John Roberts could have just given the 2012 election to the Republicans

So … the non-compliance penalty for refusing to purchase health insurance (or refusing to buy it for your employees, if you have greater than 50 on your payroll) is officially a “tax,” so sayeth the SCOTUS.

Congressional Democrats, liberals/progressives, and the Obama Administration are still circling the nation in a victory lap.  But this decision could prove to be the single biggest gift of all to the Romney campaign.

How, you ask?  Simple – Romney can now campaign on all the broken promises, flip-flops, and deception that went into creating the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

1.  Candidate Obama distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Presidential campaign by opposing an individual mandate:

“Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money … In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can’t afford [health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were. They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine…”

2.  Candidate Obama promised a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, where ideas from all sides would be equally considered and a bill that included the best of all these ideas would eventually be drafted.  He also declared a personal stake in the reform by repeatedly using the phrase “MY PLAN” during the campaign and during the public debates on healthcare reform.  Yet President Obama never sent a single draft version of “his plan” to Congress.  Did he ever even have a plan of his own?  What we actually ended up with was a partisan bill drafted almost solely on party lines, giving priority to the wishes of the Democrat congressional majority and their special interests and virtually excluding Republican participation.   Remember the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase?  The bill passed entirely on party lines, without a single Republican “yes” in the final votes taken by the House and Senate.

3.  Candidate Obama promised no tax increases in “any form” for any family making less than $250,000 a year.  After critics of proposed health care mandate non-compliance penalties characterized them as “taxes,” President Obama vigorously denied that the penalties were taxes.  His Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court in March of this year that the fines in the PPACA law were “penalties” and not taxes.  But with today’s Supreme Court majority opinion, the fines have been formally defined as TAXES, not “penalties.”  That being the case, President Obama and the Democrats now own the largest peacetime tax increase on working Americans and employers in our nation’s history.  They own it, period.

But wait, there’s more.  Including the penalties for individuals and employers who fail to comply with the health care mandate, there are no less than twenty new taxes, tax hikes, penalties, and fines associated with the PPACA.  The bulk of the much-talked-about “Taxmageddon” that will hit in January 2013 consists largely of the PPACA taxes/fees and the automatic repeal of the 2001 – 2003 Bush tax rate cuts.

I think it will be very easy for Republicans to make the case that President Obama hoodwinked the American people into ponying up the largest tax increase in our nation’s history, loosely disguised is “healthcare reform.”  I say disguised, because President Obama flat-out lied about his opposition to the health insurance mandate.  Bipartisanship focused solely on the common good was also a lie.  And the fundamental purpose of the PPACA as it was sold to us was to make healthcare “affordable”; specifically candidate Obama promised that “his plan” would save the average family $2500 a year in premiums.  Yet the Kaiser Family Foundation has already established that family healthcare premiums have risen by $2200 a year since the PPACA was signed into law.  In addition, the new Federally funded state programs for the ‘uninsurable’ have failed dismally and the number of uninsured/underinsured Americans actually grew in 2011.  So which description is kinder: “broken promise” or “utter failure”?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act promises less expensive healthcare that can be accessed equally by everyone.  But the only things that it guarantees are an overwhelming number of new rules and regulations, billions in new taxes and penalties levied annually upon the American people, and by default, massive new layers of bureaucracy to administer it all.  Seventy five years ago, we were sold a similar bill of goods by the Roosevelt Administration in the form of the Social Security Act, which was really nothing more than a massive payroll tax hike that was “justified” by a carrot on the end of a stick in the form of a portion of the resulting revenue that would be diverted into a special “trust fund” and paid to elderly Americans as a guaranteed monthly income benefit.

We know what happened to Social Security and its “trust fund” — the program is now broke and people my age are foolish to expect that the program will still be intact in 20 years when we reach retirement age.  But if you suggest “Social Security reform” to the DC establishment, they recoil like Count Dracula being splashed with holy water.  As unfair and regressive as the Social Security tax/benefit plan is, it has become, in the words of the late Milton Friedman, “the biggest sacred cow of them all” and no one who values their career dares touch it.

Our only hope with respect to the dismantling of the PPACA is to ensure that it never becomes a sacred cow.  The Republicans have just been handed a perfect opportunity to do this.  It will be their issue — and election — to lose.

Shortlink:

Posted by on June 28, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, Big government, Health Care, John Roberts, Republicans.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • SteveCrickmore075

    So candidate Governor Romney is going to dramatically repeal Obamacare, and replace it with what….Romneycare?…sounds like a breadwinner.

    • GarandFan

      That would imply that Romney can not learn from the mistakes inherent in RomneyCare.

      Not surprisingly, I think he’s smarter than that. Unlike your Obamassiah who continues to say “it’s NOT a tax!”

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Personally, I thought tax was always preferable to the more coercive individual mandate. Obama, borrowed this pompous word mandate from Hillarycare who borrowed this from..(your side). but no poltician as ever had to pledge “no new mandates”, so Obama thought he was being clever. Of course, he was being gutless, but which politician has ever been blessed with courage..Romney when faced with the same dilemma, that this wasn’t a tax in Romneycare, called them fees, which is better than calling them individual mandates.

        • 914

          Tim Pawlenty did the same thing here in Minnesota. Instead of calling it a tax, it was a ‘”Fee” .. Creative revenue labeling I guess..

        • jim_m

          It’s a toss up as to which is less popular. But when the president has run on taxing the rich and has spent 3 years on class warfare bs, getting tagged with the largest middle class tax hike in history doesn’t help you. It also doesn’t help that he lied about it being a tax. Now it’s a tax and he cannot escape that. Any ability he had to argue for any tax increases for anyone just disappeared (Bush tax cuts going away? Not this year).

          • Guest

            It doesn’t matter. The “largest tax increase in history” is bullshit. It’s nothing of the sort.

            These kinds of lies spread by the right will look so embarrassing in the presidential debates. If Romney repeats that kind of bullshit its going to be so easy to tear him apart in front of a national audience.

          • jim_m

            The “largest tax increase in history” is bullshit.

            You keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

          • Vagabond661
          • jim_m

            Aw grumpy… looks like the American people disagree with you.

            Survey USA conducted three statewide polls overnight of likely voters on the Supreme Court decision to see if it would move the needle. So far, the results look pretty poor for Obama.

            California – In one of the liberal bastions of Obama’s support, 45% disagreed with the Court ruling that ObamaCare is constitutional, with 44% agreeing. Nearly three-quarters expect their health care to get worse (38%) or stay the same (34%), as opposed to just 23% who expect it to improve now that ObamaCare will be implemented. And this is the best results of the three states.

            Kansas – Romney’s going to win Kansas anyway, but the numbers here are still bad news for Obama’s hopes in the Midwest. 52% disagree with the court, as opposed to only 38% who agree, with 48% expecting their health care to get worse as a result. Only 16% think it will improve.

            Florida – This state actually matters, and it looks bad for Obama here, too. Voters disagree with the court 50/39, 47% expect their health care to get worse while only 20% expect it to improve, and 51% think it will get more expensive, too. Only 6% of Florida seniors expect health-care costs to decline, while 44% expect costs to rise.

            Not even a dead cat bounce for obamacare.

          • 914

            SHINY BUBBLE!!!

          • Guest

            It doesn’t matter. The “largest tax increase in history” is bullshit. It’s nothing of the sort.

            These kinds of lies spread by the right will look so embarrassing in the presidential debates. If Romney repeats that kind of bullshit its going to be so easy to tear him apart in front of a national audience.

          • Jwb10001

            Really, so maybe we use the same tatics of the left and just repeat it until it becomes truth, you do it all the time.

          • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

            SCOTUS: “It’s a tax.”

            Grumpy and Obama: “Nuh-uh! It is not! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!”

          • Guest

            Look, Wodney’s older brotherhas shown up to comment.

          • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

            Someone has to be the adult here. You certainly don’t qualify.

          • http://www.shockandblog.com/ Jay McHue

            SCOTUS: “It’s a tax.”

            Grumpy and Obama: “Nuh-uh! It is not! Nanny-nanny-boo-boo!”

    • jim_m

      The benefit of obamacare winning is that Romney does not have to have an alternative. He just needs to point out he flaws in obamacare.

      Had obamacare lost Romney would have been forced to spend the next four months explaining what he would do about healthcare. Now he can just point to this as obama’s vision for America’s future: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/romney-campaign-raises-over-4-million-in-20-hours-off-obamacare-tax-ruling/mandate-tax/

  • Owen007

    Who got what today:

    Romney: $3.2 million in donations, a fired up base and context to use a number of clips that previously made Obama and co. look foolish but not as outright liars.

    Obama: Validation for his signature piece of legislation – one that a majority detests and that the highest court in the law summarized as a tax on the middle-class.

    Senate Democrats: well, the ones out of traditional red states or usual swing states now have pissed-off constituents looking to make them pay.

    Gee, who was the winner here? It’s a long road to election day, but Romney now has another club to beat Obama with. As if the economy wasn’t enough. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats have another reason to duck out of the convention and to hide out during town hall meetings.

    And to any liberals out there reading this, enjoy your fun while you can. As I recall when this monstrosity was passed in 2010, Democrats couldn’t wait to pat themselves on the back for it. About half a year later, they got shellacked for it. Obamacare is even more unpopular in 2012 and the election is only four months away.

    Oh well, Obama can always run on the state of the economy, reducing the deficit, and closing Guantanamo, right? Right?

    • Guest

      Obama clears more than $3 million just going through the drive-thru line at taco bell.

      I’m not enjoying any fun. It’s going to be a long, hard haul back to the white house for the dems in 2012. Not because Republicans can defeat the Democrats — but because the Democrats are so damn good at defeating themselves.

      • jim_m

        Yeah right. Obama’s bundlers aren’t delivering the money they did 4 years ago and recently the dems blamed it on racism. Apparently the dems didn’t realize obama was black in 2008.

        Barry is widely acknowledged to be having problems raising cash. The DNC cancelled their big extravaganza for the convention due to lack of funds. Don’t tell me that he’s rolling in dough because he’s not.

        • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

          If they’re doing so well, why have I received a dozen blegs from the 0bama campaign since Thursday?

      • Vagabond661

        Michelle runs thru $3 million in 10 minutes on vacation.

      • 914

        This isn’t about the cult of Obumble you fool. This is about the expansion of government and the loss of our liberties.

        Now please don’t forget to flush this time..

      • Jwb10001

        Good thing for Obama that the court did what it did in Citizens United so Obama can contiue to collect all that dirty money.

        • jim_m

          To bad the SCOTUS ruling is motivating the right to donate and not the left.

      • LiberalNitemare

        – but because the Democrats are so damn good at defeating themselves.

        Good thing they have Gumby on their side.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      Final number was $4,300,000 from 43,000 distinct donors ($100.00 average donation).

      Update: $4,600,000 from 46,000 distinct donors for the 24 Hours after the Decision of the Supreme Court was announced.

  • 914

    Whoever wins, the sucking sound in Washington today continues to grow bigger..

    bad news..

  • TomInCali

    1. Romney in 2006: “[The mandate] is essential”.

    I don’t really see how Romney can run on this.

    2. If you consider the number of Democratic provisions stripped out of the bill, and how few Republican provisions were stripped out, you can hardly call this “a partisan bill drafted almost solely on party lines, giving priority to the wishes of the Democrat congressional majority.”

    3. President Obama hoodwinked the American people into ponying up the largest tax increase in our nation’s history

    False. In fact, pants on fire false.

    • cirby

      “I don’t really see how Romney can run on this.”

      Simple – “We tried a much less ambitious version of this stupid thing in Massachusetts, and it didn’t work worth a damn. It cost about twice as much as the Mass Democrats said it would. Horrible mistake. I’ll never let the Democrats talk me into something like this again.”

      “Democrat provisions stripped out of the” 2500 page “bill?” Sheesh – how big was that SOB to start with? What brand of kitchen sink were they mandating in the “full” version?

      “How few Republican provisions” – none – ” were stripped out.”

      You have to remember that the Democrats had a lock on the House and the Senate at the time – they weren’t compromising on this thing at all – except with other Democrats. Every time the Republicans even tried to discuss things, the Democrats invoked cloture and pretended that it was a filibuster (they weren’t filibusters at all).

    • cirby

      Oh yeah, forgot this one:
      “3. President Obama hoodwinked the American people into ponying up the largest tax increase in our nation’s historyFalse. In fact, pants on fire false.”
      Except that the “tax” part they counted in that two year old study didn’t count anything except the minor parts that were expressly called taxes – the mandate (the major “cost” of the act) wasn’t counted at all… and this is on top of the accounting fraud they pulled by using ten years of “costs” to pay for five years of the actual program.
      Hell, that study you cite was even flawed on its own merits. They use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers – but the CBO, when assessing costs and benefits, is forced to use the assumptions created by the bill’s authors. They can NOT use common sense, or look at the assumptions in any sort of critical fashion. If the bill assumes that magical fairies will occasionally drop a trillion dollars off at the bank to balance the budget, the CBO is forced to use that assumption. This is a fair approximation of what the Dems did in passing this monstrosity.

      • TomInCali

        but the CBO, when assessing costs and benefits, is forced to use the assumptions created by the bill’s authors. They can NOT use common sense, or look at the assumptions in any sort of critical fashion

        Ah, that must be why Clinton’s health care efforts were done in by the CBO violently disagreeing with his assumptions.

        Apparently your strategy to defend a pants on fire lie is to throw an even bigger one on top of it.

        • cirby

          Actually, they didn’t agree with his financial assumptions – they just pointed out (correctly) that the plan had to be counted in the overall Federal budget instead of being counted as “off-budget.” Clinton’s people thought that by keeping it “off-budget,” they could pretend that the budget shrank even though they were spending more money.

          The Clinton folks also just plain screwed up their math, and the CBO was using the Clinton numbers. The CBO didn’t “violently disagree” any more than an Excel spreadsheet “violently disagrees” when you plug in the wrong numbers. The Democrats (and the Republicans) have learned a lot about playing with CBO numbers over the last two decades…

          • TomInCali

            So in other words, they disagreed with his financial assumptions. As I said.

          • cirby

            No, they just pointed out that his financial assumptions were not possible under law. They actually used his financial assumptions as stated – Clinton’s people just did the math wrong.

            The CBO is like a big meat computer – in that case, it was garbage in, garbage out. The politicians in Washington have gotten a lot more crafty about what assumptions they allow into the big CBO number-crunching machine. Which is why the “it’s not a big tax” numbers fail.

            The CBO left out the vast majority of the costs of Obamacare because they were told – explicitly – to not include them, because it “wasn’t a tax.” Which the Supreme Court told them was wrong just yesterday. So using two year old numbers with the old assumptions is a fairly weak form of lying out of both sides of your mouth…

          • TomInCali

            You claimed that “the CBO is forced to use the assumptions created by the bill’s authors”, when clearly here is an example where they didn’t. You claim that they “cannot look at the assumptions in any sort of critical fashion”, when clearly here is a situation where they were critical of them.

            Now you’re playing word games by saying that the CBO didn’t disagree with Clinton, they just told him that he was wrong. And I’m sure you’d say that Scalia doesn’t disagree with Obama, he just told him that he’s wrong.

            I’m not surprised that you can’t admit when you’re wrong (or, failing that, stop digging yourself in deeper). But in any case, your ridiculous attempt to redefine words has passed beyond my interest in pursuing any further.

          • cirby

            I explained the reason it’s a different case – and you still can’t seem to understand that two decades have passed. Things change.

            I know many lefties are stuck in the past, but please make at least a small effort to catch up to how things are done NOW…

          • TomInCali

            So now your dismissal of the example shown to disprove your claim is based on the fact that it was from two decades ago? OK, then show some law or directive that was put in place in the last two decades that now “forces” (your word) the CBO to accept all assumptions put before them, and makes it so they “can not” be critical of them. And before you do that, you may want to Google how the CBO rejected some of Obama’s assumptions about the ACA, and how they were critical of them.

          • cirby

            Look, I know you’re not actually reading my replies for content, but don’t pretend I’m changing my argument – when my FIRST REPLY had the comment ”
            The Democrats (and the Republicans) have learned a lot about playing with CBO numbers over the last two decades…”

          • TomInCali

            Yes you did. A comment that is irrelevant to your demonstrably false statements about the CBO that preceded it.

          • cirby

            It’s so funny to watch someone try to defend the CBO as a complete an impartial arbiter of truth – when it’s really obvious that they don’t know anything at all about how it works, how they assess bills, and how the whole thing is so easily manipulated.

            Go do some reading. Don’t rely on Wikipedia or Huffington Post or Daily Kos – do some real research about how the CBO scores things and learn something about how Congress really works.

    • http://profiles.google.com/rtssdorsai Jeff C

      Romney was talking about the State mandate not a federal one … and his mandate in Mass. was entirely different from the Obamacare mandate …

    • jim_m

      How can Romney run on this? This is how:

      Keeping Obamacare alive means Mitt Romney still has this unpopular plan to campaign against, including the individual mandate, the most unpopular part (60 percent of Americans oppose it). Do you really think turning the mandate from a government edict to a massive tax hike will make it more popular?

      …So Obama gets to spend the next four months explaining why he lied
      about the mandate, why he raised taxes on the middle class, and why we
      should trust him not to raise them in the future . . . and this is a win?

      If that’s what he honestly believes, the president doesn’t need Obama- care. He needs therapy.

      http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220629victory_not_quite_what_it_seems_taxing_outcomefor_prez/srvc=home&position=1

      Do you honestly think that it matters to the American Public what Romneycare was? They are more concerned with what obamacare is doing to them. For 49 states (or 56 depending on who’s counting) Romneycare is an abstraction but for all 50 obamacare is a reality and one that remains unpopular.

      And then there is this:

      Yes, the Court saved Obamacare for the moment. But they declared the most significant part — the power of the government to make you buy stuff — unconstitutional. For small-government types like me, this was always the big prize.

      Liberal dreams of using an unlimited Commerce Clause to push an
      ever-growing, European-style state on the American people is dead . . . and this is good news for Barack Obama?

      The dems just woke up to find that their dream is turning into a nightmare. They got saddled with the largest tax increase in world history and they get told by the SCOTUS that there are real limits to their power.

      No, we are not happy that obamacare survived, but on balance if it had to survive we could not have dreamed it would turn out this well.

      • UOG

        Jim, people should not to lose sight of something else Roberts included in his opinion. He said that being a bad law wasn’t enough to automatically make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will protect us from unconstitutional laws, but bad laws are between us and the White House and the Congress.

        I know I’m looking forward to voting in November.

      • TomInCali

        Romneycare is an abstraction but for all 50 obamacare is a reality and one that remains unpopular.

        Actually, while “Obamacare” is unpopular, the actual provisions of it enjoy wide popularity, even among Republicans. This is just the Republicans being better at pushing a message than Democrats.

        They got saddled with the largest tax increase in world history

        Well, now you’re just flat out lying.

        • jim_m

          The mandate was wildly unpopular before it became an enormous tax. Think it’s become more popular now? The rest of the law doesn’t matter. The mandate will hang around obama’s neck like a millstone.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            More like an albatross.

          • TomInCali

            Think it’s become more popular now?

            Actually, it appears that it is.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Michael McDonald and Kenny Loggins called to demand their royalty check from you…

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Think of government health care as buying a car.

      The more options you have, the more the cost is going to go up. When you’re paying for it, you usually weigh the costs versus the benefits. Want the gold-plated rims and the super-deluxe sound system with 45 and a half speakers, 15 KW amplifier, nano-diamond paint?

      You can go from basic transportation (Ford Fiesta, at $13.2k plain) to fully tricked out (Fiesta Titanium Hatchback w/all options, at $25.2k) pretty fast.

      If you’re looking to just get from hither to yon, then you’re not going to be seeing much utility in spending near twice what a basic set of wheels costs.

      If you’re looking to show just how much money you’ve got – you’ll go with the tricked out version.

      If YOU aren’t paying for it, and don’t particularly care about the feelings of whoever IS going to be stuck with the bill, then you’ll probably indulge yourself. And if you don’t particularly like the folks you’re sticking the bill to – you’ll load that sucker up to the max.

      Bottom line – we’re broke. We’re taking in $2 tril a year. We’re spending at present $3.5 tril. We’ve got $16 TRILLION in debt.

      And we’ve got a health care system coming from a manufacturer who isn’t exactly known for their quality control standards. We don’t know what it’ll look like when it gets here. It was designed by politicians and lawyers – not doctors.

      What can possibly go wrong?

      Obamacare is supposed to cost roughly $200 billion a year. With all the provisions in it, I’ll be surprised (and pleased, at this point) if the cost isn’t up more like $3 to $4 hundred billion. How much of that is going to go to simply establishing a massive bureaucracy to administrate all this? What’s the overhead going to be? What percentage of the cost will actually be used for health care – as opposed to giving funds to petty bureaucrats so they can establish their kingdoms and fight their way up the GS-ladder?

      So for that, the folks in the Beltway bump the spending up to $3.7 tril a year.

      How will the economy react? Think things will suddenly improve so much that tax revenue goes up to $4 or $5 trillion and we can start paying down our debt?

      I don’t. I don’t believe anyone in Washington does – and they know this is going to be a clusterfuck of historic proportions.

      But then, I’m cynical that way…

      Bottom line – I sure hope you enjoy others getting options you’ll never get a whiff of… on your tab.

      • jim_m

        How will the economy react?

        Let’s see… the focus is on reducing the costs of healthcare, but instead of actually doing something to reduce costs (ie like tort reform which would reduce e cost of malpractice insurance and stem the use of defensive medicine) we are adding billions in government red tape.

        The government’s idea of reducing costs is simply paying less for what they get without regard to the actual costs. The government plan is to take 1/6th of the economy and shrink it, that is their publicly announced goal.

        What we will get is significantly less healthcare over time because we will be using our healthcare dollars to pay for government bureaucracy and not actual healthcare.

  • Sky__Captain

    Overall, I think this decision is the worst possible thing that could have happened – to 0bama.

    It simply reinforces that 0bama is one of the biggest liars in American history.

    The weakest Presidential candidate in 2012 remains Barack Hussein 0bama.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jack-Zimms/100003653414389 Jack Zimms

    It helps Republicans in their election efforts this fall but severely damages
    America by giving Government unlimited power to taxpunish behavior or lack of .
    The trade off is not worth it.

  • jim_m

    From Iowahawk: The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.

    Indeed

  • warnertoddhuston

    Couldn’t disagree more. I think Roberts just reelected Obama.

    • jim_m

      You’re completely off base. Had the law been tossed out obama’s base would be energized. He could run on getting healthcare passed again. Romney would be forced to spend the next 4 months explaining what his plans for healthcare are.

      Instead the right is energized. Money is pouring in to Romney’s campaign. Romney can run against obamacare, against the enormous tax increases, against people losing their current coverage, against unfettered ability to tax the public.

      There are almost no ways that this works against Romney in November.

    • UOG

      NewsWeek/Daily Beast poll just in: “50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.”

      There are months to go yet but right now Obama looks to be in a bit of a hole. It’s for Romney to keep him there. So far Romney’s team has been impressive, let’s wait and see how they deal with the opportunity.

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        I fail to see the upside for 0bama in those numbers. Perhaps Warner could point them out to us?

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

  • ackwired

    Someone better drop a note to Romney. All of this demogoguery possible and he is out there talking about the positive things he will do for health care after Obamacare is repealed.

  • Pingback: John Roberts could have just given…