Firedoglake's Firebaggers Want to See ObamaCare Fail

     No real surprise here as someone who used to comment there regularly-till I got banned for something or other. To be sure David Dayen wrote a pretty good article about the SCOTUS fight over the ACA.

     This link was one Tuesday March 27. http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/27/conservatives-at-scotus-harshly-question-mandate-kennedy-probably-holds-deciding-vote/

     I know using words life "firebagger" seems problematic for some, but, when you come to it that's politics for you. In current America, you have the teabaggers on the Right, the Obamabots in the Center, and the firebaggers on the Left.

     Dayen's analysis was mostly spot on but then looking at the catty, snarky comments section reminds me of the good old days at FDL being the resident "Obamabot."

     TammanyTiger comes out with major snark, "So Verrilli did a terrible job."

     "As did the White House and the Democratic leadership in both Houses of Congress in coming up with this crap sandwich that Verrilli is trying to defend."

     "Just think: if the Court strikes down this awful bill, Barack Obama will go into the election with zero major legislative accomplishments. Whiffing on an entire presidential term is quite a feat."

       Sure, he whiffed an entire term. No accomplishments at all-he didn't kill Osama bin Laden and the economy didn't go from 10.1% unemployment losing 750,000 jobs a month down to 8.3% gaining over 200,000 jobs a month. But no doubt Tammany hopes it goes down as this is his fault, not the GOP Justices that vote against it-who were appointed by 'GOP Presidents. No, let's have Romney. He'll magically give us single payer.

     How about this from ECANhomics"

      "The other 8 are there to make you think there are 2 sides. On book salon a week or so ago, Ari Berman did not understand that O’s appointees are conservatives whose job is to vote the other side so voters won’t recognize how conservative they are until O is reelected, and appoints some real horror shows in his second term. (Wonder if Herman Cain is available.)"

       Yeah, love the logic. We should work hard to help the Republicans win this election to avoid Herman Cain. If Obama hires conservatives who vote liberal-then doesn't this kind of make them liberal? Again, the upside down logic.

       Shutterbuggery, goes off on a fantastic conspiracy theory:

        "Ever think Verrilli was *supposed* to do a terrible job? That way everybody gets a piece of the Victory Pie."

        Ok, so Obama desires "to whiff"he's deliberately taking a dive. Finally revisionist gives us what I think is the true FDL  general line:

       " I think it actually paves the way to SINGLE PAYER.The court striking this down is the best possible outcome IMO."

       Sure. If ACA goes down many people who are finally gaining health insurance, including women will lose it again, but it's all to the good, righteous firebagger cause-wanting to see Obama fail. I remember how mad they got over there when I pointed out that this desire they share with Rush Limbaugh. I mean can Mitch McConnell desire that Obama be a one term President more than the firebaggers?

     Somehow people with preexisting conditions losing benefits is going to magically give us the vaunted single payer, which is the only thing firebaggers find acceptable. It's all or nothing. If we can't have single payer in it's entirety today, well let's not do anything at all to help the 53 million uninsured Americans.

    I'm sure that if only Obama would fail universal Justice, Goodness, and Mercy will reign eternal upon the earth. I mean Mitt Romney telling an audience that "no, we don't play that game" of helping anyone without an ability to pay for insurance is a step up over the individual mandate.

    The logical way to proceed is the shortest distance between to points. What we learn from firebaggers is that the shortest distance to universal health care is not do anything that improves things if it doesn't immediately grant universal health care. No matter that by this logic we would never have had Social Security-in it's initially passed version in 1935, only about 5% of Americans were covered and it wasn't slated to start till 1942.

     So if ACA covers more than 50% of the uninsured that's not good enough and we shouldn't procced-there's no way that it could ever be extended in time like Social Security was. We don't care if women have already gotten help from it, and if many have already benefited. What we need to do is snatch it away from them, elect Mitt Romney, and start from the beginning. I'm sure that if the Republicans could only get all three houses of government we will have single payer by the evening of Romney's first day.

    We should also take away the new right that ACA gives the states to offer single payer or public option if they like. All that matters is seeing that Obama fails, gloating about his "whiffs" and this will magically give us single payer. Could road between Romney being elected and single payer be any clearer and straightforward?