How Can Either Side Be Against an Expedited Review?

[Winter_123]

Need to petition or request the Court to skip the appellate levels and take it up direct. See link.

Don't know what Obama would want here. His original plan was to just let the courts whack down the opposition along the way and keep telling the people that the lawsuits were just an annoyance from dead-enders who can not accept the inevitable. That worked for a couple cases, now it is not working so much. States are beginning to stand down on implementing Obamacare.

What a mess. And after the Supreme Court rules on, a bigger mess regardless of which way they rule. All the Supreme Court talks creates some false sense of resolution of what is essentially a political issue.

Also note that Nelson is undermining Obamas strategy here but no Senator, pub or dem, has voters who object to resolving this sooner rather than later.


Sen. Nelson breaks with Obama administration, calls for Senate to ask today for speedy Supreme Court ruling on health reform | On Call with Stacey Singer

 

[Norwayguy]

Politics......As long as nothing is Final Obama can try and spin this any way he wants...The Republicans are just as happy to have this issue unresolved because they can posture about killing funding and keeping people pissed about the issue...Here is an interesting question as a fiscal conservative...How much money is being spent on these court battle...I know AG is already on the States payroll wether or not they push this issue and the same can be said for the Solicitor Generals office but do they have to pay court costs and if these resources where not being used here couldn't they be better used on other court cases?

 

[Winter_123]

Politics......As long as nothing is Final Obama can try and spin this any way he wants...The Republicans are just as happy to have this issue unresolved because they can posture about killing funding and keeping people pissed about the issue...Here is an interesting question as a fiscal conservative...How much money is being spent on these court battle...I know AG is already on the States payroll wether or not they push this issue and the same can be said for the Solicitor Generals office but do they have to pay court costs and if these resources where not being used here couldn't they be better used on other court cases?

True that- but there is also a cost to not defending against federal encroachment. That gets to be expensive too.

 

[0b1kanobee]

I may be off base but this is what my brain computes.....keep in mind, I'm a simple man when it comes to politics:

1) The Republicans have been kicking these cans, especially this one down the road for quite some time. That strategy has not worked out for them in the long run. Sure, it is sometimes favorable to do so in order that some things become 'old news'. The Dems might to take advantage of this ASAP. To put this baby to bed ASAP while the Pubs were against it with the use of the Supreme Court would be a real slap in the face.

OR

2) This is more along the lines of conspiracy theory but what if certain people in our government already knew how the Supreme Court would rule. Let me ask you, if you knew that The Supreme Court was going to rule against you, how fast would you be wanting to get in front of them.

OR

3) It makes Obama look confident he has them at the Supreme Court level. The Pubs may think he knows something they don't. Maybe they should arrive at some kind of concession/s with him? Kind of like not showing all your cards or when the time comes to show all your cards or has permitted you too, the opponent rethinks his position.

ON A SIDE NOTE: Has something this big which was one of any Presidents projects ever been repealed? His ship would surely be sunk. I don't know if the nation could allow such a thing to happen. This is like signing someone's death sentence.

EITHER WAY: I think it is good for both parties. If the Supreme Court sides with the President, then the Pubs need to stop beating a dead horse and move onto something else quick before they have nothing substantial to run on.

I don't know if my thoughts have any valid points but those are my thoughts.

 

[aheff]

Unfortunately, this is business as usual for our elected officials. What scumbags, on both sides of the aisle. Anyway, economy is picking up, jobs are slowly coming back. For 2012, Obamacrap is still a major win for Repubs. They will run on this issue and win the Senate on this issue. They better hope it remains unresolved (which it will).

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

The cynic in mean thinks none of this matters. The damage to our pay due to the MLR's has been done. I'd go as so far to say that if everything was repealed tomorrow, including the MRLs we would not see commissions revert back to the 20%+ street levels they were before.

The carriers already got a great taste of what it's like to cut comp by 50% or more and guess what....the world didn't end for them.

From one very high level rep from a particular carrier I had a conference with last week: "Yeah...we've got a lot less bad business coming in and it's great."

From another rep from another carrier about a month ago who stated that they LOST money on their distribution channels for the past two years and "good riddance."

And if you don't know this then I'll let you in on it: The carriers have a love/hate relationship with their sale force. It's about 90% hate and 10% love and there's not a single one that wouldn't blow out their entire independent agent base if they could figure out how to get agents either directly or get direct business.

 

[aheff]

healthagent-
Days of 20% commissions are the days of the dinosaur. The discussion moving forward is, whenever things shake-out, whether we will be in business at all or what will our business look like.

 

[GreenSky]

From you experienced perspective, if every indie agent stopped writing individual health today, would the carriers still survive?

I no longer write it... not worth it to me. What if all agents decided to give it up? What would happen?

Too bad NAHU doesn't call for a "general strike"... but I've always thought they were bought and paid for by the large carriers.

Al

Must be the second coming. I completely agree with Al.

However, with MLR, where would the carriers find the money to pay reasonable commissions?

Rick

 

[djs]

Delaying this is a bit of a winning strategy for the dems. There is NO value to them expiditing this from a political viewpoint.

While its under review, carriers are moving forward as if it still exists (not sure why). For the most part, states are moving forward as if it still exists. The additional taxes are pouring into the fed as if it still exists (single biggest reason).

In addition, peoples mindset are growing accustomed to the higher premiums, GI for kids, keeping kids on their policy to age 26, etc. In addition, the donut hole issue has seniors moving towards some mild acceptance.

Now, fast forward to 2012. Supreme court overturns obamacare. The political rhetoric will be that the republicans took away your kids healthcare, widened the donut whole attacking medicare, and raised the federal deficit (by eliminating the taxes), when in fact none of this should have happened in the first place.

Yes, the dems are playing politics with your bank account and health insurance, but both parties do this, so on we go with the delay......

Dan

 

[Winter_123]

Delaying this is a bit of a winning strategy for the dems. There is NO value to them expiditing this from a political viewpoint.

Dan

Right now, they are in a pickle. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. You are starting to get states saying "hey, I am not going to do a frigging thing with Obamacare and, oh by the way, I have a court opinion supporting me." On the other hand if they forge ahead it may or may not be plummeting them closer to a ruling that the whole thing is unconstitutional whereas they may prefer to get wusses like McCain to orchestrate some kind of compromise that does not involve the mandate and then declare victory and stand down on the current bill.

Don't know and am not going to try to do their thinking for them. The nature of a mess is that it is a mess. There is no way out of this for Obama now that is not a complete and total mess. NONE. This is true if the Supreme Court rules 9-0 for him. It is true if it rules 9-0 against him. It is true if he backs off and gets a compromise bill to make the current bill moot.

Obama took the pubs into the lobster trap 13 months ago and the nature of a lobster trap is that they are designed to be easy to get into but you can't find your way out. It was an embarassing action for the pubs but that does not change the fact that Obama also took himself into that trap as well. There is no way out of the trap. You either die in there or you come out and go in the pot. Ask Michelle. She knows all about lobster.