Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lie #1 from you.

Well if you're a communist party organizer sure Romney is a conservative. To people who profess conservative ideas he aint.

Lie #2 from you. It was based on the idea of a Republican idea. That is giving input.

Horse gak. Since the Japanese were interred by a Democratic Administration under your logic concentration camps are a Democratic idea too.

Irrelevant. They wouldn't vote for anything that Obama wanted simply because he wanted it. Doesn't matter how much they get out of it or if it was their idea in the first place.

Its not irrelevant if you're making the claim the ACA is somehow a Republican invention. But again, that contravenes the koolaid you're injecting intraveneously so don't worry about it. It'll just hurt your head to think bad thoughts.

Republicans have voted to keep it alive a few times now. They just won't talk about that because it's bad PR and will bring all the Tea Party challengers out.

I guess Romney isn't Scottish either.

 streamdragon wrote:
It's cool guys, this totally doesn't set a precedent for the religious right to just bitch until things go the way they want them to.

...

tl;dr: Religious groups to Obama: "That's some nice cooperation you have there. It would be a shame if anything happened to it because you won't let us hate the gays."

This is an excellent example of a truism worth remembering these days: the left are the aggressors in the culture war. Today a person that holds the same opinion that Barack Obama held when he first ran for office, that person "hate[s] the gays."

Even in this thread, some posters are reacting to this very, very narrow ruling as if we're about to engage in a nationwide LARP of The Handmaid's Tale. How is it possible that turning he clock back to 2010 can prompt such outrage?

What explains this double-think? To quote "If birth control is “not your boss’s business,” why do you expect him to pay for it?" We really are at the point I mentioned above, "[t]his isn't fundamentally a disagreement about medical insurance: this is a fundamental disagreement about the relationship between the individual and the state. "

 Frazzled wrote:

Well if you're a communist party organizer sure Romney is a conservative. To people who profess conservative ideas he aint.

He is a conservative, he is just a camber of commerce style conservative. Most of his ideas on economics won't make him any friends among liberals, but he is not the sort of guy that social conservatives like Rick Santorum would want as the standard bearer. Remember Romney did sell himself as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008.

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Since the Japanese were interred by a Democratic Administration under your logic concentration camps are a Democratic idea too.

....It was a conservative idea coming from the 90s though, maybe you could claim that conservatives played around with the idea and then moved on but to say that it wasn't a conservative idea originally is a lie. So it was an idea that was made up by conservatives and adopted by democrats. The democratic idea that the base wanted was medicare for all...

The major aspect of the ACA that makes the whole thing work is the individual mandate which is from the republican proposed plan in the 90s, other aspects of ACA like the Medicaid expansion wasn't in the republican plan.

It is a little complected.

Because the Republican Party has come to represent the interests of 4 "sub-parties" (fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neo-conservatives, and the Tea Party), I guess someone needs to be conservative in all departments in order to be labeled a "true conservative".

When it comes to tightly contested elections, this filtering process frequently produces candidates that are unelectable to non-Republicans, which is a shame, because it would be nice to have reasonable alternatives.

I missed the part where ROmney worked, lobbied for, or voted on the ACA.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Well if you're a communist party organizer sure Romney is a conservative. To people who profess conservative ideas he aint.

He is a conservative, he is just a camber of commerce style conservative. Most of his ideas on economics won't make him any friends among liberals, but he is not the sort of guy that social conservatives like Rick Santorum would want as the standard bearer. Remember Romney did sell himself as the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008.

 Frazzled wrote:
Horse gak. Since the Japanese were interred by a Democratic Administration under your logic concentration camps are a Democratic idea too.

....It was a conservative idea coming from the 90s though, maybe you could claim that conservatives played around with the idea and then moved on but to say that it wasn't a conservative idea originally is a lie. So it was an idea that was made up by conservatives and adopted by democrats. The democratic idea that the base wanted was medicare for all...

The major aspect of the ACA that makes the whole thing work is the individual mandate which is from the republican proposed plan in the 90s, other aspects of ACA like the Medicaid expansion wasn't in the republican plan.

It is a little complected.

First, on Romney, it's important to understand that his conservative notions were more born of a businessman's real world experience that leftist's favored Government based solutions are generally nightmarish wastes of time, money and people. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it did result in him, as Jonah Goldberg observed, "speaking conservativism like a second language".

As for the individual mandate, it's worth pointing out that for this idea of it being "a conservative idea", it's a conservative (kinda) idea for solving a uniquely leftist problem: how to supply universal healthcare. The individual mandate is a terrible, terrible idea... unless you compare it to single payer, in which case it's pretty good, but only because the single payer system is a Hindenburg-esque disaster.

The individual mandate is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of universal healthcare, except for all the other ones.

Which, of course, leads to the point that the truly Conservative solution is having an actual market in healthcare: virtually every problem in healthcare delivery today springs from the phenomenon of 3rd party payer. That is, having someone other then the consumer of the good be the one paying for the good.

 Frazzled wrote:

Lie #1 from you.

Well if you're a communist party organizer sure Romney is a conservative. To people who profess conservative ideas he aint.

He is conservative. He is just not reactionary like you. It's a scale, not a coin.

Well, that didn't take long:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/hobby-lobby-is-already-creating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/

"A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action."

 Frazzled wrote:
I missed the part where ROmney worked, lobbied for, or voted on the ACA.

He implemented Romneycare which is what the ACA is based on. But, like I said, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Trying to say that the ACA isn't a compromise plan that consists of elements that conservatives want requires willful ignorance at this point.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I missed the part where ROmney worked, lobbied for, or voted on the ACA.

He implemented Romneycare which is what the ACA is based on. But, like I said, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Trying to say that the ACA isn't a compromise plan that consists of elements that conservatives want requires willful ignorance at this point.

Please show me any evidence during the drafting of this law that Democrats had any interest in working with Republicans on the final outcome of the ACA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

Stupid policy question: why do we not simply offer on demand contraception in this country? It's way cheaper than the alternatives.

There's actually a conservative groundswell (non-religious I think) to advocate moving regular contraceptives into the over-the-counter section.

And yes, it's waaaaay cheaper than the alternatives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


As a means to treat other medical conditions.

Aside from the medical condition of being pregnant?

Actually, yes aside from that.

There are numerous "valid" medical reasons to abort the baby. Prenancies isn't without risks.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

First, on Romney, it's important to understand that his conservative notions were more born of a businessman's real world experience that leftist's favored Government based solutions are generally nightmarish wastes of time, money and people. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it did result in him, as Jonah Goldberg observed, "speaking conservativism like a second language".

As for the individual mandate, it's worth pointing out that for this idea of it being "a conservative idea", it's a conservative (kinda) idea for solving a uniquely leftist problem: how to supply universal healthcare. The individual mandate is a terrible, terrible idea... unless you compare it to single payer, in which case it's pretty good, but only because the single payer system is a Hindenburg-esque disaster.

The individual mandate is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of universal healthcare, except for all the other ones.

Which, of course, leads to the point that the truly Conservative solution is having an actual market in healthcare: virtually every problem in healthcare delivery today springs from the phenomenon of 3rd party payer. That is, having someone other then the consumer of the good be the one paying for the good.

So Romney speaking conservatism as a second language more came from the fact that Romney wanted to run a centralist to make a play at the moderate voters that where pissed at Obama. But the the reality of the Republican party kicked in and he had to keep playing whack a mole during the primary process to which lead to him making concessions to the more conservative primary voters but since he didn't act the way from the very beginning the never really believed him when he said those conservative things.

Romney for his credit was smart enough to understand that if you want to president you need to appeal to general election voters which are generally more moderate, diverse, and female than the voters that showed up in republican primary. He was trying to juggle too much at once and ended up failing miserably.

Also maybe Republicans in the 90s put forth those solutions because they understood the reality that the US health care system is hugely flawed and lots of people slipping through the cracks. It had an inflation many times higher than the average and was well behind many other nations when you look at outcomes. Also maybe they realized that people want solutions to problems, and these republicans where actually interested in governing.

Or maybe they realized what many economists have, that a free market style solution for health care will never work and only be worse than what we have due to two reasons: healthcare is a non-optional product, and a the asymmetric information problem.

Yea about the actually hobby lobby case, I think Ginsburg is right on this one, this decision is horrible. All well, just another reason I glad I am a dude.

 Blood Hawk wrote:
All well, just another reason I glad I am a dude.

Well, birth control isn't exactly a "females-only" issue. Men can utilize birth control through condom use or vasectomy. As for birth control medication, I'm certainly glad its readily available, and if it wasn't, I would certainly be directly affected.

And if you don't thin there are people out there who would outlaw both condoms and vasectomies if given the chance, I can provide you some links.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
All well, just another reason I glad I am a dude.

Well, birth control isn't exactly a "females-only" issue. Men can utilize birth control through condom use or vasectomy. As for birth control medication, I'm certainly glad its readily available, and if it wasn't, I would certainly be directly affected.

And if you don't thin there are people out there who would outlaw both condoms and vasectomies if given the chance, I can provide you some links.

I know, the degrees are different though. Some peoples desire to have the government involved in women's health is just so much stronger.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I missed the part where ROmney worked, lobbied for, or voted on the ACA.

He implemented Romneycare which is what the ACA is based on. But, like I said, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Trying to say that the ACA isn't a compromise plan that consists of elements that conservatives want requires willful ignorance at this point.

For a state. It was geared towards a state. If I remember correctly they had reliable intel who could and could not purchase medical insurance within the State. Like 10% of the state.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

First, on Romney, it's important to understand that his conservative notions were more born of a businessman's real world experience that leftist's favored Government based solutions are generally nightmarish wastes of time, money and people. Which is fine as far as it goes, but it did result in him, as Jonah Goldberg observed, "speaking conservativism like a second language".

As for the individual mandate, it's worth pointing out that for this idea of it being "a conservative idea", it's a conservative (kinda) idea for solving a uniquely leftist problem: how to supply universal healthcare. The individual mandate is a terrible, terrible idea... unless you compare it to single payer, in which case it's pretty good, but only because the single payer system is a Hindenburg-esque disaster.

The individual mandate is, to paraphrase Churchill, the worst form of universal healthcare, except for all the other ones.

Which, of course, leads to the point that the truly Conservative solution is having an actual market in healthcare: virtually every problem in healthcare delivery today springs from the phenomenon of 3rd party payer. That is, having someone other then the consumer of the good be the one paying for the good.

So Romney speaking conservatism as a second language more came from the fact that Romney wanted to run a centralist to make a play at the moderate voters that where pissed at Obama. But the the reality of the Republican party kicked in and he had to keep playing whack a mole during the primary process to which lead to him making concessions to the more conservative primary voters but since he didn't act the way from the very beginning the never really believed him when he said those conservative things.

Romney for his credit was smart enough to understand that if you want to president you need to appeal to general election voters which are generally more moderate, diverse, and female than the voters that showed up in republican primary. He was trying to juggle too much at once and ended up failing miserably.

Also maybe Republicans in the 90s put forth those solutions because they understood the reality that the US health care system is hugely flawed and lots of people slipping through the cracks. It had an inflation many times higher than the average and was well behind many other nations when you look at outcomes. Also maybe they realized that people want solutions to problems, and these republicans where actually interested in governing.

Or maybe they realized what many economists have, that a free market style solution for health care will never work and only be worse than what we have due to two reasons: healthcare is a non-optional product, and a the asymmetric information problem.

Yea about the actually hobby lobby case, I think Ginsburg is right on this one, this decision is horrible. All well, just another reason I glad I am a dude.

There are a lot of things going on here, and I think you're wrong about all of them.

That said, I realize that you're quite emotionally invested in these ideas, no matter how insane I may find them ("a free market style solution for health care will never work"...), so I'll stipulate you actually believe these things. Beyond that, there doesn't seem anywhere to take the discussion.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I missed the part where ROmney worked, lobbied for, or voted on the ACA.

He implemented Romneycare which is what the ACA is based on. But, like I said, if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it's the truth. Trying to say that the ACA isn't a compromise plan that consists of elements that conservatives want requires willful ignorance at this point.

Here is a great example of believing crazy things: implementing Romneycare means one supports Obamacare? Let's just look at two reasons that's crazy;

1) States, unlike the Federal Government, have a Police Power. This doesn't have anything to do with Law Enforcement officers; rather it means that the Federal government is a government of enumerated (i.e., limited and listed) powers. Those powers that the Federal Government does not possess, for example here the power to compel people to purchase a product or regulate healthcare, are reserved to the states.

While a conservative is unlikely to give a full-throated defense of Romneycare, it is entirely within a strictly conservative view of the constitution to believe that Romneycare is a valid use of state power while maintaining that Obamacare is not.

The Police Power of the states means that (outside of areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction like DC, embassies and so on), the Federal Government does not have any right or ability to regulate criminal acts. The individual states could, for example, allow cockfighting (and three do).

2) The idea that because Obamacare contains "elements that conservatives want", and therefore conservatives ought to support it (or that ) is... well, let's use a simple logical example: you and a friend go to a pizza place.

When the question about what to order is asked, you reply that you want green peppers, but no mushrooms, as you have a deadly allergy to them, and no anchovies because... well, anchovies. Then the pizza comes and hey! Green peppers, mushrooms, anchovies, dog biscuits, a fried egg and a Dover sole.

By the reasoning expressed above, hey, it's got the green peppers...

That's what we have in Obamacare: a few ideas that might be worthwhile in a different context, a few crazy ideas, a few terrible ideas and a few ideas that are downright toxic.

Buzzsaw wrote:
Here is a great example of believing crazy things: implementing Romneycare means one supports Obamacare?

No one claimed that. What was claimed is the ACA is based on Romneycare. Being based on a Republican idea just shows that the ACA was a compromise between liberal and conservative ideas.

 skyth wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:
Here is a great example of believing crazy things: implementing Romneycare means one supports Obamacare?

No one claimed that. What was claimed is the ACA is based on Romneycare. Being based on a Republican idea just shows that the ACA was a compromise between liberal and conservative ideas.

If I remember correctly that was pointed out to but RomneyCare was geared towards 10% of the state

It's kind of irrelevant who invented what at this point. The ACA is law.

If you recall, Obama got elected on a platform of universal healthcare (remember the Hope stickers and the speeches). Most Democrats wanted a single payer system. Since it was obvious that wouldn't get Republican buy-in, the "Massachusetts model" (who really cares who came up with the model or what it was called at this point) was used as the model, on a federal level, for the ACA, in an attempt to come to a compromise with obstinate Republicans. Republicans didnt buy into that either, but Obama still won the election on a platform of universal health care, he did not abandon his platform, and the ACA became law.

In order to repeal the law, Republicans will have to win the White House. Except the more people die, and more people are born, and we get more immigrants, the less politically conservative the country is getting. The Republicans have made so many horrible blunders against women, minorities, and immigrants, that its very, very hard to imagine that they will produce a candidate capable of defeating Clinton, because she has such an insurmountable advantage with women, minorities, immigrants, and on top of that, she has liberal white males.

So barring some star candidate appearing out of nowhere, you are stuck with the ACA. The only way to change the ACA is for Republicans to cooperate with Democrats. So, if you're a Republican voter, you can take a "let the whole ship sink" attitude and live with the ACA as it is, or else you need to demand from your representatives that they cooperate with the opposition to improve the law.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


There are a lot of things going on here, and I think you're wrong about all of them.

That said, I realize that you're quite emotionally invested in these ideas, no matter how insane I may find them ("a free market style solution for health care will never work"...), so I'll stipulate you actually believe these things. Beyond that, there doesn't seem anywhere to take the discussion.

I am not emotionally invested dude, like at all. If that is what you got from that post then you really misunderstood me.

First Romney wanted to president, in order to be president he needs moderates or maybe even dissatisfied democrats to vote for him to win, in order for that to happen he needed to act like a moderate in order to avoid "scaring the villagers". However since Romney had a prolonged primary fight that forced to act conservative to try appease republican primary voters who are far more extreme and conservative than the general elections voters. Romney was unable to bridge the cap there so he lost. All those things he said that pissed off primary voters was Romney just being a sloppy candidate or him trying to appeal to general elections voters. That doesn't mean though that he wasn't a conservative, he was, just a camber of commerce/big business style conservative.

Second the reality of the health care market is that it is a completely different animal compared to lets say the market for sneakers. this isn't some left wing fantasy by the way, something I have heard and seen actual academic economists talk about before, and not the left wing ones with an agenda like Paul Krugman. The non optional product means that health care is something in many cases is something you MUST have or well you die. If you are bleeding to death you don't have to time to shop around town for the best rates. This combined with the asymmetric information problem, which is the fact that the there are very few if any real informed consumers in the health care market. Why? Well most people don't have medical degrees, they don't what is wrong with them, how to treat it, what drugs to take, at what dose, what is the right combination of goods/services is best for them, etc. Yea you can go to hospital and ask those things and have the doctor diagnose them and tell you what to do, but that has its own problems: people not being forthcoming with their doctor about their symptoms, etc. The end result is inefficient outcomes that screw over the consumer.

Economists call stuff like this "market failures". A term used when a market doesn't behave as economic theories say it should. Some sort of government action is necessary in health care, having the government back off and have the market fix it won't work.

Here is 56 page report by the Council of Economic Advisors form 2009 that talks about what I mean link

So are they revising that part of the mandate or letting it drop?

WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court has agreed to allow an evangelical college in Illinois that objects to paying for contraceptives in its health plan to avoid filling out a government document that the college says would violate its religious beliefs.

The justices said Thursday that Wheaton College does not have to fill out the contested form while its case is on appeal but can instead write the Department of Health and Human Services declaring that it is a religious nonprofit organization and making its objection to birth control.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied Wheaton's request and made the college fill out a form that enables their insurers or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control.

The court decision staying enforcement in the Wheaton case only gives the school a pass until the matter is decided by lower courts.

Still, it represents an important victory for those objecting to the socially-charged requirement and follows a similar high court ruling last year for a religious charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor.
(http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/politics/obamacare-contraception-college/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

 jasper76 wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
All well, just another reason I glad I am a dude.

Well, birth control isn't exactly a "females-only" issue. Men can utilize birth control through condom use or vasectomy. As for birth control medication, I'm certainly glad its readily available, and if it wasn't, I would certainly be directly affected.

You must not have gotten the "if you have a penis you can't comment" memo that I've gotten a few times on FB.

 skyth wrote:
No one claimed that. What was claimed is the ACA is based on Romneycare. Being based on a Republican idea just shows that the ACA was a compromise between liberal and conservative ideas.

It's a compromise because a think tank came up with it and then a moderate governor in a hard-left state implemented it. It's a compromise because it was and remains widely hated by conservatives and garnered zero votes from anyone but Democrats.

gak. I can think of a lot of Republican compromises, by that ludicrous definition.

 Seaward wrote:
It's a compromise because it was and remains widely hated by conservatives and garnered zero votes from anyone but Democrats.

Yes, but the point is that it contains ideas supported by conservatives in the past as an attempt to get bipartisan support instead of just passing what liberals really wanted. Yes, the republican party decided that opposing it to the death was a good political move for winning future elections (based on "FIGHT THE ENEMY", not its actual content), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a compromise offer intended to get their support. Nor does conservative hatred based on the superficial name of "Obamacare" make a very convincing argument when polls show much stronger support for the content of the law if it is presented under a different name.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, but the point is that it contains ideas supported by conservatives in the past as an attempt to get bipartisan support instead of just passing what liberals really wanted. Yes, the republican party decided that opposing it to the death was a good political move for winning future elections (based on "FIGHT THE ENEMY", not its actual content), but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a compromise offer intended to get their support. Nor does conservative hatred based on the superficial name of "Obamacare" make a very convincing argument when polls show much stronger support for the content of the law if it is presented under a different name.

Would it be a compromise with Democrats if Republicans included reintroducing segregation in their next bill, since Democrats were at one point huge supporters? Party positions change. What was true twenty or fifty or a hundred years ago about Democrats and Republicans is not necessarily true now. Remember when all those Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war, as another example?

Democrats were desperate for bipartisanship in case the entire thing went tits up. There was no question that the Republicans were not going to vote for it, however, so the only thing stopping them from doing what they really wanted to do was...I don't know. Fill in the blank for me here. The desire to desperately scream that the whole thing was a compromise with Republicans despite all evidence to the contrary? Which, again, is based entirely on the notion that because one conservative think tank floated it and one moderate in Taxachussetts implemented it, it was enshrined into Republican dogma. I think you'd object to that standard if it were applied to Democrats, though since hypocrisy's the favorite pastime around here, I'm sure that won't stop you from championing it.

And you're too smart to continue on with the, "conservatives only hate it because of the name," nonsense.

 Seaward wrote:
Party positions change. What was true twenty or fifty or a hundred years ago about Democrats and Republicans is not necessarily true now.

1) We're talking about time scales much shorter than 20-50+ years.

2) Nothing about their ideology changed, they just decided that making Obama a one-term president was the absolute priority and the best way to do it was to oppose everything he attempted to do and fight to the death to stop it. It's a case of "you're in favor of X, that means I hate X because you are The Enemy and I must destroy you".

Remember when all those Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq war, as another example?

Yes, but that was a genuine ideological change once people realized that the war had been sold to them with deceptive justification and its supporters had no plan at all for how we were ever supposed to end the war. It wasn't just "Bush is evil, therefore anything Bush wants must be opposed at all costs".

And you're too smart to continue on with the, "conservatives only hate it because of the name," nonsense.

No, I'm sure there are conservatives who hate it based on its actual content. There are also a lot of people who declare strong opposition to Obamacare but then say they agree with the various individual things it does as long as you don't call it "Obamacare" when you ask.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) We're talking about time scales much shorter than 20-50+ years.

We're really not. Heritage came up with it, what, sometime in the late '80s or early '90s?

2) Nothing about their ideology changed, they just decided that making Obama a one-term president was the absolute priority and the best way to do it was to oppose everything he attempted to do and fight to the death to stop it. It's a case of "you're in favor of X, that means I hate X because you are The Enemy and I must destroy you".

I agree that nothing about the ideology changed. And we can say that because the individual mandate was never anything more than lukewarm with Republicans.

Yes, but that was a genuine ideological change once people realized that the war had been sold to them with deceptive justification and its supporters had no plan at all for how we were ever supposed to end the war. It wasn't just "Bush is evil, therefore anything Bush wants must be opposed at all costs".

Well, I'll admit I don't have your ability to look into the hearts of men and decide that Democrats are genuine and Republicans are false, but I'm of the 'good for the goose, good for the gander' camp. If you can accept Democrats changing positions in the space of two years, I can accept Republicans changing positions in the space of fifteen.

No, I'm sure there are conservatives who hate it based on its actual content. There are also a lot of people who declare strong opposition to Obamacare but then say they agree with the various individual things it does as long as you don't call it "Obamacare" when you ask.

No matter what you do to the name, favorability still doesn't hit the majority, so that's a bit of a moot point. Most of the country doesn't like it. That hasn't changed.

 jasper76 wrote:

The court decision staying enforcement in the Wheaton case only gives the school a pass until the matter is decided by lower courts.

Still, it represents an important victory for those objecting to the socially-charged requirement and follows a similar high court ruling last year for a religious charity, the Little Sisters of the Poor.
(http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/03/politics/obamacare-contraception-college/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Guys... this is going to be some ground shattering thing soon.

From the way I read this, it's the SC issuing a stay over the "accommodation" function within the ACA/HHS. Here's more at the Post.

Hol-y-moly... this actually sparked outrage from three of the four dissenters in Hobby Lobby to issue a statement scolding the rest of the court for ignoring what they claim had been decided on Monday.

Heh...

What I find baffling is that I'm not sure that those three dissenting justices even actually read Alito's majority opinion. The justification wasn't over accommocation, but that the government didn’t offer to Hobby Lobby what it did to other organizations and which HHS claims as satisfactory to relieve the burden on religious expression, which means that even by the government’s own standard they did not use the least burdensome method to satisfy what they consider a compelling state interest.

Big distinction there... as it was narrowly decided over a regulatory function defining what is the compelling state's interest.

This foreshadws that the rest of these issues are still open for debate at the Supreme Court, and the injunction shows that the justices aren’t done with the mandate yet...

It's going to get messy ya'll.