-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
The Right Prescription
Of Obamacare and Appeals to Supreme Beings
Next week’s Supreme Court hearings will feature arcane points of law and absurd PR stunts.
Next week, almost exactly two years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was foisted on an unwilling electorate by a combination of congressional skullduggery and presidential hubris, the Supreme Court will finally condescend to hear oral arguments concerning the constitutionality of the unpopular health “reform” law. March 26, the first of three days during which representatives of various litigants will be permitted to enter the exalted presence of the justices and actually speak, will be devoted to one of the more arcane questions associated with the legal challenges to Obamacare — whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) deprives the Court of jurisdiction to decide the case at this time.
The AIA bars legal challenges to taxes before the IRS has attempted to collect them, and PPACA’s individual mandate doesn’t go into effect until 2014. Thus, despite the President’s emphatic denial that the penalties associated with the mandate constitute a tax — a position reiterated last month by acting OMB director Jeffrey Zients — and a prior concession by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that AIA does not apply to the cases before the Court, the administration now wants the justices to decide if it presents a “jurisdictional bar.” Considering the outrageous record of the Obama DOJ, one is tempted to interpret this brazen flip-flop as a hint to the Court that it should use AIA as an excuse to stay out of the presidential election.
If that seems farfetched, consider what will be happening outside on the steps of the Supreme Court building. As the New York Times reports, “White House officials summoned dozens of leaders of nonprofit organizations that strongly back the health law to help them coordinate plans for a prayer vigil, press conferences and other events outside the court when justices hear arguments for three days beginning March 26.” The same presidential administration that has used PPACA as a pretext to launch the most outrageous attack on religious liberty since the republic was founded, the anti-conscience mandate, will line up as many quislings as it can assemble and have them pray for the salvation of Obamacare.
And it may well take divine intervention to save it. The day after the government’s lawyers attempt to justify their latest pirouette on AIA, the real show begins. The 27th will be devoted to arguments involving the administration’s claim that not buying insurance somehow constitutes interstate commerce that may be regulated by Congress. This Orwellian nonsense has been rejected by three district court judges and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority in the latter decision included a Clinton appointee who wrote that the mandate is “breathtaking in its expansive scope.… Congress [has] never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods.”
Even ordinary voters, whom CNN’s John King famously told us during one of the GOP debates “don’t pay attention to what’s going on in the world until they have to,” have apparently attended closely enough to understand that the mandate is a dog that won’t hunt. As Ammon Simon points out, public opinion surveys consistently show that a majority of Americans believe it to be unconstitutional. A USA Today/Gallup Poll recently showed that Americans think the mandate is unconstitutional by a margin of 72 percent to 20 percent. The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll recently found that a mere 17 percent of the allegedly inattentive electorate say they think it should be found constitutional by the Supreme Court.
It’s doubtful that such surveys matter much to the justices. Legal precedents, however, matter a great deal to them. And, the countless whoppers of the White House and DOJ notwithstanding, the precedents work in favor of the plaintiffs where the mandate is concerned. As Jason Mazzone of the Brooklyn Law School wrote last year in the New York Times, “All of the Supreme Court cases upholding Congress’s power under the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause have involved Congress regulating some kind of activity that is already occurring… [P]arsing the distinction between activity and inactivity provides a way for the justices to strike down the individual mandate without having to overturn any precedent.”
The 28th will be devoted to the commandeering and severability issues. The former is important because PPACA’s expansion of Medicaid places an unsustainable fiscal burden on the states, but the main event of this final day of oral argument will be about the latter. The Democrats, you will recall, failed to include a severability clause in Obamacare. This, in theory, means that the Court must invalidate the entire law if it strikes down the mandate. If the justices follow the example of U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, PPACA is toast. Unfortunately, the precedents aren’t as clear on this issue as one might wish. The justices have demonstrated a willingness to ignore the absence of severability language when it suits them.
The mandate, however, is such an integral component of PPACA that it simply cannot be extracted without making nonsense of the statute, wrecking the health insurance industry and wreaking havoc throughout the U.S. health care system. All of the litigants in the case, including the administration, agree that ObamaCare will not work without the individual mandate. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has frequently described the mandate as the law’s “linchpin.” And, as constitutional scholar Randy Barnett has pointed out, it was included in Obamacare precisely because of “Congress’s finding that the mandate was ‘essential’ to its scheme of regulating insurance companies.”
In other words, to strike down the mandate without invalidating the entire “reform” law would amount to an egregious dereliction of duty. And yet the Court has been inundated with amicus briefs from all manner of interested parties, including AARP, the National Council on Aging, the American Public Health Association, the American Benefits Council, the American Academy of Actuaries, Michigan Legal Services and countless others imploring the justices to do just that. Boiled down to their essence, these briefs echo a piece that appeared last week in the New England Journal of Medicine whose authors argued that deeming the mandate non-severable “would mean overturning a historic piece of legislation whose passage required enormous political effort.”
Such spurious and irrelevant nonsense may indeed justify a prayer vigil, but not the kind of PR stunt the White House has in mind. A call on Providence to shield the justices from the influence of self-serving entities like AARP may not help, but it couldn’t hurt. Most of the “nonprofit” organizations that will be represented on the steps of the Court next week won’t be there because they care about patients. And they certainly don’t care about the Constitution. Like the Obama administration itself, these outfits are in it for the money and power. To see them thwarted by supreme beings, black-robed or otherwise, is a ruling devoutly to be wished.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (95) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From The Right Prescription
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/19/of-obamacare-and-appeals-to-su
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 3.19.12 @ 6:40AM
Kill it else the USA becomes a bankrupt socialist nation.
squalis| 3.19.12 @ 9:51AM
As opposed to the semi-socialist bankrupt nation we are now?
Drunken Sailor| 3.19.12 @ 3:34PM
Socialist to Semi-socialist is a step in the right direction.
jan| 3.21.12 @ 3:14PM
FYI, we're already bankrupt.
Appleby| 3.19.12 @ 6:47AM
If the mandate stands, the next mandate will require you who plan to maintain two cars to make one of them a Volt.
Pecos Pete| 3.19.12 @ 6:52AM
Even if you plan for only one car, it shall be a Volt.
Dick Nome| 3.19.12 @ 11:32AM
What shall I do with a Volt. It doesn't go anywhere when there is no power to charge it or fuel to propel its little dinky 85cid 'power' plant. Because of the battery pack I'll need to have a fire extinguisher handy or dispose of it as hazardous waste.. .. well no, I won't be able to afford the disposal cost either.
Al Adab| 3.19.12 @ 4:02PM
People back east, like all the elite decision makers, don't understand that people out west drive a hundred miles between towns. They cannot comprehend the distances or the size of the cities themselves.
What other mandates might follow? Surely here in America the government would never own the railroads, or the insurance companies or the banks or the auto manufacturers.They would never try to tell us what light bulb to buy or what additives had to go in our gasoline. Any of that stuff would be tyranny and we would never stand for that in America.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 7:37AM
Appleby, the next mandate will be that you vacate your home and move to a "stack and pack" government apartment in a "Smart Growth" cluster. Watch this video and you will understand exactly what a mandate driven life looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
Appleby| 3.19.12 @ 11:05AM
We already have that "mandate" here in Toronto, as the average single family detached home big enough to swing a cat in costs upwards of $600,000.00 and rising. And this in a country that is pretty much empty!
Boar Hunter| 3.19.12 @ 1:06PM
This is the same thing the California tree humpers are looking to establish here through gasoline taxes. I forgot what they call the buildings, I call 'em crime infested rat warrens.
Were vacationing in New Hampshire next month to decide if my and my three sons families are going to move there.
Von Mises Jr.| 3.19.12 @ 2:13PM
Boar Hunter, Go to the White Mountains Region. It is absolutely beautiful. I saw a bull moose there about two years ago. I saw 5 in five days offseason, and cought about 18 brookies. Incredible hikes.
Make sure you find the "Lobster Trap" by the Glen and Conway area. Lobster stew to die for.
Boar Hunter| 3.19.12 @ 4:19PM
My most sincere and hearty thanks for your input! I have added both the White Mountains and the "Lobster Trap" to my to-do list!
We are spending two weeks on our first trip and intend to see as much of the entire state as we are able to. It is our plan to take several trips during different seasons before we make up our minds. My youngest son gets out of the Navy in one year and our goal is to decide before then.
My wife is most interested in the area around Portsmouth and although I have input, I don't want to spend any unintended time with the moose.
Nite| 3.19.12 @ 5:27PM
If you are interested in a beautiful state with very friendly people, no state income tax and a low cost of living with excellent medical care, take a look at TX. Lots of all kinds of recreation. If you are interested, take a look south of Dallas.
Al Adab| 3.19.12 @ 5:42PM
Higher property taxes than many would like however. Try the hill country, Fredricksburg, San Marcos, Brady, Eden, etc, but that would be telling.
Konnie| 3.19.12 @ 9:06PM
That's all we need, a bunch of people with liberal ideas coming to Texas. Stay away. That's what happened to Arizona. No thanks. STAY AWAY.
Purple Lips| 3.19.12 @ 8:11AM
Get used to the word mandate. We will be hearing it quite a bit the next decade.
Teaghan| 3.19.12 @ 7:25AM
Prayer vigils? Oh please, what a sham. Since whend does the left know anything about prayer!
Only when they think it will benefit them.
Michael Z. Williamson | 3.19.12 @ 11:41AM
To be fair, that applies to the right as well. Remember the Evangelicals praying over the Wall Street Golden Calf?
Al Adab| 3.19.12 @ 4:06PM
I'm not remembering that, but I do see idolotrous worship of the gods Tolerance and Diversity and the godess Choice and Gaia. We are even forced to pay for the sacrements and sacrifices of the State religion through our taxes which pay for environmental worship and abortion. Somehow I don't think prayer to those idols avails much.
Boar Hunter| 3.19.12 @ 4:24PM
I believe the reference to liberal prayer vigils was facetious.
Admittedly, it took me a minute as well, but I believe it was intended to be so obviously ridiculous that it would be understood as ridicule of the libs.
Indy| 3.19.12 @ 7:45AM
Here's a pop quiz on ObamaCare
http://www.americanthinker.com.....dents.html
Doctor Detroit| 3.19.12 @ 8:30AM
Great piece by American Thinker. The part of the quiz that stands out for me is the part about long lines for care. This is definately true. For years, doctors have been bailing out of Medicaid because the reimbursement rates for care amount to less than the cost of providing care. This has driven Medicaid patients to the ER in seek of non-emergent care. This wastes billions a year for states and fed. because ER care is 4X as expensive as doctors office care for the same ailment.
Medicare is next. I have personally seen many physicians limit or exclude Medicare from their practices because the cost of care is growing and the reimbursement rates are shrinking. Under Obamacare, hospitals and doctors will see further cuts in reimbursement. The so-called "doctor fix", which continues to be kicked down the road by Congress, is expected to severely cut doctors pay for Medicare.
Now, before you brush this off as greedy rich doctors whining about their pay, consider this: In 10 years, MOST physicians will be EMPLOYEES of health care systems. Ten years ago this was a tiny percentage. Why are they doing this? Because the Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement levels have made practicing medicine a money-losing enterprise. Costs of running an office, buying malpractice insurance, and paying off sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical school debt have worsened things considerably. Your doctor will punch in and punch out. He will have little regard for waiting times, inability to get an appt., how long each appt is, etc. He's an employee now. Paycheck is the same whether he sees 10 patients per day or 50.
Michael Z. Williamson | 3.19.12 @ 11:42AM
Ah, much like the UK. And very much one of the reasons my family moved here.
Indy| 3.19.12 @ 7:47AM
The brief to read is the one by The Landmark Legal Foundation
http://www.landmarklegal.org/u....._FILED.pdf
Ted| 3.19.12 @ 8:32AM
Mark Levin runs Landmark Legal. I will read the brief; I am sure it will be excellent.
Indy| 3.19.12 @ 9:46AM
After making a donation, I received a Landmark magazine which covers other topics as well as ObamaCare. We are at the mercy of the courts, the only way I could join the cause now was to donate to those in the fight, it wasn't much but I feel strongly enough about this issue, I had to chip in. I'll be downloading Levin's podcast, I'm sure he will be giving insight to the case, he covered some on last Friday's show, taking apart the necessary and proper clause defense.
Purple Lips| 3.19.12 @ 8:10AM
"delegatus non potest delegare - 'one to whom power is delegated cannot himself further delegate that power'"
That is the route the lawsuits against ObamaCare should have taken. Congress does not have the authority to grant the HHS open ended powers to legislate (ie regulate) our healthcare industries.
Gary B| 3.19.12 @ 9:30AM
Don't federal agencies expand their power every day with new regulations and have the effect of law?
Nite| 3.19.12 @ 5:30PM
Obama, and HHS are getting away with murder right now. The House tries to rein them in, but Harry Reid will not let anything come to a vote in the Senate. Obama simply avoids Congress.
Louis Jenkins| 3.19.12 @ 8:35AM
power under the Constitution's interstate commerce clause have involved Congress regulating some kind of activity that is already occurring…
Yes, but Congress is far reaching these days. Even though the commerce may not be presently occurring, what the heck, get involved in it now. The government is mapping out how we are to have health insurance, and if it makes it through the Supreme Court, then government will have their way with the public. Something better happen and happen fast. The public is not pleased.
Gary B| 3.19.12 @ 9:41AM
Maybe one fine day "of, by and for the people" will have restored meaning.
What I fear is the court delaying their decision, as they debate manufactured nuances. As with nearly all of their decisions, both sides will be disappointed. I can't wait to see what made-up BS will disappoint us.
martin j smith| 3.19.12 @ 8:45AM
Th vast majority of American will be severly hurt by this "Law". A majority and even more than that oppose it. If the SCOTUS does not strike it down the they too will be viewed by the vast unwashed as illegitimate and where that can lead no one knows.
Gary B| 3.19.12 @ 9:44AM
Remember Newt's solution for dealing rogue judges? He's the only to address this issue, yet judges are the ones enabling the progessive agenda.
Nothing bad happens without ultimate judicial approval. And most good that happens gets struck down by judges.
Justices can be impeached, too. Don't forget that.
Dmac | 3.19.12 @ 11:42AM
Yes they can be impeached and thats why I've asked my Sentator John Cornyn why it is whith nearly a thousand federal judges out there we see so few impeachments. As I put it to him any company with a thousand employees surely fires one or more a year. Our courts should be no different. The problem my freinds is not the courts, it's the Senate Judiciary Committee and their total lack of will to do their job. And thats where the heat needs to be applied, to the members of that committee. Stert letting them know if they don't start impeaching judges you help whoever runs against them at their next primary.
Quartermaster| 3.20.12 @ 4:53PM
Impeachment is the job of the house. Trial is the responsibility of the Senate. Look to the House first. Then hold the Senate's feet to the fire.
Dmac | 3.19.12 @ 9:04AM
I hope that there is someway that the Supreme Court can hear and understand how this went against the will of the people, that they understand that to many the passage of this act was and is a turning point for our form of government. That should they "claim" it is constitutional that all hell could break loose. Too many Americans have had it with the unprotected borders, taxation witout representation, and the all out corruptness of wall street and Washington. Lets hope the Supreme Court understands if the fight goes to the street that because of a ruling for Obamacare that it won't be pretty. It would be necassary though. We have already lost two branches of government, Executive and represetative. If we lose the third we would have no choice but to take to the streets to save the republic.
Timothy L. Pennell| 3.19.12 @ 9:22AM
If the Muslim is co-ordinating with Non-Profits, to do his bidding? Doesn't that violate their Non-Profit Status? Of course it does. As does Media Matters TRIANGULATION between the White House and NBC/MSNBC. Media Matters should lose its 501c3 Status, and NBC should lose its License. But, we are in the midst of a LAWLESS REGIME, so, unless Pigs start Flying, the Muslim will continue to put his STREET GANGS in to the Streets.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for." As ominous a statement, as has ever been made.
Lenin was the one they were waiting for. Hitler was the one. Mussolini, Mao, and Pol Pot, were the ones they were waiting for. They all came promising HOPE and CHANGE, and they all left with their Nations in RUIN. Millions Dead. Economies that had been DECIMATED by Ideology. All of them paved a road to Hell, with "Good Intentions". What they did, they did for "The Greater Good". What they did, they did for the Glory of THE ONE.
Thomas Jefferson said that: 'Once the people realize that they can Vote themselves MONEY, the Republic would cease to be one of Freedom and Liberty.'
John Adams said that: 'This system will only work, as long as the PEOPLE are Honest and Hard Working, and of Good Moral Fiber'
Churchill proclaimed Democracy as: 'The worst form of Government, except for all the others.'
They knew that there would be men of Bad Intent, who wold rise to power. Men who would use our Basest Instincts against us, and to THEIR advantage. They knew that Machiavelli had a point, and what they read in their Bibles about the Temptations of Satan were true, and would manifest themselves in to the Downfall of any Republic, as it always had in the past.
We have a President who Hates this Country, its Military, its Traditional Allies, its Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, and Founding Documents. He Hates the only Country in the Middle East that shares our beliefs. A Country who's own Founding Documents - The TEN COMMANDMENTS - is the Cornerstone of LAW for the entire Western World.
But then, he would, having been BORN a MUSLIM, and RAISED in the Muslim Schools and Mosques of Indonesia until the age of 11.
This THING has come to Power on a promise of Hope and Change. A Promise to give everything to everyone. To BE everything to everyone. He is THE ONE. The latest, in a long line of THE ONES.
He has a Racist Crook, as in Attorney General. A man who "Cooked the books, at Fannie and Freddie, to reach Bonus Goals": According to the GAO. He's running a RACIST Blacks Only Justice Department. He's been providing Mexican Drug Cartels with High Powered Automatic Weapons, so that those that they MURDER, can be used to push Legislation "For the Greater Good". He's standing in the way of Voter Fraud Prevention in going against Voter I.D. Legislation. And he's suing American States, on behalf of THE ONE, for daring to Enforce the Laws that THE ONE has deemed not worthy of Enforcement.
He has an HHR Secretary - Kathleen Sibelius - who broke down in tears, upon hearing of the EXECUTION of one of the Country's most prolific BUTCHERS of unborn Babies. A man who would pull the Full Term Baby, out of its Mother's womb, by its feet, until only the head remained inside, and then, using a Scissor Utensil, would slice open the Baby's Neck, at the base of its Skull, and proceed to use a Vacuum to suck out the Brains of these FULL TERM BABIES.
She cried for this MONSTER.
These are the people who seek to CONTROL our Health Care. These are the people who seek to DETERMINE who Lives and who Dies. These are the people who "REWARD our Friends and PUNISH our Enemies".
If the Supreme Court looks at nothing else? It should look at a System where Friend and Enemy, no doubt, be a DETERMINING FACTOR (By their own pronouncements) in who Lives, and who Dies.
Who could have ever imagined that Freedom vs. Tyranny would be so difficult a Quandary? Who could ever have imagined that so many would be willing to give up ALL of their Liberty for a little Security? Who would have ever imagined that it would all come down to the Vote of ONE MAN, whether GOVERNMENT controls every facet of our lives, from the Cradle to the Grave?
Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Churchill.
Gary B| 3.19.12 @ 9:50AM
"Who could have ever imagined that Freedom vs. Tyranny would be so difficult a Quandary?"
Exactly! But, there are always those who say, "It's not as simple as that." Well, yes it is. And, one fine day, the American people will demonstrate to the incestuous vermin who infest DC just how simple it can be.
Dmac | 3.19.12 @ 11:16AM
Very well put Tim. It is an honor to be associated with a patriot like you. May God bless you and protect in the battle to come.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.19.12 @ 11:27AM
"Half of Americans would like to see Congress investigate Barack Obama’s eligibility for the presidency and nearly that many believe the definition of the constitutional term “natural born citizen” means both parents must be U.S. citizens, according to a new scientific poll.
“There’s no marginalizing those who want this matter investigated by Congress,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, who conducted the WND/Wenzel Poll telephone survey June 16-19. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.85 points.
“Even among Democrats, more than one in four – 28 percent – said they now want an inquiry, as do 43 percent of independents and 77 percent of Republicans."
Yet the blackout continues at the Spectator.
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 2:31PM
Great response! Thank you! But why should we listen to 4 of the greatest minds in human history? The most important thing you said, in my opinion, is "what they read...". You are correct. Our founding fathers were beyong genius, but beyond their genius, they made themselves informed. They spoke, could read and write many languages, they had ideals, had honour, integrity, courage and KNOWLEDGE and were God fearing. They had either seen or read about all the other failed political and economic systems before themselves. They were about OTHERS more than self. They were about Liberty, the original definition, and knew all to well the history lessons the Bible teaches. Everything we are doing today has already been done. Read the Old Testamant! We had tyrants, we had crooks, we had corruption, lawlessness and Godlessness and what happened. God, with or without help from believers toppled them all. If we don't correct our situation, God surely will. Historical Fact!
Boar Hunter| 3.19.12 @ 4:36PM
The founding fathers realized and warned that the system of government they created was totally unsuited to govern the type of godless, self-serving fleas and locusts that inhabit our far too much of our country today.
It was intended for a people who believed in God.
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 5:56PM
Agreed.
Gary B| 3.20.12 @ 12:24AM
Agreed. It's the difference between all for one and one for all and everyone for himself.
cicero| 3.19.12 @ 10:07AM
Dr. Detroit, you are exactly correct. The "profession of medicine" will become a job, as has been the trend of our other professions. The concept of "honor", "duty", "service to the community" will be scrapped in favor of a salary. Your profession began its slide when it got in bed with government in the first place. Mine started when we surrendered the rule of law, and care of clients to the sophistry of the courts, and the politisization of the bench. Wisdom was replaced by money. The question is, how do we go back?
Obamacare will require that all medical providers become employees of government. They will devolve into a system where health care is doled out like apples. Stand in line. Who needs the apple more? Who is most deserving? Whom do "we" need more to feed? And on and on...
Doctor Detroit| 3.19.12 @ 4:21PM
I believe a simple 25 page bill, in the place of Obamacare, could turn things around.
1. Free up interstate purchase of health insurance and eliminate state-specific mandates on insurance companies.
2. Premium support as an option for all government insurers (Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare). Patients get a voucher with which to shop around and purchase the health plan that best fits their needs. Of course most would also opt for Health Savings Accounts if the government would free these up from taxation and regulation.
3. Real tort reform with caps on pain and suffering. I believe this would save billions per year through lessening the effects of defensive medicine.
Paul from SA| 3.19.12 @ 5:05PM
You have my vote.
I would add: separate insurance from employment.
Nite| 3.19.12 @ 5:37PM
HSA's simply do NOT work if there is any family member that has a chronic disease or is age 35 or older. If you develop Cancer or have major surgery, you have broken the bank. Premium support does not amount to the paper it is written on if you are a Senior. Single policies again will pay very little. You have to be in very large groups to bring down cost and obtain much of a policy. I worked with insurance, NOT FOR insurance for well over 20 years. Number 1 and 3 are very good ideas. There still should be basic benefits on all policies or people will wind up with a policy not worth the paper. I have seen lots of these. People in general are naive about insurance and get taken frequently.
Doctor Detroit| 3.19.12 @ 9:12PM
BASIC, bare bones policy would cover catastrophic injury/illness. I have no problem with this being put into the law. HSAs, when implemented, have been HUGELY successful and patients love them. Folks with chronic illness are indeed dependent on more comprehensive coverage. This I do not disagree with. What some states (and Obamacare) are mandating is that, for example, everyone MUST have insurance for things like contraception, drug rehab, etc. These should be options, not mandated by the government. States like New York and Mass have the most comprehensive mandates and it is no coincidence that they are among the most expensive policies in the country.
Premium support would indeed work with seniors. Let me cite Florida as an example of Medicare gone wild. We have low reimbursements for doctors in a state that is full of Medicare recipients. Not only do the data show that more is spent on Medicare in Florida, but more is spent PER PATIENT in FLA than medicare in other states. Health systems have adapted to the low pay environment by finding ways to soak up more federal dollars. Huge, multispecialty clinics waste money by ordering every test, specialist, XRAY, etc they can. I know this from personal experience. Let the seniors have a CHOICE in their care. Let them keep medicare if they choose. I suspect after a few years most would abandon the federal programs for BCBS and other insurers.
Mimi| 3.19.12 @ 10:38AM
One minute the "O" uses an attack on Religious Liberty to help his PCA/HHS....Now we see he's promoting a "PRAYER VIGIL"....Schizo!.....Did anyone hear....we have a CONVERT?
I wonder if he announced this vigil before so that the opposition would do likewise. What about the legislation he signed late on Friday...Hmmm is he promoting ..."TROUBLE" he can squash???
Gary B| 3.20.12 @ 12:24AM
Minute by minute, he just says stuff.
Paul from SA| 3.19.12 @ 10:42AM
This is a lose-lose situation for Obama and the Democrats. If SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, it makes Obama look very bad. If SCOTUS approves of the mandate, there will be a mass uproar against both Obama and the Supreme Court, and a renewed push to replace Obama and the Dem0crats.
I'm still surprised this wasn't delayed until after the election.
Drunken Sailor| 3.19.12 @ 3:41PM
I'm not. I think some of the Justices wouldn't mind a little payback for being belitted at a State of the Union speech.
Drunken Sailor| 3.19.12 @ 3:41PM
Typo: belittled
Andrew P| 3.19.12 @ 8:21PM
I think the Justices will make a good show of it, but they are afraid of the consequences of looking too political, and afraid of the revenge the Democrats will do to them if they strike it down. They will find the mandate constitutional by 6-3 or 7-2.
Gary B| 3.20.12 @ 12:26AM
Ah, the ultimate motivator in DC... acceptance by the insiders.
Quartermaster| 3.20.12 @ 6:21PM
If they just make a show of it and concoct something out of whole cloth, they will lose any legitimacy. The conservatives on the court are aware of this and, I think, fear it. They will uphold it *only* if they wish to be regarded as lawless.
FedGov has no authority to even legislate in the area, much less make any sort of mandate in the matter. It is not in their enumerated powers and it must be struck down.
Oldefarte| 3.19.12 @ 10:57AM
Hopefully it will be ajudicated to the dustbowl of the legal graveyard where it belongs. It's a shame that other shameful socialistic Democrat-sponsored legislation can't be also so damned to hades and forgotten, but if so Democrats wouln't be what they are [providers of socialism and welfare]. IMHO the one/only hope lies not with these liberal prognosticators of law, but with the election on 11/4/12 instead, where more hopefully JUSTICE WILL BE DONE!!!!!
Dmac | 3.19.12 @ 11:18AM
I intend to registar as a democrat today so I might prepare for 11/4/12. That way I can vote twice............for a republican.
Boar Hunter| 3.19.12 @ 1:10PM
Since I cannot stomach a vote for Romney, maybe your on to something
Bill| 3.19.12 @ 11:54AM
I pray to God everyday hoping that the SC will repeal Obamacare.
Dave | 3.19.12 @ 1:17PM
Thankujeezus!
It finally worked its way through my previously impervious skull. This morning's good news is, those amazing proficies and revelations untimatley sank-in. And to the many pro-Obama posters linked here day after difficult day, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all for assisting me in seeing the light. Very soon with the final passage of Obamacare through its Supreme hurdle, perhaps others, too, will now see the light, and come to realize ... complete, spiritual enlightenment:
Verse 1/Revelations IV:
"We are all soon to be gifted with a healthcare plan we will be forced to buy, fined if we do not, which will cover at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but providing for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee who's chairman actually doesn't understand it, passed a Congress who's members did not read it, exempts themselves FROM it, and signed by a president who still smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his OWN taxes, for which we will all be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by an evolving government which has already bankrupted Social Security, Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is (by simple observation) obese and financed by a country that is ... broke! What could possible go wrong?"
What, indeed! Now if you'd excuse me, I have a light to walk into.
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 2:50PM
Your post is all facts Sir. Were do you plan to factor in emotion and rhetoric? I saw no mention of Hope or Change? Doctors already make too much money so it is their civic duty to take on more patients. And, with so many people paying taxes these days to help out their fellow citizens, obviously more IRS agents would be needed. It's not fair to over work them. It isn't like they make the money Doctors do! Who cares if the President smokes! It's his right to. Plus, we all know it's the cigarette companies that find ways to force people to smoke. Furthermore, calling the surgeon general obese is just mean. People come in all shapes and sizes and deserve the same level of healthcare, at the same cost, as size challenged people. To wrap things up, our country isn't broke. I just Googled, "Is America Broke?" and according to CNN, MSNBC, Wikipedia, moveon.org and other unbiased sources, we aren't. So there!
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 2:51PM
Wow, trying to argue from the "other" side is draining!
idalily| 3.19.12 @ 3:09PM
Why do you think liberals have no sense of humor?
Thom| 3.19.12 @ 3:39PM
Because nothing in their make believe world ever works they way they say it will....
Brian Richard Allen | 3.19.12 @ 1:33PM
No mention that the Marxist/Feminist activist Mz Elana Kagan, demonstrably armpits-deep involved in the creation of "health-care's" fascist power-grab, has, by her inaction, refused to recuse herself?
Thom| 3.19.12 @ 2:07PM
If King ObamaCare is not struck down the “republic” is dead. There isn’t much left of a working constitutional republic at this point either. Giving the Federal Government a blank check over every economic (or lack thereof) activity within the “several States” renders State and Local government redundant and moot along with the Court that issues such a ruling. Why do we need a Supreme Court when all it does is rubber stamp anything Congress wants to do? Hence when there is no constitutional restraint on government there is no Constitution.
This is why the Founders had utter disdain for the idealistic and purest form of “democracy”. It failed everywhere it was tried. It always commits suicide, usually the way this one is. Tyranny always follows. MOB rule is Tyranny.
I’m on record in stating that I don’t think “politics” can save us. People don’t vote against their own self-interest. “hope and change” kind of faith in humanity does not produce meaningful results. A significant change in public policies would have to happen to “save” us from fiscal ruin in the near term and the aftermath of that not happening that could easily last a generation or two. A World War fought with conventional weapons is not going to “save” us from this iteration of the buffoonery that drove us into the ditch in the 30s. You can’t have half the population living off the taxes of the other half and expect this party to go on indefinitely. That is the wish of the “majority” even today. Over time it takes more and more “force” to keep the partiers happy. You eventually run out of both “slaves” and money. Society collapses into anarchy.
Lawyers often argue about academic nitwit points of law. The definition of the word “is” or what significance the placement of a “,” has over the meaning of a sentence. The Founders fought a long dawn out and costly war over the concept of self-rule and how to limit government to that which is “necessary”. You can’t have limits if necessary is defined as anything a majority wished to do. If government controls economic activity and the lack of activity then it controls everything rendering the enumerated limits placed on government in a Federal and 50 State Constitutions mere words for our entertainment.
The Supreme Court would be the first place I’d burn down if a majority of unaccountable justices on that Court can’t grasp the guiding principle spoken to throughout the entire construct of the divided government structure we have and clear limits listed in both the Constitution and Bill of Individual Rights on Federal government function and power.
Too many “lawyers” on the Court. Too few people on the Court who understand the Founding intent of the structure of government they gave us. Pay a lawyer enough and they will argue both sides of any argument, at the same time.
No sane person wants to see this situation go where it is headed. Sane people have voted to compromise the founding principles since 1913 and before. At some point the words of the Constitution will have no meaning at all to most and sanity will be as rare as anyone that can remember why a Constitution and Bill of Rights were created in the first place. When words like, “the right of the People shall not be infringed” have no meaning all that there is left is animal instincts and “war”. Rome didn’t fall in a day…..
Lawyers will make their arcane arguments till the end of time… The Founders weren’t lawyers as a lot. Those that were worried long and hard about the future efforts of their class turning the Constitution into something you decompose in English 101 into its separate and disjointed parts for a grade. The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan either. We’ll see if a majority of Justices on the Court can see beyond the end of their noses in this respect.
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 2:52PM
We in Texas plan on going back to being our own country again. Wish Ya'll the best!
Dmac | 3.19.12 @ 3:25PM
I'm with you One. If this passes I fully expect Texas to say adios. I have a feeling Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming and Montana are coming with us. At least then we can join OPEC. Gee, wonder what it will cost all the Northeastern Liberals to heat their homes with our natural gas then?
Al Adab| 3.19.12 @ 4:16PM
What is the count up to of states suing over the mandate? 33 or so? Suppose they decided, no matter what the social engineering court might rule, that they in their states will not comply? Do we fear that this resident would roll the tanks to force compliance or would he simply withold federal funding for projects in those states? That tactic has worked in the past and states have been bought. Georgia just dropped its lawsuit over eligibility when granted licenses for two new nuclear generating plants.
Texas and Alaska could opt out and yes, join OPEC. Boy that would be fun. What about the States being sued over illegal migrants? There is much in play these days, but which straw is to be the final one?
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 6:20PM
All a state has to do is NOT be bought, as you provided example, and other than physical conflict there isn't much to stop them. Now I could be wrong, but I believe only a handful of states could actually survive economically as an independent nation. It sure would be fun to watch Washington freak the hell out though.
Gary B| 3.20.12 @ 12:33AM
I've always felt it will ultimately be up to certain governors to just say no. If several states banded together and defied the federales, they'd probably sue for peace.
Imagine key industries going on a sit-down strike just to show where ultimate power really lies.
Kingofthenet| 3.19.12 @ 2:58PM
In the 1940's the govt. told a private farmer, he could not grow wheat for his OWN private consumption, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, so will this.
Thom| 3.19.12 @ 3:36PM
Government hasn’t enforced that ruling since the 1940s because it doesn’t want a Nation of “farmers” just growing what they need to get buy while the rest starve…. You see the problem with telling people what they have to do to benefit others at the behest of the “state” do you not KingoftheNet?
Drunken Sailor| 3.19.12 @ 3:45PM
Sure, now the pay farmers NOT to grow anything on their land. Some improvement.
Thom| 3.19.12 @ 4:14PM
A farmer once explained to me the simply economics of farming using a soybean crop. They were experimenting with no till planting (back in the 70s) to see if yields would be sufficient with the cost savings to cover the loss of yield from no till planting. The maximum beans that could be planted per linear foot were 16. 12 had to survive to pay the bills at last year’s cost. Pests both of the rodent and insect kind could take 25% if measures weren’t made to combat them. I was part of a group of people who worked on one type of rodent problem for local farmers for free. Said Rodent could eat an entire row in an acre of beans in a couple days. Farming is the closest thing to Free Enterprise we have in this country today and it is also the most subsidized at the same time. Paying farmers to not plant or telling them they can’t grow and put aside a surplus would be rejected in every other professional endeavor as some kind of tyranny….. Imaging telling actors how many films they can appear in a year or telling people who post on Blogs how many post and words they can post a day….. What next telling medical professionals they must give people “free” healthcare.
One if by land...| 3.19.12 @ 6:22PM
HAHAHA! I friggin love sarcasm
Paul from SA| 3.19.12 @ 4:18PM
Yep, and then they retire and grow something else or lease their land for grazing or lease their land for hunters. And they laugh....
Paul from SA| 3.19.12 @ 4:16PM
Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia = NO
Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor = YES
Kennedy: ?
Has any one person had more power? This is indeed the decision of the century. If they say "YES," liberals will be popping champagne corks and we can plan on mandating free handguns into every mandatory insurance policy.
DTCOFAZ| 3.19.12 @ 5:40PM
I might've been completely a dreamer in this case, but I think Kennedy will be a NO.
He's somewhat not so far far on the left that he would almost fall into the Pacific ocean as Sotomayor, Kagan and Gingsberg.
Al Adab| 3.19.12 @ 5:49PM
Isn't Kagan recused out? She should be.
DTCOFAZ| 3.19.12 @ 6:19PM
I haven't heard that from any news outlet yet... We sure hope she's recused. One less number worryness for us all.
Andrew P| 3.19.12 @ 8:15PM
Scalia and Roberts will be YES, Kennedy NO
Neither Scalia nor Roberts will be willing to overturn Gonzales v Raich. Kennedy usually sides with individual liberty when something is a close call.
Paul from SA| 3.19.12 @ 5:09PM
What if.... states argue the gov't can't force a citizen to PURCHASE health insurance?
The Justices respond by saying the law doesn't force anybody to PURCHASE health insurance.
CASE DISMISSED.
ObamaCare requires citizens to POSSESS health insurance, not PURCHASE.
Will this affect the outcome?
Matt | 3.19.12 @ 6:15PM
ehh... the bill will become popular once people realize if you make $15,000 or less you can get on Medicaid, and if you make less than $45,000 you will get subsidized private insurance.
Andrew P| 3.19.12 @ 8:11PM
Hmmm. When you realize that Medicaid benefits are legally a "loan", and therefore your estate must pay back any benefits after death (if you have any assets after death), I think the popularity will diminish.
Andrew P| 3.19.12 @ 8:09PM
There is no way the Supremes will strike down the individual mandate. There is too much expansive precedent, particularly the recent Gonzales v Raich, for them to do that. The task of repeal will be left to our elected representatives.
POST American| 3.19.12 @ 11:55PM
---Putting aside the pending dismissal
of sitting justice Ginzburg for sedition
after her public dissing of the US Constitution
while visiting 'E--Jipped'----
AND even 'ROME--knee'/Obama care'
for a moment -----
ANYONE heard or read ANYTHING in
our capstone Globalist 'press' about
the news that third generation EUGENIST
Bill Gates's Monsanto does NOT allow
its own GMO 'foods' into their cafeterias?
LOL
Gary B| 3.20.12 @ 12:40AM
If there's anything the justices hate to do it's making decisions. They never fully decide anything. They chip away at the issues, then toss it back to the lower courts to do the heavy lifting all over again. Then they break for lunch. They're pathetic.
air max pas cher | 3.20.12 @ 4:19AM
rome..
Jared | 3.20.12 @ 7:22AM
Some good points in this article. For a visual guide to the Supreme Court oral arguments on the health reform law, see also the Center for Objective Health Policy's infographic: http://ohpcenter.org/writings-handouts.php
POST American| 3.21.12 @ 12:51AM
The roots of 'bennie violence':
"Humanity MUST be taken OFF
its pedestal and shown it is but an
animal. This is ESSENTIAL."
-Julian Huxley
Capstone EUGENIST
Capstone Globalist
Founder of UNESCO
---PSYCHOPATH---
AS we lie beneath
-----------------WHAT lies behind. . .
ChuckL| 3.22.12 @ 3:27PM
Gentlemen and Ladies,
Let us look first at the Article 1, Section 1. of the Constitution of the United States. It states: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the Unite States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
This doesn't seem to be too hard to understand. It states that all federal laws shall be created and approved in the Senate and the House. No other agency may create laws. Nor does the Constitution grant the power to create any other law making agency.
We really need to go no further as the so called "Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act" grants law making powers to unelected, appointed bureaucrats.
There are many more reasons, but there is no need to go beyond the first sentence of the Constitution that follows the Preamble, because this law is not a real law, but a conglomeration of agency creations each of which may create new laws.