Althouse: "The latest survey on the Supreme Court was conducted Wednesday and Thursday nights, the night before and after the health care ruling."

June 29, 2012

"The latest survey on the Supreme Court was conducted Wednesday and Thursday nights, the night before and after the health care ruling."

"Overall, there were few differences in the topline results between the two nights. However, there were sizable partisan shifts. On Wednesday night, Republicans tended to give the court good ratings, while Democrats were evenly divided between good/excellent and poor. On Thursday night, the partisan positions were reversed."

Rasmussen reports. Very amusing.

35 comments:

edutcher said...: Quelle surprise!

The Lefties have a lot of practice turning themselves inside out.

It's the only way they get head.; 6/29/12, 11:09 AM
Michael K said...: Since I was already an enthusiastic Romney voter, it's hard for me to say what effect on the election this decision will have. If, in the next few weeks, the tea party is energized and seems to be regaining its momentum, the effect may be salutary. If American voters continue their economic ignorance, I see collapse looming. Democrats care about all sorts of things; just not economics.; 6/29/12, 11:10 AM
Mitch H. said...: In other news, people tend to poll poorly on the prospect of being poked in the eye with a stick, and almost as poorly after having actually been poked in the eye with a stick.; 6/29/12, 11:10 AM
Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/12, 11:13 AM
Farmer said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/29/12, 11:14 AM
bagoh20 said...: I this really wrong? People judge them on the results as they see them. If you like a restaurant, and then they serve you something you hate one day, your opinion should change. What would be strange would be if regardless of what they did you had the same opinion.

I'm glad the divide is so clear. Nobody should be confused about what's at stake now.; 6/29/12, 11:14 AM
Farmer said...: edutcher said...
Quelle surprise!

The Lefties have a lot of practice turning themselves inside out.

On Thursday night, the partisan positions were reversed.

I took this to mean that both sides reversed.

Which is very amusing, indeed.; 6/29/12, 11:15 AM
Farmer said...: I'm having a ton of problems posting lately. Typos, bad tags, etc. I hope I'm not having a stroke.

But if I am, at least I get free health care!; 6/29/12, 11:16 AM
Unknown said...: I've been kind of wondering what sorts of things I would like to promote by taxing inaction.

So far I have come up with church attendance and car ownership. It is not that I particularly want to force atheists to attend church or require New Yorkers to own cars but simply that it would be fun to make them pay extra taxes for not doing so.; 6/29/12, 11:16 AM
bagoh20 said...: Do people think that the way this ruling came down is what the drafters of the ACA expected, or was it just put together with other priorities and it came out this way. Was the whole penalty/tax blur on purpose when they wrote it? I imagine the commerce clause was the goal, but did they really plan this backup save? It's not that great an outcome for them, but it's better than nothing, and they expected to have a Democratic congress.; 6/29/12, 11:24 AM
edutcher said...: The Farmer said...

Quelle surprise!

The Lefties have a lot of practice turning themselves inside out.

On Thursday night, the partisan positions were reversed.

I took this to mean that both sides reversed.

Which is very amusing, indeed.

All it says is the numbers for and against have switched. That could include a lot of Lefties.

A lot fewer Conservatives trust the appellate courts than the Lefties.

I'm having a ton of problems posting lately. Typos, bad tags, etc. I hope I'm not having a stroke.

But if I am, at least I get free health care!

The ride to Treblinka-on-the-Colorado is free, too.; 6/29/12, 11:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "I've been kind of wondering what sorts of things I would like to promote by taxing inaction."

We're already taxing people for not getting married.; 6/29/12, 11:32 AM
bagoh20 said...: "require New Yorkers to own cars"

That's a good point. Here in CA we require car insurance, but of course many still don't have it. The ACA equivalent would be if we taxed people for not having it and just made insurance companies cover everyone's car anyway. Of course nobody would pay the tax either though, so what would happen to car insurance under that system?; 6/29/12, 11:34 AM
bagoh20 said...: We really tax people hard for not choosing to be poor. The Democrats hate when you just willy nilly chose wealth over poverty. They want to encourage poverty. It's a common good.; 6/29/12, 11:39 AM
Colonel Angus said...: We're already taxing people for not getting married.

Don't married people get taxed as well, just at a different rate?; 6/29/12, 11:57 AM
Tim said...: "Very amusing."

I suppose so, if the premium is on theater, lawyerly word-play, and an utter disregard for plain meaning.; 6/29/12, 11:57 AM
LoafingOaf said...: "So far I have come up with church attendance and car ownership. It is not that I particularly want to force atheists to attend church or require New Yorkers to own cars but simply that it would be fun to make them pay extra taxes for not doing so."

If someone goes without health insurance they cost the rest of the taxpayers when they get sick and go to the emergency rooms for free care.

I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. Mitt Romney understood it a few years ago, as you can hear him saying in this YouTube clip.

And here's another clip of Romney backing taxing those who don't buy insurance.

Hard to understand why Romney was so worked up yesterday. Based on what he said in the past he should have been congratulating President Obama.; 6/29/12, 11:59 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Oaf: You still haven't grasped that states and federal governments have different powers.

Also, what if someone has an emergency and needs a car? It stresses the system for everyone not to be able to transport themselves with things like Metro, buses, etc. Those who don't own a car can pay a tax to go to maintaining public transportation and expanding it out to rural areas that are unserved by it.

Your logic applies just as much there! There are hundreds of thousands of millions of people who are limited in their ability to hunt for jobs and education due to not owning a car. We should mandate car ownership so that they are not being exploited.; 6/29/12, 12:10 PM
SteveR said...: Loafing Oaf: understand the difference between state governments and the Federal government?; 6/29/12, 12:10 PM
Rocketeer said...: If someone goes without health insurance they cost the rest of the taxpayers when they get sick and go to the emergency rooms for free care.

You seem unaware of the commonly known fact that public transportation and Amtrak are deeply subsidized by car owners.

You also seem unaware of the commonly understood difference between state powers versus federal powers.

Presuming you received a public education, this does not bode well for the idea that government to effectively manage health insurance and health care delivery.; 6/29/12, 12:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Yes, aren't tyranny and traitors amusing?; 6/29/12, 12:19 PM
rehajm said...: Hard to understand why Romney was so worked up yesterday. Based on what he said in the past he should have been congratulating President Obama.

There was much more at stake yesterday than the mandate. We are all now doomed to suffer the unintended consequences of hasty, horrible legislation.; 6/29/12, 12:22 PM
rehajm said...: Was the whole penalty/tax blur on purpose when they wrote it?

Penalty/Tax. Health care market/Health Insurance market. Raising revenues/Raising marginal tax rates. The obfuscation is deliberate.; 6/29/12, 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Don't kid yourself rehajm, the horrible results are not unintended.; 6/29/12, 12:44 PM
Love said...: The WHINEFEST continues.

As usual.

And what's interesting is that every single person commenting on this site about how HORRIBLE this is...will take advantage of the benefits, will have friends take advantage of the benefits, and of course, will have all kinds of family members (especially seniors) take advantage of the benefits.

I suggest that anyone who feels this is HORRIBLE...make damn sure they opt out of any future benefits related to the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Send your letters TODAY!!; 6/29/12, 12:50 PM
edutcher said...: So did Love get that post verbatim from Moochelle (she seems to be handing out the talking points today) with instructions to paste it in the comments section of every board he/she/it can find?; 6/29/12, 1:31 PM
LoafingOaf said...: SteveR: I understand that that's your candidate's talking point for an election.

Not sure how convincing that will be to swing voters. They'll see the Tea Partiers freaking out, shrieking that this Supreme Court decision is as bad as Dred Scott and America as we know it is over unless Romney is elected. Then they'll notice that Romneycare godfathered Obamacare. Romney's Republican challengers in the primaries even said so.

Then, what will you say? That, sure, our Republican candidate we're asking you to vote for to save America turned Massachusetts into a socialist hell on earth, but only as an experiment at the state level. If people don't like it they can just move to another state, but Obama's gonna make us move to another country! (And, browsing the list of countries that have universal health care, it looks like we won't be able to flee to anywhere in the developed world!)

The truth is, Mitt Romney intended Romneycare to be a model for the nation.

See here:

"He wanted to have a big accomplishment as governor," said John McDonough, professor at the Harvard school of public health who was closely involved with both the Massachusetts reforms and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as an adviser to senator Ted Kennedy. "He chose to run for governor of Massachusetts rather than Utah because he thought it would be a better platform to run for president. He was convinced early on that there was a way to [deliver healthcare coverage for all] that would adhere to Republican principles."
***
"Romney was very clearly saying this is a model for the nation, including the individual mandate. He thought it would be a ticket to ride to national fame and glory. He took a position on the mandate that was Republican orthodox in the 80s. All these people were saying this is the way and he had the temerity to do it."; 6/29/12, 1:31 PM
Christopher in MA said...: I suggest that anyone who feels this is HORRIBLE. . .make damn sure they opt out of any future benefits related to the Affordable Healthcare Act.

I see the spanking you got for your lunacy yesterday didn't take, Jeremy. You're absurdly hung up on the idea that someone who feels a program is unsustainable or unconstitutional has a duty not to receive any "benefits" said programs might provide.

You ignore, of course, the simple (well, to those of us with above room temperature IQs) fact that the money for those programs is taken from all of us, whether we like the program or not.

You're teaching your choom-smoking class in a state university. Your fellow professors decide to organize a lunch pool and buy Italian subs daily. All of you are forced to contribute part of your paycheck to that pool each week. But I bring my own lunch," you protest. "I don't want a sub." "Too bad," you're told. And so your desk piles up with subs that you don't want, but you take them home with you every night for supper.

So. . .you're complaining about the mandatory sub rule, but you still take advantage of it. By your low standards, that makes you a hypocrite.

Frankly, I don't care that you're such a drone that you're happier as a simple slave to the state; a fatted calf or milch cow to be exploited. I do care that you want - you insist on shackling the rest of us.

But hey, Obama is awesome!; 6/29/12, 1:31 PM
Alex said...: What will conservatives do once we have single payer and everyone is getting health care and has a smile on their face? Everyone except conservatives that is. They will be frowning to the end of time, angry that everyone has healthcare.; 6/29/12, 2:12 PM
Amartel said...: Love,
I didn't think it was possible but you are living, typing proof that there is someone on this planet stupider than Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi had to pass the bill to know what was in it but you still have no fucking clue even to this day. We can't opt out of the tax anymore than you can opt out of being an unthinking emotion-driven shill for big government.; 6/29/12, 3:14 PM
Farmer said...: Amartel said...
Love,
I didn't think it was possible but you are living, typing proof that there is someone on this planet stupider than Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi had to pass the bill to know what was in it but you still have no fucking clue even to this day. We can't opt out of the tax anymore than you can opt out of being an unthinking emotion-driven shill for big government.

Posts like these are why I love the Althouse comments section.; 6/29/12, 4:16 PM
Unknown said...: Loafing Oaf

"If someone goes without health insurance they cost the rest of the taxpayers when they get sick and go to the emergency rooms for free care."

When people move to an area where they can rely on public transportation, walking or bicycles instead of purchasing private automobiles, they cost the rest of us taxpayers by making it more difficult for GM and Chrysler to repay the massive government subsidies they were given on the grounds that keeping those companies solvent is essential to the economic health of the United States.

In fact, given the arguments that were made on behalf of the auto company bailouts, refusing to own a car could be viewed as selfish and callously indifferent to those who's livelihoods depend on the health of the car industry. Surely everybody should pay their fair share, either by owning a car or by paying a substantial tax for refusing to do so.; 6/30/12, 5:32 AM
Unknown said...: "We're already taxing people for not getting married."

Married men live longer and have fewer health problems. I refer you to Loafing Oaf's post for why this justifies raising taxes on those who choose to contribute their fair share to the health of our population.; 6/30/12, 7:11 AM
Unknown said...: My apologies for leaving out the crucial word "not".

Those who do not contribute to improving our nation's health statistics by marrying should pay their fair share of higher health costs in higher income tax.; 6/30/12, 7:23 AM
Unknown said...: One more thing that I would like to force people to do with the tax system is to eat meat.

As can be read in Gary Taubes books, the reason for our current obesity epidemic is that we have been eating too many carbohydrates instead of getting our calories from proteins and fat.

Obesity is one of our major sources of health care costs. Multiple anecdotes on this very blog have demonstrated the healthful results of giving up bread and pasta for a diet composed mostly of meat and dairy products.

By choosing a high carbohydrate diet, vegans contribute to high medical costs for the rest of us. Even if individual vegans are not obese, their social pressure against the healthy choices of meat heavy diets is injurious to society.

I am not sure how exactly we can tax vegans and vegetarians but I am sure that the creative minds in the halls of Congress can come up with something.; 6/30/12, 10:29 AM