SeeBS: GOP Could Suffer Fallout If Supreme Court Rules To Eliminate Obamacare For Millions

CBS SF Bay Area ^ | May 25, 2015 | Associated Press

[E. Pluribus Unum]

WASHINGTON (CBS/AP) — A Supreme Court ruling due in late June could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by the president’s health care law.

But it is Republicans — and not White House officials — who are talking about damage control.

If that sounds wrong, check the math.

[ontap]

Anyone losing their coverage are democrats anyway!!

[SoFloFreeper]

Bring it on.

[SharpRightTurn]

“SeeBS: GOP Could Suffer Fallout If Supreme Court Rules To Eliminate Obamacare For Millions”

The story line is unintentionally correct.

The fallout will be when McConnell/Boehner, with enough Republican establishment and Dim votes, push through a bill to continue the ObummerCare subsidies. The result will be a huge fallout among the Republican base, already fed up with CRomnibus, funding the None’s illegal amnesty, the secret TPP trade deal, and McConnell/Boehner pushing for a full blown extension of government spying on its citizens.

[pfflier]

Wait...the by-line says CBS Bay Area. That explains it.

[so_real]

We don't see it that way. In a nation where the GOP has been handed a vote of "no confidence" by it's own grass roots base members, the elimination of any portion of Obama's multifaceted socialism would likely restore some measure of that confidence. It may herald the notion that "maybe we are on the same team after all". I'm pretty cynical; so it'll take more than that to turn my ear. But many of us are not so cynical. And, furthermore, many of us would cling to any sign the party wants to be fixed. So I do think it would be a positive moment for the GOP, undeserved or otherwise.

[Duckdog]

Almost spit Ice tea all over the place when I saw the “SeeBS”!

[Hardens Hollow]

Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be most affected by the ruling have Republican governors. And 22 of the 24 GOP Senate seats up for election next year are in those states.

In the court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows subsidies only in states that set up their own health insurance markets. Most Republican-leaning states have not done so.

More liberal illogic from San Fran.

In states that voted Republican, the voters did NOT want Obamacare or they would've voted Democrat. If aspects of Ocare are deemed unconstitutional, said voters would realize those that wrote and voted for the law violated the Constitution, NOT the Republicans. And if Ocare crashed and burned because of the liberals' incompetence in writing the law, Republican voters are the last ones to be upset.

[SunkenCiv]

• Paul: We probably can't get rid of 'Obamacare'
• Paul: We probably can't get rid of 'Obamacare' - [Sep. 21, 2013 9:56 PM EDT ]
• Paul: 'Difficult to turn the clock back' on O-Care
• Rand Paul: GOP 'probably can't defeat' Obamacare
• Rand Paul on abortion: "We're not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise"
• Sen. Paul: 'We're Not Changing Any' Abortion 'Laws Until the Country is Persuaded Otherwise'

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"

I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.

[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]

[SunkenCiv]

They can do without "health" "care", but can't do without the obamaphones.

[GOPJ]

If democrats write a law in a fashion that’s illegal it’s NOT our fault... Of course the liars in the MSM - the ringers like George Stephanopoulos will play it that way.

In the short run the networks ‘win’ in the long run they’ll die like biased newspapers.

[Secret Agent Man]

I disagree with the article title. I never put anything before my comment, i dont know why you did.

[demshateGod]

Think about the parts the GOP is fighting. The delay of the employer mandate: The GOP wants the president to implement a part of the law that would be a huge burden on business owners. The subsidies: The GOP wants to enforce a part of the law that takes away poor people’s subsidies because their state lawmakers refused to set up exchanges. Why is this the hill they’re choosing to die on? It’s not. They’re just playing a well-scripted game. This will marginalize the conservative base and make the Establishment into moderate heroes.

When the subsidies are ended, the conservatives will launch a campaign to kill Ocare completely. The Rats and the media will cast it as a battle over the subsidies alone.

[COBOL2Java]

GOP Could Suffer Fallout If Supreme Court Rules To Eliminate Obamacare For Millions

"Told ya so!"

(shut up, Karl)

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The conservatives in the GOP could “grab the bull by the horns”, to bring back privatized medicine at the national level.

It's more realistic to believe that they're going to bail it out.

Boehner and McConnell are the Washington Generals and Obama is the Globetrotters.

[babble-on]

well, yes

[bert]

They know it is doomed........ they are attempting to create a structure of blame to escape the horrible truth

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Conservatives must realize they have two enemies: socialist internationalists, and multinational corporation internationalist. While both have very different ends in mind, both are severely harming America with their schemes.

Neither are patriotic or nationalistic. Both seek to reduce American prosperity. Both crave open borders and the dilution of the integrated American melting pot with foreign citizens who do not want to integrate but wish to exploit American wealth.

Socialist internationalists have truly perverse ideas that are more well known, but multinational corporation internationalists want not a technocracy, but a plutocracy, rule by billionaires.