Political hypocrisy

[d-ray657]

Like the majority here, I would have much preferred to see a single-payer system than the sausage we ended up with. I was appalled (but not shocked) to see the barrage of lobbying going on during the sausage making that resulted in the ACA. But with all of its flaws, it was a step toward a national health insurance policy. After all of that, if it had not survived Supreme Court review, we might be worse off than we were after Bill and Hillary failed to get a bill passed. Whatever value there is in the ACA is reflected in the strident effort by the corporotocracy and its playthings in the Tea Party to knock it down. That makes a decision upholding the ACA something worth celebrating.

Regards,

D-Ray

[VanishingPoi]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

OK MP.

This is your lucky day.

I'm going to tell you why you are on my shit list.

It's because of this:



I don't know of anybody on the left that was "overjoyed" about the ruling on the ACA. Not me for sure, I hate the fucking ACA. It's a giveaway to the insurance companies and the Healthcare Industrial Complex in general.

The only reason I'm even holding my nose and taking a bite of that giant shit sandwich is in the hopes that it will somehow it will be a baby step towards single payer.

As for Justice Roberts vote, I don't trust that fucker as far as I can throw a 1958 Buick Engine block. I think he probably voted the way he did because the Health Insurance Companies told him to. After all they are going to make hundreds of billions in increased revenues from it.


Next time you take it upon yourself to take a cheap shot at the left, remember, I'm watching your ass.

That is exactly where I am with the ACA.. You described it perfectly for me.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Like the majority here, I would have much preferred to see a single-payer system than the sausage we ended up with. I was appalled (but not shocked) to see the barrage of lobbying going on during the sausage making that resulted in the ACA. But with all of its flaws, it was a step toward a national health insurance policy. After all of that, if it had not survived Supreme Court review, we might be worse off than we were after Bill and Hillary failed to get a bill passed. Whatever value there is in the ACA is reflected in the strident effort by the corporotocracy and its playthings in the Tea Party to knock it down. That makes a decision upholding the ACA something worth celebrating.

Regards,

D-Ray

I have never denied that it probably worked out for the best. I just don't like the way it was implemented or the reasoning used to by the SCOTUS. I just fear now that there may be precedent set for future cases.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Like the majority here, I would have much preferred to see a single-payer system than the sausage we ended up with. I was appalled (but not shocked) to see the barrage of lobbying going on during the sausage making that resulted in the ACA. But with all of its flaws, it was a step toward a national health insurance policy. After all of that, if it had not survived Supreme Court review, we might be worse off than we were after Bill and Hillary failed to get a bill passed. Whatever value there is in the ACA is reflected in the strident effort by the corporotocracy and its playthings in the Tea Party to knock it down. That makes a decision upholding the ACA something worth celebrating.

Regards,

D-Ray

Hear, hear! I for one don't see any real hypocrisy in being pissed that the SCOTUs is caving to, nay encouraging, carve outs for the professionally religulous amongst us.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by mpholland

I have never denied that it probably worked out for the best. I just don't like the way it was implemented or the reasoning used to by the SCOTUS. I just fear now that there may be precedent set for future cases.

The appropriate vehicle for upholding the ACA would have been the Commerce Clause. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. When an industry consumes 17% of the economy, it undoubtedly affects commerce. This Court dislikes the Commerce Clause. It was politically opportune for the CJ to call the provisions of the ACA a tax, and uphold it on that basis. That being said, I don't see it as a dangerous precedent for the Court to recognize the unquestionable power of Congress to impose taxes.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by mpholland

No frothing or anger, just stating a point. You must not have been a very intuitive counselor.

Tell ya what...since neither one of us is ever gonna be the one to back down...how's about I change my tactic from trying to get you to admit that I'm not a fucking hypocrite, to what is an unarguable truth. That when it comes to SCOTUS decisions, as identified by your harebrained hypothesis, pretty much everybody on this forum is a hypocrite.

Because if it's the rare progressive who didn't applaud the ACA decision and hate the Hobby Lobby decision, it's the rare conservative here who didn't hate the ACA decision and applaud the Hobby Lobby decision.

Hypocrite is as hypocrite does.