Name:   copperline - Subject:   AND you are CRAZY!! Date:   7/1/2012 11:04:43 AM

i think it’s interesting that you would say that Justice Roberts “really doesn’t like” the new healthcare plan, that he was “very vocal” about his opposition and then changed his vote “for the wrong reason”.   You’re trying to reframe his actions by saying ‘he was one of us but failed to follow the instructions of his party’.     What he did was interpret the law, and craft a decision that said it was not the role of the SCOTUS to overturn the wishes of Congress if their actions were constitutionally sound.    Your thinking is that he is a party functionary and ultimately failed in his mission assignment.     Any Justice on the Court would probably resent being characterized as a mouthpiece of one party or the other.

      it’s a tax.  No, it’s a penalty.  All of that discussion is useless semantic hair-splitting in keeping with this crazy battle of politics & rhetoric.    Maybe it’s a contribution to pay for a much needed public good.  Who cares what you call it?

     Sadly, Roberts’ ruling did leave the door open for further Tea Party disruption and i wonder just how that will play out.  By making it possible for States to opt out of additional Medicaid (not Medicare) funds, your party likely will move to threaten local politicians who are going to be considering accepting the federal funding.   On one hand, state leaders will know that their local health services are underfunded already.... leaving many of their constituents  vulnerable, their hospitals & medical service programs already crippled by indigent care,  and that the public prefers provisions like prohibiting pre-existing condition exclusions, extending family insurance to young adults,  etc.    They will also know that there is no GOP alternative to play up.     These politicians will have to decide between following the threats from their party or accepting 100% funding from the feds.     Opposing it will be cutting off their noses in spite of their face, will highlight the extremes to which the right wing will go, and make for a very public display of insensitivity to the poor.  

     We will have to wait & see how many of them will intentionally refuse medical care for people in their districts, but who knows?   They almost drove the entire national economy off the cliff in the Debt Ceiling debate, it’s entirely possible that withholding medical care for the poorest of the poor won’t be as distasteful to them as being characterized as consorting with the enemy.

    i suspect that some Conservative politicians are a bit relieved that this legislation was upheld, but know it's political suicide to voice that.   Mitt Romney crafted the same legislation in Mass, but has to publically retract his opinion in deference to the threats of the Tea Party.    Thoughtful players know that we had to do something to fix the broken healthcare system and join the rest of the developed world.   They would also know that it is not really a good idea to allow for-profit insurance corporations to write our national healthcare policies.