>>Gary DW wrote:

>>>In article <jr1s68$90...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
>>>says...

>>>>Gary DW wrote:

>>>>>In article <jqucmd$i5...@news.albasani.net>, Vandar
>>>>>says...

>>>>>>3026 Dead wrote:

>>>>>>>On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:26:51 -0700, Not Sure wrote:

>>>>>>>>On Jun 8, 3:01 pm, 3026 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/08/us-supreme-court-poll-

>>>>>>>healt...

>>>>>>>>>Supreme court will decide healthcare law with politics, Americans
>>>>>>>>>believe

>>>>>>>>Nice spin on the poll's finding that Americans despise the law and want
>>>>>>>>it thrown out. Better luck lying next time, dipshit.

>>>>>>>30% don't like it because they think it's a commie plot.  Another 30%
>>>>>>>don't like it because it doesn't go far enough.  40% are OK with it.

>>>>>>The poll does not indicate in any way that 40% are OK with it.

>>>>>>Does Obamacare go too far, not far enough, or is it about right?
>>>>>>Too Far: 37%
>>>>>>Not Far Enough: 27%
>>>>>>About Right: 25%

>>>>>>How should the SCOTUS rule?
>>>>>>Keep Everything: 24%
>>>>>>Overturn The Mandate: 27%
>>>>>>Overturn The Whole Thing: 41%

>>>>>>Right there is 68% who aren't "OK with it".

>>>>>Ja, and then if it gets overturned Pubs suddenly have to
>>>>>figure out what to do with the three parts of it that
>>>>>are already staggeringly popular...

>>>>>1.  Allowing kids to be on parents plan until 26.
>>>>>2. Closing the seniors donut hole.
>>>>>3.  The big whopper... not allowing insurance companies
>>>>>to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

>>>>>Pubs are so deep into the insurance companies asses..
>>>>>WTF are they to do??

>>>>>Without a mandate, there is no way to cover preexisting
>>>>>conditions... especially with Pubs so against a single
>>>>>payer or even a public option.

>>>>>Watch once Vandar the dog finally catches the car...
>>>>>"WTF do I do NOW?"

>>>>>My guess is keep kicking the can down the road and blame
>>>>>Dems because the health care system is a collosal mess.

>>>>>Thats usally Vandars fallback position on everything.

>>>>As long as it's constitutional, they can do what they want.

>>>>And it's the Dems who are the insurance industry's lapdogs. That's the
>>>>primary reason they passed a potentially unconstitutional law requiring
>>>>every citizen to purchase their products.

>>>No, the only reason they did that was because not a
>>>single Pub would help them with the public option.

>>>So we got a mandate instead.

>>>See how that works, Vandar?

>>Yeah. If the Democrats don't get capitulation from the other side,
>>they'll ignore the Constitution and do what they want anyway.

>>>Cooperate with others, or you get the shit end of the
>>>stick.  As a Tea-bagger, you wouldn't understand...
>>>you've never heard of such a thing.  Even though
>>>Congress worked perfectly fine for 200 years before the
>>>tea-baggers took over.

>>The Tea Party didn't take over anything.
>>Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. They could've
>>passed anything they wanted... and they did.

> That's what's called the Tea Party's Roll Over and Play Dead
> Strategy.  They and Repugnants never had any intentions on voting for
> Obamacare or practically anything else he wanted to pass.  That's been
> in their play book from Inauguration Day on.  So to say that Obamacare
> was passed without a single vote may be technically correct, but in
> political spirit, it was, and still is, all about "let's bring the
> niggah down."