Post 36 has the original report source for your numbers posted here in it's entirety, so you don't even have to click. It also has the offsets the above graph ignores listed.

Because they think it will be upheld.

They have two plays:

If upheld, he gets to brag about it (even though 70% of the people hate it). Brilliant.

If thrown out, he says "I told you it wouldn't be easy. I need a Democratic congress and a second term, and next time it will be airtight legislation."

Of course, if it gets thrown out, it's empirical evidence of his being a failure.

Excited about all the events planned to celebrate the 2 year passage.

Obama's speech praising it should be inspiring.

Remember it's " a big fucl<ing deal"


:rolleyes:

i think they decided not to fight it because its not popular. they originally were going to try to drag it out, but changed their mind. with all the states and their populace up in arms, its not exactly something the WH wants to be on the wrong side of. then theres probably their desire to have that as a topic rather than the economy.

The worse thing about the ACA is all the false information out there, and the false information still being spread about it. The administration did a terrible job of messaging, and they know it.

The Dems are running for re-election on the ACA, which is why they wanted it to get to the Supremes before the election. The SCOTUS decision to uphold removes the ACA as an election issue for the GOP. Although Romney is unable to run on it, anyway, due to his passing the virtually identical law in his state as Gov. That's how confident the Dems are of what the court will decide.

Millions have already benefited from the ACA. Removing the law throws millions of currently insured off insurance, removes current benefits from virtually everyone, causes massive increase in healthcare costs over the next years. The GOP knows this. That's why current in-office GOP isn't messing with the ACA. They Dems are now publicizing how people have benefited. Late, but finally on the scene.

" It doesn't really matter what the CBO says it will cost now, because government estimates of how much things cost almost always turn out to be wrong. And wrong on the short side.

If history is any guide, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost not $900 billion or $1.76 trillion but some number in excess of both of them combined.

In 2009, the U.S. Senate Joint Economic Committee issued a report looking at the initial cost estimates versus actual costs of other government health-care programs.

It shows that in 1965, when Medicare hospital insurance was enacted, the House Ways and Means Committee projected that its cost in 1990 would be $9 billion annually. The actual cost in 1990 was $67 billion.

In 1966, a broader Medicare program came into being. Its 1990 cost was estimated at $12 billion. The actual cost in 1990 was $110 billion.

Massachusetts' 2006 health-care plan, equally unlovingly called Romneycare, was to cost the state $472 million in 2008, according to early estimates. The actual 2008 cost was $628 million."



http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/...ost-of-health/

http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/27...eform-in-2012/


an older article from Time giving thoughts on why obama and co. opted not to appeal but rather let the scotus have the case.

Unfortunately no television of Supreme Court arguments, but there will be audio available at end of each session on C-Span. Clarence Thomas will still be mute.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...decision_.html

just read this intriguing article and thought others might enjoy it. the author is correct, deciding not to decide absolutely would be anti-climactic. and i can see the justices going with that move, rather than having a split vote.

Court-watchers are saying that the chance of the Supremes delaying hearing the case until after 2015 or 2016, when the first fines will be paid, is small.

Especially as the next President will appoint probably 2 Supreme Court judges.

If the conservative members of the court want to be political judicial activists (which I really don't think they are, except for Thomas), this is their only chance.