The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Right Prescription

Judgment Day Draws Nigh for Obamacare

By on 6.15.12 @ 6:09AM

If the mandate goes, two other crucial provisions may go down as well.

The Supreme Court will hand down its Obamacare ruling during the week of June 25, and Nostradamus himself would hesitate to make a prediction about the particulars of what will inevitably be a controversial decision. Nonetheless, it’s difficult to imagine that the Court will leave what Justice Scalia called “the heart” of the law standing. That the individual mandate is in genuine peril was made abundantly clear during last March’s oral arguments, when Justice Kennedy asked the Solicitor General, “Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?” Coming from Kennedy, widely considered the Court’s sole remaining swing vote, that query completely unmanned the law’s advocates.

Faced with such skepticism from Kennedy, the most obtuse of Obamacare’s cheerleaders were forced to accept reality. Even Ezra Klein got it: “The quick read is that today went very badly for supporters of the individual mandate.” What many of the law’s boosters still don’t get, however, is that they had a “bad day” not merely because the hapless Donald Verilli spectacularly failed to “carry the heavy burden of justification” for the mandate, but because that failure also portended the demise of two additional Obamacare provisions without which the law will be effectively eviscerated. If the justices strike down the individual mandate, they will very likely strike down the law’s guaranteed issue and community rating provisions as well.

Why would they do that? Well, the DOJ recommended that very course of action. The third day of March’s hearings was largely devoted to the dilemma created when the Democrats failed to include a severability clause in the law. The absence of such language, in theory, means the entire statute must fall if the mandate is struck down. This is, of course, the position the plaintiffs have taken all along. The DOJ disagrees, but does concede that the mandate is not severable from these other two provisions. As Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the justices, “If you take out minimum coverage, but leave in the guaranteed issue and community rating, you will make matters worse… we think those things rise or fall in a package.”

Presumably, the DOJ took this position in the hope that the justices would leave the mandate unmolested because striking it down would doom two more crucial provisions of the law. We don’t yet know if that strategy had the desired effect on the justices, but it’s blindingly obvious that its implications were lost on many of Obamacare’s cheerleaders. This is particularly true of those who make their living in the “news” media. A recent Politico piece, for example, contains the following passage: “Many SCOTUS watchers think one of the most likely scenarios is that the court will toss out the individual mandate and keep the rest of the law. That would leave a lot of the popular pieces alone, like covering pre-existing conditions…”

Jonathan Cohn echoes this nonsense in The New Republic: “One very real possibility is that the Supreme Court invalidates the law’s most controversial element, the individual mandate, but nothing else.” He then proceeds to paint a preposterous picture of Obamacare, sans the mandate, advising his readers that “the new regulations on the private insurance market, including those prohibiting insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates based on medical risk, could function without the mandate.” Cohn certainly heard every syllable of March’s arguments, yet writes as if Kneedler never brought up the “package.” Perhaps this is what he meant when he wrote, “I have trouble wrapping my mind around what I saw in the courtroom.”

While it is possible that the Court will strike down the mandate and leave the rest of Obamacare standing, it’s absurd to suggest that the law could still function effectively. Such a ruling would result in a health insurance “death spiral” in which healthy people stop buying coverage and the insurance companies are left with the most expensive patients. This is what Kneedler was trying to tell the justices about the consequences of striking down mandate but leaving guaranteed issue and community rating in place. As he rather inelegantly phrased it, “[P]eople would wait to get insurance, and therefore — and cause all the adverse selection problems that arise … Rates will go up, and people will be less — fewer people covered in the individual market.”

In the end, though, the only justice Kneedler really had to convince was Anthony Kennedy. Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor are no doubt for upholding the entire law, including the mandate. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will be for striking down the mandate at the very least. Thus Kennedy, the last of the swingers, will make the call. This is bad news for Obamacare’s advocates. Not only did he show skepticism about the constitutionality of the mandate during oral arguments, he is thought to be sensitive to public opinion. If that is true, he will know about and consider a recent New York Times/CBS poll showing that 68 percent of Americans want the Court to overturn all or part of the health care law.

All of which suggests that the mandate is a goner. In fact, the White House is apparently expecting bad news on that front. In late May, it was reported that the President is “confiding to Democratic donors that he may have to revisit the health-care issue in a second term.” Will the Court also follow the Deputy Solicitor General’s recommendation to strike down the law’s guaranteed issue and community rating provisions? Well, Nostradamus is dead and I’m not feeling very prescient myself. But hope springs eternal in the human breast.

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 (77) |

Appleby| 6.15.12 @ 6:25AM

When I worked in insurance, there was a saying, "You can't insure a burning house." That meant of course that you can't buy life insurance when you're dying, you can't buy health insurance when you're sick, and you can't insure your car after it has been stolen. But I'm not surprised that Obama, who thinks socialism will work if he can just force the "right people" to pay, would believe that water can run uphill if you hold a gun on it in this case too.

The only thing that would complete this house of cards is if Obama dumped Joe Biden and chose Mayor Bloomberg for his VP.

Jack in Wi| 6.15.12 @ 6:52AM

That would be a smart move on Obama's part. Bloomberg could give the campaign a billion dollars and he is less a dottering old fool then Biden. Of course Obama would have to watch his back the whole time. Maybe he is better off with Biden. I sure hope the Surpreme Court tosses it, because Mr. Romneycare won't. Nor will Obama, of course.

Oldefarte| 6.16.12 @ 11:38AM

Speaking of '... a dottering old fool...', whats Father Ron up to these days??????????????

spike59| 6.18.12 @ 5:52AM

he's wandering the countryside, looking for UFO's

JimH| 6.15.12 @ 8:02AM

Part of the trouble is that what people call health insurance is no such thing at all. Real insurance is a bet between you and the insurer on the chance that you will at some time need more money in medical payments then you have paid in premiums. What we really have are essentially maintenance contracts on our bodies.

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 6:38AM

They PURPOSEFULLY Left out a Severability Clause. Their scheme was to create a scenario, opposite of King Solomon, and the stolen child. In the Biblical Story, Solomon threatens the two combatant women with the solution of cutting the child in two, knowing that the child's true Mother would do anything to save it's life.

The Muslim, and his Shadow Government of Czars, thought that by leaving the Individual Mandate exposed, so as to have the whole Bill thrown out by a No Vote on it? They would be putting the Justices in a position whereby they'd be seen as Killing the Child, by cutting it in half. They were counting on that not happening.

If they had just put Severability in there, from the get go? They knew that the Court would stick a fork in their Ideological Golden Goose, before Verilli could even LOOK at his talking point, let alone, stumble through them.

Oldefarte| 6.16.12 @ 11:44AM

There must be some sort of '....Severability Clause...' within the Constitution regarding the POTUS, so hopefully same will be exercised electorally speaking on 11/6/12!!!!!!!!

TLP| 6.16.12 @ 4:13PM

There is.

It's called: IMPEACHMENT.

He has violated his OATH OF OFFICE, in as, he REFUSES to uphold the Laws of the Land.

Impeach his Black Ass.

LarryinTexas| 6.16.12 @ 4:51PM

Naw, man, I want the satisfaction throwing him out of office on his ass.

EastTexasRancher| 6.15.12 @ 7:28AM

Until the court answers I figure that we don't know a blessed thing. I would be delighted to hear it overturned completely, but having once lived on the beltway for four years (due to military assignment), I know that those folks THINK differently than the rest of us. And I mean different. They cannot see cause and effect for the life of themselves.
Until then, I just look to November. And any politician not agreeing with the public on completely rejecting Obamacare, we will dump sooner or later. No one wants it and the force of our collective repulsion will be heard.

soljerblue| 6.15.12 @ 3:01PM

I'm with you, ETR -- the fat lady ain't sung, and all the guessing in the world right now is just that.

One thing does bother the H≪ out of me, and that's the IPAB -- unelected, unapproachable, unstoppable, and unanswerable. Even if the entire law goes down, that bureaucratic death panel will still be there until or unless a SCOTUS ruling in a separate action or actions finally knocks it out.

TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 7:12PM

Since it was the Healthcare Act that established the IPAB in the first place if the entire bill is struck down it SHOULD get rid of all the associated agencies that were created when the bill was passed. Sadly I have a feeling you're right (since government never willingly shrinks itself) and the IPAB and its brethren will remain regardless what happens with the bill itself.

Von Mises Jr| 6.15.12 @ 7:35AM

I met Greg Katsas from the Florida case and a Harvard Law School Graduate who went to school with Obummer. Both had excellent arguments why this would not stand.
But there is one aspect of this case that was also discussed on the third day in front of the Supremes that seems to me would be central to the Justices. The State Mandates to insure families up to 138% of the poverty line means that every state government will have to provide Medicaid for all families below about $30K.
In New Jersey, our $33B budget consists of $10B in Medicaid that will increase by 50% to $15B. That means property taxes would need to increase by about $2,500+ per year for every home in the state, or 21% cuts across the board must occur for every service in the state.
Mandating that AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS and much of the Mid-west cover up to $30K family incomes with free health care means that they will need to increase coverage to virtually everyone in the state. So property taxes must be increase by enormous amounts (perhaps by 10 times in states such as GA that have current property taxes at or below $1K per year) or the states MUST NECESSARILY GO BANKRUPT.
Here is the question I had for Mr. Katsas and the other Harvard lawyer. HOW DO YOU HAVE A FEDERAL REPUBLIC IF YOU DESTROY FEDERALISM?
Answer is that you don't. You have a centrally planned dictatorship.

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 8:41AM

All of this means nothing, if we don't start putting people to work. If this THING, in the White House, gets another Term? We will become Greece, on Steroids, the Floodgates at the Border wil be Dynamited open, every last Corporation with a Brain in it's head, will flee to Asia, and this country will begin to resemble a Post Apocalyptic Movie.

Be it Marine One, or on top of a Caisson, this guy has got to go.

Period.

Von Mises Jr| 6.15.12 @ 6:37PM

The thing we need to be aware of is that with dictatorial government and fascist controlled markets, you might get a job working for the state for food and a slum apartment.
The market must work in a capitalist fashion for good jobs to occur and be sustained. It is due to the fear of fascism in the market that has caused layoffs, bankruptcies and lack of hiring.

Oldefarte| 6.16.12 @ 11:53AM

True, true, true! My prediction is that IF polls etc begin to indicate a Romney/Republican victory in November, the markets will begin rising and after same [hopefully] election, businesses will begin spending and hiring gradually in anticipation of a better future. The dicey situation will become IF/CAN the necessary/sizable reductions of government are offset by the greater increases in economic activity [and the gradual turnover of non-producing/foreclosured properties to income earners]???????

Al Adab| 6.15.12 @ 11:19AM

The, what is the count 33?, States currently suing over the law need to stand together and solidly proclaim non-compliance no matter what the Court may rule. The Court will fashion some sort of compromise solution over the issue which will only complicate matters further in the long run. Nothing short of a complete repeal of the law is acceptable and the new Congress and administration must make that action a priority. No tweaking or replace with something better policy should prevail. What is the stand Romney has taken? His campaign speaks of retain "good portions" and replacing others. That is no policy.

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 1:25PM

Contrary to TLP's belief. Voting Obama out of office is like cutting off a diabetics toes and thinking his illness is cured. Damage has been done that will take years to cure, even if we have the will. Remind me again how many people inhabiting this country were stupid enough to vote for Obama?

Obama's presidency would mean nothing if the cowards we have currently serving office would simply man up and require that the law be enforced. To hold him accountable to the constitution. They have not.

Alas, we are like a wounded bride who believes her husband will never hit her again. If the court does not throw out Ro-bomneycare, Romney sure as hell won't and it will be the death of our republic.

Is anyone actually ignorant enough (Purp excluded) to believe the "estimated" costs of this program as provided by the government selling this bridge to utopia? By their own admission, they still don't even know whats in the bill. No, no, no, that doesn't seem like plausible deniability to me at all.

Can you people not envision how many new employees will be hired to ensure doctors comply with the accountants treatment schedules? LOL, you think the EPA has gotten out of control? No don't worry Purp, all gays will be exempt from the rules as usual.

Yeah Romney! He's our man! Go Romney! He's going to be a great scape goat for all the lefties out there.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 4:17PM

The "estimated" cost has already changed dramatically since the legislation was passed.

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 4:54PM

Getting Rid of the Marxist, is as good a place to START, as any.

"Cutting out your Cancer, is a waste of time."

You're gonna Die of something, so why bother?

Idiot.

Kwan| 6.15.12 @ 8:43AM

It's quite clear that this 2000+ page attack on the American health care system (ObamaCare) was not even written by Democrat Congressmen as so many of them have demonstrated ignorance of what is even in it. More than likely this abomination was cobbled together by a committee of Stalinists, Maoists, and Leninists under the direction of George Soros and then delivered to the fifth-columnist traitors (Democrats) who pretended to be its authors. Which is why it is an unconstitutional mess that must be declared null and void by the Supreme Court.

Cobalt| 6.15.12 @ 9:35AM

ObamaCare passed by only 7 votes. Votes that were probably bought, or bribed, from the Democrats.

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 4:56PM

You're right.

It was written by Pelosi, and Reid, and all of the other Marxist Scumbags, that make up today's Democrat Party.

Kwan| 6.17.12 @ 7:38AM

Unfortunately the Supreme Court has four leftist zombie justices ( Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan ) who will tell us that 2+2=10, and therefore the individual mandate in ObamaCare is entirely constitutional. Constitutionality matters not to these four, only the advancement of the leftist agenda is what is constitutional in their warped minds.

BcdErick| 6.15.12 @ 8:58AM

I think we should wait just a few more days and see what the actual judgement from our secular high priests turns out to be. This kind of lobbying is meaningless now. The decision has already been made.

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 1:26PM

I agree and loved your wording of it.

nathan| 6.15.12 @ 10:22AM

If the true intent of ACA was simply to insure X number of uninsured people (10/20/30 million) with no pre existing exclusion, then they simply could have given them all a federal employee health benefit (FEBH) low option plan for not a lot of money. FEBH controls costs very well and is better than most of what is in the private sector. THAT legislation would be a 50 page bill.

Madison railed against legislation that was too large to be read or too incoherent to be understood. ACA failed failed on both accounts. But equally again Madison made it clear there was no article in the Constitution that granted Congress the right to expend money on benevolence. He went on to say that "Charity is not part of the legislative duty of the government." ACA again fails on both of these.

However, if again we simply MUST do something, and sadly both parties have long since ignored Madison regarding federal benevolence spending (what does he know, he's just the father of that inconvenient supreme law of the land) then the FEHB option might be the cheapest way to do it. Maybe.

Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 1:25PM

The true intent of the ACA was for it to fail. Once implemented, the costs would become so huge and unsustainable that only a single payer system would be able to save health care in this country. The left is fine with incrementalism and winning a small skirmish today is acceptable as long as it moves them closer to winning the war.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 1:37PM

EXACTLY. The ACA was never the endgame. It was a step. And even if the SCOTUS tosses the whole thing, it will have worked as a step.

Things like keeping 26-year-olds on their parents' insurance are too popular to die (nobody is connecting this with premium increases because sheep are stupid). Even if they have to be re-legislated, portions of ObamaCare will live on.

But the most important aspect of it, by far, was the IDEA of the entitlement to unlimited "health care". This is what will survive even without this legislation, and will continue to loom over elections forever.

The time is coming when the courts mandate universal health care. All it takes is some argument before liberal justices that a right to health care exists, and that someone isn't getting that right. At that point, the court will ORDER the government to meet the person's needs. We'll get a public system without legislation. Furthermore, to fund the public option, the government will raise taxes on private insurers, claiming that, in the name of "fairness", they should fund the program that makes up for their "failure" to provide for everyone. This competitive disadvantage vs the public option will put all private providers out of business.

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 4:58PM

26 Year olds, are ALREADY ALLOWED to stay on their Parent's Insurance.

Look it up.

TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 7:19PM

Sadly true, and most insurance companies have already announced that even if the law is struck down they will continue to uphold that particular part of it. Increased funds for them.

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 1:40PM

That's why Romney scares the crap out of me. I do not believe he will serve any purpose as our president except to take the blame from the left for the result of the destructive policies they implemented.

They still blame Reagan for the amnesty he agreed to. Encouraged by the same type of Republican's Romney now represents, Reagan allowed the implementation of their liberal policy, they never held up their end of the deal, and Reagan got the blame.

Romney's people are the originators of the health care bill, how is he going to deny responsibility?

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 1:56PM

In response to JD, exactly correct.

I would like to add that the problem is that we forget that the entire position of the left is based on a false premise.

Has anyone heard of anybody dying as the result of a denial of medical treatment in this country?

The answer is no! We live in a country where if you find a cat hit by a car and bring it into the vet it will be treated. How much more respect does a human receive?

I was recently in the emergency room with my wife. While there, a woman behind the curtain next to us was being treated for a dislocated hip. While waiting we learned that she had no medical insurance of any kind. None what-so-ever. She had no ability to pay. She was under the influence of methamphetamine. She had "allegedly" fallen out of bed during a dispute of some sort with her boyfriend, wink,wink, nod,nod. She received treatment. Once again, she received treatment, period.

We have begun arguing against all of the left's false premises. The whole point of their health care scheme is the same as the global warming scheme. More government to care for those weak wiled fleas and vermin on the left who simply want to lay and suck at the teat of nanny government.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 3:57PM

Oh, there are people who don't get non-emergency treatments and die. But there are also people who die due to many other forms of economic lacking. If we devote enormous resources to making sure no one lacks any so-called "health-care", we will impose a productivity burden that will cause death from all manner of other causes.

Americans already eat poorly due to their busy schedules. What effect will the need for increased production have on our diets, and as a result, our lifespans?

JD| 6.15.12 @ 4:18PM

Remember, though, the Left fundamentally believes that the world has plenty of wealth; only distribution is bad. They don't see increased healthcare obligations as requiring increased production.

TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 7:21PM

They also believe that the size of the pie is fixed, and that for poor people to have their standard of living increased the government must reduce the standards for everyone else, so that we are all equal.

Oldefarte| 6.16.12 @ 12:29PM

Of course she received treatment, and the hospital simply prorated the cost of same onto your/mine and everyone else's bill who was HEALTH INSURED; and therein lies the problem with this system. Either the hospital granting her treatment should have been forced to EAT the cost themselves or to turn her away and not treat her. Cruel? YOU BETCHA!!!!!!

Drummer| 6.15.12 @ 10:30AM

I agree! The whole mess must be tossed in its entirty. It never should have passed in the first place and probably wouldn't if certain Democrats had not been bribed to go along with it. The only other problem I see, is that the Supreme Court has been loaded with people who should never be there! By that, I mean those who don't believe in the Constitution as the foundation for this country.

Jade12| 6.15.12 @ 11:49AM

This law needs to be struck down in its entirety.

George S| 6.15.12 @ 11:56AM

Even if the law is tossed there is always the concern on what the dissenting opinion will hold. When Justice Harlan wrote that the constitution is colorblind in his lone dissent to Plessy, it was picked up in the opinion of of Brown. When Hugo Black wrote in the dissent in Betts v Brady that there is a right to counsel on request, that found its way in the right to an attorney opinion of Gideon.

I can just see a right to health care scribbled by one of the four liberal justices, a right that precludes the historically accepted freedom that to enter into commerce willingly and freely no longer applies when it comes to health care. If a lawyer can be compelled to represent a defendant who cannot pay, then blah blah blah commerce clause isn't limited to actual commerce taking place. Just guessing, but dissents -- however rarely -- do have influence over future Court opinions.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 1:40PM

What you describe is exactly how the Court will one day mandate public health care, which congress will then grant privilege to until private care can't compete, leading to solely public (nationalized) care.

Gary B| 6.15.12 @ 12:00PM

If things go how they've always gone, the court will issue a rambling decision that makes everyone angry. In other words they'll deliver a half decision, as they always do.

satan| 6.15.12 @ 1:15PM

Yes, Gary it would be much better if they could just dictate what you want, without regard to precedent. Fascism is so much easier, no?

JD| 6.15.12 @ 1:41PM

Somebody needs to read this:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....or-fascist

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 2:12PM

News flash: "Obama To Institute Portion Of DREAM Act Via Executive Fiat."

Skippy| 6.15.12 @ 2:29PM

Fascism IS Obamacare.

George True| 6.15.12 @ 2:33PM

Without regard to precedent??? The supreme court has struck down major legislation over 160 TIMES in its history. Now, THAT is precedent.

Just because your god Obama made the preposterous claim that it would be "unprecedented" for the supreme court to strike down legislation, doesn't mean it has any basis whatsoever in fact or in truth.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 3:44PM

Thanks for the reminder of that absurd comment by Obama. There was too much wrong with that to even write about.

TLP| 6.16.12 @ 7:29AM

Dred Scott was precedent. Separate but Equal was precedent. Segregation was precedent. Blacks counted as 3/5 ths of a person was precedent.

So, what's your point?

satan| 6.15.12 @ 1:12PM

Sounds good to me. the court trashes the GOP health care proposal ( currently called, oddly enough, Obamacare) and then we move on to single payer like the rest of the civilized world as we originally intended. It is almost as if the administration planned it this way. Oh, please don't throw me into that briar patch.

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 2:08PM

LOL see! this is exactly what I was saying earlier!

The communist liberals lie, break every law, precedent and parliamentary procedure ever established during the last 200 years of our country to ram this unwanted piece of stinking offal down the throats of the American people and some liberal with the apt name of satan is already referring to it as the GOP's health care bill. ROFLMAO!

What say you now to Romney TLP? Does this help you understand my point?

As I said, Ro-bomneycare. We will get the blame. We need Obama for one more term so that the majority of the hapless sheep in our society can recognize "satan" and his minions for who and what he represents and begin the process of eradicating him from our history and public consciousness.

4mike| 6.15.12 @ 3:16PM

Boar logic like that is what brought Hitler in to power in Germany. Romney is few peoples first choice definitely not mine but he is by far the lesser of two evils. Instead of letting this damage and destruction continue we need to put a stop to it and at least slowly get back on the right track.

What you are advising is like advising a kayaker to paddle right up to the very edge of a water fall before he turns around. We are already to close to the edge and we have a long way to go before the damage of the last 4 years can be undone there is no time to waste.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 3:45PM

I agree with your concern, Boar Hunter, but not the recommendation. If Obama is reelected, things will get worse, but they will still find ways to blame Republicans. Leaving them in power for a while so they get the blame attached to them is not going to work.

Boar Hunter| 6.15.12 @ 5:31PM

I do sincerely apologize for the confusion guys.

I never meant to imply that anyone should join me in my symbolic refusal to vote for Romney.

I do believe that Romney will be the next president. I further believe he will win by unprecedented margins.

I understand that I am acting in a manner that contradicts the advice of many men, who are way smarter than I am, I include many here as well as Mark Levin among that number.

It is simply my personal decision not to vote for Romney. It's not that I do not understand the arguments or even that I disagree with them.

I try to be a man of my word and believe in the concept of honor. As such, I believe my voting for Romney after all I have had said about him would make me no better than a lying liberal. The fact I live in California allows me to stand by my word without relevance to any other persons view or decision.

Take heart, as we use the electoral process, rather than a popular vote, my vote for Romney in California would mean exactly doodly-squat. These idiots re-elected Jerry Brown.

TLP| 6.16.12 @ 7:45AM

He's so Magnificent, isn't he?

Like Appleby, and Constantine, and so many others on this site with Impeccably Pure Principles, and a grasp of events, far superior to that of us mere Mortals, they will refuse to Vote for the only guy who can rid us of the Creature who would Enslave us all, and BRAG ABOUT IT, all the time they're doing it.

Because, after all, it's all about them. That stupid Old B*tch up in Canada. The protector of her Honour - Constantine, and now, this STUPID BASTARD, who would have us believe that the only way He can maintain his Imtegrity, is to do the Stupidest Fcking Thing on the Planet. And TO HELL with our Children, and our Children's children.

I gotta better Idea.

Why don't you just KILL YOURSELF?

I can't believe that anyone would miss you.

Do you believe this MFer!

Gary B| 6.15.12 @ 2:52PM

Hey, Satan... Let's ramp up food stamps for everyone so we can have single-payer food. I mean the precedent is there, right? We'll just get the private sector to pay for it, the greedy bastards.

4mike| 6.15.12 @ 3:24PM

Yes like the roaring example of success that Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, and all the other bankrupt nations of Europe are. What a great financial and medical path to follow.

Read this http://www.reuters.com/article.....IO20120614
its just the tip of the ice burg of what we are in store for unless we get our debt and entitlements under control.

And furthermore the European debt crisis is entirely fueled by unsustainable borrowing to pay for entitlement spending such as single payer.

TLP| 6.16.12 @ 7:47AM

Remember. This is SATAN we're talking about.

What'd you think he was gonna say?

LarryinTexas| 6.16.12 @ 4:55PM

Satan, begone! If Obamacare is unconstitutional, single payer is even moreso. And what makes you think that Barack the Usurper is going to get the chance to implement single payer? Unless he tries to do what he did with immigration, do it by executive fiat.

David| 6.15.12 @ 1:58PM

Isn't there also another big decision coming in June concerning voter ID laws?

I realize that my grammar, spelling, and word choice are not always perfect, but some posters here need to learn when to use "then" versus "than" and vice-versa.

If.....................then.
Rather.............than.

TLP| 6.16.12 @ 7:55AM

You should really buy a dog.

Obviously, you haven't got any FRIENDS to fill up all of your Free Time.

I believe that Herr Goebbels could have used a smart guy like you, way back THAN.

Idiot.

And, yeah, I used the wrong word.

I felt like it!

SIEG HEIL!

Mimi | 6.15.12 @ 2:17PM

The Affordable Care Act will end as it deserves to end in the trash!
Until Congress can do a better job....to fairly adjust some rules in Health Insurance stay away from even trying!
Government should never be in total control of a free individuals health and care...hands OFF!
Too much power is not American....we should be seeking for a decrease in government power not more!
The hubris,, and downright nerve of the Dem's to attempt this large take-over...I can't wait for this bill to be declared by the Supremes 'NO CAN DO"!

Dixon| 6.15.12 @ 2:49PM

When the former consitutional law prof, obamanation, gets his signature law slapped down for incompetence and arrogance by SCOTUS, what should Romney campaign for as a health reform initiative?

1. Encourage affordable, catastrophic health to insurance plans to cover the more rare, but big ticket proceedures and treatments....like car insurance & home insurance.
2. Exand HSA's to allow more tax free dollars and employer contributions to fund individual routine health expenses, check ups, tests that would cover 80-90% of the visits to the doctors and specialists...paid directly to the provider by the patient. This would cut costs for patients and even raise margins for the docs and clinics while increasing competition and innovation.
3. Open up competition for the catastrophic health insurance plans allowing purchase across state lines and encouraging creativity and customization.
4. Pass meaningful, assertive tort reform to further lower costs.
5. Provide generous tax cuts to docs and clinics that provide free service to the poor...$1 in free service earns $x in incremental tax deductions against income.

Let the market work! It is incredibly efficient, creative and let's the customer be king...not some uncaring, faceless, make work government bureaucrat that explodes costs and destroys quality.

Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 3:23PM

If I might disagree with you on a couple of issues. Remove all mandates for hospitals to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay.

1. The President should not encourage anything. Once all mandates for treatment are removed, let companies sell insurance products that are consumer driven.
2. The government should remove themselves from using the tax code to influence behavior.
3. All insurance plans should be available across state lines.
4. This should be left to the individual states.
5. Using the tax code to pick winners and losers is what is killing this country. Even when we cloak the intention in the most well meaning, you are still leaving the door open for the tax code to be used in a punitive fashion.

I agree to let the market work, but much of what you proposed is having the government dictate what the market can and can't do. Remove the federal government from the equation and health care would be much more affordable.

JD| 6.15.12 @ 3:51PM

I agree with Warrior much more than Dixon. I can't stand it when people say "create tax incentives, then let the free market work". Tax incentives are the opposite of the free market!

TLP| 6.15.12 @ 5:05PM

Open the free market, where Health Insurance is concerned.

Where is it written that you can ONLY buy Health Insurance from a Company IN YOUR STATE?

Put people with Pre-existing Comditions on Medicare, and open up EVRYWHERE TO DRILLING, which would provide the Tax Dollars to make this possible.

This is NOT a 21st Centurey Rubiks Cube.

It's not.

Dixon| 6.15.12 @ 8:18PM

We agree on the market...unfortunately, your desire to completely remove the Feds from healthcare in one swoop will earn you about 20% support or less.

Encourage free market reforms placing the docs, clinics and specialists much closer to the patient/customers...the results will encourage more of the same. Play chess...not poker.

Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 11:08PM

We've played chess for about 80 years now. 40% of the country won't get it if we reduced it playing marbles. We've had a Republican house for 14 of the last 18 years and each month brings more debt and tyranny. The one and only answer is the Constitution that each and every elected official swears to uphold. Jefferson had it right, “A little rebellion now and then... is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Dixon| 6.16.12 @ 11:54AM

I have no clue what you advocate....armed revolt? Appreciate criticism but you need to present workable alternatives, and I am not seeing any.

Revolution Seems the only way you will get what you seek, whatever that is.

The American healthcare mess is a supertanker, not a speedboat...you will not turn it on a dime.

If Romney were to advocate a sharp right turn it would throw the election to BO and the baby with the bathwater out the door too.

Advocate free market reforms and drive healthcare decision making and payments down to the customer and doctors.

Instead elected officials play poker with a broken system...it is not chess! It was an all in poker game that gave us the horrid obamacare in the first place, culminated when NE Sen. Nelson "folded" broke the filibuster.

We agree on the objective...disagree on the strategies and tactics.

Warrior| 6.16.12 @ 1:38PM

Seems simple. We have both proposed something that neither party is going to consider. If the ACA is declared unConstitutional as it should be. I'll guarantee you that the Republicans will talk about replacing it. There will be no free market solutions advocated seriously in this replacement. If the both sides are going to attempt to solve the problem from varying degrees of the left side and neither will truly be Constitutional, then what option remains? I would gladly move and support any state that moved for secession. We already know how Lincoln dealt with that issue ( and I'm quite sure our ruling elite will use that as their template), so the call to arms is inevitable.

Dixon| 6.17.12 @ 7:19PM

I agree with the Constitution being the only "dictator" in American governance.

But I am not ready to physically battle my fellow citizens over who pays for what....I am more than ready, willing, and able to engage them with ideas to earn support that the federal leviathan is an all destructive beast that must be put in its cage. We the People are its masters.

And "We" just showed in WI that ideas and action can dramatically build solid, growing majorities.

Healthcare entitlements will sink America as the programs now sit. They are ponzi. Private market reforms will provide important life preservers.

And most, if not all federal spending should be in the form of grants to the states...and another life preserver...the 10th Amendment.

I am prepared to develop the "good" reforms while pursuing the "great" ones.

President Romney "may" provide leadership for more Constitutional government. Would BO? Nay.

On this Father's Day...here is another "reform" that should be advocated...one Romney could easily campaign on: all students at EVERY American learning institution, public or private, should be offered and encourage to take classes in the American Constitution with Honors given to those who earn the most credits.

Happy Father's Day, Happy Warrior.

Warrior| 6.18.12 @ 12:33PM

I hope you enjoyed your Father's day also Dixon. It's a pleasure having intelligent dialogue on an issue even where there is disagreement.

Mimi | 6.15.12 @ 4:09PM

Dixon, What a great plan. The catastrophic insurance would be very affordable. The house insurance doesn't insure a paint job or any small repairs...same with auto insurance , they don't cover a break job or oil change. We could shop around for the routine care and prices would come down.
Anytime the government offers to pay, the price always goes up!

JD| 6.15.12 @ 4:20PM

Yes, his first bullet was what I also advocate. #2 and #5, though, went downhill. Tax-free dollars for health care might seem nice, but then, why isn't everything else also tax-free? And #5 was straight-up subsidy.

cpl. punishment| 6.15.12 @ 5:18PM

Number one was the basic tenet Romney proposed for MA. It didn't work out that way due to the massively dem legislature but Romney's mandate was for catastrophic insurance. Romney's predecessor made it what Obamacare was modeled on and today, catastrophic health insurance is all but illegal in MA (it is not sufficient in and of itself to satisfy the mandate)

Oldefarte| 6.16.12 @ 12:46PM

IMHO I simply care little what the SCOTUS does or doesn't decides concering this, as the underlying problem will still exist as some have suggested. If a Republican POTUS and more congressmen are elected in November, they have to begin dismantling same either by presidential orders/mandates or congressional legislation. Also the idea of a replacement has got to be avoided and demanded by rational citizens of this country. This Obama/WELFAREcare is nothing but an extention of aid to this/that/the other, housing/rent subsidies, food stamps, etc; and the whole idea of same needs to be diluted and eliminated from government processes. We simply cannot continue to allow individuals to birth/produce indigents into this world that will need financial support from income producers/taxpayers from cradle to grave. Those screaming against abortion need to get their heads out of their rear-ends and realize that until/unless birth control by whatever means necessary is allowable, these indigents whether from indigent-bubbas domestically or from illegal immigrants cannot financially support themselves in life and therefore the liberal wackos will always demand more and more of income producers funds through taxiation in order to pay for same. You can't prevent things like abortion and then become shocked at the increased demands of taxiation needed to support the offsprings of these indigents. 1+1=2! China's one-child policy was instituted for a reason and same was financial!!!!!!!

redwolf6911| 6.17.12 @ 10:44PM

Frankly, I hope SCOTUS strikes down the entire nightmare of a law. It will cost trillions more than currently, force numerous physicians out of practice, severely ration care to Seniors, and let bean counters dictate what care is allowed to your doctor. The plan is so regulated that even the Obama administration still does not know what is there, and the attacks on religious freedom. This law is unconstitutional and should be tossed.

More Articles by David Catron

More Articles From The Right Prescription

Sebelius’s Monkey Business

May 15, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

Unhealthy Immigration Reform

April 17, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

The Wheels Come Off Obamacare

April 15, 2013 | David Catron

Giant Bills Make Bad Laws

April 10, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

Get Ready for Obamacare Premium Defaults

April 4, 2013 | Betsy McCaughey

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/15/judgment-day-draws-nigh-for-ob

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|55 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|102 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|30 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|46 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.