Aggregator • Wake up America • ID=78773
By Susan Duclos
Kaiser Health reports the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, has lost another five percentage points in popularity and stands at unfavorable views now outnumbering favorable ones by a small margin (44 percent versus 37 percent).
Bloomberg reports that Barack Obama is telling donors he might have to "revisit" the issue if he is reelected to a second term while attempting to project confidence that the Supreme Court, which is due to rule on the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare, will not overturn the law.
That confidence though is mostly for show as a planning memo indicates.
On April 3, Obama professed 'enormous confidence' the law is constitutional and 'the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully,' in response to a question at the Associated Press's annual meeting. A day earlier, he said the Supreme Court would have to take 'an unprecedented, extraordinary step' to throw out 'a law that was passed by a strong majority' in Congress.
Yet a planning memo, including a reminder that it's important 'to continue projecting confidence that the court will uphold the law,' was discussed at a May 29 meeting hosted by a group called Protect Your Care, attended by officials from the White House and Department of Health and Human Services, said one of the attendees, who requested anonymity to discuss a private meeting.
In response to Obama wanting to "revisit" the whole Obamacare battle, Stephen Green has written a scathing open letter to Obama:
Really? Is that really what you want to do with a second term? You want to revisit that legislation? Legislation so unwanted, it caused Massachusetts voters to install a happily married Republican in Ted Kennedy's old seat? Legislation so unpopular, that the fledging Tea Party — an organization so inexperienced it thought nominating Christine O'Donnell was a pretty good idea — managed to flip Congress by a near-historic margin?
Want to know how it got so bad?
Harry Reid cobbled your bill together in backroom dealswith names like 'the Cornhusker Kickback' and 'the Louisiana Purchase.' Things got so bad on the House side, that Nancy Pelosi threatened — with that patronizing smile — to simply 'deem' the Senate version passed: 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.' Remember that? And when challenged that the individual mandate might not be constitutional, Pelosi laughed and asked: 'Are you serious? Are you serious?
Yes, we are serious. So is the Supreme Court.
I want you to remember something else, Mr. Obama. Before Pelosi finally managed to manhandle the bill through her side of the Congress, the economy was picking up steam. At the end of 2009 and the start of 2010, we enjoyed months in a row of 250,000 new jobs or better. Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it? Then you got your bill signed into law in March, and in April job creation fell off the cliff. GDP growth has declined, too. We've spent most of the last two years just kind of sputtering along the bottom.
(Reminder- Unemployment just rose to 8.2 percent, U6 at 14.8 percent)
Mr. Green concludes-
All of which makes me think that, given the chance to do it all over again, you most certainly would.
And why? To defend a law that will explode the deficit, reduce people's access to private insurance, offend large religious minorities, and create a new army of IRS officers? You want us to give you a second chance to do all that?
Mr. Obama, if the Supreme Court does strike down this law, you should get down on both knees and thank them.
And then you ought to stay there a while and beg us all for forgiveness.
Obama's open acknowledgment that he will once again push for a law that Americans from day one have opposed by majorities and pluralities (depending on which poll is looked at) and is becoming even more unpopular, and the majority of Independents, Democrats and Republicans believe is unconstitutional, is yet another reason for the electorate to see to it in november 2012 that Barack Obama is not reelected to another term.