It would be interesting

...if the election goes in one of these ways.
Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote. So Obama's last term is like Bush's first term.

or
This is not Obama's last election.
Imagine he loses by a close margin. Say Romney gets 50.1% and Obama gets 49.9% or it would be Romney 49.9% to Obama 49.8% with the remaining 0.3% going to third parties.

As a result there would be a call for Obama to run again in 2016

Election predictions

http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/romney-berry-election.aspx

When did this model get created? All the stories suggest that this was created and used in the past. Now if the model existed prior to the 1980 election and had been used prior to the election of 1980 and each subsequent president election since 1980 then I might give it some credence. If it used past elections to develop the model, then I would expect if it did not give accurate results of the past election it would have been worthless.

If the model was developed recently, then we are begging the question. Since the model would have been developed by analyzing past election results, economic factors and any other factors used. So when you say it is accurate, because of predicting the past elections, which were used to create it in the first place, you are begging the question.

I want more info on this, I would like to know when it was truly first used.

As We Know It

...as we know it.

I hear this once in awhile. Someone will say “Its the end of …as we know it.” What its the end of will vary, but I find my self annoyed by this statement. When used on talk shows, I would like the moderator to ask “So they are going to end 'it'? 'It' won't be there any more?” Because when it's used I don't believe they mean it is going to be eliminated. But I suspect they would like people to believe it is being eliminated. Instead it suggests that 'it' is being changed. But you never have to address the changes if everyone panics at the news of 'it' ending.

If you want to use it, lets talk about the changes being made.

Infrastructure

When I watch the Rachel Maddow, I hit pause as I go to the computer and check if the information presented is true. Some things just are odd. For example on June 13^th 2012, we are listening to Ezra Klein. Here is the transcript of his opening statement:
>> Biggest oddities in all professional sports. You ready? The great state of New York has three, count them, three different professional football teams. There’s the Buffalo Bills, the New York Jets and the New York Giants. One state, three football teams. Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team. I come from an hour south of L.A., which is not in itself a state but it also does not have a football team, quite to our annoyance but the great state of New York is blessed with three of them. The odd part, of the three New York NFL teams, only one of them plays in New York. The buffalo bills play in orchard park New York, right outside of buffalo. The jets and giants play not in New York but rather in New Jersey. That’s right. The New York Jets and the New York Giants are both based out of New Jersey.
I hit pause after he said “Now, there are 22 states that don't even have one NFL team.” I had to pause it because It seems like I recall hearing Chris Christie saying how one of the recent teams should be called the New Jersey Giants or Jets. So I looked it up to see that as a matter of fact, New York only has one football team. Despite keeping the New York in their name, the Jets and the Giants do not play or even have a their headquarters in New York, so it seems strange to complain about how New York is blessed with three, when as a matter of fact they have only one. Then he discusses how they do play in New Jersey, and does say they are ‘based’ in New Jersey.
This beginning was a bit misleading. I wondered what his point was. Why this complaint? Well this monologue was to lead mentioning of a water mane break out in front of MetLife stadium home of the Giants and Jets then to a discussion on focusing on infrastructure.
Here are his reasons.
We have construction workers who aren't productively employed. the unemployment rate in that sector is about 14%, it's a depression. The global slowdown has meant a slowdown in construction costs because raw materials are cheap because countries like china and India aren't using as many of them. We have factories lying dormant that could be making those materials and employing people to make those materials and we have money that is on the table to borrow for essentially less than nothing. let's be clear -- putting this stuff off is not fiscally responsible. it's like a dollar of borrowing, a dollar to pay later. when you delay the maintenance, that dollar today can become 50 tomorrow as a bridge you were going to fix has now collapsed. so we need to do it, it cheap to do it and it gives people jobs. it is an unbelievable deal. in any world we should be doing it and yet we're not. there be are some things in American politics and policy we should be having real armies about.
What I don't see here is any mention of the unemployment rate for civil engineers. It takes more than just the construction workers. Tear up a road and you will need adequate detours. It may require pre-construction in order to have detours ready. It is also pointless to tear up the road, if you will go back a few years later, in order to have more construction to deal with traffic issues. So you would first examine what changes could be made with traffic flow. Does the road need to be widen? Or does it need to be narrowed? You would need to prioritize projects, you won't be able to do all the projects at once. So you would need to study what roads need changing, then design it, get some government approval, and public feedback on the projects, besides getting financing, so it may be years before a project is shovel ready.
Oh and remember New York only has ONE football team.

commerce clause

So the question is who voted with Roberts on the Commerce Clause? Did the the four conservative Justices agree with him?

If Roberts is motivated by political pressure and media pressure, I wonder if he is being a bit passive and aggressive on his opinion. 

Health Insurance Tax Credit

The idea of taxing an individual who does not have insurance, seems to be a method of taxing never before seen.  Show me a tax where inactivity triggers it. Saying inactivity does not protect you from some type of tax ignores that activity would not also protect you.
The biggest problem is the tax is not big enough to make it an economic incentive to purchase Health Insurance. 
Provide an economic incentive by increasing everyone's income tax rate, and offering a Health Insurance Tax Credit. . Nothing prevents congress from raising income tax rates, and nothing would prevent them offering a tax credit. Inactivity does not trigger the tax.
It seems its doing it the same way, but you could have increased the tax on some to be higher than average cost.  But since the current method increases your tax when you don't purchase health insurance, and it could not be punitive by being higher than the price of insurance. But increasing a person tax rate can always be done. Looking back at National Taxpayer union website pulled (July 4th, 2012)
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html  We see rates of over 90 % at times for income over 200,000.
So Congress could increase the income tax rate, of all tax payers. The higher income levels would have their rates increased to a spot higher than the cost of insurance and lower income. The size of the credit would be income based.
A person with income above the poverty level, could have a larger credit, as you reach higher incomes they would receive a credit slight less.
Each year would be adjusting the tax rate and credit to best fit insurance rates.. Hoping the price of the insurance would go down over time. As the insurance pool would be increased and the amount needed to cover the cost of treatment would go down. Even the cost of treatment would go down as you may be able to get earlier diagnoses.
Stu Burguiere analysis would be correct. as soon as preexisting conditions are covered, companies would drop their insurance plans, setting up some money to cover some things, and then only have people part of the plan when they need the insurance.  But with this possibility, insurance rates would have to be increased for everyone. But that would drive people away from insurance and just pay the small fine. Could health insurance premiums be cut enough to encourage people to get the insurance over paying the fine?
I wonder if we could set up a game, an online game, and let people play out the effects of the health care laws. Call it SIM Insurance or SIM  Health Care, and maybe we could play out the effects of the law before we get to far in and find out we have major problems. I would enjoy playing this game.

listening to analysis of Supreme Court ruling

Now in trying to find a good analysis of this law, I hear one section brought up which is on page 37 of the ruling.

In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that “if the concept of penalty means anything,it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission.” United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) (“[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act”). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Government agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insurance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60–61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49–50 (Mar. 26,2012).

With the point being, This does not solve the preexisting condition problem. People could chose to pay the tax, which could never exceed the price of insurance, and only get insurance when needed.

So if Chief Roberts is a genius and is playing some great game of chess, this opinion will lead to the incredible future ruling (9-0) overturning the law.

This lawsuit was done by NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. This does not mean it must be the one and only lawsuit filed. Insurance companies can now file suit. Insurance companies claim harm by this law not fixing the preexisting issue, and could claim instead it destroys them.

Is OBAMACARE upheld? Would not the insur­ance companies be able to bring suit? Could some people sue later when they are paying the tax?

Some part of the decision has support while others seem to have a lot of decent. Is all the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts considered to be in effect? If Ginsburg Et Al (not sure if that is the proper use of it) descent on some part of the decision, does it have majority power? Is the the entire opinion of Roberts C. J. even if that section is only aggreed to by some?

Suppose in some decision lets say (Kramer v Kramer) in this decision we have four justices agreeing on one opinion, three on another opinion, and 2 on a third opinion. Who wins? The four? Or would the three and two person opinions be consider the majority?

I am also hearing that by having this declared as tax this eliminates the need to overcome a filibuster in overturning the law. This become part of budget reconciliation. So Chief Justice Roberts has made it easier to repeal.

Is Chief John Roberts playing chess? Or are people just trying to find some reason not to hate him and his opinion. It sounds like people are saying “Yea Yea he was playing a game a chess. He just being clever, he has plan, yea he has a plan for it never to be ever attempted ever again. See he's smart, he's thinking. Its all part of a big plan.”

Some people mention some part of it being a 7-2 ruling. I want to see a good box score on this case. I am not finding where this is. It is probably the case but not sure where this is at.