-
Impeach Obama?
June 3, 2013 | 172 comments
-
Let’s Win This One for the Griper
May 31, 2013 | 73 comments
-
What Is It About Benghazi?
May 15, 2013 | 165 comments
-
The Socialist Dragon Slayer
April 9, 2013 | 42 comments
-
What Did Arafat Get for Killing U.S. Diplomats?
March 1, 2013 | 50 comments
Special Report
Undoing Obamacare
Suddenly, everyone wants out.
You would have thought that Chief Justice John Roberts had shouted “fire” in a crowded theater. In upholding Obamacare, he set off a headlong race for the exits by the same lobbying groups — believe it or not — that had cut deals with the administration to create the legislation. Back then, the lobbyists were telling each other: If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. Now the bodies are piling up in the doorway as those who pandered to the president trample over each other in their haste to get out of the blazing or crumbling structure that is Obamacare. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, no one without a heart of stone can witness this deadly scene without wanting to laugh out loud.
As reported on the front page of this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, every one of the health-care industry groups that signed on to Obamacare in 2009 is looking for a way out.
Hospital groups now say they want Congress to peel back $155 billion in payment cuts that they agreed to in 2009. Representatives of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Aetna, Inc., and Humana Inc. say they need greater freedom to adjust premiums to reflect risk. Medical-device companies are making a new push to roll back their 2.3% tax. Hotels, retailers, and restaurant chains are clamoring for a two-year delay in enforcement of a requirement that they cover full-time workers or pay a penalty, giving them until 2016 to comply.
Implement-and-improve, the Democrats are now saying in indicating a new willingness to make election-year concessions in revising the hated law. Or as the president put it on Thursday: “The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can.”
But the race to the exits by doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurers and others is evidence that the law is already beyond repair. To put that another way, the series of deals between the government and health-industry groups that gave rise to Obamacare is falling apart.
“The bargain that was struck seems to be out the window,” Bruce Siegal, chief executive of the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, was quoted as saying.
It is worth recalling how the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress brought the doctors, the hospitals, and other special interest on board in the first place. In her telling of the story (“Democrats Hoodwink the Health Lobby,” WSJ, July 10, 2009), Kimberly Strassel noted that after retaking the House in 2006, Democratic Party leaders put out the word that drug companies and others that did not hire Democratic lobbyists would not get a hearing in Washington. She wrote in her Potomac Watch column:
The ruling party is now seeing the fruits of its bullying. These days, a meeting of health-care lobbyists is better described as a reunion of Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus’s former aides. The new cabal of Democratic lobbyists does not exist to protect the industry from Congress. It exists to present Democratic ultimatums to business.
When Senate Republicans last month hosted a meeting to discuss reform ideas, Mr. Baucus’s office called in a block of these Democratic lobbyists to deliver a message. “They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all your people know if they have someone there, it will be viewed as a hostile act,’ “reported one attendee to the Baucus caucus.
Under such conditions, different industry groups were bullied and cajoled into signing on to a program that clearly threatened their own independence and integrity:
- Under the leadership of Billy Tauzin, the Big Pharma lobby agreed to do a $150 million Obamacare-friendly advertising campaign in return for protection against strict price controls on Medicare prescription drugs and drug re-importation from Canada (one of Obama’s campaign pledges). Tauzin also agreed to chip in $80 billion from the industry to help close a gap in Medicare drug coverage For his success in brokering a deal with the administration, the former congressman turned pharmaceutical industry lobbyist, was paid $11.6 million in 2010.
- The health insurers’ lobbying group under Karen Ignagni cut a deal with the administration in which it gave up A and B in order to get C and D: It agreed A) to bite its tongue in the face of avalanche of new mandates and other problems, and B), to commit publicly to squeezing some $2 trillion in costs out of the system, in order to get C), a law that was supposed to force 30 million uninsured to buy insurance, and D), the all-important promise that administration would not put them all out of business by exercising the so-called public option.
- The American Medical Association lent public support to Obamacare in return for promises of a “doc fix” — protecting doctors from the automatic imposition of future reductions in their compensation. In a truly remarkable display of docility, 150 doctors from 50 states played dressy-up for the president in October, 2009 — wearing White House-provided white lab coats as they applauded his pep talk on Obamacare. “Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do,” Obama told his guests at the photo op in the Rose Garden.
- Hospital groups agreed to $150 billion in future Medicare and Medicaid cuts — just to protect themselves against even steeper cuts down the road.
- Then there was the AARP sell-out. In the fall of 2009, many people were surprised when the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) announced its support for Obamacare even though one of the ways the Democrats proposed to “pay” for the health care law was by taking an axe to the popular Medicare Advantage program and forcing millions of seniors back to the more expensive coverage of traditional Medicare. As David Catron wrote in this space (“The American Association for Retiree Plunder,” 3-30-11), AARP is really an insurance company fronting as an advocacy group. Most of its revenues come from sales of “Medigap” policies that fill in for gaps in standard Medicare. As Catron explained, “AARP endorsed a law that does real financial harm to seniors in order to reap a crop of new customers when Obamacare guts Medicare Advantage.” That impression was partly confirmed later in a trove of emails made public by House Republicans. “We really need to talk,” an AARP lobbyist wrote in an email to the White House, noting that calls from seniors were running 14 to one against Obamacare.
So those are some of the ways by which the president and his allies in Congress contrived to jimmy up enough credibility to pass the Affordable Health Care bill into law. Even then, with large Democrat majorities in both houses, the bill passed by narrowest of margins.
It was the same kind of luck (or ill fate) that kept the bill from being struck down in its entirety when — as others have commented — Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the statute in order to save it, insisting that the individual mandate was constitutionally defensible because it was, in his word, a “tax.” He arrived at that conclusion despite repeated assertions by the president and others that the mandate was not a tax.
In reacting to the ruling, President Obama intoned that the Supreme Court had “reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on earth — no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.”
But Chief Justice Roberts said no such thing in rendering his judgment. To the contrary, he looked and sounded like Pontius Pilate publicly washing his hands. He was at pains to absolve himself and the court of further responsibility in having to deal with a very flawed and messy law. Here are two quotes from the chief justice:
About the Author
Andrew B. Wilson, a frequent contributor to The American Spectator, writes from St. Louis.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Andrew B. Wilson
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/02/undoing-obamacare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Screwtape Protests
- Gerry Ford at 100
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
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
Aristocat| 7.2.12 @ 6:19AM
WHAT TO DO NOW?
1) The House must overthrow Speaker Boehner. Many people do not realize that the government is still operating under the Nancy Pelois 2009 Budget, because Boehner has not stood by the House Republican budget and the Senate has not passed a budget in years.
2) A new Speaker could lead the House in cutting off funding for Obamacare. This could and should have been done years ago.
3) Articles of impeachment should be filed against judges who violate their oath to defend the Constitution.
Start with Judge Ginsburg, who has violated federal law by ruling on cases brought by parties whom she represented. (She was Chief Counsel for the ACLU, has refused to recuse herself from ACLU cases, and has ruled in favor of the ACLU on every case.) Not to mention her entire career of unconstitutional decisions.
4) The House should declare this act unconstitutional. House members take an oath to defend the Constitution. They have just as much right as judges to declare laws to be unconstitutional. Allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality has had disastrous consequences throughout
our history.
5) The seat of government should be moved out of Washington, DC.
6) The States should gather in Constitutional Convention to restrict the powers of the federal government and to return to the states the powers invested in them by the Constitution.
Stephanie| 7.2.12 @ 6:42AM
Sounds like a great idea, but I won't hold my breath. DC as a whole is what has ruined our nation.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 7:55AM
I love ya, Aristocat, but I'm afraid that Stephanie knows whereof she speaks.
If we lived in The United States of America, and were truly "One Nation, under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all" I would say that everything you have written was pretty much about to become a Fait-accompli.
IF we lived in that place.
Unfortunately, we live someplace else, so I would recommend you put those demands in to an Envelope, and drop them in he nearest Mail Box, addressed to the Fat Guy at the North Pole. Tell him how good you've been this year, and hope for the best.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a dig at you.
I just don't see any of it happening.
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 11:20AM
Whatever became of "The land of the free and the home of the brave" where the banner so proudly waved? Literally, I weep every time I hear the words.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 8:42AM
Good Luck with that ... believe in unicorns, do you?
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:12PM
Well...you think Obama is smart and competent.
Therefore, what's so implausible about unicorns?
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 4:41PM
So you believe in fantasies too, okay, I get it.
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 9:10AM
5) The seat of government should be moved out of Washington, DC.
ABSOLUTELY ! !
Our nation's capital is almost the only one in the world which is not located near the center, geographical, cultural or demographical, of its country. DC is a collection of incestuous inbreeding of lower-tier bureaucrats who do the actual ruling on America... they write laws and congressmen peruse ( if that) and then sign them.
The arrogant liberals who for generations have run the country from the liberal East Coast sneer at "flyover country," where patriots actually live the ways of Old America.
A. C. Santore| 7.2.12 @ 9:27AM
Regarding moving the government out of D.C.
Do that and the flying unicorns BUT NOT the "collection of incestuous inbreeding of lower-tier bureaucrats" will move with the government.
Right!
KyMouse| 7.2.12 @ 10:14AM
Moving the nation's capital to Kansas or any other location in the heartland wouldn't make a bit of difference. The problem isn't that liberal legislators live and work in D.C.--remember, almost all of them have homes in distant states.
The problem is their ideology, their worldview.
The problem with liberal legislators is also that a majority of their constituents elect and re-elect them. That includes voters who live and work far from Washington. Liberals harm our country wherever they live and work.
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 11:22AM
Consider this, that the government of South Africa has each branch located in a seperate city. One in Capetown, another in Pretoria and another in J'Burg. Any ideas?
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 6:21PM
I said:
"DC is a collection of incestuous inbreeding of lower-tier bureaucrats who do the actual ruling on America... they write laws and congressmen peruse ( if that) and then sign them."
I KNOW the actual legislators come from representative geographical areas. I really know that.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:11PM
You have a rich fantasy life...
Jackphat| 7.2.12 @ 7:55PM
Liberals have won by actually doing something, making the changes they wanted to see. I look at the comments here and clearly see why Conservatism can not proceed. Aristrocat has 6 great points but there being lost here. Complain all you want but until you actually do something what's the point! I'm hoping Aristrocat doesn't mind that I copy his words. I'm sending this to as many Congressmen, Senators and Governors as I can. I've done it before and received many notices back. Don't think emails are being ignored, they're not. They'll never know just how angry we are if we don't tell them. Email is free, it really doesn't take much time but most of all tell them your angry and why (be nice). Make up your own stock letter if you prefer. Send to Democrats and Republicans, let they know we are on to them.
And btw, Boehner is my rep, he'll be the first email I send.
Ragin Patriot| 7.2.12 @ 7:03AM
For context regarding the industry groups and the "bigger picture" underlying the Obama-Democrat agenda beyond Obamacare, consider the following quotes:
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
" ... fascism, properly understood, is not a phenomenon of the right at all. Instead, it is, and always has been, a phenomenon of the left ... Before the war, fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States" ... "The fascist bargain goes something like this. The state says to the industrialist, 'You may stay in business and own your factories. In the spirit of cooperation and unity, we will even guarantee you profits and a lack of serious competition. In exchange, we expect you to agree with — and help implement — our political agenda.'" -- Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism"
"I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday." - Saul Alinsky, "Rules for Radicals"
"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." - Josef Stalin
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 8:44AM
Oh, yeah, that world-reknown philosophical genius, Jonah Goldberg, riiiiggghttt.
Your comment is just a useless.
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 9:11AM
Another Monday, and your mom hasn't aborted you yet ?
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:13PM
If you disagree with Goldberg and have a well-formed rebuttal, by all means, go ahead...
We're listening!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm???
...crickets...
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 6:38PM
No point ... you're not really listening. Enjoy what you get in November.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 1:04PM
Purp, can you explain why fascism is not leftist? I doubt it, since it clearly is.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 7.2.12 @ 7:54PM
"Your comment is just a useless."
"world-reknown "
In criticizing the validity or content of the comments of others (particularly as it relates to "genius"), it generally aids credibility if proper grammar and spelling are employed.
Thank you for validating all we know to be true about the Left each day, Purp.
Deborah D| 7.3.12 @ 5:06AM
"Your comment is just a useless." Which generally means "the comment hit the nail on the head."
chuck| 7.2.12 @ 7:05AM
These companies and associations made a deal with the devil. Let them burn in Hell.
benny havens| 7.2.12 @ 7:27AM
If Romney and the Republican leadership are going to run on “repeal and replace” they had better come up with a well thought out and realistic plan. After viewing Mitch McConnell yesterday, he spouted off the same rhetoric we have been listing to for years. If Republicans just stick to Tort Reform and selling coverage across state lines, Axelrod and the rest of the communists will eat them for lunch and we will be stuck with not only Obamacare but Obama as well.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 7:33AM
Roberts did not "Uphold" Obamacare. He Rewrote it, so as to make it "look" Upholdable.
He put Lipstick on it. He put "Lifts" in it's shoes, to make it look taller, and a Circus Fun House Mirror behind Michelle's Ass, to make it look a little less like the backside of a Prize Winning Hog, at the Country Fair.
The Author's reference to Pontius Pilate is incorrect, because Pilate did not want to execute a man who had done Nothing, while granting Amnesty to an Enemy of Rome, in Barabus. He was compelled to, unlike our own Professor Plum, who did it in the Court's Chambers, with a Knife IN OUR BACKS.
This is not the end of the world, just another big step towards it.
We have to make this decision a Rallying Point, and something that Galvanizes our will, to bring about the End of BARACK the 1st.
We must support every Tea Party Candidate, in every "Winnable State", and not just our own. Especially if we live in Deep Blue States that have no chance of reversal.
Michigan is Winnable. Wisconsin is Winnable. Illinois is Winnable. Pennsylvainia is Winnable, as are North Carolina and Florida.
We gotta put our Money where our Mouths are, and if they let us down, it'll be time to take a page out of the Left's Play Book, and give them little visits WHERE THEY LIVE, and remind them who their Bosses are.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 8:47AM
Uphold or Strike Down - It's one or the other Timmy. And Uphold it they did.
As far as winnable States - what are YOU smoking? Illinois? Pennsylvania? Michigan? Wisconsin?
Now, YOU could lose Texas and then it's game over.
Alej| 7.2.12 @ 9:14AM
Won't lose Texas... not enough melanin-enriched jerks like you down here to cause that.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 9:29AM
Let him rant.
But, let him do it, alone.
"Leave him alone, and he'll go home, taking all of his Stupid Sh*t with him."
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 10:44AM
You should know by now, that doesn't work on me. Use your psychobabble bullshit someplace else.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:20PM
WHAT are you smoking???
Have you been paying attention to...oh, anything since January, 2009??
There's a GOP Senator - in Fat Teddy Kennedy's seat - in Massachusetts.
There WAS a GOP Senator in Illinois - in Obama's seat! - until he suffered a debilitating aneurysm.
The economy sucks, thanks to Obama's economic illiteracy and socialist policies.
The 2010 mid-terms were a disaster for the Democrat Party, and not only at the Federal level.
The generic Congressional ballot of likely voters gives the GOP a 7% advantage - in July!
The Democrat Justice Department is crumbling under the weight of corruption, and the AG has been held in-contempt (exactly as I TOLD YOU HE WOULD!)
Scott Walker just kicked your asses - again - in Wisconsin.
Democrats across the country are doing anything they can to avoid Obama - including skipping their own convention!!!
...And you somehow think all these things are a portent of good tidings for the Democrat Party???
GOOD!!!
Let's hope there's millions of more fools just like you.
fmm| 7.2.12 @ 9:57AM
If you think Illinois is winnable you surely don't live here or understand anything about its politics. The state is ruled by the speaker of the house Madigan (D) as if it is his personal fiefdom. He even got his daughter "elected" as attorney general. The GOP in Illinois is the most inept of any state, simply being an arm of the dems, taking whatever crumbs are pitched to them. This state is pitiful, and that is being kind.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 10:13AM
I understand.
But even a Faithful Dog, will turn on its Master, if Abused, enough.
And, November is a long ways away, yet.
A long Hot Summer away.
Deborah D| 7.3.12 @ 5:14AM
Southern Illinois is once again talking "secession" from Chicagoland...that part of the state is bleeding jobs, and Gov. Quinn is closing many state offices and functions down there, which makes them that much angrier. It would be a miracle, but Illinois is on the brink of something...bankruptcy and destitution have a tendency to focus the mind.
Drunken Sailor| 7.3.12 @ 11:39AM
Deborah,
I live in that part of the state (go any further south and you run out of state). I can tell you people here are pissed at northern illinois AND our politicians. There is a huge difference in the ends of the state. Many of us would gladly give Chicago to Michigan if they would take it.
Al Adab| 7.2.12 @ 11:29AM
Roberts did indeed rewrite the bill. It was more of a 4 - 1 - 4 decision. Never knew that the Court had authority to amend a law to make it legal for whatever reason he chose. It will be a while before we see the results of this decision. If the law is repealed then the commerce clause limitations and the opt out angle still are in place. All very interesting, but it demands a GOP dedicated to full repeal, not remove and replace. Liberty is better than pottage and the government exists to defend the first not provide the second.
janetd| 7.2.12 @ 7:33AM
I have read various articles since Thursday re: the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare, but have not read anything regarding the passage of a law that exempts some but not others. Does anybody know how the Court ruled regarding the issue of exemptions afforded to the unions and other pet groups of Obama? What about equal protection under the law? I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks!
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 8:48AM
They upheld Obomneycare, based on what the lawsuit stated was unconstitutional. That is all.
WRTolkas| 7.2.12 @ 8:14AM
I don't have any hope that obamacare will be repealed. The new batch of congressmen and women will be bribed by big monied interests. Now I understand why during the French Revolution anyone that had even the least influence in government was sent to Madam Guillotine.
paintbrush| 7.2.12 @ 8:15AM
Before we fire up our Constitutionally protected hookas and drop our shovels, we need to give praise to our glorious representatives, yes Courageous Democrats in congress that have worked long, long hours, to bring the first of the many five year health care plans. They have given us everything, yet they ask for so little in return – save a greater portion of our income and political obedience. I just think we need to give it a chance, as we are just too ignorant to be trusted with a decision as important as Health Care.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 8:51AM
"I just think we need to give it a chance..." and "Courageous Democrats in congress " - you're right about that for sure. Be proud America.
The rest tongue in cheek, not so much.
TriLastin | 7.3.12 @ 5:19PM
I respect your opinion, but honestly, give what a chance. Obama has a chance for the last 31/2 years and all he has done is systematically take apart the United States of America. All is is capable of doing with Obamacare is succeed in bankrupting us from a point of no return. Do you agree with all of the hidden taxes that are baked into this horrible law??
sickofit5| 7.2.12 @ 8:30AM
If the stakes weren't so high I would say screw them. They deserve what they got. They threw us under the bus and now they found out they are under the bus with us. It is scary to think that the leaders of these industries actually thought they could make a deal. Now we will all pay. I'm a realist, I just don't see us winning all three houses in November.
Anthony| 7.2.12 @ 8:33AM
A dispicable, intellectually and morally bankrupt decision, written by a corrupt Supreme Court.
Roberts, in his haste to make history, failed to realize that he sanctioned the most dishonest opinion authored by this Court, by allowing the Kagen vote to stand.
This woman should have recused herself, as she was up to her eyeballs in this law as Obozo's S.G.
Roberts put the final nail in what was the last vestige of respect for this Court.
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:02PM
Odd, but why did this have to go to the SC inthe first place? This is another done deal same as the Gore/Bush election "tie breaker". Don't you get it? It HAD to go to the SC so no one could argue about it any longer. What a horrible way to treat America.
Kwan| 7.2.12 @ 8:48AM
The Democrats have for decades been cultivating an underclass that they use as a voting block and as a reason for promoting the transformation of the United States into a Marxist People's Republic in order to achieve "fairness", "equality", and "social justice". The world's financial system is still trying to recover from the mess created by the Democrat's effort to make home ownership "fair" and "equal" using the Community Reinvestment Act. Now we have "fair" and "equal" health care that promises to be a complete disaster for the nation. If we keep buying into the Democrats "fair" and "equal" con-hustle we'll wake one day to find out that we're living in a replica of the Soviet Union.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.12 @ 8:53AM
I suppose,
we will see in November if we still deserve to be free.
Or
have we become a nation of sheep.
It truly is that simple.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 9:09AM
Sheep.... follow Fixed News and Rush and all their lies. I thought this law was clearly, unmistakably, 100% unconstitutional? So will go all their lies and propaganda.
Louis Jenkins| 7.2.12 @ 9:23AM
True. The writing is on the wall.
John Navratil| 7.2.12 @ 10:28AM
Ken,
I am reminded that our national anthem ends in a question. It seems the answer, today, is "No!" We will see if anyone wishes to counted among the free in November.
Jack London| 7.2.12 @ 12:28PM
How has it affected your freedom, John?
JD| 7.2.12 @ 1:33PM
We earn money, and should in the process earn the right to use our money as we please. Taking our money to fund your ideas is an assault on our freedom.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 6:46PM
Spoken like the selfish, self-centered fool you are.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 7:32PM
You want to take my money, and I'm the self-centered one?
John Navratil| 7.2.12 @ 2:48PM
Jack London,
Do you REALLY need an answer to your question? How's this one? I cannot buy the insurance (major medical) I used to be able to buy as it has been regulated out of existence and am compelled to buy a policy to government specification which includes care I do not want and all but eliminates fee-for-service. It didn't begin with Obamacare; that's just the last and biggest nail in the coffin of American healthcare. Insurance is to spread risk. I've no problem with insuring against the catastrophe, but the statistically normal, healthy person shouldn't claim a dime against a health insurance policy. It is a moral hazard.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:41PM
Jack, like any good Liberal, will only "Get It" when they finally COME FOR HIM, and there's nobody left to speak for him.
Jack London| 7.2.12 @ 4:48PM
John – two questions.
1 Do you think we should have a health insurance market that works for all Americans?
2 Do you think it's possible to have free market health insurance with no regulation that works for all Americans?
Oh and a third - would you abolish Medicare?
George S| 7.2.12 @ 5:12PM
1. We do have a market that works for all Americans who have the means to buy insurance. If you do not have the money, there is the emergency room and Medicaid. If you have the insurance money and choose to spend it on a bigger apartment, why should that cause money to fly out of my wallet? Also, since with every policy we are forced to buy mandated coverage that we do not need or want, how does that work for ALL Americans?
2. Yes.
Now, if "works for all Americans" means that you get top notch care and you do not have to pay for it, well that is the root of our problem.
John Navratil| 7.2.12 @ 5:29PM
Jack London,
Do you still beat you wife?
(1) Define "works". Typical liberal weasel words.
(2) It is impossible to have any insurance without regulation as it is a promise to pay on Tuesday for a hamburger today. That is why insurance should be avoided whenever possible.
(3) As it currently exists, yes!
Jack London| 7.2.12 @ 6:10PM
Well George and John, let's say 'what works' is that someone diagnosed with say cancer or diabetes will receive the standard of care for their condition without either going bankrupt or relying on charity. In other words, they participate in insurance according to their means, which is the way every other developed nation manages its healthcare.
You're living in complete denial if you think the free market would cover people with chronic conditions and the elderly, and that a shelf stacker could pay out of pocket for a triple bypass - we've discussed this before and your answers are still rooted in some weird universe where you can barter all your care for a chicken.
And I still don't understand why you prefer a non-system that encourages freeloaders and raises your costs.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 6:23PM
There are several fallacies in what Jack wrote.
You can't define "working system" as people not going bankrupt, because having not defined how much money this person who can't go bankrupt has to begin with, you've now required a "working system" to be one that charges nothing at all, so that it doesn't "bankrupt or rely on charity" when a person has nothing at all to pay with.
"According to their means" is a familiar Marx line, with good reason.
You say we're in "complete denial", but it is YOU who are in denial if you think you can declare any good or service to exist outside the market simply because you've marked it "special". Medical services need to be produced, and your schemes require people to produce without being paid. You ignore this cost.
And finally, you revert to accusing all ObamaCare critics of loving the status quo. We don't. The status quo is riddled with leftism that drives up prices in efforts to circumvent market forces. ObamaCare will make this worse.
We want change. Just not your change.
John Navratil| 7.2.12 @ 6:41PM
Jack London,
Let me amend: Do you still beat your economics professor?
The free market does not do anything unless it is mutually beneficial. End of life care is where the most money is spent for health care in most peoples lives. Ultimately, we die anyway. If your goal is to spend more of other people's money than is available in some misguided sense of "fairness" it is you living in denial. What's wrong with charity? We are the most generous people in the world, constantly fund-raising for this person or that family. It sure beats no charity when you need it.
I do not prefer a "non-system" that encourages freeloaders. I discourage freeloaders. I would not have written the law which mandates emergency rooms to cover care regardless of ability to pay. My system would provide premium support for those desiring it and requiring it; a means based system. My system would not provide "well care" or "preventative care" as anyone's benefit. "Well care" is a fact of life. Preventative care costs more than treatment, collectively.
Your problem is that you won't charge the poor even a chicken. No one pays, so everyone pays... and pays... and pays... because there is no such thing as a free lunch and no better allocator of scarce resource than cash.
Read what I just wrote. It doesn't preclude welfare. It doesn't disallow insurance. It says that the one person best empowered to make their own health decision is the patient. Insurance doesn't help.
Jack London| 7.2.12 @ 7:22PM
You're not following this are you John - you do understand that in other countries everyone contributes if they are working or have income - that's what makes the system work. Of course on top there are still charities and still Cadillac policies for the well off. But we really can't stumble on with no policy for universal coverage.
I think you're in a panic unnecessarily - let's see how Obamacare work out, especially when there's more effort on cost control, as there must be. There's no way all of it will be repealed.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 7:33PM
"We have to pass the bill to see what's in it" revisited. You guys don't demonstrate such patience with anyone else's ideas!
John Navratil| 7.2.12 @ 8:54PM
Jack London,
I follow it very well. I've lived in those other countries. I have cousins in the Czech Republic and in England. My grandmother died of undiagnosed breast cancer under the British NHS. She had a heart attack which no one detected or cared for; it was when she visited the U.S. that she had another and got the care she didn't in Utopia. My Aunt died of cancer which was undetected, as well. I've lived there under the system. It does not work for the very things you claim it should - although the hospice care is excellent according to my cousin. It does not work in Germany. If you have a boat you can loan the surgeon you get the surgery as you wish, otherwise you wait. It doesn't work in Canada where many come across the border for superior care.
The best health care system in the world is not a product of government. Government will destroy it. You libs think magic jelly beans will pay for everything and now, with sixty percent or more of GDP going to one form of entitlement or another, you want to add costs.
Your Utopian ideal is the road to Hell.
Jack London| 7.3.12 @ 10:44AM
It's rare nowadays for people in Western Europe not to get a cancer diagnosis if they go to a doctor (many people of course do not go when they should – here as well). And we have plenty of people who can't get access to specialists. The bottom line is that our mortality rate from major diseases is about the same as Western Europe - don't confuse cancer survival times, which are often skewed here by aggressive and unnecessary screening.
John Navratil| 7.3.12 @ 4:11PM
Jack London,
Check your facts. Cancer mortality rates are similar, but survival rates in the U.S. are much, much better. Mortality rates derive from all sorts of behaviors. Survivability depends on health care, alone. There is nothing rare about having two females in the same family with the same experience with NHS.
My grandmother went back to a cardiologist after leaving the U.S. The first thing they did was take her of the prescription given by the U.S. docs. Only when her health deteriorated did they, reluctantly, re-prescribe the medicines. We will never know, but the question of the day is, how likely would she have ever been to have had access to those meds from the NHS in the first place? My experiences does not reach your happy conclusion.
I invite you to experience their care for yourself. You will not be surprised to know why people from around the world, including Europe and Sweden come to the U.S. for care.
Jack London| 7.3.12 @ 4:32PM
Sorry John - you don't understand how survival stats work. If I screen you at age 60 and find a prostate cancer that will kill you in ten years you have survived 10 years. If I find it at 65 you will still die at 70. But the 'survival' stat looks better.
In fact leaving aside the bogus prostate stats the 5 year survival rates are very similar for most cancers in the US and Western Europe anyway, and are better in some European countries.
As for your grandmother, one anecdote does not damn a whole country. Her health decline may have been unrelated. I can give you anecdotes from the US - such as a couple my wife and I know who were faced with having to divorce so one could qualify for Medicaid.
And people from all over the world also go to the top teaching hospitals in Germany, France, Switzerland and the UK. No one denies that we don't have some of the top acute specialists - but that's mostly a function of our size and wealth. The vast majority of procedures are done as well elsewhere while primary care is often far better abroad.
John Navratil| 7.3.12 @ 7:33PM
Jack London,
Bullshit! You just posited a situation where the effect is treatment is nil. The mortality stat is unchanged. You manufacture a worse survivability stat by postulating an ineffective treatment.
When we can agree on definitions, we can talk. Until then, we are wasting each other's time.
Jack London| 7.4.12 @ 6:27AM
John, you said:
"survival rates in the U.S. are much, much better."
They are not. If they were the cancer community would be going mad trying to replicate this wonderful advance. There are variations of course and we do lead in soem cancers, but not but 'much much better' and in fact countries such as France do better than us in some cancers.
As I said, what conservatives often fail to understand is lead time bias – that if go looking for things, which often won't kill you, you artificially boost your survival rates. You'll recall that Rudy Giuliani made a fool of himself by parroting massive prostate cancer survival gains in the US over the UK - it wasn't true because our screening picks up many more non-fatal cancers.
This article explains it well.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicin.....sus-europe
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:12PM
I think you are right about the all too numerous cancer diagnosis now prevalent in the USA. Odd, I don't go to the doctor EVER so I guess I won't be one of the lucky ones to have cancer seeing as I have no access whatsoever to any yearly unnecessary mammograms or colonoscospies, etc. I don't even take a flu shot so my odds are skyrocketing that I WONT get cancer at this rate. Anytime an old person sees the doctor it's test the hell out of the poor person to run the bill up so the doctor can break even and make his Porsche payment this month.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 6:59PM
We don't need to abolish Medicare.
It's TRILLIONS IN DEBT, with No Hope of Survival. Just like Social Security, Just like Amtrak. Just like the Post Office.
Just like EVERYTHING the Federal Government gets its Thieving Hands on.
Just like Star Trek 4, when Scotty says to Kirk, about Spock - "He's Dead, already".
It's Dead, already.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 6:49PM
Preventive medicine is not free - if you are not availing yourself of that, then you are tempting fate for the time it's too late. Now you have to pay, if you don't have insurance. And, since we all have to pay more when you don't have it, you have to cough it up now. Finally. You are no island, no rock, you are part of the community. But you still can ignore healthcare, you'll just have to pay for the privilege.
George S| 7.2.12 @ 8:49PM
Let's work with that premise, but first some basics:
Is it true that the one percent controls 95 percent of the wealth in this country? You have been telling us just that.
Is it true that we have 20 percent of the world's oil reserves yet we use -- what? -- 80 percent of it? You have been telling us just that.
Now... if we all "contribute" to the health care of everybody (pay attention Jack London, this applies to you too) would not there be a small percentage -- namely, the elderly -- who use up most of the health care resources?
Is that fair?
George S| 7.2.12 @ 8:49PM
If you say we all pay into the system -- and therefore entitled when it's our turn, then why Medicare going broke? If we all pay into the public education system -- regardless if you have kids or kids in public school -- then why does it cost the government three times per pupil as private schools? More payers to Medicare and public education, the system should be overflowing with cash! But it's not. Why?
Because the money goes to the government first, the schools and hospitals second. The government acts as a filter, sucking in the cash but it gets caught up in administrative expenses, union salaries and benefits, public employee retirement, and capital projects and expenditures that have no free market risks; if the money is lost they just tax more.
Same thing will happen with ObamaCare. All the health care dollars first go to the government. Then they'll conduct class warfare (the greedey sick elderly vs. the healthy young taxpayer) so they can politically cut expenditures. Will you get that money back? Ha ha ha... no. The health care union membership rolls will swell, absorbing that money. And why not? Those are more sure votes than the bedridden 80-year olds who cannot get to the polls.
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:08PM
George, you didn't read the part where Obama is going to deny old folks over 65 any sort of meaningful care as they cost too much? I love the part where every 5 years I'll have to go somewhere and convince some empty headed doo gooder chairwarmer that I deserve to live another 5 years as I am NOT a burden to society. Oh joy!!! I can hardly wait.
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:05PM
Ken, honey, we ARE SHEEPLE and we HAVE been sheared plenty. It's us, the people who have to change as the paid for politicians are not going to change unless you sew up your pockets so they can't pick your money and give it to themselves and their friends.
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 9:01AM
"It is no good pretending ... that anything will come true if you wish for it hard enough."
That has been the case in American politics since at least 1972 or 1973, when Watergate first surfaced.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 9:05AM
" The new cabal of Democratic lobbyists does not exist to protect the industry from Congress. " - Is that what lobbyists do? Really? All the sweetheart tax breaks and special interest deals - they pay for protection? The author you cite is clearly delusional or stupid.
If that were to be proven, any lobbyists paying for protection, would be hauled off to jail under the Rico act for racketeering.
Instead, what they pay for is special favors (oh, I mean "access"). And, that even is treading on thin ice. eg. Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham and other Republican Congressmen and Republican operatives.
In addition, don't you get tired of the all scare tactics? It's really tiring when that seems to be the only way you can win an argument.
JP| 7.2.12 @ 9:27AM
The President in Feb 2009 met with the CEOs of the 5 largest health insurance firms in the nation. By the end of the meeting all agreed to endorse ObamaCare. A month later the President met with the 8 Big Pharma; at meetings end they too agreed to endorse ObamaCare. In both House and Senate versions of ObamaCare, large subsidies and set asides for Big Insurance (the Individual Mandate), and big Pharma were written into the Bills.
There are no meeting minutes of what took place behind closed doors. And even if RICO Laws were broke, do you really think that Holder will assign an investigation? But, lawyers today representing Big Pharma and Big Insurance both revealed that the WH in true Chicago fashion cut big Quid Pro Quos.
lost| 7.2.12 @ 11:53AM
"If that were to be proven, any lobbyists paying for protection, would be hauled off to jail under the Rico act for racketeering." Wrong. The ones paying for protection do not go to jail, the ones extorting the money would go to jail. I think what you meant instead of paying for protection you meant offering and excepting bribes.
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:26PM
Hey, dummy...
Jack Abramaoff had more Democrat clients than Republican clients.
Additionally...do you know what a lobbyist even does???
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 4:45PM
Read it and weep, low educated one - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ti.....44002.html
You have so soon forgotten 2006 and 2008.
Drunken Sailor| 7.2.12 @ 5:04PM
Did you even read this link? He is saying a lot of the same things conservatives here have been saying and that you have disagreed with.
I really like this quote.
"That's where the tea party has been unbelievably effective," Abramoff said.
These ideas are spot on.
Some of the many reforms Abramoff advocates in his book include term limits for members of Congress--a measure endorsed by several Republican presidential candidates, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman. He also proposes a lifetime ban for lawmakers and their staff on employment by organizations that lobby--together with a ban on gifts to Congress coming from anyone who benefits from federal contracts and funds.
But you still have yet to explain how Doc Right was wrong.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 6:52PM
Yes, and he recommends that Occupy be like the Tea Party. So?
The point was from Dr. Know-Nothing "Jack Abramaoff had more Democrat clients than Republican clients." - This article completely dispels that falsie, doesn't it?
JD| 7.2.12 @ 2:08PM
Lobbying is a left-wing phenomenon. Only the Left wants government to be involved in things that might cause people to want to curry special favors.
If the Right gets its way, there's nothing to lobby for, because government isn't involved in the economy.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 6:52PM
Really? Go ask Tom Delay about that one ... hahahaha.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 9:06AM
"Of course it wasn’t the CRA that caused everything. The CRA was a factor in lowering lending standards. This was a necessary, although not sufficient, cause for the mortgage mess." - John Carney, Business Insider.
"It’s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. In any case, the relaxation took a peculiar form that actually made CRA lending more important rather than less. You see, the government let banks drop things like putting in ATMs in rural areas in favor of letting their compliance be judged entirely on CRA loans. This means the CRA had more of an influence on home lending after the requirements were relaxed, not less."
"What's more, George W. Bush was a major proponent of the kind of mortgages that banks had started making under the CRA. He urged low-to-no doc mortgages and the elimination of downpayments, just like the CRA regulators had long done. “We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home,” the President said in a 2002 speech. “We can change the print, and we've got to.”" - http://articles.businessinside.....gage-rates
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 9:10AM
Romney Loves Obomneycare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmihmlb1LBY
Doctor Right| 7.2.12 @ 12:27PM
So what?
People despise ObamaCare...and they WILL punish the Democrats for it - again - in November.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 4:47PM
Good luck with that ...
JP| 7.2.12 @ 9:20AM
"From the start, a clear majority of Americans has grasped that point, recognizing the lunacy of believing that it would be a good idea to launch a massive new entitlement program at a time when the nation -- according to the president's own debt panel -- was careening toward bankruptcy with the entitlement programs we already have."
This is wishful thinking. The President's approval ratings since April are on the rise. In many Swing States he is actually pulling away. And while 58% of Americans want ObamaCare repealed, they are unwilling to elect Mitt Romney to do it.
squalis| 7.2.12 @ 9:53AM
Point of clarification: The AMA doen NOT represent physicians at large. Before Obamacare was going through the corrupted legislative process, credibility of the AMA among MD's had long been waning. Since the Obamacare mess, aside from the most liberal contingent of docs (approx the same % as the general public), all credibility has been lost.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.12 @ 10:31AM
Mitt Romney is not a communist...and he doesn't despise America.
'nuff said.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.12 @ 10:32AM
PS:
Purp is nt a paid troll. He is too stupid.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 10:43AM
"Judgement by a fool, is a foolish judgement"
Bill84728| 7.2.12 @ 2:08PM
Is "Purp" short for "Purp(sic)etrator?"
philippic| 7.2.12 @ 1:44PM
I see no need to argue the obvious.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:44PM
And he didn't EAT HIS DOG, he only put him up on the roof.
That, alone, should be enough to get him elected.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 4:48PM
Who ate his dog? Oh you mean a 7 year old? Yeah, you would pick on a kid.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 7:06PM
That's right.
This "KID" I will gladly pick on.
This "KID" named after Mohammed's Horse.
I pray, every night, for that projectile with his name on it.
He's a Piece of Shit, and he's doing everything in his power, to bring this Country to it's knees.
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 10:52AM
I'm not pleased or comfortable with Justice Roberts' decision in this case. It is too reminiscent of the old supposed quote, "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it." from our Vietnam involvement. That being said, there is no denying the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate aspect of this decision regarding unintended consequences for the Dems. They just received a conservative activist justice's decision that puts them behind the eight ball. After Obama's insults and implied threats to the court, Roberts has in effect said, 'Oh yeah? Take that MFers!' Now the Dems get to justify lying about passage of the law and run on a ginormous tax increase this fall. Let's see them get out of this one. How do you like judicial activism now? Take that MFers!
philippic| 7.2.12 @ 1:43PM
never underestimate the stupidity/truculence of the Liberal Left and their dependents. they're counting on it. just as they are counting on everyone who opposes this government take-over to silently stand by. not going to happen.
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 3:40PM
So much contentiousness on this thread. First I'm allegedly using incorrect contractions for profane expressions, wrong in my concerns about Roberts' decision, and somehow implicitly planning on being a slacker this fall and letting dear old brother in law sit on his arse and not vote. [But what if he votes for Obama? He is, after all, a jerk. Aren't most in laws?] Now I'm taking things for granted?
Just to be clear, I'm not taking anything for granted. I was simply pointing out the coming enjoyable time we will all have watching the Dems jump through hoops, twist into verbal contortions and overheat their arrestedly developed brains trying to justify lying to the entire country about ObamaCare and imposing a ginormous tax increase on the middle class. This will not be easy for them: and doing as a result of judicial activism which is a taste of their own medicine. [Hmm. Will the metaphor police be after me for that one? I guess I'll soon find out.] I thought that all of this was obvious. Guess not. Mea culpa. So sorry.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 4:49PM
Check the Romney campaign - they agree with Obama - guess you're right wing megaphones didn't get the memo.
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 6:01PM
More contentiousness!
What right wing megaphones was I expecting to receive the memo? Funny how so many know what I am thinking that even I don't know that I am thinking. The Romney campaign? Did I mention him/them? Mitt agrees with Obama on what? I saw him say he was going to repeal Obamacare if elected. Did the clip get edited? Please 'splain it to me. Thanks in advance.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 6:15PM
Purp, you're echoing the liberal rank-and-file a bit too much.
I know they're all busy crowing today that some Romney staffer said it's not a tax, but they're not thinking straight. Of course the Romney campaign will say it's not a tax, because "not a tax" means, according to John Roberts et al, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
How can you think that's a win for the Left?
It is Obama, and only Obama, that wants to argue that it's a tax, so that it's constitutional. Unfortunately for him, he also wants to argue that it's not a tax because that's how he got it passed.
But that's his problem, not Romney's. Romney is not invested in both sides, here. He can claim it's not a tax and unconstitutional, and he wins. He can claim it's a tax and Obama's jacking up taxes on the poor, and he wins.
Don't blame us. Obama did this to himself!
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 6:37PM
Thanks, JD. I had no idea what Purp was talking about or referring to. I must say, he's reading a lot into my comment that is not there. Did the heat get to Purp or is he some kind of nut?
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 7:08PM
It's only the friggin' mandate, on those who shirk having insurance.
It's a Heritage Foundation idea, go argue with them. The politicians will have to now. The law is Constitutional because the Supremes say it is. It doesn't matter what the penalty is called now.
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 7:33PM
I didn't say anything about any of this stuff. Why are you saying this to me? Please explain your irrationality Purp. Can you read? Seriously.
Your comments sound like a stream of consciousness from an inmate at a lunatic asylum. 'The memo, megaphones, the friggin' mandate, shirking insurance, Heritage Foundation, Constitutional Law, the Supremes.....' All I was talking about is how funny it is that the Dems got what they wanted and as a result they are behind an election 8 ball and it's going to be fun watching them try and extricate themselves from the situation. Then you give me transmissions from the psycho ward.
Well, at least I've had a good laugh at your expense.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 7:35PM
That's quite a short post for so many flaws.
Besides the usual "telling us what our ideas are, even though we disagree", there's "the Court is almighty (I guess Citizen's United stays, eh?)". And finally, the open admission that the tax/penalty word swap is a lie.
Cobalt| 7.2.12 @ 11:06AM
Only 18% of physicians belong to the AMA.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.12 @ 11:10AM
Jim,
the shorthand contraction you are looking for is "mofos".
The thing is, Justice Roberts hit the nail on the head. We the people get to decide Obamacare.
Our House of Reps has held their finger in the dyke, BUT NOW IT IS TIME TO DECIDE!
Will the American people choose liberty in November, or will we choose serfdom?
Get your brotherinlaw off his ass come election day.
JimP| 7.2.12 @ 11:27AM
Ken,
What's up with not just using the "reply" option? Odd.
Spare us your supposed omniscience on contractions. It's a free country, at least as far as contractions are concerned. Different strokes for different folks.
That you think Roberts hit the nail on the head is your opinion. If that is what you think, fine. Just remember, opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one. Oops. Did I just commit another contraction infraction?
Don't read things into people's comments that aren't there and then lecture them on what they need to do. Boring, pointless, pompous and dictatorial, just like being the 'Contraction Police'.
Now, get YOUR brother-in-law off his keister etc, etc, so on and so forth.
philippic| 7.2.12 @ 1:41PM
Ken...SCOTUS reinterpreted the legislation! Roberts may be right - from a political point-of-view. but SCOTUS is dead wrong on how they reasoned/supported the outcome.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 2:29PM
He's wrong either way. The power to use taxes to do anything is the power to violate any human right.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 7:10PM
Not so, according to the taxing power of the US Constitution. I thought you all like the Constitution?
JD| 7.2.12 @ 7:36PM
I do. I like it as written, not as reinterpreted. The taxation powers the Left has claimed since the FDR Court aren't in there.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:46PM
No.
He REWROTE it.
Which is a thousand times worse.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 5:12PM
He interpreted, according to the degradation of language that is so common today.
Most of us understand that there is little practical difference between fascism, socialism, and communism, because although nominally they have different levels of private ownership, it means little in practice to "own" something if the government tells you exactly how it must be used. Roberts has (correctly) claimed that there is no difference in practice between a "tax" and a "penalty", once we've established that taxes can be tied to behaviors.
There is similarly no difference between "credit", "subsidy", and "penalty" - whether positive or negative, tax "stimulus" has the same results.
That's why we need to do away with these things, regardless of their names. There is literally nothing stopping them from taxing anything into nonexistence, save for the popular vote.
Purp| 7.2.12 @ 7:10PM
Rewrote it, how? Because Fixed News says so?
Who Knows?| 7.2.12 @ 11:58AM
Would Jesus have upheld Obamacare?
“Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.”
Oh, how applicable that on-the-cross sentence is!
Indeed, one could understand it as THE sentence handed down by the “judges” of Reality, when it comes to all human acts. How inexplicable is any of it, ultimately, and even any issue du jour, such as Robert’s vote?
Conventional wisdom---Jesus lays the judgment on his killers: they are ignorant of Who He is.
Absolutely, though, since nobody ever Really knows anything, those nine words can be understood very differently. They are simply the Truth, whatever the particular situation.
However, since we do seem to live in a realm of human separation, empirical laws are supreme---and court our attention, mightily, as with the SCOTUS dance. Since Roberts apparently switched his vote, his actions demonstrate that he doesn’t KNOW, either.
Doesn’t anybody use his brain anymore?
No, never.
People believe they “have” a brain, a body, and so forth, but this is just an order-keeping assumption, an illusory dance. There is no “I”, Absolutely.
I IS the body, speaking, of which the brain is the vital core.
Speak on, you knowers---the Lord forgives “you”.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:50PM
JESUS also said : "The poor will always be among us."
So, how does that fit in with your inane rantings?
philippic| 7.2.12 @ 1:37PM
this is gonna have to be done the hard way.
- price fixing combined with mandatory service requirements will produce the inevitable: shortages and rationing
- doctors are quitting
- premiums continue to rise
- healthcare costs continue to rise
- coverage won't matter if availability isn't there
- they did lie about taxes
- they did lie about the cost (CBO estimates have doubled from the original cut used to support the bill)
- it has already been corrupted favoring politically favored groups (see waiver process)
- it is an assault on freedom: there is no choice
- too many people oppose this monstrosity. it cannot survive in the long-run without general support. it has never enjoyed that - and doesn't today. Americans always find ways to undermine systems/policies large numbers of them oppose.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 1:50PM
ObamaCare will fail - and the Left will blame the private sector and use it as an excuse to fully nationalize.
That's actually been their plan all along.
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 4:58PM
We're gonna get to the point where all of the Medical Specialists, will set up shop in someplace like The Cayman Islands, and the rest of us will have to suffice with a Government Supplied Army of Affirmative Action General Practitioners, right up until the day we're only ALLOWED to get a Pain Pill.
It's Inevitable.
If you can count. (Hat Tip - "The Warriors")
Eduardo| 7.2.12 @ 2:07PM
Within a very few years after full implementation in 2014, even with subsidies to those legally qualifying for one, coverage will start to become unaffordable. This is due to all the "free" benefits that will have to be provided which will drive up premiums and adding persons with pre-existing conditions to the mix. While they cannot be denied coverage as I understand it, pre-ex people will be charged significantly higher premiums, and many with pre-ex will not be able to afford that. They will complain to the Government, and when that reaches critical mass the feds will hear their cry and address their plight be creating a Governmnet health plan that will be much cheaper than private carrier plans. It can be much cheaper since the feds don't have to comply with a balance sheet and show a profit like a private plan. The fed-plan can be run like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Amtrack, the Post Office, etc (right, TLP?) meaning it can and will lose billions. Pretty soon after that, all privace plans will go out of buisness because the market will move to the cheaper fed-plan and we will finally have.................SINGLE PAYER!!!! Just what lefties have wanted all along. Oh, there will be a few details like allocating care (death panels anyone?) but that's what happens when EVERYONE has equal claim to services. Too back "coverage" will not equal "care". Happy now, Libs? Or don't you have to suffer along with the rest of us?
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 5:03PM
Eduardo is absolutely correct.
They are collecting the Money for their Cuban Style Health Care debacle, NOW, to pay for it, Later.
Sound Familiar?
If anyone believes that this Money will still be there by 2014?
I have a pair of Michelle's Size 1 Pants that you can buy.
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 3:27PM
There is one and one only culprit in this debacle, and it ain't John Roberts. Rather it is the STUPIDITY of the American people/voters. They voted a PEE WEE HERMAN to run GE, in effect. It is said that YOU REAP WHAT YOU SEW, so maybe it is now fitting that these same Americans are experiencing a TINGLE UP THE LEG OF SORTS over this. I hope so, and beyond that, I hope they GET THEIR HEADS OUR OF THEIR REAR-ENDS AND THINK FOR A CHANGE. Think about the mistake they made on 11/4/08, and the ramifications of that mistake now and into the future. Think about NOAH'S ARK heading for the waterfall of destruction. Think about the Republicans standing on either side of the river throwing a rope of survival over from one side of the river to the other. Think about the American taxpayer-voters on that Ark with one last chance represented by those Republicans sucessfully extending that rope across the river by 11/6/12 in order to stop the ark from cascading over the waterfall!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TLP| 7.2.12 @ 5:06PM
Now, think about all of the Applebys, Out there, who believe that there's NO DIFFERENCE between Romney, and the "Christian" Boy, named after Mohammed's Horse.
Oldefarte| 7.2.12 @ 10:56PM
Yeah, he's about as "Christian" as I am an Iranian camel jockey from Greece. The reason why he never wears bermuda shorts on the golf course is to cover up the prayer rug abrasions on his kneecaps!!!!!!!!!!
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:24PM
Oldefarte guy - no, it's more like the Tower of Babel is burning and no one can take a piss to put it out as no one knows how to use their little wee wee properly or even knowning they HAVE a wee wee to use!!
JimH| 7.2.12 @ 3:51PM
Once again the law of unintended consequences raises its head. The likely result of Obama care, which had a stated purpose of expanding the availability of medical care, will be to restrict it. There will be an increased proliferation of off shore medical facilities for the rich. The middle class will have to learn how to grease the staff in the government run facilities in order to get proper care, just as was done in the various workers’ paradises of the recent past. The poor will be SOL and will have to avail themselves of the type of facilities proponents of abortion are always predicting should ‘a woman’s right to choose’ be banned.
JD| 7.2.12 @ 4:01PM
Virtually everything that goes wrong in government is an unintended consequence.
That's why liberals are so dangerous - they believe with surprising consistency that their policies will always achieve only their intended goals, and that all bad things that happen are also intended - clearly by Republicans. A remarkable majority of their political speech consists of maligning the intentions of their opponents, because they overvalue intentions vs results.
paintbrush| 7.2.12 @ 6:51PM
Does Congress have the same health care as their subjects, as we have now become subjects, have we not? If not, then it does seem that many back door socialists have ascended in government….the type of politician that slowly with great stealth rewrite our freedoms and liberties. So, the real question remains: at what point do we reach the magic threshold.
twinkiedooter| 7.24.12 @ 11:26PM
No, we peons do NOT have the same care as those Lords and Ladies Sirs and Madams of the Parliment err, I mean Congress. We have zip compared to their all expenses paid health care.
TriLastin | 7.2.12 @ 9:01PM
I have been following your blog since the ruling came down from Justice Roberts on Obamatax. I wish that you would please post a list of the 21 taxes by name that were included as a trojan horse under the affordable health care act. I have a friend that does not believe me that 2 of these taxes include the dividens and capital gains tax of 43% on all investments. I think that Romney needs to really hit home what will occur once these taxes take place God forbid he should be elected again.