Suppose the Republicans and Democrats made a deal

[Tony_FLADEM]

This is totally hypothetical. Suppose they made a deal. The Democrats would give up their health care plan "Obama care" in return for the Republicans working to get rid of Citizens United.

I know this would never happen but if it did would you support it?


On Edit: Instead of "working on" the Republicans pass a constitutional amendment against citizens united and pass other laws making it more difficult for corporations and billionaires to influence the political process. In affect, making the Supreme Court ruling meaningless.

[Skidmore]

1. As far as accessibility to health care

I would have a hard time giving that one up since I would not be eligible for insurance otherwise. I think there would have to be some more calibrated deal. And I would never agree to wholesale give up something just for a tenuous promise from Republicans to "work" on getting rid of something they spent so much time in devising and pushing through. Republicans have taken Dems down the primrose path too many times.

[Drale]

2. No Citizens United will be over turned someday its only a matter of time

I would not have insurance with the Health Care law and if that is thrown out by the SCOTUS then they will have lost 100% credibility and they might even get run out of the country.

[Woody Woodpecker]

4. The Montana case could be the case that breaks CU's back

and ordered reversed and reinstate Feingold-McCain and make it even stricter in terms of campaign finance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. I have to believe ...

that CU will be overturned.

In my many years of studying and applying Constitutional Law, I can recall only a single instance in history, where a retired Justice that participated in a Decision, has been openly and frequently critical of the majority opinion.

The other instance was Bush v. Gore, which by the time Stevens had retired was a moot issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. How about no?

How about we not engage in hostage negotiations?

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. As cast ...

not only NO; but HELL NO!

"Democrats give up ...", while "Republicans working to ..."? Nope. That's what the gop offers now.

Furthermore, I am not willing to give up anything on "ObamaCare(s)" ... it benefits far too many people, right now!

[Wounded Bear]

6. That's a bad deal....bad proposal..

How about they give up Citizens United and we give up nothing?

Fuck 'em. They've pretty much welshed on every "deal" they've made, why would we trust them now anyway?

[patrice]

7. Absurd. 1st National Health Care is fast becoming an non-partisan cause. 2nd The fix for

Citizens United isn't nearly as simple as MoveOn wants us to believe, because their conventional course on that issue includes abridging FREE SPEECH in the 1st Amendment, something that even some of those opposed to corporate personhood are pretty uncomfortable with, and the long arduous ratification process is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from guaranteed, so your hypothetical deal would be trading two VERY unlike things.

Another thing about this is that current remedies to Corporate Personhood DO NOTHING about fundamental campaign corruption issues that brought us to Corporate Personhood in the first place, all they do is wind the clock back to the previous corrupt system-set point.

[patrice]

10. Non-partison amongst the grassroots that is. nt

[turtlerescue1]

9. It'll happen when pigs fly!

[msongs]

11. republicans demand and dems/obama cave in. nt

[JoePhilly]

12. No, GOP would find a way to undo the deal later.

[Swede Atlanta]

13. I have to agree that CU will eventually be overturned but....

I am not convinced it will be the Montana case. I still have to believe that those remaining on the Court that participated in the CU majority opinion do not want to lose face, in essence confirming the criticism Obama gave during his SOTU address. I think they will want more time to pass before overturning it. They might use the Montana case to narrow CU somewhat but overturn it now? I am not optimistic.

As for the ACA, they are going to do something negative to this piece of historic legislation. I do not know which would be worse, invalidating the entire law because without the funding mechanism of mandatory participation the rest of the law becomes unbalanced and unsustainable or simply invalidating the mandate and some other questionable provisions.

If they overturn the entire thing those that have already benefitted from the law will see things much more clearly. This could influence votes in the Fall. I do not think Obama will lose votes if the law is overturned. If anything I think he will pick up votes. Also a clean overturn would expose the only remaining option, the public option. We went the way of the greedy corporations by using the private insurance system to insure everyone. If we cannot do that then the only way to reduce costs, increase coverage and health outcomes will be a public option.

If only certain provisions are struck down we could be saddled with this "lipstick on a pig" version of health care reform for decades.

[Bake]

14. I'd make that deal.

But only if we could turn around and enact TRUE single-payer healthcare.

Bake

[SaB2012]

15. Boy! Talk about making a deal with the Devil!

[Skidmore]

16. A constitutional amendment requires ratification by all 50 states.

Given how much of the voting system is owned by big money, I don't trust this route much. This is too simplistic a trade off.

[Zalatix]

17. If the deal includes a Constitutional Amendment that mandates public funding for campaigns.

and no campaign contributions, gifts or private money to politicians of any sort, then I'll go for that.

So what if we ditch Obama Care? Medicare for All will replace it when We the People can no longer be overridden by corporate money.