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

66. most profound post of all. ! of course Obama knows the same...wonder if even he is

thinking WTF on all of this. I suppose at some point, back then, he weighed the benefits
derived and compared that against all the bullshit rest, and said..."let's do it"

In retrospect, I wonder if he is wondering..."damn, should have pulled the whole thing?"

I do truly think that Obama is not committed to this 100%. If he was, then he
would be touting it, and explaining it, and leading the effort to teach small businesses,
the ones who are so concerned about costs, all about it. He has remained remarkably silent - his whole administration. While
small businesses wonder and worry about how the law will affect them. And, the right has been allowed to
make the word "obamacare" a dirty words that spits out of their mouths like a bitter pill.

Now it all makes sense. Obama knows it won't fly with the SC. That's why he's been silent.

[sabrina 1]

65. If only they had listened. We tried to tell them but were attacked and vilified and the

Third Way won. And airc, we were also told that DU didn't represent the country etc. etc.

People are not stupid, an overwhelming majority of the American people wanted a PO or a National HC system. The people were ignored. And many of us predicted that the mandate would be challenged in court but were told to STFU.

Hey, thanks Rahm! Corporate shill who fought so hard for his corporate buddies. This president needs to get some new people into this administration and rid it of the Goldman Sachs third wayers. If he loses the election THEY will be to blame.

[Raine]

71. Totally agree, that's exactly the way I see it too. nt