ObamaCare Is Likely To Die a Painful Death
On September 28th, the Obama administration filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of the ObamaCare decision rendered by the Eleventh Circuit on August 11th. That decision held the mandatory insurance provisions of the statute unconstitutional while allowing the rest to stand. As noted in a ScotusBlog article,
Seeking en banc review in the Eleventh Circuit would have made sense only if the government was going to press the Supreme Court to defer reviewing the constitutional question until next Term (including by denying review of the pending Sixth Circuit case). So, the United States would have been making a choice to delay a final answer – because Supreme Court review is inevitable – for a year. I expect that the agencies involved strongly resisted that delay, and the Solicitor General decided that the upside of potentially getting the panel opinion reversed was not actually that great, because any victory could itself be temporary.
The author of the ScotusBlog article also observes,
Different factors almost certainly had different weight for the various government lawyers involved. But I think there is a simpler and more straightforward answer. In situations like these, politics is never completely absent. But the government tends to act in its institutional interests first, and the interest of a particular Presidential Administration second. (emphasis added)
Really? During the current administration?
Petitions have also been filed by those opposing ObamaCare, and apparently all hope that the Court will render a decision well in advance of the November 2012 elections. The Court seems likely to do so.
There appear to be four possible Supreme Court results:
1. Reject the insurance mandate but leave the balance of ObamaCare standing.
2. Uphold ObamaCare.
3. Reject ObamaCare completely,
4. Release no decision until after the election.
I have attempted to rank these possibilities from most to least likely, not based on any attempt to read the minds of the justices but on what lower courts have done, my understanding of ObamaCare, and perceptions of the present state of the law. Numbers two and three seem to be nearly tied, although number two may have a remotely better chance. All but number four — which might leave them unchanged — would add to President Obama’s reelection problems. For the Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit that the mandate is unconstitutional and to allow the rest of the law to remain standing would be the worst possible outcome for for President Obama. That is what all judges who have found the individual mandate unconstitutional have done, with one exception.
It is suggested in “How Obama could win if ObamaCare loses,” published on September 29th, that if the Supreme Court finds the individual insurance mandate unconstitutional prior to the 2012 elections it could be helpful to the president by removing ObamaCare as a campaign issue.
The author argues,
By urging an expedited review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the president knows that the politics cuts his way. If the court strikes down the plan, then Obama won’t have to defend it in the fall campaign, robbing the Republicans of one of their two lines of attack, the other being the moribund economy. He could rally his base by arguing that he had pushed through a great “progressive” reform only to be foiled by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. People, like markets, hate uncertainty, and the presumed swing vote by Justice Kennedy could settle the issue.
It is suggested here that such a decision could “remove a thorn in the electorate’s side.” However, that seems more likely to wiggle the thorn around in an irritating way and thereby reinforce the views of those who consider it bad law and an expensive blunder for reasons transcending its constitutional implications.
What Obama might have in mind is beyond me; it often is. However, with a Supreme Court determination of unconstitutionality, and the demise of the entire law (as per Judge Vinson), there would be substantial debate in the time remaining before the elections about how best to deal overall with national health care.
Following the rejection only of the insurance mandate, the administration would have to hustle during the heat of the election season to try to explain how ObamaCare can be made viable without the mandate. That would be very difficult if not impossible. Perhaps “free” government-provided health care or subsidized health care would be a way. For many reasons, however, including the costs of and general disenchantment with entitlement programs, that would be very difficult to sell to the voters.
There are many who seem to view ObamaCare as very bad.
According to a Rasmussen poll released on September 19th,
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, with 44% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-six percent (36%) at least somewhat oppose repeal, including 26% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
These findings are virtually identical to two weeks ago. A majority of voters have favored repeal of the law in every survey but one since the measure was passed by Congress in March of last year.
Should the Supreme Court uphold the individual mandate, and therefore the rest of ObamaCare, that might be a plus for the Obama administration. The author of the “How Obama Could Win” article contends,
If Obama wins the judicial appeal, it will still be a win for him along the lines of today’s conventional thinking. He will be able to argue that the Administration always knew Obamacare was constitutional, and the expedited review will muffle the issue in the general-election campaign.
However, in view of the bad odor the law is perceived to have, it might well intensify demands by those generally adverse to ObamaCare for the Congress to eliminate the mandate along with the rest of the statute as bad policy, as distinguished from simply because of the unconstitutionality of the mandate. That could easily make ObamaCare an even more compelling campaign issue than now.
The individual mandate is ObamaCare’s tombstone cornerstone.
Judge Vinson, in Florida v. Health and Human Services, held it unconstitutional and, on the basis that the balance of the law is patently unworkable without the mandate, dispatched the entire beast, constitutional as well as unconstitutional parts alike. Unlike other judges, he held that since ObamaCare is unworkable without the mandate, the Congress did not want it to go forward in that debilitated condition. He found that the absence of a severance clause in the final legislation, along with the presence of one in earlier versions, compelled this conclusion. Others have not gone that far, concerned that to do so would encroach unduly on the prerogatives of the legislative branch.
Judge Vinson’s reasoning that the mandate is the cornerstone of ObamaCare is difficult to escape. For example, he noted that
the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act’s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].”
He had previously observed,
the defendants concede that the [individual mandate] is absolutely necessary for the Act’s insurance market reforms to work as intended. In fact, they refer to it as an ‘essential’ part of the Act at least fourteen times in their motion to dismiss.” Thus, the only question is whether the Act’s other, non-health-insurance-related provisions can stand independently or whether they, too, must fall with the individual mandate.
Reviewing congressional intent, Judge Vinson stated,
Although many of the remaining provisions, as just noted, can most likely function independently of the individual mandate, there is nothing to indicate that they can do so in the manner intended by Congress.
. . . .
[T]he individual mandate was indisputably essential to what Congress was ultimately seeking to accomplish. It was, in fact, the keystone or lynchpin of the entire health reform effort.
Without the individual mandate, unless the Congress takes over where the Supreme Court leaves off and repeals the remainder of ObamaCare, it will have to do more than provide substantial additional funding. As Judge Vinson stated,
If Congress intends to implement health care reform — and there would appear to be widespread agreement across the political spectrum that reform is needed — it should do a comprehensive examination of the Act and make a legislative determination as to which of its hundreds of provisions and sections will work as intended without the individual mandate, and which will not.
For the present Congress, particularly during the months leading up to the election, to take up extended debates over what to do to unravel the ObamaCare mess without the mandate would significantly diminish Obama’s already declining chances of winning. It might even chasten some of the dwindling numbers of Obama’s true believers who have yet to figure out what went wrong. A “comprehensive examination of the Act” – Obama’s naked tree left standing but devoid of roots and likely to be blown down — should be the last thing Obama desires during the 2012 campaign.
The voters have already been provided a surfeit of equine fecal matter and seem likely to reject additional servings. Now, there is no Nancy Pelosi — who was instrumental in passage of ObamaCare and reigns supreme as the most unpopular member of Congress — to tell us authoritatively that we will find out what a revised bill means after it has been passed.
Nor is there another Nancy to reject as frivolous any notion that a revised ObamaCare might raise constitutional questions.
Nor, during congressional consideration of a new and revised ObamaCare without the individual mandate, is President Obama likely to be able, with a straight face, to demand that it — whatever “it” turns out to be — be passed “right now.”
As with any aspect of the American economy as complex and big as health care, focus on how to fix ObamaCare will necessarily focus on the present state of the economy. According to a Gallup poll released on September 30, 48 percent of Americans view the Republicans as doing a better job of keeping the country prosperous; only 39 percent view the Democrats in that light.
If Obama seriously hopes to have a second term then increasing the focus on our fragile economy through an examination of the inner guts of ObamaCare is hardly a desirable strategy.
Anything short of rejecting ObamaCare completely would tell me that (1.) not only is the Supreme Court is willing to ignore the Constitution, but (2.) also they do not mind how much Obama insults their intelligence and slaps them around in front of the entire world.
Obama is betting that he has more power than Congress, the Constitution and the will of the American people combined. He is daring the Supreme Court into a Chicago mentality level street fight so he can sucker punch them at will thanks to the liberal media.
Make no mistake about it, that is the politics involved at this time.
The Supreme Court should throw Obamacare out in less than 5 minutes. If they don’t then our country is in a lot worse shape than anyone can imagine.
Last, considering the sheer volume of Obama’s garbage, if the Republicans can’t defeat him without Obamacare as an issue then they damn well deserve to loose the election.
YOU touch upon an interesting point; That being that in the history of our government, they have never failed to take an existing problem and make it worse. This is usually through politicking everything instead of understanding and adhering to the will of the people.
My theory is this: That the government, if a republican control is seized, will come up with a “compromise” that sucks almost as bad as O-dumbass-care. By that, I mean, it will sound like a “good deal” but be just as rife with bureaucracy, checks and balances so as to be unworkable in the practical sense; Where people who had an excellent healthcare plan will now have to put up with a severely crippling process to get a cavity filled, and I’m not talking about the actual procedure.
Both republicans and democrats love bureaucracy; It allows them to look powerful without ever having to take the blame for anything and also allows them to hide behind layers and layers of “administrators” and “cubicle monkeys”. In other words, you’ll never be able to get to the person responsible for making the decisions that make your life more troublesome.
Remember, the number one purpose of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate that bureaucracy.
On the other hand, it may be possible that with republican control of both houses and the white one, the people of the nation may come out ahead. But don’t count on it. With “great compromisers” in the republican side, it’s very likely we’ll just get another turd sandwich.
What’s been amazing to me and a real eye-opener is the complete lack of character the republicans have displayed at all the lawbreaking the left is doing. “Gee, don’t wanna make any waves…might get called a racist…can’t have that.” I’ll bet Daryll Issa is being looked at with a huge stink-eye by Boner and McLame both. I’m sure Jim DeMint is as well.
The ruling elites don’t like it when people (real, true mavericks, not that guy from Arizona) speak the truth and this is because it then forces the ruling elites to have to DO THEIR JOBS and they would much rather sit in the anteroom and smoke cigars and drink brandy with their fellow snobs.
After all, they’re now at the “peak” of their careers, doing nothing and getting paid for it and who wants to ruin that?
My argument and battle is not “class warfare” but against the elites who go to D.C. and get entrenched in a cushy, comfy limousine, aide-infested world and then insulate themselves from the people who put them there. Democrats and Republicans alike, though it’s especially angering when republicans do it.
I submit that we don’t have a problem in government, per se but more of a psychological problem with a couple of generations of people who think they know what government is…but they are also stunted in their maturity and ability to clearly focus on task-driven things. This may be why they’re in government to begin with. Mentally lazy people seek out that which will give them maximum attention and empty “achievement lockers”. But at the same time, they think they’ve actually accomplished a great deal by simply sitting in an elected seat for a large number of years.
Look at the drunk from Massachusetts. He “accomplished” absolutely zero. But he sat his fat-ass in that chair for several decades. The fellow ruling elites think that that was some mark of positive distinction and all bowed in his presence, democrat and republican alike.
Remember the gasps when Joe Wilson called out “You lie” and remember what the republicans did to him? Shoot, I didn’t talk to an American that day who DIDN’T agree with Wilson. So, he spoke for the American people and was punished for it? Hey, this isn’t Albert Hall and this isn’t Her Majesty’s Parliament. Joe spoke up, spoke the truth but the ruling elite smacked him down…but he has my vote again and again and again because he did speak up.
All through the last 40 years, people have somehow convoluted animated disagreement with something unfavorable and to be avoided. They liken it to violence, I guess and they’re of the same ilk that wanted to take “The Great Pumpkin” off the air because Lucy threatens Linus. I won’t get all into that but for crying out loud….people….if one is censured for showing obvious displeasure with the ruling elites…then we have a long, arduous task in front of us.
I have this sick feeling that the Supreme Court will reject the insurance mandate but leave the balance of ObamaCare standing. True, the rejection of the mandate will kill the financing for Obamacare, but unless the rest of the law is repealed, you could have a horrific mess where you have this huge insurance bureaucracy ready to go into operation and no way to fund it. If the Democrats in the Senate will not repeal it, that could very well be the mess we are facing throughout 2012, until a Republican is in the White House.
And what if the Republicans do NOT get control of both houses of Congress in 2012? That mess could just stay in place draining hundreds of billions of dollars with absolutely no way of pay for it. I guess a Republican president could stop it with an Executive Order, but that will not be permanent, so the whole thing could come back to life, like a vampire, with the next Democratic president.
I think this could be a huge problem if the Supreme Court only finds the mandate unconstitutional. It would be like having a Medicare program but with no way to pay for it. Talk about going broke. That would be the way to do it.
Even if Republicans gain control of the Senate in 2012, they are unlike to have a filibuster-proof majority, so they will still have to compromise with the Dems and will be unable to throwout the balance of Obamacare completely. Of course, Reid showed us how to use a simple majority vote the other day to eliminate the minority’s options, so if the Republicans have the nerve, they will follow that model.
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
Ah, but old Harry Reid just pulled a blunder in the Senate that will make it possible to repeal obamacare even WITH the threat of the filibuster. He used the so-called “nuclear option” to change Senate rules with a simple majority. He’s set the precedent for the next Majority Leader. So when the Republicans offer the repeal bill and the democrats threaten the filibuster, the new Majority Leader can use the same nuclear option, and pass the bill with a simple majority vote. Dingy Harry will rue the day he pulled this crap.
“We’ll have to nuke this bill in order to find out what’s in it.”
Sounds about right.
Never bring a knife to a gunfight. But will the republicans have the ‘nads to do it? My god the cries of racism, “killing old people” taking healthcare away from “undocumented people”…etc., etc. I truly hope the American people have grown tired of this one-string-banjo.
The “Occupy Wall Street” types have put a face to the national socialists…and they are collectively ignorant as well as stupid. These are the people who will cry the loudest when the healthcare bill goes in the trash.
But before that, the republicans in office to vehemently and loudly denounce it has not been a great number. I still fear that after all the rhetoric to get elected, the guy who’s chosen will renege on the promise and let the bill stand. But, if there’s pressure from house and senate republicans, then it should die a very ignominious death.
I say let it die and if it moves, shoot it again. Then drive a stake through its heart, then burn it, then grind it into little unrecognizable pieces, then burn it again, then put it in a nuke and fire it at the Sun.
And anyone who even entertains the notion of “national healthcare” be declared a traitor and enemy of the state and be sent to Canada, Great Britain, France or any other country that has it.
It must never see the light of day. But instinct tells me that it will keep coming back…like herpes and it will hurt and itch every time it does and it will never completely go away.
That’s what the marxists are going for. They calculate the court will not throw the entire law out. The Liar in Chief will then claim that he has busted his butt for “the people” and an elite fringe group has thrwarted him. It will fire up his base. If he gets them to turn out, and then he gets another percent or two above the usual 5% from cheating, he can get reelected.
None of it has the slightest thing to do with health care or what is good for th country. It’s 100% about the election.
Knowing how this current corrupt Administration works, I believe they would have gone for a delay if they didn’t know that they had bought or threatened away any dissent on the court.
I didn’t used to be quite this cynical, but Obama has taught me to believe and think this way.
do not count your chickens before they hatch.
The highly fallible and political supreme court ruled for about 70 years that slavery was OK, legal, and blacks were property.
The supreme court ruled that coercing, forcing workers to join a union was constitutional, despite the clear cut fact that this is a violation of a fundamental individual rights, that it is blatantly unconstitutional, and frankly, immoral. For if an individual can be coerced to join a union, then why not a political party or any other organization?? Does not forcing an individual to join a union deprive that person his/her CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right NOT to join any organization he/she choses not to join? How is this any different than living under a tyranny??
Supreme Court judges are oft times politicians in drag – judicial robe drag that is. There is no way to tell what they will rule.
Look out! It’s a “NOOSE”! On the same page as Obama’s name!
Prepare for a visit from the DOJ, Mr. Miller.
Nah, they’ll just send out a very junior couple of Special Agents who will start the conversation, “I’m sorry to bother you, sir, but we have received a report of a threat and we are required to investigate everyone, no matter how stupid . . . er, remote.”
When Obama care is defunded and the law declared unconstitutional be aware America. Pieces of Nancy P. will be polluting our air space as she implodes and self distructs.
I would love to see that. I have a hat and a broom and a dustpan. So my head is protected and I am ready to help clean up the mess she makes.
[tinfoil hat] Is it possible that the administration would be comfortable with SCOTUS striking down Obamacare? After all, the majority of US citizens oppose it and it’s an albatross around Obama’s neck. If SCOTUS strikes it down, that rallying point is gone but Barry still gets credit for “having tried”. He also avoids the steady drip, drip, drip of negative news as the bill’s disastrous effects on Americans become evident. Call me crazy but I think that’s why they hurried it to SCOTUS. [/tinfoil hat]
It’s certainly interesting to speculate on SCOTUS, but if the only hope of overturning Obamacare lies with them then we have already lost. As recently as 3 some years ago, elections mattered in this country. A reasonable person might suppose that if the GOP wins the upcoming elections, then they could just repeal Obamacare regardless of how the Supreme Court rules. It’s become clear to me, however, that the GOP has absolutely no intention of doing that. The Presidential candidates aren’t even bothering to give lip service to repeal anymore. (And don’t give me the filibuster argument about the Senate. If the GOP wins they could use the same dirty “deemed to pass” tricks that the Dems did to repeal. The fact is they simply don’t want to.)
My bet would be that SCOTUS issues their typical half-@$$ wishy-washy baloney deeming parts of the law don’t meet their approval while other parts are fine. This gives them perpetual license to re-insert themselves into the legislative process anytime they wish. Meanwhile SG-1’s prediction unfolds and the GOP in their very short time in power passes a bunch of “compromises” to enrich their crony contributors while the bulk of the taxes and regulations and bureaucracies remain in place. I’ve already begun to accept the fact that the GOP has abjectly surrendered on this issue and I’d advise everyone else to do the same and avoid the inevitable disappointment that comes in 2013.
Repealing ObamaCare would require a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Because I guarantee you that when (not if) the GOP takes over the Seante, the same liberals who kept denouncing the filibuster as “obstructionist” and “undemocratic” when Republicans were using it, are suddenly going to discover how the filibuster is a wonderful tool to thwart “the tyranny of the majority.” And they will filibuster to death any attempts by the GOP to repeal ObamaCare.
Even with the few remaining Blue Dog Dems like Ben Nelson, the chance that the GOP can get 60 votes for cloture is very low.
Just this week Harry Reid pulled a stunt to change the rules of the Senate by a simple majority:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186365-gop-vows-retaliation-after-reid-uses-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules
A GOP majority could do the same in 2013 and repeal Obamacare, but they won’t. Don’t believe this filibuster nonsense. It’s the excuse the GOP is going to use to do nothing.
Yup, Dingy Harry did it and I hope he lives to regret it. However, when the republicans have to do it to dematerialize obamacare, I can already hear the squealing from the left. They are writing the scripts for it now.
However, it still has a chance to remain a law. Prohibition, another attempt at managing the people and morality was doomed to failure but lived a very long life, 1920-1933. It had proponents on both sides of the government and oddly, one of the more significant factors of it’s rescission was the desire for the government to bring in tax dollars through the sale of alcohol, part of the argument behind legalizing pot, albeit a flawed premise.
But if this bill is allowed to stand, it will evolve into more socialist control over the US and eventually, certain people in the US may be traveling abroad to even other socialist nations for better healthcare. However, the US has already seen to it that that would be illegal and, most likely, punishable in a variety of ways.
However, it probably cannot live a very long life since what people will be paying in taxes vs. what we already pay in healthcare costs will triple or quadruple or more, then the advent of ever-increasing control over what we do, eat, where we go, etc will become intolerable and, as I’ve said before, Americans take unique resentment at being told what to do.
One potential irony to this whole thing is that it may be the left, the national socialists themselves who end up being the most annoyed at being denied healthcare because they like to eat fattening foods, smoke cigarettes, or refuse to take the prescribed (required) inoculations, such as an annual flu shot. Yup, they will most likely be the ones who scream the loudest.
They will, of course, have me and many people like me by their side. But I predict that the national socialists have created a monster that they have no idea how to manage. In their minds, it’s a “perfect plan” because all the money will come to the government coffers. But as that happens, they also think that the public will just acquiesce. I say not so.
Their choices at that point will be forced abeyance through legal penalty, and later, violence. I refer again to prohibition…when overzealous and inexperienced law officers killed harmless people brewing their own alcohol at home. This did not set well with the public, as much as the government tried to keep it quiet (sound familiar?).
And, Americans are armed. The number of firearms privately owned in the US is astronomical. If the government thinks that the military will blindly follow orders to keep the public under control, they are dead wrong. The military is an all-volunteer force, who come from civilian life…a creation of the left, by the way, which demanded that obligatory military service be eliminated. So, there are few, if any, malcontents in the military and they joined, more often than not, in need of a job and 2)having an unusually high level of patriotism and desire to serve and serve well. I sincerely doubt the military would fire against civilians.
Additionally, the national socialists, namely Obama, has said he wants a “national force” that’s “as strong and as well-armed as the military”. Well, right there, if he attempts to create such a thing, the US military will be forced by their oaths to destroy them, so they are the only “civilians” the military would fire on.
The healthcare thing, which has nothing to do with health or care, but everything about statist control, might survive for a short period of time. But when compared to Europe, where they could do it for a great many years until they found out that they ran out of other people’s money (ours), we in the US don’t have that external income to afford us a long-lived national healthcare plan. Indeed, one of the democrats’ stumbling blocks was how to pay for it…which is where the mandatory insurance or face a fine idea comes in, because without an imposed crippling tax on the people, especially to pay for the 43% who don’t pay taxes, would destroy the nation and not just economically. This is what Obama meant when he said to “fundamentally transform this nation”. This was his big frakkin’ idea. His pie-in-the-sky, sold under a false pretense and shoved through the slot in the middle of the night around Christmas.
There are some parts of the ObamaCare that are good; particularly the part that strengthens the ability of the feds to go after Medicare & Medicaid fraud. Would hate to see that go away; or have to again go through Congress.
As for the Republicans getting the White House and both houses of Congress next year, that is a real possibility. I wonder if they will have learned the lesson from 2001-2007 when Bush never vetoed a single spending bill and the Repubs went wild with the spending, doubling the national debt. I certainly don’t want a repeat of that.
The republicans haven’t learned a thing. Zero, Zilch, Nada!
The CBO reported yesterday that with the Draconian Cuts implemented by the republicans in the Budget Deal, (you remember, the Budget Deal where 60 Billion equaled 100 Billion because of the pro-rating gimic no one mentioned in 2010, then equaled 38 billion then equaled 375 million that budget deal) the budget for 2011 went UP!
Unless and until the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Publick Radio, Public Broadcasting System, National Endowment for the Humanities and National Endowment for the Arts are no longer receiving Federal Funds expect absolutly NOTHING New from the Republicans.
It’s hard to stand up without a spine!
They took out the severability clause when writing Obama care so that judges could not remove the unconstitutional parts and leave the ones Congress is allowed under the Constitution. That is going to bite big time.
Obama already has his bully boys out collapsing the private health industry anticipating that the judges might accept tyranny if repealing it meant a loss of health care. But the decision on Obama care is coming too fast for him. If the decision is made early in the year the 2012 election maybe an election may be voted without jobs or healthcare.
My fear is the severability clause will be simply be ignored – just as the Eleventh Circuit did. The Supreme Court, wise and diverse does not seem likely to be bounded by what is written.
Four pages of analysis of how the supreme court will rule, without citing any recent supreme court cases. I give this paper an F. Basing your expectation of the decision on how the District Courts ruled is complete nonsense. The people who brought the cases would have forum shopped for the most friendly district before bringing the claim. Even then, the opponents to Obama Care are batting less than fifty percent. Four of the Justices are on the liberal slant and four are on a conservative slant. The real question, is how Kennedy will vote.
It is so sad to see the author of this article cheer the end of legislation that will bring free wellness to millions of Americans. It’s like the author is actually a cheerleader for ripping wellness from the bosoms of African-America children (or what a neocon would term a “negro baby”), to slowly watch them die from disease, rotting away in some inner city alley, amongst the empty bottles of malt liquor and crumbled Kool cigarette boxes. As I did in a previous post, I will vent my helplessness and despair into the form of a Haiku:
no medical care for Re-run
inner city child
diseased!
where’s dad?
playing dice?
Despair!
Obama?
mulatto Brother-man?
free healthcare?
Yes, I’m in homey!
Dick Cheney?
Milky white disease spreader!
I hope I can reach just one neocon with my art.
“Free wellness”?? There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pony up the funds for any healthcare, whether it’s preventative or acute care. Doctors and hospitals won’t work for free; they have to eat too. Pharmaceutical companies won’t manufacture drugs for free, nor will alternative care practitioners work for free either. Free wellness as you define it merely puts all those disadvantaged black citizens onto Uncle Sam’s plantation, paid for by the working populace, the 53% that pay any taxes. Putting a whole class of people into the situation of being dependent on the hand-outs from others is no way to teach them to become independent and self-sufficient.
Anyone who works for wages is to some degree in slavery to their employer, but the difference is that indenture is freely chosen and can be as freely changed, should the person decide their employer is too difficult to work for. The choice is the worker’s hands. But when you are on welfare (in all its various forms) you have no choice at all; “he who pays the piper calls the tune” is still as true today as it ever was.
LovelyEarth,
You want MORE free healthcare for “African-American children?” Medicaid isn’t enough for you? Reach in your own damned pocket to pay for it, you socialist thief. Keep your larcenous, redistributive hands off MY wallet!
LEarth – do you have an actual job or do you just spend all your time surfing the internet and posting out-of-date drivel using terms like “neocon”? How do you feed yourself? I don’t believe for an instant that you know how to grow a tomato in real dirty dirt, using actual unfiltered H2O water.
I misread the title of this article as “Obama is likely to die a painful death.” I have to say it was disturbing.
I wonder if they did this because Ruth BaderGinsburg’s days are numbered, so this is their best shot.
In my opinion, all the hair splitting lawyers do “governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed” and we have never consented to this. Lots of cities and states refuse to comply with the patriot act and immigration laws, too. Unity is very elusive now.
The wall that SCOTUS has to define is the extent of the commerce clause. My skepticism says that no power bearing form of government would willing become self limiting. That would require altruism, empathy, and faith in the American people and constitution.
The Obamacare was never about the health of individuals, nor lowering the cost of the health care curve. It, like the rest of the “economic” policies, was about centralizing and increasing the federal government.
David Frum, alleged Republican, has been hard at work helping Obama, Romney and Huntsman invent an alternative financing mechanism for ObamaCare in case the mandate is struck down by the Supremes.
Frum’s proposal is to replace the mandate with a generous tax credit to be used only for the purchase of health insurance. So instead of ObamaCare mandating Americans to buy health insurance, “FrumCare” would give Americans a financial incentive to buy health insurance.
Of course, such a generous tax credit–thousands of dollars for every breadwinner–is going to blow another big hole in the Federal budget. And it’s essentially an indirect subsidy to the insurance companies, with the breadwinner acting as the middleman.
“David Frum, alleged Republican, has been hard at work helping Obama, Romney and Huntsman invent an alternative financing mechanism for ObamaCare in case the mandate is struck down by the Supremes.”
If this is true, it would implode the candidacies of Romney & Huntsman. Show me the link.
I’m confident SCOTUS will reach the decision that is most at odds with what Americans want and the Constitution demands.
TERM LIMIT ALL FEDERAL JUDGES- 10 YEARS
amen, with an option for Congress to oveturn court decisions if 75% of the representatives say so.
So you do not like our constitution? I thought the Tea Party stood for the constitution. If you just want to take a big red pen to the constitution, you should say so more openly.
It’s called an “amendment”, bozo. Amendments are used to say, “ooops” to laws that don’t work out as planned, or, in this case, that were rammed through on a reluctant majority by an over-eager and untested minority. Such as repeal of Prohibition, which anyone from CHicago should know all about. I’m guessing you are a womyn’s studeez major and never learned how to either think for yourself, nor to research things like law and history.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The word that needs using is Effete in describing these mealy-mouthed enemies of our great nation, the dems and libs who would bring it down. EFFETE!!
ef·fete /ɪˈfit/ 1. lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent: an effete, overrefined society.
2. exhausted of vigor or energy; worn out: an effete political force.
3. unable to produce; sterile.
If you would talk about the elite, then speak of our SEALS and rangers, our Marines and soldiers. Speak of our firemen and most police. Never ever again use this term of honor when refering to the treasonous traitors in our midst!!
e·lite /ɪˈlit, eɪˈlit/ 1. ( often used with a plural verb ) the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons.
2. ( used with a plural verb ) persons of the highest class: Only the elite were there.
This may have been mentioned above…
“The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.”
The Paper is Flying
Newt Gingrich and a thing or two about courts
I will believe obamacare is dead when I see our politicians have killed it. I will probably be dead before that happens with king obama still at the helm.
No one should count any chickens before they hatch. Everyone was convinced that SCOTUS would slap down the eminent domain case. A number of “conservative” judges gave us the infamous Kelo decision. They may very well side with congress and give us another infamous decision.
“ObamaCare Is Likely To Die a Painful Death”
Better it than us.
The American people never wanted this. It (all 1,000+ fine-print pages of it) was crammed down our throats by every underhanded means available to Chairman Obama and the Reid/Pelosi Congress.
Our nation is presently in debt by many trillions of dollars. Trillions. Who among us honestly believes that now is the time to add a new entitlement program (ObamaCare) that will make the (unfunded) Social-Security program look like a shrimp boat?
The only sensible response to all of this speculation is, we’ll see. The logic of the Supreme Court is often tortured or from an alternate inverted universe.
my best friend’s mom makes $77 an hour on the computer. She has been out of job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here LazyCash4.com
Too many of you folks are still complaining about the MSM. Again its over for them, they squandered their credibility over the last decade. It is over, the coming generations do not use media the same as the old folks in my generation. Now my old folks have seen the light, they are now known as the TEA PARTY. The MSM can play to themselves all they want, but their run is over. They are lost in their own punditry, they are playing to themselves and about a two dozen zip codes.
Go one about the business of getting rid of what will likely turn out to be the mist corrupt administration ever.
Check “6″
Concerned we do not even know the worst about ObamaProgressiveCare. But one section with free, no co-pay for preventative care is insane. If 50% of eligible patients use the free services that will take 50% of physicians time. When will they have time to see us and bill. ObamaProgressiveCare is a direct attack on doctors and they did not resist much and were sold out by the AMA.
Now we have FrankDodd to deal with. tens of thousands of new govt employees and tens of billions to implement. But the media, not even FOX, is digging into the nightmare that is FrankDodd. Thanks to FrankDodd and Durban for the increase charges for debit card use but Walmart thanks them.
Not sure there is a Republican Candidate smart enough to develop the most important issues. Protectionism and tariffs are insane and they and the senate seem heading that direction. we is screwed…pogo
The Supremes have refused to hear any of the lawsuits regarding Obozo’s eligibility to be POTUS, I doubt they have the courage to rule Obamacare is unconstitutional.
We MUST remove the Marxist in the Oval Office & elect a GOP Majority in the Senate & re-elect a GOP Majority in the House come 11/6/2012 and DEMAND that Obamacare be repealed in 2013. PERIOD
NOBAMA 2012
“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.” P.J.O’Rourke
Amigos – I think there almost 30 states that have filed suit again Obamocare. SCOTUS needs to be very careful as I think only 33 states are needed per Article V to call a convention for the purpose of amendments. I do not think SCOTUS will wish to open that can of worms. Any thoughts?
Obamacare’s Selective Waivers and Exemptions
There are hundreds, thousands, of problems with the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, hundreds of millions of problems, in fact, depending on America’s population at the moment.
Passed on Christmas Eve, 2009 by the Democrat Senate and by Democrats in the House on March 21, 2010 with zero Republican support in either body and signed by President Barack Hussein Obama two days later, Obamacare, as it has unaffectionately become known, was acclaimed by Vice President Joe Biden as “a big f*cking deal.”
With or without the asterisk Biden didn’t use, it was “a big f*cking deal,” and more.
Assuming the Supreme Court decrees PPACA constitutional, when it is fully implemented by 2014, Obamacare will be an even bigger deal as its tentacles reach into the lives of millions of Americans, into their homes, businessess, doctors, and hospitals with government bureaucrats sometimes literally making life or death decisions for most of us.
That’s the bad news. The good news for many is that Obamacare will have little if any impact on their lives or deaths.
Those lucking out? Democrat loyalists, principally labor unions but also certain health care providers and other entities who supported the passage of PPACA. They have been generously rewarded for their unwavering support with waivers, meaning they could maintain their own health plans and not be subject to the vagaries of Obamacare.
Understandably, the Obama administration has sought to minimize publicity surrounding those payoffs, totalling almost 1400 at last count.
The DailyCaller.com reported in June that the waiver-spigot was scheduled to be turned off by the Department of Health and Human Services as of September 22nd and speculated that low-key Friday afternoon announcement was intended to squelch the waiver controversy and protests against their inequities.
Based on how this administration operates, the waiver spigot is probably still dripping.
Unfortunately, political payoffs, aka bribery, have been a facet of politics since ancient Greek and Roman pols granted favors or slipped a few coppers into the grubby hands of commoners. With Obamacare waivers, Obamians greatly expanded and refined the corruption.
However, in the case of one particular group, bribes weren’t necessary. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5790.)
Hello there, simply changed into aware of your weblog through Google, and located that it is truly informative. I’m going to be careful for brussels. I’ll appreciate in the event you proceed this in future. A lot of other folks can be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!