Flag Counter The Political Freakshow • Posts Tagged ‘Affordable Care Act’

18 Reasons to Thank a Liberal: A Partial List of Liberal Achievements; 1935-2010

 

8 Historical Reasons to Show Liberals Love

If you work hard for a living, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The 8-hour workday, overtime pay, and the federal minimum wage (Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938). Labor activists started calling for an 8-hour day in 1836; Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the above provisions into law for many workers more than a century later.

If you or someone you love serves in the military, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The G.I. Bill of Rights, first enacted in 1944 under FDR, which provides funds for military veterans to receive education/training, started unemployment compensation for veterans, and facilitates loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses.

If you are a member for an under-represented group often attacked by the (ever-fading) white male majority, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted under Lyndon B. Johnson, which outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation and unfair voter registration requirements.

If you plan on getting old and/or sick some day, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Social Security Act, enacted for limited recipients in 1935 under FDR and expanded under Harry Truman and LBJ, which helps ensure that people who are too old or infirm to work can still access basic necessities.
  • Medicare, which provides greatly subsidized health care to retirees. Medicare was signed into law in 1965 by LBJ as an amendment to the Social Security Act.

If you drink water, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Clean Water Act, first enacted under Truman in 1948 (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) and expanded under Jimmy Carter in 1977. The 1977 amendments created a greater structure for regulating pollutants contaminating U.S. waters and gave the EPA authority to implement pollution control programs.

If you’ve ever had a baby or a sick family member and didn’t want to choose between caring for them or losing your job, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (signed into law under Bill Clinton), which allows employees who have worked for an employer for at least 1 year to take up to 12 weeks of leave for a family illness, birth or adoption within each 12 month period. Employers must apply accrued sick or vacation time to the worker’s family/medical leave and compensate workers for that time.

If you grew up in a rural area and enjoyed 20th century conveniences, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (FDR), which provided federal loans for the installation of electricity in rural areas of the U.S.

Yes, But ‘What Have You Done for Me Lately’ – 10 Reasons to Thank Obama

Is Obama the idealized leader many hoped he’d be? No. Has the Obama administration accomplished more in two years than most Presidents have in two terms? Yes. Here are just some of the strides Obama and liberals made from 2009-2010 before Republicans gained control of the House:

If you or someone you love plans to go to college (and you’re not rich), you can thank a liberal for:

If you realize fossil fuels are ruining the environment, precipitating violent storms and bound to run out sometime this century – and you support the development of sustainable, clean energy, you can thank a liberal for:

If you have credit cards or loans and don’t enjoy getting ripped off, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Credit Card Holders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009, which banned underhanded and predatory practices by credit card companies and provided new consumer protections, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (formed under the 2010 Wall Street Reform), which seeks solely to educate and protect consumers from unfair and predatory practices by financial institutions. Its goal is to make sure prices are clear up front, that risks are visible, and that nothing deceptive or abusive is buried in fine print.

If you or someone you love might need comprehensive medical treatment without wanting to get screwed over, you can thank a liberal for:

  • Health Care Reform (aka ObamaCare, aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010), which forbids health insurance companies from canceling coverage when a person gets sick, from refusing to cover preexisting conditions, and from imposing lifetime limits on medical care. The bill also established federal subsidies to decrease the price of health insurance (families of four earning up to $88,000 are eligible) and initiated federal oversight of premium hikes.

If you or someone you love is disabled or part of the LGBT community, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which extends federal protection to victims who were attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Shepard and Byrd were murdered in 1998, the bill was first introduced in 2001, and it finally passed in 2009.

If you or someone you love is homosexual – or if you just believe in the Fourteenth Amendment’s extension of equal protection under the law, you can thank a liberal for:

  • Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military without having to hide who they are.

If a teacher has ever touched your life, you can thank a liberal for:

If you think American multi-national corporations should bear a bigger tax liability to help fund services for the people from whom they’re getting rich, you can thank a liberal for:

  • Funding the above education/Medicaid bill by reducing tax loopholes for companies making profits overseas. The bill was supported by the National Education Association and several workers’ unions; it was opposed by Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and the Chamber of Commerce. Only one House Republican voted in favor of this bill.

If you or someone you love has a child for whom they can’t afford to purchase insurance, you can thank a liberal for:

If you or someone you love is dying or debilitated from a life-altering illness and you still want hope for a cure, you can thank a liberal for:

  • The end of the Stem Cell Research Ban, for which Obama takes full credit. He used an executive order in March 2009 to end former President George W. Bush’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

(via lunarpolitics)

Source: silas216

As The Rate Of Uninsured Americans Goes Up, GOP Wants To Roll Back Consumer Protections In The Affordable Care Act

Despite new Census data showing that a growing number of Americans are losing their private health insurance coverage and becoming uninsured, Republicans are expected to introduce legislation at this morning’s hearing of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee that would prevent insurance plans in existence before the Affordable Care Act from making drastic benefit cuts or other policy changes, effectively gutting consumer protections for millions of Americans with private coverage. The panel will also consider H.R. 2077, a bill to repeal medical loss ratio (MLR) regulations that require plans that don’t spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on health care costs to issue rebates to their enrollees.

The health law exempts health plans in existence before the law went into effect from its benefits standards and consumer protections — so long as employers or individual policies don’t significantly change their benefits or increase costs. Republicans argue that employers would eventually lose this protection and “face steep penalties, increasing their costs and negatively affecting wages and job growth” and so they’ve offered a bill that would completely eliminate the trigger for grandfather status. Employers or individual policies would be able to skirt the new consumer protections in the Affordable Care Act while significantly shrinking benefits package or increasing deductibles.

The GOP measure would prohibit the enforcement forever into the future of any requirement or regulation related to existing health policies. Plans that existed before March 23, 2010 would never have to offer the following consumer protections:

– Extend dependent coverage to young adults up to age 26

– Stop denying coverage for pre-existing conditions

– Stop setting lifetime limits for policies

– End annual limits (restricted limits now, all annual limits in 2014)

– End rescissions of coverage

– Abide by the medical loss ratio provision — spending 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on health care.

The Obama administration has sought to work with employers and plans to keep disruptions to a minimum. For instance, the Department of Health and Human Services loosened the grandfather regulations on Nov. 15, 2010, updating the rules to allow more employers and policies to keep their grandfather status. But unlike the GOP, Democrats wouldn’t want plans to be exempt forever — and that’s a good thing. The whole point of grandfather rules is to serve as a bridge to gradually move everyone into plans that are required to meet a basic floor of standards, ensuring that everyone will eventually have access to the law’s new consumer protections.

The GOP’s bill to undermine the MLR regulations would similarly deny benefits to beneficiaries. The Obama administration estimates that as many as 9 million people will qualify for rebates totaling between $600 million and $1.4 billion in 2011, and between $2 billion and $4.9 billion for 2011-2013. In fact, a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey concluded that insurers are already “considering reducing premiums in 2012 partly in response to the PPACA MLR requirements.” State insurance regulators told the GAO that some companies “have not applied for premium increases and are making adjustments to lower premiums as a strategy to increase their MLRs.”

If the Republicans are successful, the good things about the Affordable Care Act will be ended, including the part that allows children of insured Americans to stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26 years old.

For this reason, and many others, I am seriously considering not voting Republican next year in the election.

I am fed up with what the Republicans are doing to our country.

-Drew, Concerned American

Conservative Court Upholds Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act

 A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law, as the Supreme Court prepares to consider this week whether to resolve conflicting rulings over the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health care insurance.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a split opinion upholding the lower court’s ruling that found Congress did not overstep its authority in requiring people to have insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes, beginning in 2014. The requirement is the most controversial requirement of Obama’s signature domestic legislative achievement and the focus of conflicting opinions from judges across the country. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Thursday during a closed meeting of the justices whether to accept appeals from some of those earlier rulings.

The suit in Washington was brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson. It claimed that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional because it forces Americans to buy a product for the rest of their lives and that it violates the religious freedom of those who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. But the court ruled that Congress had the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty.

“That a direct requirement for most Americans to purchase any product or service seems an intrusive exercise of legislative power surely explains why Congress has not used this authority before – but that seems to us a political judgment rather than a recognition of constitutional limitations,” Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan wrote in the court’s opinion. Silberman was joined by Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee. But, they added, “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a former aide to President George W. Bush who appointed him to the bench, disagreed with the conclusion without taking a position on the merits of the law. He wrote a lengthy opinion arguing the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to review the health care mandate until after it takes effect in 2014.

The federal appeals court in Cincinnati also upheld the law. The federal appeals court in Atlanta struck down the core requirement that Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty, while upholding the rest of the law.

And like Kavanaugh’s dissenting opinion, an appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled it was premature to decide the law’s constitutionality. This aspect of the court challenges issue involves a federal law aimed at preventing lawsuits from tying up tax collection. Kavanaugh and the Richmond court held that taxpayers must begin paying the penalty for not purchasing insurance before they can challenge it in court.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed the suit in Washington, said the group is considering whether to ask the full appeals court to hear the case or make a request directly to the Supreme Court. “We still remain confident that Obamacare and the individual mandate, which forces Americans to purchase health insurance, is the wrong prescription for America and ultimately will be struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Sekulow said.

The White House said Tuesday it is confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law, as the DC circuit did. Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter said in a White House blog post that opponents who say the individual mandate provision exceeded Congress’ power to regulate commerce “are simply wrong.”

“People who make a decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market,” she wrote. “Their action is not felt by themselves alone. Instead, when they become ill or injured and cannot pay their bills, their costs are shifted to others. Those costs – $43 billion in 2008 alone – are borne by doctors, hospitals, insured individuals, taxpayers and small businesses throughout the nation.”

The liberal interest group Constitutional Accountability Center said the ruling from a solid conservative like Silberman, as the Supreme Court prepares to take up the issue, is a “devastating blow” to opponents of the law.

“With two prominent conservatives, this panel was thought to be a dream come true for conservative challengers of the act,” said the center’s president, Doug Kendall. “Today that dream became a nightmare, as the panel unanimously rejected the challenges to the act, disagreeing only about why those challenges failed.”

US Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Affordable Care Act...If the Constitution Still Matters, They Will Let It Stay!!!

The most powerful line in conservative Judge Laurence Silberman’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is his simple recognition that the law’s opponents “cannot find real support for their proposed rule in either the text of the Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” Today, the Supreme Court agreed to follow in Silberman’s footsteps — considering whether the judiciary can appropriately strike down a landmark health care law despite the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution allowing them to do so.

There can be no question that Silberman is right about what the Constitution has to say about this law. The plaintiffs’ primary challenge is to the provision requiring most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes (there are other issues in this case, which will be discussed in a subsequent post). In their vision of the Constitution, this provision runs afoul of some unwritten rule against being told what to do. The federal government can regulate how people go about the business they are already engaged in, under this vision, but it is utterly powerless to push people to engage in commerce they would prefer to avoid.

There are many, many problems with this theory of the Constitution, but Silberman’s rebuttal of it is both the most simple and the most elegant. The Constitution says nothing suggesting that people can immunize themselves from the law by remaining passive, it simply provides that the United States may “regulate commerce…among the several states.”

Modern judges do not need to speculate what the founding generation understood these words to mean when they were written into the text of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall — himself one of the ratifiers of the Constitution — told us what they mean in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden. Marshall wrote that there is “no sort of trade” that the words “regulate Commerce” does not apply to. He said that the power to “regulate” something “implies in its nature full power over the thing to be regulated.” And he told us that Congress’ power to regulate commerce “among the several states” applies to all trade that “concern[] more states than one.”

So when Congress passes a nationwide law regulating the entire national health care market, there is simply no question that the law is constitutional. The law regulates a form of trade — trade for health services — and it regulates a health services market that is both pervasive and nationwide. The Affordable Care Act cases are some of the easiest cases to cross the Supreme Court’s bench in a generation, and it is nothing less than shocking that even a handful of judges have struck the law down.

Indeed it is far worse than shocking — it is downright dangerous. Judges are not like members of Congress. They are unelected and they serve for life. As such, they cannot be checked by fear of a lost election and can only be checked by their loyalty to our written Constitution. If the federal judiciary has the power to ignore the text of the Constitution to strike down laws that they do not like, then there is literally nothing that they cannot do. If the Supreme Court defies our written Constitution just once, there is nothing preventing them from doing so over and over again. Indeed, if the justices strike down the Affordable Care Act, there is nothing preventing them from forcing every American to eat broccoli.

The Affordable Care Act Turned 2 Today, And The GOP's Predictions About It Are Laughable Today!!!

Today is the two-year anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act, which, once fully implemented will cover 30 million Americans and begin to lower the rate of growth in health care spending. Since reform passed, however, Republicans have voted to repeal or defund the law at least 25 times and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is preparing to focus largely on health care as he charts “a course for a Republican Senate in 2013 and what could be a bruising reelection bid in 2014.”

During the nearly 10-month legislative battle that preceded passage and in the years after, the GOP characterized the bill as a “socialist” “government takeover” and warned Americans that the bill would destroy lives and American society, hurling apocalyptic warnings that seem downright satirical two years later:

Below are some of their most outrageous claims:

– REP. JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): Passage of health reform is “Armageddon” because the law will “ruin our country.” [3/20/2010]

– FRMR. SEN. RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): Health reform “will destroy the country” because, “in the next year or so,” America will have to “dramatically cut the military because we can’t pay for it.” [10/23/2010]

– SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “There will be no insurance industry left in three years.” [10/12/2010]

– REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): “On page 16, you can read for yourself that no new health insurance policies can be written once this federal plan comes into effect.” [7/17/2009]

– GLENN BECK: “This is the end of prosperity in America forever … the end of America as you know it.” [11/19/2009]

– SEAN HANNITY: “If we get nationalized health care, it’s over; this is socialism.” [11/2/2009]

– REP. PAUL BROUN (R-GA): “That’s exactly what’s going on in Canada and Great Britain today…and a lot of people are going to die.” [7/10/2009]

– REP. LOUIE GOHMERT (R-TX): “I would hate to think that among five women, one of ‘em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.” [7/15/2009]

– REP. VIRGINIA FOXX (R-NC): “The Republican plan will] make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.” [7/28/2009]

– SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “I have a message for you: you’re going to die soon…When you restrict the ability of the primary care givers int his country to do what is best for their senior patients, what you are doing is limiting their life expectancy.” [12/1/2009]

– REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): “Socialized medicine is the crown jewel of socialism. This will change our country forever.” [11/3/2009]

– HERMAN CAIN: “If ObamaCare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I’d be dead.” [8/18/2011]

– NEWT GINGRICH (R): “I think it is a disaster. I think, candidly, Governor Palin got attacked unfairly for describing what would, in effect, be death panels.” [10/11/2011]

– RICK SANTORUM (R): “What got me into this race was Obamacare…I believe, final death knell will be to America of having government control that very critical aspect of our life, which is access to the care that we need to stay alive.” [12/13/2011]

Alas, to the surprise of no one, the justices announced last week that they would not permit the Care Act arguments to be broadcast live or on video. Instead, interested people will be able to hear the argument, but only in the afternoon, after the day’s argument has concluded. …It’s the sort of show that millions of Americans deserve to see live, as it unfolds, and not on tape delay. To me, no matter how the justices come down on the merits of the Affordable Care Act, they’ve already made a big mistake.
Andrew Cohen, contributing editor at The Atlantic • Arguing against the Supreme Court’s refusal to broadcast the upcoming arguments over the Affordable Care Act. Cohen makes the case from something of a populist position, saying that to disallow or dissuade a broad swath of the American public from viewing the case, while Washington lobbyists and politicos fight for the right to pack the 400-seat room, represents an “unequal justice.” A worthwhile read on the access, and lack thereof, of common people to the functions of government. source (via • follow)

Obama warns the Supreme Court justices not to play activist with the health care law:

shortformblog:

“I am confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

The president chided Republicans for making “judicial activism” an election issue, by objecting to rulings ranging from the supreme court’s finding of a right to abortion to the recent striking down by federal judges of a referendum barring gay marriage in California, while pressing the judiciary to overturn the will of Congress.

“I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognise that and not take that step.”

While the court is certainly not looking the best today, what with this decision and all, is it really Obama’s spot to say this? Then again, Obama does have a history of criticizing the court when it comes to unpopular cases.

Activate the Mechanism!: Repealing ‘Obamacare’ Would Explode Debt, Says Government Auditor

sarahlee310:

abaldwin360:

A new report by an independent government auditor concludes that implementing President Obama’s health care law as intended will make a significant dent in the long-term debt forecast.

The report comes as Supreme Court justices weigh striking some of “Obamacare’s” central provisions — and perhaps the law in its entirety — and as the Republican Party remains committed to repealing the law if it seizes control of government in November.

“[I]f the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is implemented as intended it would have a major effect on the [fiscal] gap but would not eliminate it,” the Government Accountability Office wrote in a Monday report — a conclusion in line with its own past research and similar research conducted by other government and non-government analysts.

GAO doesn’t isolate PPACA’s stand-alone contribution to long-term budget consolidation. But it does conclude that if key cost-control measures in the law, and other automatic cuts to Medicare spending baked into current law, are ignored, or overridden by Congress, the implications for the national debt are vast.

If “Obamacare” is implemented as intended, and other measures, such as automatic payment cuts to Medicare physicians, take effect, “spending on Medicare and Medicaid grows from 5 percent of GDP in 2010 to over 7 percent by 2030.”

By contrast, if Congress overrides those provisions, “[s]pending on health care grows much more rapidly under this more pessimistic set of assumptions,” according to the report. “Absent changes to these programs, spending on Medicare and Medicaid under the Alternative simulation grows to over 8 percent of GDP by 2030.”

Congress has consistently passed temporary legislation to prevent Medicare doctors from experiencing a pay cut baked into current law. But the current patch expires on Jan. 1 — along with the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax holiday — just as other automatic cuts to Medicare are set to take effect as a penalty for the Super Committee’s failure to pass deficit-cutting legislation.

The confluence of these fiscal triggers suggests lawmakers will be forced to act quickly after the election to put the country’s budget on a more sustainable path. But if Republicans win big in November and move ahead with their plan to repeal the health care law, they’ll only make matters worse.

source

(via justinspoliticalcorner)

Source: abaldwin360

Conservative Scholar: Obamacare Should Be Upheld!!!

Yet another prominent conservative legal scholar has stepped forward to urge the Supreme Court to uphold health care reform as firmly within the court’s precedents.

In a column published on The New Republic’s website, Henry Paul Monaghan, a professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School, applauded the Supreme Court’s conservative justices for their aggressive questioning of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during oral arguments three weeks ago, but went on to “submit that sustaining the mandate would not give rise to the justices’ fears of boundless federal authority.”

Moreover, the market for health care is distinctive (if not entirely unique) in several key respects. Virtually all of us will need and obtain health care at some point, but we often cannot predict when or in what ways we will need it. And for the vast majority of us, direct payment for the health care services we obtain would be prohibitively expensive. Yet not obtaining needed medical care can be the difference between life and death.

These features help explain why, unlike many other markets, insurance is the overwhelmingly dominant means of payment in the health care market. They also explain why Congress has required that individuals be given emergency care without regard to their ability to pay. As a result, and again unlike other markets, uninsured individuals who are unable to pay directly for needed medical services necessarily shift the cost of those services to others — to health care providers, the government, individuals with insurance, and taxpayers.

In that way, Congress is not creating a market which it then seeks to regulate. The insurance-based structure of the health care market is already firmly in place. That is why it was well within Congress’s discretion to design legislation to operate within, and to address problems posed by, this vast market.

Monaghan’s arguments echo not only those made by the federal government in its briefs and at oral argument, but also those of the handful of other Reagan-era graybeards of the conservative legal movement who have backed Obamacare’s constitutionality in the two years leading up to the Supreme Court’s review. And as The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn points out, Monaghan’s conservative credibility is rock solid:

In 1985, Monaghan wrote a widely read and cited essay called “Our Perfect Constitution” that was critical of activist judges who used the document to justify expansions of individual rights. In 1986, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of Robert Bork, the arch conservative that former President Reagan tried (and failed) to place on the Court. In the fall of 2010, Monaghan defended the Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, which overturned part of the McCain-Feingold campaign law.

What makes Monaghan’s piece unique, however, is that it comes after the oral arguments in which the conservative justices upended conventional wisdom in their apparently enthusiastic embrace of the position put forward by the mandate’s challengers, despite the calls for restraint coming from right-of-center jurists who made their names decrying judicial activism.

Between the lines, Monaghan’s focus on the unique nature of the health care market reads like a direct appeal to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has never fully embraced judicial restraint as a core principle. Indeed, Kennedy appeared to lean heavily toward striking down the mandate at the oral argument before wavering at the very end.

“I think it is true,” Kennedy said, “that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”

Now one knows what the Court will decide, and none of us would presume to know. But if the Court strikes down all or part of the president’s health care law, there will be no spiking of the ball.

Part of a memo distributed by Speaker of the House of Representatives Republican John Boehner to the press and members of his party in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the Affordable Care Act. 

Read more…

(via tpmmedia)

Politwoops, a project by the Sunlight Foundation, has archived the celebratory, now-deleted tweets of Republican politicians who thought the individual mandate had been struck down.
Oops!

Source: The Huffington Post

Top