The Supreme Court & Obama healthcare

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare case
Reuters – 18 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled on Monday that they saw no procedural barrier to reaching the heart of the dispute over President Barack Obama's healthcare law that requires most Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty.

During nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, the justices voiced doubt that a U.S. tax law requiring people to pay first and litigate later should delay the challenge to the president's signature domestic legislative achievement. Obama signed the law in 2010.

At the core of the law is a requirement that people buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The question on Monday was whether people can challenge this so-called individual mandate before paying the penalty and seeking a refund.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-high-court-weighs-historic-obama-healthcare-law-040313360.html

Justices questioning briskly in health care case
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court plunged into debate Monday on the fate of the Obama administration's overhaul of the nation's health care system, starting with pointed questions about a legal issue that could derail the case.

A decision is expected by late June, in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which all of President Barack Obama's Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn't struck it down in the meantime.

With demonstrators chanting outside, eight of the nine justices fired two dozen questions in less than half hour Monday morning at Washington attorney Robert Long. He had been appointed by the justices to argue that the case has been brought prematurely because a law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

Under the new law, taxpayers who don't purchase health insurance will have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and will pay a penalty along with federal income tax. At issue is whether that penalty is a tax.

Some of the justices reacted skeptically to the idea that the penalties encapsulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were actually a tax.

"What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.

Outside the court building, about 100 supporters of the law walked in a circle holding signs that read, "Protect my healthcare," and chanting, "Care for you, care for me, care for every family." A half-dozen opponents shouted, "We love the Constitution!"

A four-person student band from Howard University was part of the group favoring the law, playing New Orleans-style jazz tunes.

The law, much of which has still to take effect, would require almost all Americans to obtain health insurance and would extend coverage to more than 30 million people who now lack it. The law would be the largest expansion in the nation's social safety net in more than four decades.

People hoping for a glimpse of the action had waited in line all weekend for the relatively few seats open to the public. The justices allotted the case six hours of argument time, the most since the mid-1960s.

Nurses Lauri Lineweaver and Laura Brennaman, who are completing doctoral degrees, had been waiting since noon Sunday and got tickets to see arguments. "It's an honor to be in the court," said Lineweaver, 35.

The court will release audio recordings of the arguments on the same day they take place. The first time that happened was when the court heard argument in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential election. The last occasion was the argument in the Citizens United case that wound up freeing businesses from longstanding limits on political spending.

Outside groups filed a record 136 briefs on various aspects of the court case.

The first arguments Monday concern whether the challenge is premature under a 19th century tax law because the insurance requirement doesn't kick in until 2014 and people who remain uninsured wouldn't have to pay a penalty until they file their 2014 income taxes in early 2015.

Taking this way out of the case would relieve the justices of rendering a decision in political high season, just months before the presidential election.

The biggest issue before the court is Tuesday's argument over the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business say Congress lacked authority under the Constitution for its unprecedented step of forcing Americans to buy insurance whether they want it or not.

The administration argues Congress has ample authority to do what it did. If its action was rare, it is only because Congress was dealing with a problem that has stymied Democratic and Republican administrations for many decades: How to get adequate health care to as many people as possible, and at a reasonable cost.

The justices also will take up whether the rest of the law can remain in place if the insurance mandate falls and, separately, whether Congress lacked the power to expand the Medicaid program to cover 15 million low-income people who currently earn too much to qualify.

If upheld, the law will force dramatic changes in the way insurance companies do business, including forbidding them from denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions and limiting how much they can charge older people.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because of its most disputed element, the requirement that Americans have insurance or pay a penalty.

By 2019, about 95 percent of the country will have health insurance if the law is allowed to take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Reams of court filings attest that the changes are being counted on by people with chronic diseases, touted by women who have been denied coverage for their pregnancies, and backed by Americans over 50 but not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, who face age-inflated insurance premiums.

Republicans are leading the fight to kill the law either by the court or through congressional repeal. They say the worst fears about what they derisively call "Obamacare" already have come to pass in the form of higher costs and regulations, claims that the law's supporters dispute.

The White House says it has little doubt the high court will uphold the law, and that even its opponents will eventually change their tune.

"One thing I'm confident of is, by the end of this decade, we're going to be very glad the Republicans termed this 'Obamacare,' because when the reality of health care is in place, it's going to be nothing like the kind of fear-mongering that was done," said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the president, said Sunday in an interview with ABC's "This Week."

Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the insurance requirement is unconstitutional.

http://news.yahoo.com/justices-questioning-briskly-health-care-case-150619408.html

[Jolie Rouge]

‘It’s going to be a circus’: Activists begin demonstrations outside Supreme Court over health care law
By Chris Moody - Political Reporter | The Ticket – 2 hrs 4 mins ago

WASHINGTON—By Saturday, a short queue had already formed on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court building, filled by people with hopes of snagging prime seats for what will likely be historic oral arguments debating the fate of President Barack Obama's health care law.

Those few souls, who braved a weekend of rain for the hottest ticket in town, will be joined by thousands more over the next three days, as activists from far and wide descend on Washington, D.C.

Tea parties, unions, liberal advocacy organizations, religious groups and nonaligned curiosity seekers are arriving outside the court, with rallies planned in front of the steps and in the nearby parks surrounding the building. Groups are busing thousands into the city from around the country for the three-day marathon. Demonstrations, counter-rallies and prayer vigils will be held each day under the watchful eye of security personnel and the discerning observations of hundreds of reporters from news agencies that have dispatched entire teams to cover the hearings.

"It's going to be a circus," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a Washington-based group that supports the health care law.

The organization is part of the liberal Campaign for America's Future, which will showcase personal stories from those who say they have benefited from the provisions already enacted by the law—and what will happen to them if the law is repealed.

"For us, this is an opportunity to tell the real story of the Affordable Care Act," Rome said. "This is going to be one of the most significant decisions in 100 years."

Dozens of other groups plan to bring hundreds more to the steps of the court to show support for the law.

Families USA, a liberal organization that focuses on health care policy, is arming its activists with talking points, a guide to the legal arguments backing the law and materials about the legal challenges. Members have even created what they call "The People's Amicus Brief," a petition to urge the court to uphold the law. Joined by other groups, Families USA has rented space in a building near the court's entrance that will serve as a media hub. Earlier this month, at least 100 people from liberal nonprofits met with White House officials to coordinate demonstration plans, the New York Times reported.

The liberal groups will be met by thousands of conservative activists who will rally their opposition to the law. Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a conservative group with chapters throughout the country, is bringing as many as 60 buses filled with demonstrators from Virginia, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Connecticut. Twenty other conservative groups, including several tea party organizations, are teaming up with AFP to organize a "Hands Off Our Health Care" rally in a nearby park on Tuesday. Republican members of Congress as well as several other conservative leaders are scheduled to speak at the rally.

"This is one of the most important cases in a generation, and the White House is working contrary to the will of the American people," said Tim Phillips, president of AFP. "That's why President Obama is doing everything possible to generate last-minute support for a law that we feel violates the Constitution."

On the Friday before the hearings, a team from FreedomWorks, a national tea party organizing group, carted boxes filled with about 120,000 printed petitions to Capitol Hill from people who oppose the law. At the offices of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the FreedomWorks employees unloaded the documents onto a desk in the front room.

"Reid and Pelosi's offices didn't welcome us," said Dean Clancy, vice president of Health Care Policy at FreedomWorks, "but with all those signatures, they heard our message loud and clear: Repeal this unpopular law now."

Behind the scenes, both liberal and conservative groups have filed a record number of amicus briefs with the court—136 in all—to make their own cases for and against the law, and both sides are planning a media blitz that will likely saturate television and radio airways throughout the week.

Over the next three days, as opponents and proponents make their oral arguments, Yahoo News will be inside the Supreme Court chamber to hear the case, and outside the building reporting on the activists.

The court will announce its ruling in June.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/going-circus-activists-begin-demonstrations-outside-supreme-court-142038271.html.

comments

It seems that much in Washington nowadays is like a circus.

..

Hopefully the justices of the Supreme Court are looking at the Constitution for guidance and not how many demonstrators this side or that side has out front.

..

What the Supreme Court SHOULD rule on is the legality that Congress exempt itself from Social Security and the public healthcare system.

The system will NEVER be fixed until the politicians have to use the same system as everyone else...

..

All you have to know is that the Congress has exempted themselves from having this bill. They should not be exempt from any law they pass. Simple lets get it done

..

We have, by far, the most expensive health care, "system" in the world. We pay over $8,000 a year for every man, woman and child. Fix that...by dealing with insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies...and their lobbies...and their politicians.

..

Of course. Everytime the demonstrations are for something the media finds questionable, it's a "circus." When it's for something they support, it's "legitimate protest." These hyenas are as predictable as the day is long.

[Jolie Rouge]

Will the Supreme Court's 'personal politics' kill 'ObamaCare'?
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 5 hrs ago

tA majority of Americans believe the fate of the law will come down to the personal beliefs of Anthony Kennedy and Co., not just the legal arguments

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) — known as "ObamaCare" — goes to court this week. After lengthy legal filings, a flurry of lower court decisions, and two years of high-octane opinionating both pro and con, the nine justices on the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say on the ACA's most controversial provision — the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance — and they could strike down "ObamaCare" altogether. Six hours of oral arguments, the Court's longest session in 45 years, begin Monday and end Wednesday, with a decision expected in June. Depressingly, says Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times, one recent poll indicates that 75 percent of Americans think the justices' politics, not just legal factors, will shape their decision. Will the court prove them wrong?

At least one conservative will side with Obama: Yes, many Americans expect the court's conservative majority to strike down the ACA along partisan lines, says Joan Biskupic at Reuters. But "subtle signals from individual justices... suggest that presumption is wrong." The conservatives may think the law is bad policy, but I bet at least one of them — perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts or swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — will show "classical conservative regard for judicial restraint and deference to Congress," or at least a wariness of appearing too partisan, and uphold the president's reform package.


But public opinion is with the conservatives: "Questions this momentous are generally decided 5 to 4," says Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post. And in this case, the fate of "ObamaCare" depends "on whatever side of the bed Justice Anthony Kennedy gets out of that morning." Luckily for conservatives, two-thirds of Americans either want the whole law or the individual mandate thrown out. That gives Kennedy and any other waverers plenty of reason to kill this gross federal overreach.


Conservative justices are looking beyond "ObamaCare": The court's conservatives would have no problem ignoring a century of legal precedent, the law's obvious constitutionality, and even their own previous opinions to kill "ObamaCare," says Dahila Lithwick at Slate. But they'll put their personal politics aside for now, because the "ObamaCare" fight belongs to the Tea Party, not "the conservative legal elites." Besides, upholding the ACA would make the Supremes look apolitical and august, giving them cover to spend the next two years attacking abortion rights, church-state separation, and affirmative action. "It's not about the law, stupid"

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-courts-personal-politics-kill-obamacare-105200475.html

The largest reason the SC may strike it down is that, simply put, its horribly written, not a law or set of laws at all but more like a document outlining the establishment of a formulated policy. At points self contradictory, and at other points seeming to ignore that the only real reform it makes is creating a national market for insurance, something that doesn't exist now and could easily be created without all the extra bits.

It's kind of silly still restricting the insurance market to the state level when economy of scale is the thing that generally drives prices down in any market, and we haven't even tried that yet.

...

The question is whether personal politics will save it. Otherwise, it's the constitution that will kill it.

[hblueeyes]

The non-judge justice put there by Obama helped create the law and therefore should recuse herself. If she does not the Supreme Court is just a joke. IMO

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

The non-judge justice put there by Obama helped create the law and therefore should recuse herself. If she does not the Supreme Court is just a joke. IMO

Keagan can not be objective in this matter

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court justices challenge Obama administration over health care law
By Olivier Knox ~ White House Correspondent The Ticket – 13 mins ago

With President Barack Obama's landmark health care law in the balance, the divided Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned whether the measure properly regulates commerce or overreaches the Constitution and allows Washington to improperly force Americans to eat their vegetables.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose questioning is closely watched because he represents a potential swing vote, posed several skeptical queries to the Obama administration's lawyer.

"Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" he asked. "I understand we must presume laws are constitutional" until it is demonstrated otherwise, he told Solicitor General Donald Verrelli, representing the administration. But he said the administration has "a heavy burden of justification."

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia sharply questioned whether the Obama administration's requirement that Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty --the so-called "individual mandate" at the heart of the law--might mean that "therefore you (the government) can make people buy broccoli."

Verrelli told the court that the law regulated health insurance, the means of payment for health care, while "broccoli is not the means of payment for anything else."

"The market does not provide" affordable health insurance for some 40 million people, Verrelli declared in his opening argument. "The system does not work."

At the heart of the debate was whether the Constitution's so-called "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution—which gives Congress the power to regular interstate commerce—makes the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cell phone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs.

"I think it's completely different," said Verrilli, arguing that when it comes to health care, those who don't buy it and get sick can get emergency room care, an expensive option effectively subsidized by their insurance-buying fellow citizens.

Verrilli said that this relationship means that people who don't buy insurance are effectively already in the market for health care.

When Alito said the mandate was essentially taking aim at non-insurance buying Americans and "requiring them to subsidize" care for others, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg drily observed "that's how insurance works."

Scalia and Roberts repeatedly warned that the case could result in Congress using the Commerce Clause to compel all kinds of behavior.

"If the government can do this, what is left? What else can it not do?" asked Scalia. "All bets are off," Roberts agreed.

Breyer countered that the government's case was in line with past assertions of powers under the Commerce Clause, and said that should "eliminate the broccoli possibility."

Former solicitor general Paul Clement, now the attorney spearheading the legal assault on Obama's signature domestic policy achievement, described the monetary penalty imposed on those who do not buy insurance as an "impermissible" direct tax and warned that ruling that "Congress has the power to compel people into commerce" could "upend our basic federalist system."

The verbal fencing drew a heavyweight audience packed with lawmakers and top Obama aides.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Senators John Cornyn, John Barrasso, Charles Grassley and others were on hand. Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy was there, as was Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, who played a central role in writing the law.

Reporters also spotted top Obama domestic policy adviser Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-justices-challenge-obama-administration-over-health-170042500.html

comments

"Can't create commerce to regulate it." Justice Anthony Kennedy

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court considers: Did health care law challenge come too soon?
By Olivier Knox ~ White House Correspondent | The Ticket – 22 hrs ago


The Supreme Court took a step closer Monday to ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's landmark health care law, with the justices giving no outward sign that they were inclined to sidestep the bitterly contentious issue ahead of the November elections.

As hundreds of demonstrators marched and chanted outside the templelike court building a stone's throw from Congress, the nine black-robed justices heard roughly 90 minutes of argument. Monday's hearings focused on whether the monetary penalty imposed on those who do not purchase insurance is a "tax." Under the Anti-Injunction Act, individuals must pay a tax before they can challenge it in court. This would require the court to hold off ruling on the law until it is in full effect in 2015.

Some experts have called the Anti-Injunction Act a face-saving escape clause allowing the court to set aside the explosive issue until after the elections, but the justices themselves did not seem to want to avoid the fray. "What is the parade of horribles that you see occurring?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, skeptically asked the court-appointed lawyer arguing for a delay, Robert Long.

Long argued, in part, that the judges should resist passing judgment on the law because it would open the floodgates for other, unrelated cases involving taxes brought by "clever" plaintiffs. But conservative Justice Antonin Scalia shot back that "there will be no parade of horribles because all federal courts are intelligent" and will impose common-sense limits, drawing a laugh from the gallery.

"Justice Scalia, I mean, honestly, I can't predict what would happen, but I would say that not all people who litigate about federal taxes are necessarily rational," replied Long, setting off another small ripple of laughter.

The argument then turned to whether the penalty in question was a tax. "This is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The court's conservative members did not challenge her take—but they sharply questioned whether the Obama administration's legal strategy sought to have it both ways.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito led the charge, asking Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax."

Tuesday, the court will consider whether an individual mandate is permissible. The opposition will hold that it is an unprecedented act of government overreach, while the Justice Department will counter that it's a routine exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.

"The nature of the inquiry that we will conduct tomorrow is different from the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct today," replied Verrilli.

At one point, though, after Verrilli repeatedly referred to the penalty as a "tax," Justice Stephen Breyer jumped in: "Why do you keep saying 'tax'?" he asked. "Tax penalty," corrected Verrilli.

The real legal fireworks were expected on Tuesday when the justices take up the validity of the "individual mandate" at the core of the law.

The Supreme Court will most likely hand down its decision in late June, right in the middle of the heated 2012 presidential election.

Amid passionately partisan predictions of how the justices will rule, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he thought the court would ultimately uphold the law but cautioned against absolute certainty. "There's always doubt," he told Yahoo News during a walk from the court to one of the Senate office buildings nearby. "I've done this for three decades, I've argued four times in the Supreme Court. I've never known how it was going to come out before the court made a decision—no matter what the questions were," Blumenthal said with a smile.

Asked whether Tuesday was likely to be the big day, the senator replied: "This is the United States Supreme Court. Every day is a big day."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-considers-did-health-care-law-challenge-191623703.html

comments

The supreme court should be deciding that the bill was not read before it was signed by Senators and if they should be able to hold office after admitting not knowing what was in the bill that they voted into law.

..

Can the judges make congress and their families use the same healthcare they impose on the taxpayers? Because right now, they're exempt for this law.


http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb9778120120326020000.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

Today was “mandate-mania” at the Supreme Court, with both sides arguing the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of the individual mandate in the health care law. It didn’t seem to go well for the Obama administration.

From The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/218429-justice-kennedy-among-skeptical-voices-at-courts-healthcare-debate


Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s traditional swing vote, appeared skeptical Tuesday that President Obama’s healthcare mandate is constitutional.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. faced aggressive questions from Kennedy, as well as the court’s other conservative justices, in the second of three days of oral arguments in the landmark case.

Tuesday’s arguments on the mandate are the pivotal point in this week’s debate, and the questions focused on the government’s argument that requiring consumers to purchase health insurance or face a fine is constitutional.

Liberal justices on the court appeared to be more favorable to the government’s argument on the mandate, and if they unite behind the law, the Justice Department would need to just peel Kennedy away to secure a majority.

But Kennedy didn’t sound like he was in the administration’s camp on Tuesday.

The Reagan appointee argued the court has a “very heavy burden of justification” for requiring that people purchase insurance. He also identified the insurance mandate as the first time the government has used its regulatory powers to force citizens to buy a product.

“That changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way,” Kennedy said.

All that after Verrilli did a nice warm-up act yesterday and got everybody in a laughing mood? In the administration’s health care law defense, however, they’re just now finding out what’s in it.

Also today, Chief Justice John Roberts asked if the government can make people buy cell phones to facilitate response for those who need emergency medical services (silly question… they wouldn’t have to because the government will give them away).

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin said Tuesday was a “train wreck” for the Obama individual mandate argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n30uutD5OVM&feature=player_embedded

On Wednesday look for the Solicitor General to use Toobin’s report as an opportunity to point out to the Justices that any injuries suffered during train wrecks are in fact fully covered by Obamacare (ABC: Always Be Closing).

Here’s what’s up tomorrow: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/usa-healthcare-court-snapshot-idUSL2E8ERO0K20120327


On Wednesday the justices will hold morning and afternoon sessions. Two questions will be before them: whether, if the so-called individual mandate is declared invalid under the U.S. Constitution, the entire healthcare overhaul is doomed; and whether Congress has the authority to require states to expand eligibility under Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health insurance for the poor. Part of the sweeping healthcare law would extend eligibility to individuals with income up to 133 percent of the U.S. poverty level.


Update: James Carville told Wolf Blitzer that the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare would be the best thing that could happen to Democrats this year. Considering who Team Obama has arguing the case on their behalf, maybe they understand that and are trying to throw the game.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/03/27/obamacare-arguments-day-2-train-wreck-for-the-obama-administration/

Work with me here. Obamacare is the Death Star, and Kennedy is Luke….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8_OcN5FXmg

[Jolie Rouge]

Justice Scalia to Obama’s Solicitor General: ‘We’re not stupid’
By Nicholas Ballasy - The Daily Caller – 17 hrs ago

While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration’s case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, “we’re not stupid.”

Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because eventually, others will subsidize their health care in the future.

Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need to be forced by the federal government to engage in commerce.

The transcript of the exchange is below:


GENERAL VERILLI: To live in the modern world, everybody needs a telephone. And the — the same thing with respect to the — you know, the dairy price supports that — that the Court upheld in Wrightwood Dairy and Rock Royal. You can look at those as disadvantageous contracts, as forced transfers, that — you know, I suppose it’s theoretically true that you could raise your kids without milk, but the reality is you’ve got to go to the store and buy milk. And the commerce power -¬ as a result of the exercise of the commerce power, you’re subsidizing somebody else –

JUSTICE KAGAN: And this is especially true, isn’t it, General –

GENERAL VERRILLI: — because that’s the judgment Congress has made.

JUSTICE KAGAN: — Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way. And the — the system works over time. And so I just don’t think it’s a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think — a problem I think is important to understand –

JUSTICE SCALIA: We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and — and need the money now.

GENERAL VERRILLI: But that’s –

JUSTICE SCALIA: When — when they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical 1 bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us. But –

GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s — that’s –

JUSTICE SCALIA: — I don’t know why you think that they’re never going to buy it.

GENERAL VERRILLI: That’s the problem, Justice Scalia. That’s — and that’s exactly the experience that the States had that made the imposition of guaranteed-issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive. Rates, for example, in New Jersey doubled or tripled, went from 180,000 people covered in this market down to 80,000 people covered in this market. In Kentucky, virtually every insurer left the market. And the reason for that is because when people have that guarantee of — that they can get insurance, they’re going to make that calculation that they won’t get it until they’re sick and they need it, and so the pool of people in the insurance market gets smaller and smaller. The rates you have to charge to cover them get higher and higher. It helps fewer and fewer — insurance covers fewer and fewer people until the system ends. This is not a situation in which you’re conscripting — you’re forcing insurance companies to cover very large numbers of unhealthy people –

JUSTICE SCALIA: You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not – not require them to sell it to him at — at a rate that he sells it to healthy people. But you don’t want to do that.

http://news.yahoo.com/justice-scalia-obama-solicitor-general-not-stupid-194625826.html

comments

I have a simple solution to the healthcare problem in the US. End tax subsidies for all employer based plans. When everybody has to buy healthcare in an open market things will change. Why is good healthcare coverage tied to working for a big company? Why do companies get a tax break for buying medical coverage? Put everyone in the same pool.

..

We have market corrections on Wall Street. Maybe the law will be struck down, and insurers will go out of business, just as the article says. This is a bad thing,... HOW? Medical care costs too much, insurance against those costs are rising second only to the costs. The system we have is unsustainable. Making more people share the burden won't bring prices down, it just sees to it insurance companies make more profits. If it's mandatory, they will charge what they like. There is no mandate that it be affordable. Maybe that's where the secret lies.

..

Kagan wants people to be forced to buy health insurance because others will have to subsidize their health care but sees nothing wrong others having to subsidize her health care as well as the health care for politicians even though they can easily afford to pay for their own.

..

There are hospitals in this country going out of business because of "free" healthcare.

..

There is also another glaring oversight -- with all the illegals in this country, is the government going to track them down and make them pay? Or do we continue to subsidize them because the government won't enforce our immigration laws. How about enforcing the laws already on the books before thinking up any new ones ???

..

The one thing that is glaringly overlooked in every argument for the mandate. We have thousands of people in this country who are living at or below the poverty level, many times through no fault of their own. I've forgotten the number of people estimated to be unemployed because they've lost jobs in this lousy economy & along with those jobs they lost their insurance. No one, absolutely no one who supports the mandate has asked just how the heck they expect to collect a penalty from people who don't have money to pay it. Never mind whether or not they are broke because they're lazy or because of the economy, the point is, people who don't have money can't pay fines & of course those fines are going to accrue interest & more penalties that will make that situation worse. Another example of our government peabrains at work.

..

One of the reasons we have such a healthcare cost problem is because of state laws requiring hospitals to provide emergency room care regardless of whether the patient has insurance or any obvious means to pay. This leads a lot of people to abuse the system and use the emergency room for even minor complaints, and then duck paying the bills.

..

OMG. Verrilli and Kagan just made the argument for subsidized milk and cellphones and are too stupid to see it. Holy crap, people, at what point are we responsible for ourselves and not our idiot neighbors living on the fruits of our labors? These liberals simply see no end to government control of our lives. And all you morons who think this health care mandate is a good idea, EVENTUALLY the government will pass a law that offends you, and trods on YOUR sacred cows, but it'll be too late at that point because you already stood by and gave them the power to do it.

..

Nobody should be forced to buy anything that they do not want. You are required to buy auto insurance, only if you buy a vehicle. But you don't have to get it if you decided to ride a bicycle instead - or use transit. Telephone is important but nobody is required to get it. It is simply repugnant to be forced to buy something because somebody else needs it. You buy something depending on your needs, not somebody else needs. Do you want your mother to tell you what to do all your life? Some people might like the idea but do the majority tolerate it?

..

I say dont force them to buy it let them opt out with the understanding if they get sick and need medical attention they have to have cash in hand or dont seek attention until they do.No pre services and bill me later this is what part of the problem is now people go when they get sick once they are cured they forget about the bill and then the rest of us have to pick up the slack for the losers.I know this guy who has all kind of money but he refuses to buy insurance and refuses to pay any medical bills he might owe

[hblueeyes]

A big part of the healthcare problem is the cost of tests and services. January my hubby was hospitalized. A CT scan thru the ER was $9K. A CT scan ordered after admittance to his room was $6K. Really? How does this make any sense. After 4 days in the hospital, the bill was $28K and that did not include any of the doctors or the techs that read the results. Add another $880 for the ambulance ride and you are now at $35K for a 4 day stay. That is 4 years of our income. How crazy is that! Yes, we live on $9K a year.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

A big part of the healthcare problem is the cost of tests and services. January my hubby was hospitalized. A CT scan thru the ER was $9K. A CT scan ordered after admittance to his room was $6K. Really? How does this make any sense. After 4 days in the hospital, the bill was $28K and that did not include any of the doctors or the techs that read the results. Add another $880 for the ambulance ride and you are now at $35K for a 4 day stay. That is 4 years of our income. How crazy is that! Yes, we live on $9K a year.

Not only that ... DH had gone in for a physical and they found an "irregularity" in his heart. Since there is a history of heart disease in his family we figured he needed to get it checked out. Ran all the tests... ran ito thousands like you said... they found nothing major. Now the insurance doesn't want to cover their "share" because since the tests didn't "find anything" ... they have deemed them "unnessesary" ... rather after the fact.

[Jolie Rouge]

Court weighs all-or-nothing on healthcare law
By James Vicini and Joan Biskupic | Reuters – 1 hr 32 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court opened its final day weighing the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, considering on Wednesday whether the entire law can stand should the court rule against its centerpiece mandate that most people buy insurance.

On this, the third and last day of historic arguments, the nine justices were due to hear whether the rest of the law, Obama's signature domestic accomplishment, can survive should the court decide that Congress exceeded its powers by requiring that most Americans obtain insurance by 2014 or face a penalty.

The arguments began after the high court issued opinions in other, unrelated cases.

The Obama administration faced skeptical questioning on Tuesday from the court's five-member conservative majority on the insurance requirement, known as the individual mandate. But it was unclear whether it would strike it down or let it stand.

A ruling on the insurance mandate appeared likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two conservatives who pummeled the administration's lawyer with questions on Tuesday.

If even one of the five conservative Republican appointees joined the four liberal Democratic appointees on the court, the law would be upheld. If the five conservatives stay united, the law would fall.

The justices are expected to meet in private on Friday to discuss the issues heard during the arguments this week and take a preliminary secret vote on how they plan to rule.

The justices then will begin drafting their written opinions in the private confines of their chambers - a process that is expected to result in the rulings being announced by late June before the court goes on its traditional summer recess.

At a later one-hour session on Wednesday, starting at 1 p.m. EDT (1700 GMT), the justices will review whether Congress violated the Constitution by coercing the states to dramatically expand the Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, providing coverage for an estimated 17 million Americans.

As the court began its last day hearing arguments on the law - six hours spread over three days making it the longest on a single issue in more than 44 years - the crowd of supporters and protesters outside the high court was smaller and more subdued.

FINANCIAL STAKES

A Supreme Court decision striking down the law would be seen as a huge political and legal defeat for Obama ahead of the November 6 election, when he seeks another four-year term.

A ruling upholding the law would be a major vindication for Obama, but could make healthcare an even bigger issue in the presidential and congressional elections. Republican presidential candidates all oppose the law and could fight even harder to repeal if the court leaves in place the entire statute.

The stakes could not be higher, financially, legally and politically.

The law, which constitutes the U.S. healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years, seeks to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans and to slow down soaring medical costs.

The law has wide ramifications for company costs and for the health sector, affecting insurers, drugmakers, device companies and hospitals.

The healthcare investment bank Leerink Swann said in a research note that Wednesday's session was more important for managed care stocks and whether the individual mandate can be separated from the rest of the law.

For hospital stocks, it said the loss of expanded coverage, through the Medicaid program or through the individual mandate, would be a negative development.

Annual U.S. healthcare spending totals $2.6 trillion, about 18 percent of the annual gross domestic product. That translates to $8,402 per person every year.

For the Supreme Court, the Wednesday arguments will complete a thorough legal and constitutional review of the law, the most important piece of social legislation in decades.

The challengers, 26 states and a small business trade group, were represented by Paul Clement, a former solicitor general during George W. Bush's presidency.

Clement argued in written briefs that the insurance mandate was at the heart of the law and so critical to its operation that all of it must be invalidated if the requirement to buy health insurance is stripped from it.

He also argued that the Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional and the entire law should be declared invalid on those grounds as well.

TOP LAWYERS

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration's top courtroom lawyer, will also argue on Wednesday. He has defended the Medicaid expansion on the grounds Congress clearly has the power to set the terms under which the federal government disburses funds to the states.

Also arguing on Wednesday will be Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, advocating the administration's position that if the insurance mandate is struck down, then only two other provisions would have to fall.

Those provisions bar insurers from refusing coverage because of a person's pre-existing medical condition and from charging more due to a person's medical history.

The court has appointed an outside private lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, to argue that all other provisions can survive without the insurance mandate. That was the ruling last year by a U.S. court of appeals in Atlanta.

The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-weighs-nothing-healthcare-law-040158352.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Can ObamaCare survive without the individual mandate?
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – 6 hrs ago

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court put the mandate in its crosshairs. On Wednesday, the court will consider whether killing the mandate would kill ObamaCare
President Obama's health care overhaul had a rough day before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with the conservative majority signaling that it's leaning toward striking down the law's key individual mandate. On Wednesday, the last of three days of the high court's ObamaCare arguments, justices will once again focus on the mandate that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. They'll weigh the issue of "severability" — essentially, if the court throws out the mandate, can the rest of the law stand? The conventional wisdom has long been that ObamaCare needs the mandate, since it would be impossible to cover the costs of everyone's health care unless everyone is forced to buy insurance. But a new study from the Urban Institute suggests that the largely toothless mandate isn't really that big a deal, since only about 3 percent of Americans would even be subjected to it, and several states are working up their own Plan B if the mandate goes down. Could ObamaCare really survive without the individual mandate?

No. ObamaCare is a package deal: "The only way to push toward universal coverage via private health plans is to have a mandate that gets everyone in the pool," says Matt Miller at The Washington Post. "This is Insurance 101": If ObamaCare bars insurers from turning people away, and the Supreme Court allows healthy people to shun insurance until they're sick, "the system implodes in a spiral of accelerating premiums." Bottom line: No mandate, no ObamaCare.
"Anxiety over the individual mandate"

Striking the mandate would cripple, not kill, the law: ObamaCare's other provisions "might — that's 'might,' not 'would' — be enough to stabilize the market" so that, even without the mandate, a lot of people would be better off than they are now, says Jonathan Cohn in The New Republic. ObamaCare's subsidies, for instance, would make health insurance more appealing for people who would otherwise turn it down. Of course, this would "fall short of the nearly universal coverage that the Affordable Care Act is supposed to achieve." But while striking down the mandate "would be a breathtaking act of judicial arrogance, damaging to the country's well-being and to its delicate balance of governing powers," ObamaCare could still "survive in some form."
"Let's all take a moment to breathe, OK?"

Actually, the mandate can be replaced: The individual mandate is the most "elegant" and effective way to make ObamaCare work, but it isn't the only path, says Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker. The government could auto-enroll people in health plans with an opt-out, or use incentives, or let the states figure it out. So unless the court kills the whole law, the bulk of ObamaCare — "the new insurance exchanges, the subsidies for low-income individuals to buy insurance, and most of the insurance-market regulations — can survive," even if the mandate doesn't.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-survive-without-individual-mandate-092500093.html;_ylt=AhN.buVBq0yKm5C0x6eHCHCs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTQzdmZybmgxBG1pdANPcGluaW9uIEZyb250IFBhZ2 UEcGtnAzE1MGUzMmRlLWMwYWQtM2JjMy1hOWQwLWRiN2QyOGIw MDM4OQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDTWVkaWFTZWN0aW9uTGlzdAR2ZXIDNj kzYWNiNTAtNzhkYS0xMWUxLWI5YWQtYjM1YmEwZDhkMzAz;_yl g=X3oDMTFrM25vcXFyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3Rh aWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

[i]comments

The majority of the people I have talked to did not even realize they would be required to have insurance. They thought it was simply "free" to go to the doctor and/or hospital... I do believe that is the reason Obamacare received so much support from so many people. But, that is the message they were getting from the Democrats and Obama... And either way, I don't believe that very many of those presently uninsured will spend the money to actually get insurance anyway.

..

Any program necessitating universal compliance requires mandated and enforceable regulations. Absent these essentials, it's an invitation not a solution. And those who would opt to decline an invitation ARE the problem!

..

I believe this is the line that will live in infamy form this case.


JUSTICE KENNEDY: :”And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

I do believe he was referring to Obama’s comment “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

this line from the swing Justice will be read in the history books of the future.

..

President Obama doesn't understand the limits on federal government. Or the reasons for those limits. Europe, and many other examples, have shown what happens when the progressives use the treasury for political purposes. No country will ever be able to support the likes of our federal Democrats.

...

The outcome of this case, which is the most important case for liberty in many many decades, will decide if Americans are subjects of the Federal Government, or if we are free men.

[hblueeyes]

Not only that ... DH had gone in for a physical and they found an "irregularity" in his heart. Since there is a history of heart disease in his family we figured he needed to get it checked out. Ran all the tests... ran ito thousands like you said... they found nothing major. Now the insurance doesn't want to cover their "share" because since the tests didn't "find anything" ... they have deemed them "unnessesary" ... rather after the fact.

Same here. They found nothing to explain what happened. They did find a benign tumor on the left side of his brain that played "no role".

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Place Your Bets on Obamacare
It appears we’ll have a photo finish. Obama’s signature legislative achievement will probably rise or fall on the opinion of John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
By Dahlia Lithwick|Posted Tuesday, March 27, 2012, at 4:10 PM ET

One thing was clear after the two hour session at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act: The outcome of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement probably rests on the shoulders of two men—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Or, to put it differently, everyone else seems to have staked a clear position. The court’s four liberals appear poised to uphold the law. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia appear ready to strike it down. Justice Clarence Thomas was always assumed to be a vote against the Affordable Care Act and didn’t speak today. So, we are left to guess about Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, who based on their questions appear to be someplace in the middle. The betting on the steps of the court afterward split among those who suspected the final vote will be 5-4 to strike it down, or 6-3 to uphold it. I didn’t hear anyone taking bets on anything in between.

In the beginning, all eyes were on Kennedy who opened his questioning by asking Solicitor General Donald Verrilli to “assume this law is unprecedented.” (Gulp. That isn’t the way Verrilli wanted this to begin.) Both Kennedy and Roberts pressed Verrilli to enunciate a limiting principle on the congressional power asserted here. Or as Kennedy put it, early in the argument: “Can you identify any limits on the commerce clause?” And Roberts was also bothered by the degree to which invoking the commerce clause to regulate the insurance market would mean that “all bets are off” (he said that phrase twice) and anything could be subject to regulation. When Kennedy said that “the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act,” it appeared that he was willing to accept the argument presented by the Obama administration’s opponents that the critical distinction in the case is between regulating activity and regulating “inactivity.”

When Paul Clement rose on behalf of the 26 states challenging the mandate, to many in the gallery it looked like it was all over. Kennedy had serious doubts and Verrilli appeared unable to allay them. The odds on a 5-4 vote to strike down the law looked good. Kennedy asked far fewer questions of the challengers, although near the end of the morning he said, in his inimitably oblique style that young people are "uniquely, proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the cost of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries." That may suggest he believes that the health insurance market really is unique in some ways. Roberts also challenged Paul Clement and Michael Carvin, who spoke in opposition to the law, a number of times. But the Chief Justice’s questions were often framed as “The government says ...,” which suggests to at least some court-watchers that he was channeling arguments rather than making them.

Afterward, everyone milled around on the plaza, ducking between the tri-corner hats and the pink banners, and trying to tease out what had happened in there. My sense is that we saw only a part of what the justices were really thinking today. We heard Roberts and Kennedy expressing doubts about each side of the argument. But we didn’t get to hear them think aloud about what it actually means to strike down a monumental act of congress. We can assume that is weighing on some of the justices, nonetheless. The other thing we didn’t hear much about today was case law. Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out more than once that the justices weren’t there to debate whether or not they liked the bill. But it may be worth counting up the references to forced gym memberships, cellphone purchases, and broccoli mandates, and tallying them up against references to actual court cases. That’s either because the mandate is so unprecedented that precedent doesn’t matter. Or, because precedent just doesn’t matter.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2012/03/a_close_vote_the_supreme_court_appears_to_be_heade d_to_a_split_decision_on_the_affordable_care_act_. html

[SLance68]

A big part of the healthcare problem is the cost of tests and services. January my hubby was hospitalized. A CT scan thru the ER was $9K. A CT scan ordered after admittance to his room was $6K. Really? How does this make any sense. After 4 days in the hospital, the bill was $28K and that did not include any of the doctors or the techs that read the results. Add another $880 for the ambulance ride and you are now at $35K for a 4 day stay. That is 4 years of our income. How crazy is that! Yes, we live on $9K a year.

Me

$ 15,000.00 for 2 CT scans? Did you have to purchase your own machine for these? That is just outrageous and what causes insurance to be so expensive.

[hblueeyes]

I know. We are self pay so the kick in the gut is hard.

Me

[janelle]

$ 15,000.00 for 2 CT scans? Did you have to purchase your own machine for these? That is just outrageous and what causes insurance to be so expensive.

Well one reason is so many people suing doctors for everything. Doctors need to do multiple tests to cover their A$$. Also hospitals charge a high cost for an aspirin. Those hospitals have many none paying patients and they need to make up the cost somehow.

[SLance68]

Well one reason is so many people suing doctors for everything. Doctors need to do multiple tests to cover their A$$. Also hospitals charge a high cost for an aspirin. Those hospitals have many none paying patients and they need to make up the cost somehow.

I have to agree. After I had my car accident I was in the hospital for 4 days (so much fun) and they gave me 1 dose of Robitussin since I was coughing my head off. They charged me $ 33.00 for ONE dose of Robitussin. I could have purchased a couple of gallons of it at Walmart for that cost. Thank goodness I had auto and health insurance to cover all the stuff. They didn't even send me a copy of the hospital bill I had to get a copy from my auto insurance carrier. When I got it I called the adjuster and had a fit over the costs and he said - just calm down we don't pay those outrageous rates either.

[Jolie Rouge]

“What will Republicans do if the Supreme Court kills Obamacare?”

Jim Pethokoukis: http://blog.american.com/2012/03/what-will-republicans-do-if-the-supreme-court-kills-obamacare/


Given the tone and substance of today’s arguments http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/28/recap-obama-health-law-at-the-supreme-court-day-3/ , it looks like there’s a decent chance the Supreme Court will not only toss Obamacare’s individual mandate (a 62% chance according to Intrade), but all of Obamacare as well.

But then what? It seems highly unlikely—to say the least!—that any sort of replacement would pass this year. So now we are talking about 2013, where the issue would get sucked into the swirling nexus of entitlement and tax reform. It’s actually tough to logically separate out healthcare reform from those two issues, as Obamacare more or less attempts to do. Rising U.S. healthcare costs are driven by a market-distorting, third-party payment system where either government (via Medicare and Medicaid) or business (via the health insurance tax exclusion) picks up the tab for individual healthcare spending. You can’t really “fix” healthcare without significant tax and entitlement reform.

Conservatives want to change the system so markets can work their magic. But Republicans have been unclear about what they want to replace Obamacare with, exactly. Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s resident wonk http://budget.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=261812 , gave a speech last September where, in addition to advocating block granting Medicaid to the states and transitioning Medicare to a premium support system, he endorsed “replacing the inefficient tax treatment of employer-provided healthcare with a portable, refundable tax credit that you can take with you from job to job, allowing you to hang onto your insurance even during those tough times when a job might be hard to find.”

[...]

And the Democrats? Given a) liberal disappointment with the lack of a government option in Obamacare, b) the president’s marked shift to the left, c) raging fury over the Supreme Court decision, Dems will likely be in no mood to accept any plan too different from Obamacare. Or, if Romney is president, they will let Republicans take the lead.

But there might be a compromise out there. Look to Switzerland, where there is universal coverage despite no government health insurance programs. Consumers choose among private plans. And the nation spends 40% less than the U.S. on healthcare, as a share of GDP.

Here’s Regina Herzlinger: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/04/why-republicans-should-back-universal-health-care/13013/ “Republicans could enact Swiss-style universal coverage by enabling employees to cash out of their employer-sponsored health insurance. (Although many view employer-sponsored health insurance as a” free” benefit, it is money that would otherwise be paid as income.) The substantial sums involved would command attention and gratitude: A 2006 cash out would have yielded $12,000—the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance—thus raising the income of joint filers who earn less than $73,000 (90 percent of all filers) by at least 16 percent. Employees could remain in with an employer’s plan or use this new income to buy their own health insurance.”

Choice, competition, price transparency, coverage, and innovation should be the building blocks of whatever comes after Obamacare.

Well, they should have been the building blocks to reform prior to ObamaCare, too. And we all saw how that went down.

Again, to the left — the ideological ruling class left, as opposed to the useful idiots they keep about screeching for “social justice” in lieu of having to actually reach into pocket and pay for such things voluntarily — this battle was never over health care. That was but the facade. This was an attempt to fundamentally redefine the relationship between citizen and government. It was an attempt to build on the already flimsy sham that was Wickard in order to assert federal control over every aspect of our lives — and to do so while (perversely) claiming a Constitutional basis for doing so.

If it fails, we shouldn’t rejoice so much as begin asking how we ever got this close to living under soft tyranny in a country built on a foundation meant to protect us from what has become — and will remain — a predatory federal authority always looking for ways to expand.

And it seems that’s the case regardless of which Party establishment holds office.

The battle to retake the US is only beginning. And the truth is, it may already be lost.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=38706

As usual, our leftists are out of step with their brethren who have already tried and failed with the Socialist experiment. Canada is returning to private healthcare. The UK is increasingly up in arms about the lousy quality of the NHS. People want their guns back and to keep more of their paychecks. Those with a paying job are sick and tired of paying for lazy yobs who spend their time brawling and breeding.

We live in interesting times.

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama's insurance requirement not the only mandate
Are all mandates equal? Other federal health care requirements raise questions for high court
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press | Associated Press – 6 hrs ago



WASHINGTON (AP) -- The individual insurance requirement that the Supreme Court is reviewing isn't the first federal mandate involving health care.

There's a Medicare payroll tax on workers and employers, for example, and a requirement that hospitals provide free emergency services to indigents. Health care is full of government dictates, some arguably more intrusive than President Barack Obama's overhaul law.

It's a wrinkle that has caught the attention of the justices.

Most of the mandates apply to providers such as hospitals and insurers. For example, a 1990s law requires health plans to cover at least a 48-hour hospital stay for new mothers and their babies. Such requirements protect some consumers while indirectly raising costs for others.

One mandate affects just about everybody: Workers must pay a tax to finance Medicare, which collects about $200 billion a year.

It's right on your W-2 form, line 6, "Medicare tax withheld." Workers must pay it even if they don't have health insurance. Employees of a company get to split the tax with their employer. The self-employed owe the full amount, 2.9 percent of earnings.

Lindsey Donner, a small-business owner from San Diego, pays the Medicare tax although she and her husband are uninsured. Donner, 27, says she doesn't see much difference between the mandate that workers help finance Medicare and the health care law's requirement that nearly everyone has to have some sort of health insurance.

"My understanding of what is going on in the Supreme Court is that it seems to be something of a semantics issue," she said. "Ultimately, I don't see the big difference. If I am paying for Medicare, why can't I also be paying into something that would help me right now or in five years if I want to have children?"

Donner is a copy writer for businesses; her husband specializes in graphics design. In the past they had a health plan with a high deductible, but they found they were paying monthly premiums for insurance they never used — something she said they couldn't afford on a tight budget.

Under the law, people such as Donner and her husband would have to get insurance or pay a fine. But they may qualify for federal subsidies to help pay premiums for policies that would be more comprehensive. Preventive care would be covered with no co-payments.

"We have jobs, we pay our bills, we pay our taxes," said Donner. "Yet it is very difficult to find affordable, reasonable health care."

There's no question the Medicare payroll tax is a government mandate, said Mark Hayes, former chief health counsel for the Republican staff of the Senate Finance Committee.

But he makes a distinction between the payroll tax and the individual health insurance mandate in Obama's health care law.

Congress used more clearly defined constitutional powers when it created Medicare. "The power to tax and the power to spend," Hayes said. "Here, with the individual mandate, it's a different question — regulating interstate commerce. This is a novel question from a legal standpoint."

Obama's law makes health insurance both a right and a responsibility for most. It would provide coverage to more than 90 percent of the population, subsidizing private insurance for millions. But it also requires nearly everyone to carry health insurance, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying an individual policy.

The mandate is well within the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the administration and the law's supporters contend. Opponents say Congress overstepped constitutional bounds by effectively requiring individuals to purchase a particular product.

Supreme Court justices are trying to determine the distinction between Obama's law and other mandates, and whether it makes a difference.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Anthony Kennedy raised the matter during oral arguments last week.

Ginsburg brought up Social Security as an example, likening it to a government old-age annuity that everyone is forced to purchase.

"It just seems very strange to me that there's no question we can have a Social Security system (despite) all the people who say: 'I'm being forced to pay for something I don't want,'" she said.

"There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, 'Oh, yes that's fine,' but if the government wants to ... preserve private insurers, it can't do that."

Kennedy mused that Congress could have created a Medicare-style program for the uninsured, run exclusively by the government without the involvement of private insurers.

"Let's assume that (Congress) could use the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single payer," said Kennedy. "How does that factor into our analysis? In one sense, it can be argued that this is what the government is doing; it ought to be honest about the power that it's using and use the correct power.

"On the other hand, it means that since ... Congress can do it anyway, we give a certain amount of latitude," Kennedy continued. "I'm not sure which way the argument goes."

The case may well turn on how Kennedy decides.

Social Security and Medicare are no longer controversial mandates because they are part of the social fabric, said Hayes, the former GOP congressional aide. Not so the health care law's mandate. "Today, this is controversial because it is novel from a legal standpoint and also new from a societal standpoint," he said.

The distinction frustrates supporters of the health care law.

"It's so crazy to think that a society that has Social Security and Medicare would not find this (law) constitutional," said MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who advised both the Obama administration and Massachusetts lawmakers as they developed the state mandate in the 2006 law that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney championed as governor.

"The payroll tax is worse than the mandate, because that is a program where we take your money and there is no ability to get out of it," Gruber said. Citizens can avoid the health insurance mandate by paying a penalty to the Internal Revenue Service.

Other federal health care mandates include:

— The 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. It requires nearly all hospitals to treat and stabilize anyone needing emergency care, regardless of ability to pay or legal U.S. residency. Critics call it an unfunded mandate. It was part of a budget law signed by President Ronald Reagan.

— The 1996 Mental Health Parity Act. It prohibits group health plans from setting lower annual or lifetime dollar limits for mental health benefits as compared with medical and surgical benefits.

— The 1996 Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act. It requires plans offering maternity coverage to pay for at a least a 48-hour hospital stay following most normal deliveries, and 96 hours following a Caesarean section. The mental health parity and maternal health laws were signed by President Bill Clinton.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-insurance-requirement-not-only-090410112.html;_ylt=Ao8VaDy.C3cLBNMr3Z2JsrWs0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTNsdjU3NTUyBG1pdANUb3BTdG9yeSBGUARwa2cDND BmZDcyOGEtNTQ4ZS0zOTk3LWFmMTktMjg1Zjk5Nzg3MDIxBHBv cwM5BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzM0NzVmNWYwLTdiZjctMT FlMS1hZGY3LWYzNTE1ZDQyODcxNg--;_ylg=X3oDMTFrM25vcXFyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3

[Jolie Rouge]

comments

how easy it has become for our Presidents past and present Congress as well to make law that does not apply to them, they have a completely different retirement plan and medical plan than the rest of America and we the tax payer are paying for it!!! How bout we all get on the same plan as our President and Congressman we Vote into office!!!

..

I think we need a mandate that states illegal aliens cannot use the US Healthcare system. If they want to have their babies they can go back home to do it. The US Taxpayer should not have to pay for the medical expenses for millions anchor babies.

..

The President, House and Senate should have the same insurance they're trying to force people to buy. They also need term limits and NO life pensions, no bonuses and NO raises. These people haven't done their job, and it's time the Washington Welfare Politicians start living by the rules they make for others.

..

If it is so great then why did so many companies get to opt out?

..

If they are claiming "interstate commerce" as a means to justify regulation of Health Insurance...then why can't I buy a policy across State lines?? Insurance providers are regulated to sell *only* within a State. Which of course drives up costs because some States have a smaller pool of people. Open up the market so that I can buy a policy anywhere, then maybe you'll have "interstate commerce".

..

What gets me is that they pass this but there are no caps on what doctors,hospitals,or the insurance companies can charge.If this does get passed I better not see a $20 charge for Tylenol on my bill.

..

Last time I took my wife to the emergency the entire waiting room was full of non-english speaking mexicans. When they checked in I could clearly hear them say they had no insurance and no way to pay for the services but the hospital had to treat them anyway.

..

That's right.. I paid Medicare taxes since it's inception. Why? So that in retirement, when I least could afford health insurance I had prepaid the tax so that I would have coverage. And now they say that my insurance in retirement is a HANDOUT from the Feds. B*** S***!!!
I prepaid for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! More than I can say for all the illegals to whom we give FREE health coverage. Something is not right with this logic...

.......

Let's find out who REALLY is in favor of U.S. citizens supporting the healthcare of 18,000,000 Illegals while we can't find the funds to bail out our own healthcare system.....***.Add a box to the Federal tax form...."Check this box if you are in favor of healthcare for Illegal Aliens. By doing so, you agree to a $1,000 reduction of any Overpayment this year"****. (and please spare me all the racist-slash-morality comments)

..

Those mandates should have been regarded as unconstitutional also and participation voluntary. Social Security is not administered under the original guidelines it was written for or intended, but the Supreme Court protected the interest of the politicians who selected them along the way. Now social security went from a retirement savings program to a ponzi scheme, with every generation paying a higher percentage of a greater GNP to keep in running.

Ironically we, the workers pay into Medicare and when it is time to collect for healthcare services it is called an "entitlement" - it was not gift, we pay into it.

Medicaid is an entitlement that we the workers also fund for those who cannot work or are the working poor; unfortunately medicaid is also the program for babymommas, all their offspring (unless we are funding their numerous abortions [met one woman with 14 pregnancies and 11 abortions, , the 3 living kids were all from different dads, none supporting their children]), lazy people, and substance abusers. If we were not already paying for the medicaid recipients, only a small fraction of which are "just plain poor honest people" or have legitimate disabilities, we would have more money for medicare (retiree healthcare).

Of course due to politicization Medicare also covers Kidney disease (some from childhood genetic diseases and mostly from IV drug effects on kidneys, yes most organ transplants are for kidneys destroyed by drug abuse and livers ravaged by alcohol), no matter how young you are and other exceptions, which makes a population never intended for medicare into that pool.

[hblueeyes]

I am exempt from Obamacare. I am a muslim convert so I get free healthcare. I dare therm to prove otherwise.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

Don't even joke about that. If you convert to Islam or if you are born into that faith and try to practice some other religion... the result is a death sentence.

[hblueeyes]

True so why are they exempt? They came here. They want what they want. Which is fine, but do not complain when a country doesn't do what you want. If that's how you want to live ......go where they run the country that way. No one is keeping you here.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

January 6, 2012 by V2A

Supremes Asked to Remove Judge from ObamaCare

The attorney who founded Judicial Watch, became a thorn in the side of presidents in court including Bill Clinton, inspired a “West Wing” character and was the first lawyer to obtain a court ruling that a president committed a crime has filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court that Elena Kagan either remove herself or be removed from the Obamacare case.

The friend-of-the-court brief in cases demanding the “recusal or disqualification of Justice Elena Kagan” was filed today by Larry Klayman, now of Freedom Watch USA.

Klayman, known for tackling corruption in the nation’s capital, recently was awarded a default judgment in a case brought against Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on behalf of victims of his government’s torture campaign. Damages have yet to be established, but estimates are it could surpass the hundreds of millions.

Kagan has been facing criticism for her apparent decision to participate in the Obamacare case, which is to be argued in coming weeks, because she served Obama as solicitor general when the law was being developed. Emails indicate she was rooting for it, and she may even have strategized on how to defend it in court.

http://visiontoamerica.org/7023/supremes-asked-to-remove-judge-from-obamacare/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VisionToAmerica+%28Vision+to +America%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner


January 23, 2012 by V2A

Supreme Court denies recusal request for Justice Kagan

The Supreme Court has turned aside a motion from a political advocacy group that sought to argue that Justice Elena Kagan should not participate in the upcoming blockbuster appeals over the constitutionality of health care reform.

The justices denied the request from Freedom Watch without comment Monday. Kagan herself did not get involved in this particular motion.

The court’s brief order all but assures that the newest justice will participate in the late March arguments and eventually rule on the cases’ merits. Similar calls for recusal from other groups have been directed at Justice Clarence Thomas.

Larry Klayman, head of Freedom Watch, wanted to argue the recusal issue himself as part of the three days of public oral arguments scheduled for March 26-28. There, lawyers for the Obama administration and a coalition of 26 states and private groups will separately plead their case on the health care law’s legal limits.

http://visiontoamerica.org/7481/supreme-court-denies-recusal-request-for-justice-kagan/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VisionToAmerica+%28Vision+to +America%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner

January 24, 2012 by V2A

Supreme Court Refuses to Discuss Kagan Recusal for Obamacare Case

Despite the obvious conflict of interest, the Supreme Court has denied a request even to debate Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in the Court’s review of Obamacare. Kagan, who is widely reported to have helped draft the legal strategy to get the legislation through the Court, now sits in that very Court ready to hear the case of her own strategy. Politico reports,

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request for debate over whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the health care reform case due to be argued in March. Freedom Watch, a group led by Larry Klayman, asked the court for permission to file a brief on Kagan’s participation in the case. The court on Monday denied the request without comment, though it did note that Kagan did not participate in the discussion.

But Chief Justice John Roberts has squashed the issue:


“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

http://visiontoamerica.org/7531/supreme-court-refuses-to-discuss-kagan-recusal-for-obamacare-case/?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VisionToAmerica+%28Vision+to +America%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner


March 28, 2012 by V2A

Kagan on ObamaCare: It’s Just a Boatload of Federal Money. It’s Not Coercive

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan defended an element of Obamacare today by arguing that “It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend” and concluding “It doesn’t sound coercive to me.”

Kagan made her comments at today’s Supreme Court hearing while questioning attorney Paul D. Clement who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional:

Mr. Clement: “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court. The constitutionality of the act’s massive expansion of Medicaid depends on the answer to two related questions. First, is the expansion coercive? And second, does that coercion matter?”

Justice Kagan: “Mr. Clement, can I ask you as just a matter of clarification; would you be making the same argument if, instead of the federal government picking up ninety percent of the cost, the federal government picked a hundred percent of the cost?”

http://visiontoamerica.org/8951/kagan-on-obamacare-its-just-a-boatload-of-federal-money-its-not-coercive/

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama issues stern language on Supreme Court health care decision
By Rachel Rose Hartman | The Ticket – 1 hr 56 mins ago

President Obama on Monday issued stern language to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding his health care law, expressing confidence "Obamacare" will not be overturned by the nation's highest court. "I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld," the president said Monday afternoon at a White House press conference that included ‪Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who are attending the North American Leaders' Summit.

The president said overturning the law would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" and compared the court's rejection of the law to "judicial activism."

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism," the president said, baiting conservatives who have long complained about justices' political agendas. The president stressed that the judges are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

Monday's comments were the first public warning the president has issued since the justices heard oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the law, which includes an individual health care mandate. It remains to be seen how the justices will rule on the matter. On Friday, the court began deliberations, which could last through June. The ruling could significantly impact the president's re-election strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/president-obamacare-191235956.html

comments

Seriously? Libs love "judicial activism" it seems until it goes against them, then all of a sudden it is evil. Obama is getting desperate.

..

What a tool. If they strike down the law for being unconstitutional their "activist judges". If they uphold the law then everything is alright? Give me a freaking break. That and this deferring to Congress thing is nonsense.

The Supreme Court is an equal branch of government. They are an intrigal part of the checks and balances to keep government from running amok like they did with Obamacare. They may not be elected, but they are placed by eleceted officials, so in essense they are elected by proxy. If we can trust in our elected officials to do the right thing (and thus demand that non-elected officials defer to them by Obama's logic) then we should be able to trust their judgement in selecting and confirming Supreme Court Justices right?

SCOTUS, Throw out this law. Obamacare is Unconstitutional. Do not let politics sway you in this.

..

Trying to sway The Supreme Court. Just another Presidential moment.

[Jolie Rouge]

President Obama Goes on Record Opposing Marbury v. Madison
Posted by Leon H. Wolf ~ Monday, April 2nd at 6:26PM EDT

For a guy who graduated from Harvard Law, Barack Obama is not really very well versed on his law or his legal history. Speaking out today about the Supreme Court’s review of Obamacare, Obama offered this stunning and completely ahistorical nugget: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/04/02/obama-slams-activist-supreme-court-calls-them-unelected-group-people


Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

Look, I’m not here to debate the finer points of Marbury v. Madison with anyone, but the fact remains that since that decision was handed down over 200 years ago, it has not exactly been “unprecedented and extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by Congress (no matter the size of the majority). In fact, it happens all the time. That is the entire point of the doctrine of judicial review, first announced in Marbury and affirmed without serious challenge ever since.

I would seriously like to know, and I hope the press gets Obama on the record on this – is it President Obama’s contention that the Supreme Court’s only role in reviewing legislation is to double-check the count on the roll call vote to make sure that a majority in fact voted for the law and to check the President’s signature for possible forgery? Because, I mean, if that’s what we’re going to go back to, I’m open to having that discussion but we are going to have to figure out what to do with several hundred SCOTUS decisions that have taken a decidedly different view.

Of course, in making these comments Obama is exposing himself yet again as a cynical hack who is devoid of anything resembling shame. In 2003, the United States Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 by substantially larger margins than Obamacare. When the Supreme Court refused to strike down this law, which was passed by a “democratically elected Congress,” then-Senator Obama threw an absolute hissy fit about the fact that the Supreme Court had upheld the clear will of Congress (and the vast majority of the American people).

However, when it’s his own legislation at stake, Obama seems suddenly ready to go back and undo pretty much every Supreme Court precedent over the last 200 years in order to strip the Court of their power to rule on any question other than whether the roll call was tallied properly. The most galling thing of all is that if any Republican had said this, the media would be busily trying to paint them as an uneducated rube who was unaware of Marbury v. Madison - when Obama says it, it’s presented as a thoughtful defense of his brilliant law.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/04/02/president-obama-goes-on-record-opposing-marbury-v-madison/

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama Proves He Does Not Understand the Constitution
By L. Vincent Poupard ~ Yahoo! Contributor Network – 21 hrs ago

President Barack Obama has warned the Supreme Court about the possible overturning of the federal health care overhaul, according to Fox News. It is not unprecedented for a president to make comments about what the Supreme Court is debating, but his comments point to something unprecedented. As a political scientist, I cannot think of a time when a president made comments to make people think he has no idea how the Constitution works.

Among his comments, President Obama stated how he did not understand how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law passed by a majority of Congress. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and see if particular cases before the justices uphold the content and context of the document. His Oath of Office included the words, "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" so he better have an understanding of the document he is sworn to protect and defend. The "how" he does not understand is the "how" it works.

President Obama went on to say, "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." If the Supreme Court strikes down the health care law, it will not be an unprecedented move as the Supreme Court has struck down national laws since the court's inception. I worry about a president who does not understand the history of the court system.

The second part of the previous statement scares me as well. The president pointed out how the health care law was passed by a majority of elected officials. I believe it would be a good idea for the president to familiarize himself with the classic "How a Bill Becomes a Law." After reading, he should realize all bills need to be passed by a majority of Congress to become law. Can we trust a leader who does not apparently understand the system?

Finally, President Obama stated how the health care law is constitutional. I wonder how he can make this determination on his own as he proved in a few short sentences how he does not understand the content or context of the Constitution. Can we reelect a person who does not understand the basics of U.S. government?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-proves-does-not-understand-constitution-212200164.html;_ylt=ArcaUeNbdSxgNKilEcuq6iis0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTVoZnF2MjFrBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2 lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBGb3IgWW91IDUgU3RvcmllcwRw a2cDZjVmODNmYmItMzU4OC0zNGI0LTgwOGQtYWY4NjJlYTZiNT RkBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNNZWRpYUJMaXN0TWl4ZWROZXdzRm9yWW91 Q0EEdmVyA2I5NDcxMjkwLTdkMWEtMTFlMS1iNWY3LTNhMzYzN2 NkZmI3ZQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFrM25vcXFyBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnMEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3


"There is not only an economic element to this, a legal element to this, but there is a human element to this. And I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate. ... Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.

And I would like to remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is that the biggest problem is judicial activism and that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step”

Response from Rep. Lamar Smith: “I am very disappointed by our President. That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate.”

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, on President Obama’s remarks on the Supreme Court in his Rose Garden news conference. From a phone interview with Fox News Radio White House Correspondent Mike Majchrowitz.

“You have the situation today where the Attorneys General of 26 states have challenged the health care bill as being unconstitutional, you have a majority of the American people that now favor repealing it, so the Supreme Court, should they choose so, would be well within their bounds to declare all or part of it unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court will decide and they ought to decide that question without interference of the President of the United States.”

“It is not unprecedented at all for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional, they do that on a regular basis so it’s not unprecedented at all. What is unprecedented is for the President of the United States trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.”

“Judicial activism is when the courts would typically try to legislate from the bench and make decisions that are totally out of their jurisdiction. In this case you have a constitutional issue. Nothing could be more appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide than whether a bill is constitutional or not.”

“I think the President is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court and to that extent he is trying to politicize the process. Maybe he’s worried about losing it. Maybe he’s worried the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. But he should not be in any shape, form threatening the Supreme Court and making statements that are inappropriate or deemed trying to intimidate the Supreme Court.”


comments

The president is acting like a three year old throwing a temper tantrum in a supermarket cereal aisle.

..

Someone please show me the full quote where Obama says that the Supreme Court should not be allowed to overturn the law. Please. I'm really, genuinely trying to understand out the thought process that you folks have. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWZ9JVvUG0g&feature=player_embedded hear it from his own mouth ... )

...

In its history the Supreme Court has struck down 1300+ unconstitutional laws passed by congress.

..

I have a sneaking suspicion that he understands the Constitution very well, and made these remarks on purpose. There is a large percentage of his voter base that believes everything he says, that will latch onto this as gospel...

..

First Obama rebukes the Supreme Court in front of millions of Americans during his SOTU speech a couple of years ago. Now he is making this type of statement?

[Jolie Rouge]

How to undo ObamaCare? A problem of philosophy
Posted by: Phineas on April 2, 2012 at 3:23 pm

There’s an interesting article at The Weekly Standard, by Jeffrey Anderson, looking at the difficulties the Supreme Court faces as it decides what to do about ObamaCare. As Anderson describes it, there are five choices:


1.Upholding the law in its entirety;

2.Minimally overturning it by striking down just the individual mandate;

3.Go a little further by overturning the mandate,
plus the closely related “community rating” and “guaranteed issue” clauses;

4.Go through the law page by page deciding which part survives and which is overturned;

5.Voiding the whole law.

Obviously the first is unacceptable to anyone who cares a whit about the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It’s also, thankfully, the least likely result if the questions asked by the Justices during the three days of the hearings are any indication.

But options 2-5 pose problems for conservative justice inclined to overturn the mandate: When dealing with a law this huge in both size and scope, which approach best hews to the principles of judicial restraint/judicial modesty, while still adhering to the Constitution? Options 2-4 pose a couple of problems. The first is that, by picking and choosing among the various parts of the bill, the Court may well leave behind a clanking wreck that does even more harm. The other is that, in doing so, especially in the absence of a severability clause (1), the COurt would wind up acting like an unelected super-legislature and usurping the roll of the elected Congress, something that should give any constitutionalist serious pause. As Anderson points out, none of these choices (except the first) are clear-cut and without question.

My own preference to to void the whole bill; it cannot work without the individual mandate, which itself is clearly unconstitutional. And policy decisions about health-care reform, which is what choices 2-4 amount to, are the duty of the elected legislature, not the Court.


But even these arguments raise a deeper issue; the Court would not find itself confronting these issues if not for the progressive penchant for comprehensive legislation, one bill “to bind them all.” Anderson sums it up neatly:

But we shouldn’t miss the larger point here. The predicament in which the Court finds itself is plainly a product of President Obama and his party’s preference for massive, unwieldy, impossibly complicated legislation—the kind that you have to pass first to “find out what is in it.” Such legislation, as the oral arguments revealed, does not fit within our system of limited government. That’s because, as Charles Kesler has observed, Obamacare violates the basic notion of law in a free society. Kesler writes, “Sometimes the most obvious derangements of our politics are staring us in the face but we don’t see them”—like “calling this voluminous monstrosity a bill. Can you have a bill, a single law, that is almost 3,000 pages long? In the old days, that would have constituted a whole code of laws.”

In other words, it’s not just Obamacare that must go, but rather the whole liberal and progressive notion of “comprehensive” legislation for a nation of 300 million people. Obamacare is the epitome of that confidence in central planning by experts. Whether the Court strikes down Obamacare, or President Obama is defeated and Obamacare is repealed, or the Court strikes down part of Obamacare and a new president and Congress repeal the rest, last week’s historic hearings have made one thing clearer than ever: Attempts at “comprehensive” legislation compromise the very notion of limited government, in which the people’s representatives try to accomplish attainable goals in a free society. Comprehensive legislation is what happens when you have unlimited government. It is that effort, and the attitude underlying it, that need to be repudiated—by the Court and, more important, by the voters this November.

And that points a way forward for conservatives in the coming months: not only concentrating on sending Obama off into retirement , but electing as many limited-government conservatives as possible to Congress who understand a principle related to judicial modesty, but rarely mentioned — legislative modesty. (2) That is, recognizing what the federal government’s proper role is and doing only enough to fulfill that role, not trying to solve every problem (3) that comes down the pike when they’re better left to the states or the people.

Right now, we’re seeing what havoc legislative arrogance can wreak. It’s time to put a stop to it before the harm is incurable. As Marco Rubio said, “If we don’t win this election in November — and we get four more years of Barack Obama — I don’t know what that means … But I know it ain’t good.”

He was speaking of Obama, of course, but it applies as much to the progressive influence on Congress.

Footnotes:

(1) Severability is a clause Congress usually inserts to allow the courts to strike down provisions of a law without having to kill the whole thing. There was such a clause in an early draft of the bill, but it was removed, indicating the Democrats were betting the Court wouldn’t strike down the whole law because there was no severability. I’m beginning to think they’ll regret that.

(2) Hence Operation Counterwight.

(3) Or any not-problem, something that isn’t their business, but lets them pander to the voters. Such as the BCS.

**Posted by Phineas http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/04/02/how-to-undo-obamacare-a-problem-of-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-898066

[Jolie Rouge]

comments

My hope is that we at least get the mandate struck down for the following reasons:

1. If this is upheld it means the govt can ostensibly force individuals to buy or do anything under the commerce clause which is worse than any 1 election.
2. Having the mandate struck down will be humiliating for the Democrats and Obama, no matter how they try to spin it.
3. Removing the mandate is like taking a knife in the heart of the bill. Even if a lot of the rest remains, it starts gushing blood and will be easier to remove in my opinion. I know others have disagreed on this point. But I think without the mandate projections will go through the roof from even non-partisan groups like the CBO which will be pretty damning.

Obviously I would like the whole bill struck down. It feels like that won’t happen, even if we think the facts are on our side, but hopefully the mandate will fall.

....

Carlos April 2, 2012 at 6:53 pm

A few lifetimes ago, when I first started studying the Building Codes, the structural portions were confined to a single 5″ x 7″ book of approx. 200 pages, which also included the mechanical section of the codes. Not long after that the commercial and residential code portions were split into two separate codes, with each being three volumes of approx. 200 8-1/2″ x 11″ pages each, and the Mechanical Code was put into a separate stand-alone volume.

Basically what happened then and what continues to happen is that the educated idiots are like any other modern-day lawmakers, trying to codify every possible situation so there will be no question about the scope or intent of the law because it’s covered by text.

Problem is (as they’ve discovered in baseball) there is absolutely no way to cover every possible situation or contingency; all such legislation (whether building codes, baseball or brainless legalese) does is give an inordinate amount of power to petty bureaucrats, further restricting the freedoms promised in the Constitution.

ObamaCare is simply one of the worst examples of such legislation. The progfrogs on the court are set, willing to die in flames for their overreach. I’m afraid one or two of the more conservative members will recognize the unconstitutionality of the mandate, but won’t have the guts to throw the entire thing out, and Duh-1, with the aid of such mental giants as Dingy and Chucky Cheesy will try to rescue it, calling the mandate something else and demanding that it be pushed through again.

Progfrog mantra: If at first we can’t fool enough people to get what we want, change the language, call it something else and see if that fools them; repeat as often as necessary to crush the will of the people.

...

Tom TB April 2, 2012 at 7:03 pm

I only know of three things I am mandated to do by the Federal Government: Pay income taxes, register for the draft whether I’ll be called or not, and serve on jury duty when called. Other than that, I can be a happy hobo. When did my body become interstate commerce forcing me to buy a government product?

...

Mitch April 2, 2012 at 11:46 pm

We are already, for all intents and purposes, a Communist Nation. Once you get your arms around that factoid, we can perhaps look for a solution. When a Healthcare bill provides, among other things, a Federal tax on every property sold in the United States, you begin to get the idea this is not really a Healthcare bill.

..

Drew the Infidel April 3, 2012 at 5:03 am

In relation to TomTB’s observation: The false narrative is the GOP “war on women” when the real story is the Commiecrats’ war on all of us.

...

Marshall Art April 3, 2012 at 6:09 am

I don’t see option five as a problem. It would be the most prudent given the fact that no one knows all of what is in the bill.

One issue I’ve heard brought up by proponents of this monstrosity is that the right wing has no alternative. I never felt we needed a conservative alternative. This was supposed to all about affordability. But the high costs of health care and health insurance could have been easily addressed without a bill like this. There are only a handful of reasons why getting care is so expensive that such a bill was never necessary.

They could have begun with allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines to provoke more competition which lowers costs. They could have reduced the gov’t interference (regulations) that led to coverage for that which an individual might have no need. They could have promoted the truth that insurance was never meant to cover that which is already happening, but only supposed to be a safety net to protect one against catastrophic occurrences that MIGHT happen. Addressing tort reform and malpractice law would have resulted in fewer unnecessary tests and procedures enacted to prevent later lawsuits should the patient not pull through. These and a few others could have been addressed and costs would have dropped naturally by doing so.

Not to mention reversing all that has led to business not wanting to expand and hire people who could then afford to have insurance.


..

Dana April 3, 2012 at 9:35 am

There is a philosophical problem which has not been addressed: the question of whether it is the proper duty of the federal government to insure that everyone has health care coverage or not. The Republicans have campaigned, for the most part, on “repeal and replace.” Me, I’d like to see just plain repeal, and an end to the repugnant notion that the government should be responsible for taking care of individuals.

...

Carlos April 3, 2012 at 10:32 am

Technically, I guess not everyone is insured, but I would defy anyone in the entire country to go into an emergency room anywhere in the United States, declare poverty and not receive at least a minimum of treatment at the state’s expense.

Of course, in the course of questioning, when the fact was brought up to the “enlightened Latina,” she couldn’t believe it. She probably still doesn’t because that just doesn’t fit with the echo-chamber narrative she knows all too well.

I’m with Dana, we need repeal only, not repeal and replace. That would mean the guvmint had it’s cost-causing grubby hands more involved than it does now and we don’t need that.

**Posted by Phineas http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/04/02/how-to-undo-obamacare-a-problem-of-philosophy/comment-page-1/#comment-898066

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama’s Continuing Assault on the Law, History, and Facts
by Leon H. Wolf ~~ Wednesday, April 4th at 1:11PM EDT

In the wake of President Obama’s moronic and widely-lampooned comments on judicial review yesterday, President Obama offered the following lame (and incorrect) walkback today: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/obama-walks-back-supreme-court-threat-still-gets-it-wrong.php


THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ’30s, pre New Deal.

And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this.

The President, of course, is once again either displaying complete ignorance or cynical hackery. Our federal Congress, per the constitution, is a Congress of enumerated powers. It may only do the things which it is authorized to do under Article 1, Section 8. The onus is always on Congress to demonstrate that its actions have fallen within one of its enumerated powers, not on a person challenging an act of Congress to demonstrate that Congress has acted without those powers. However, more importantly, as Powerline pointed out, Obama has once again also gotten his history wrong:


Is there any truth to Obama’s claim that the Supreme Court hasn’t invalidated any statutes that are “economic” and relate to “commerce” since Lochner v. New York, which was in 1905? Of course not. To name just a few examples a great deal more recent than 1905, the Court ruled unconstitutional provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that had permitted only “for cause” removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2010; the 1990 Mushroom Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act in 2001 (this case was actually quite similar to Obamacare because the Court held unconstitutional provisions that required mushroom growers to contribute to mushroom promotion programs); provisions of the Patent and Plant Variety Remedy Clarification Act, the Trademark Remedy Clarification Act, and the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in 1992; the Harbor Maintenance Tax Act in 1998; the Transfer Act which authorized the transfer of operating control of Washington National Airport and Dulles International Airport from the Department of Transportation to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority in 1991; and many, many more dating back to 1905.


Obama’s bungling on this (which has yet to be called a “gaffe” or more properly “a series of lies” by anyone I’ve yet seen in the media) prompted the Fifth Circuit yesterday to ask a DOJ lawyer who was litigating a case concerning Obamacare to clarify whether the DOJ was now taking the position that the federal judiciary did not have the power to overturn Obamacare. Some folks on the left went absolutely apopleptic over this, because it was an unusual event. Mostly, however, that is because most lawyers aren’t cursed with clients who are dumb enough to say, on the news, that the court currently deciding their case has no legitimate authority to do so. As was pointed out at Hot Air, Obama is the head of the DOJ and the Fifth Circuit was entitled to know if Obama’s statements signaled a change in the government’s position during this litigation.

One final point is in order here, which is to clarify for President Obama what is meant by an activist judiciary. An activist judiciary is not one that strikes down laws passed by Congress. An activist judiciary is one that strikes down laws passed by Congress for reasons that cannot be fairly said to be contained within the text of the Constitution, or more properly one that invents law from the bench.

Allow me to helpfully illustrate. Most conservatives were in favor (generally speaking) of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which was passed with broad, bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. When the Supreme Court struck this act down, I don’t recall any conservative accusing the Court of engaging in judicial activism, because the Court’s reason for striking the bill down was firmly rooted in the text of the Constitution. By way of contrast, an excellent example of judicial activism would be virtually every SCOTUS Eighth Amendment decision for the last 65 years. The plain text of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments indicate that the government can constitutionally take a person’s life (so long as he or she is afforded due process of law). At the time these amendments were enacted, capital punishment was virtually the uniform punishment for all felonies. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has taken it upon itself to declare the death penalty unconstitutional for every crime other than murder, despite the fact that neither the text of the constitution nor history compels this result. At one point, the Supreme Court actually declared that the death penalty was unconstitutional, despite the fact that the constitution explicitly provides for the death penalty. This is what is meant by “judicial activism,” not “striking down statutes that were passed by Congress.”

It would be helpful, if the President wants to debate using conservative terms, if he took the time to understand what they meant.

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/04/04/obamas-continuing-assault-on-the-law-history-and-facts/

[Jolie Rouge]

Two-Thirds of Americans Want ObamaCare Gutted by Court; WashPost Hypes Half Who Say 'Partisan' Politics Will Color Ruling
By Ken Shepherd | April 11, 2012 | 11:25

A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 2/3rds of Americans want at least a part of the ObamaCare overhaul tossed by the Supreme Court when it decides HHS v. Florida in June. Thirty-eight percent of respondents in the poll want the entire law thrown out while 29 percent say just a part of it being thrown out would suffice.

Yet rather than lead with these numbers in their story today, Washington Post reporters Robert Barnes and Scott Clement chose a question from the April 5-8 poll that shows 50 percent of Americans think the Court "will rule on the health-care reform case mainly on the basis... of their partisan political views."

"More Americans think Supreme Court justices will be acting mainly on their partisan political views than on a neutral reading of the law when they decide the constitutionality of President Obama's health-care law," Barnes and Clement noted in the lead paragraph of their April 11 page A2 story headlined, "Half say ruling on health care will be partisan."*

But "The poll shows little enthusiasm for the Obama administration's position that the law, passed by the Democratic Congress in 2010, should be upheld in full," the Post scribes noted two paragraphs later. "Only a quarter of Americans choose that as the desired outcome."

What's more, "Only 39 percent of Americans support the health-care overhaul in general, the lowest percentage since the Post-ABC poll began asking the question," Barnes and Clement disclosed in the 5th paragraph in their 10-paragraph story.

With support for ObamaCare at its nadir, why isn't that statistic the lede? Perhaps because the Post is doing its part to push the spin of liberal Democrats and the Obama administration that the Court striking down the ObamaCare health care purchase mandate is politically-inspired judicial activism.

What's more, the Post/ABC poll arguably under sampled Republican voters as the partisan breakdown was 34 percent Democratic, 23 percent Republican, and 34 percent independent, with five percent listing "other" and 3 percent giving no opinion. That compares to a 39 percent Democratic, 32 percent Republican, 29 percent independent split in the 2008 presidential exit polls.

As such, the number of Americans who believe the Court will be influenced by politics may be inflated by the poll and the number of Americans who oppose ObamaCare may even be underestimated by the poll, meaning that the poll may understate bad news for Obama on the issue of health care this November.

http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/halfsayruling.jpg

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/04/11/fully-23rds-americans-want-court-toss-least-some-obamacare-washpost-fo#ixzz1rlIkz6dq

comments

The justices who vote to uphold the mandate will be acting on partisan political views rather than the Constitution. We already know it's going to be at least 4 of them. There has been some discussion of Kennedy, Roberts and even Alito voting either way, but I haven't heard anyone suggest that any of the 4 collectivist ideologues would even consider voting to strike down the mandate. I don't even know why they bothered attending the verbal arguments. They could have used to time to travel to Egypt to bad mouth our Constitution instead.

...

The Post's slaving devotion to anything lib and anything Obamao is expected and keeps them at the margins of the debate. Having any impact on issues requires a confirmable, down the middle, and fair approach, which they're never gonna do. They rate about 9.5 on the "lefty scale" of media bias.

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court moves to center of presidential race
By The Associated Press

The Supreme Court, suddenly at the heart of presidential politics, is preparing what could be blockbuster rulings on health care and immigration shortly before the fall election. The court, sometimes an afterthought in presidential elections, is throwing a new element of uncertainty into the campaign taking shape between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

Sharply divided between four conservatives, four liberals and one conservative-leaning swing justice, the court already is viewed as being nearly as partisan as Congress. Within weeks it will rule on the contentious 2010 Democratic-crafted health care overhaul and a Republican-backed Arizona law that's seen as a model for cracking down on illegal immigrants.

Obama sometimes seems to be running against the court, or at least its conservative members. Whether that will sway voters in November is unclear. The public receives far less information and visual imagery of the Supreme Court than it does of the White House and Congress. An anti-court strategy by Obama "will fire up his base, but I doubt it will make any bigger impact on swing voters," said consultant John Feehery.

Meanwhile, strategists in both parties are hoping they can turn the upcoming decisions to their advantage — for instance, possibly boosting Democratic turnout among Hispanic voters unhappy with GOP immigration policies or emboldening the Republican base if Obama's landmark health care law is ruled unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court already has played a huge and direct role in U.S. presidential politics. Its 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore settled the bitter 2000 contest by barring a Florida ballot recount, which Democrats hoped would prevent George W. Bush's election.

And the 2010 Citizens United case, also decided 5-4, greatly eased political spending restrictions on corporations and unions. It gave birth to the "super PACs" that are reshaping campaigns by raising millions of anonymously donated dollars for TV ads attacking Obama, Romney and targeted congressional candidates.

By holding well-publicized hearings on the health care and immigration cases — and now writing keenly awaited decisions — the court is stirring passions on key issues in this year's elections. Less clear, however, is how the politics might play out.

Many court-watchers expect the justices to throw out most or all of the health law, which Republicans derisively call "Obamacare." During public oral arguments, the most conservative justices questioned Congress' authority to require all Americans to obtain health insurance. Romney may be poorly positioned to exploit such a ruling, however. The similar "individual mandate" that he successfully pushed as Massachusetts governor was a model for Obama's federal plan. "I don't think the Romney campaign will want to make health care a major issue," said Democratic strategist Doug Hattaway. "Every time Romney criticizes the president's health care reform, he opens himself up to the Etch A Sketch attack."

Hattaway was referring to claims that Romney switches back and forth on important policies, erasing and redrawing pages when convenient. Republican strategist Terry Holt said a court decision overturning the health care law would be an unmistakable setback for Obama. "It repudiates the singular achievement of this administration," Holt said.

Feehery agreed, saying such a ruling would make Obama "look like a weak president."

But it might help other Democrats, Feehery said. "It takes away a law that is unpopular," he said, "but puts health care back on the agenda for the Democrats, which has been a winning issue in the past."

In the immigration case, the Obama administration opposes Arizona's requirement that police check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons. The law, pushed by a Republican governor and Legislature, has angered some voters, including Hispanics, in battleground states such as Florida, New Mexico and Colorado.

A number of court analysts predict the justices will uphold parts of the Arizona law but may overturn others. That could energize Americans who want tougher sanctions, including deportation, against millions of illegal immigrants in the country. "This could prove problematic for Romney," Feehery said, because it would pit his conservative base against much-needed Hispanic voters in targeted states. "If Romney handles it right, by largely ignoring it, it could take out a major source of irritation for Hispanics and maybe help a portion of them see the good side of Romney," Feehery said.

Earlier this month, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, delivered what some considered a misleading warning to the court regarding the health care law. "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," the president said. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example."

White House spokesmen tried to explain that Obama recognizes the court's power to review laws passed by Congress. His point, said spokesman Jay Carney, is that the Supreme Court traditionally has "deferred to Congress' authority in matters of national economic importance."

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/27/11427662-supreme-court-moves-to-center-of-presidential-race?lit

comments

Spin spin spin for the so-called, "constitutional lawyer," who doesn't seem to know what the U.S. Constitution says, or why the protections FROM GOVERNMENT tyranny were put in place. With NDAA Sec 1020, individual mandates, energy policies that take products consumers want off the market for more expensive & less functional products (by companies owned by Democrats no less), this is a President that is NOT in favor of the public having a choice. This is a President that just wants to dictate how we should live our lives and waves a hand so we don't notice he signed an expansion and extension of the Patriot Act, didn't close Guantanamo Bay, and fell far short of the hopey dopey change he promised. Sadly, if Romney does end up as the nominee, Americans will once again not have a choice of a leader, as from welfare to warfare, both the standing President and his challenger are almost identical in opinion and thought.

..

Democrats have had control for over 45 of the last 60 years. If you have ANY common sense at all, you can see the Democrats have done the damage! Read your history, it definitely supports this .

..

My issue with the Supreme Court is the judge that acted insulted when expected to read the entire bill and actually understand what was being ruled on rather than blindly making a decision. Shouldn't we expect them to at least be informed? That doesn't give me much confidence on any decision they make on any issue. Of course the Congress PASSED the dammed thing without reading it ( "Have to pass the law to see what is in the law" to paraphrase Pelosi ) which inspires little confidence in the system altogether

..


An anti-court strategy by Obama "will fire up his base,...

Whatever happened to the idea that, first and foremost, the President should do what's good for the country? Fomenting anger, divisiveness, and conflict between Americans's hardly lives up to that ideal. Candidate Obama promised to try to bring people together. He's only done the opposite with his actions.

..

I would never suggest that president Obama is a racist. However, if he truly believes that the Supreme Court has no authority to overturn a law passed by a majority of Congress that regulates interstate commerce, then he would de facto be supporting the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Fugitive Slave Act.

[Jolie Rouge]

High court's stance could spur immigration laws
By DAVID CRARY | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago
http://news.yahoo.com/high-courts-stance-could-spur-immigration-laws-142548293.html

Emboldened by signals that the U.S. Supreme Court may uphold parts of Arizona's immigration law, legislators and activists across the country say they are gearing up to push for similar get-tough measures in their states. "We're getting our national network ready to run with the ball, and saturate state legislatures with versions of the law," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration. "We believe we can pass it in most states."

That goal may be a stretch, but lawmakers in about a dozen states told The Associated Press they were interested in proposing Arizona-style laws if its key components are upheld by the Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in June on the Department of Justice's appeal that the law conflicts with federal immigration policy.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said he was encouraged that several justices suggested during Wednesday's oral arguments that they are ready to let Arizona enforce the most controversial part of its law — a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they suspect are in the country illegally. Another provision allows suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without warrants "The justices sent a clear signal that there's a huge zone for state action in this area," Stein said. "There will be an enormous amount of energy spent in next few months examining the full range of possibilities."

For starters, a ruling in favor of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 would likely enable Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah to put move forward with comparable measures that were enacted but have been on hold pending the high court's decision. "If Arizona does very well, we'll do very well," said Alabama Sen. Scott Beason, sponsor of a law that in some respects is tougher than Arizona's. In addition to requi ring police to determine citizenship status during traffic stops, it directs government offices to verify legal residency for transactions like obtaining a car license, enrolling a child in school and getting a job.

Lawmakers in such diverse states as Mississippi and Pennsylvania said they would be eager to follow the Arizona/Alabama model if the Supreme Court gives a green light. "You look at poll after poll after poll, whether they're a business owner or employee or small business owner or executive, the majority of Americans support bills like 1070," said Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican who chairs the House State Government Committee.

Metcalfe has already introduced a bill that incorporates Arizona's law and is waiting for a favorable Supreme Court ruling to bring it up in his committee.

In Mississippi, a get-tough immigration bill passed the House earlier this year but died in a Senate committee. Its backers plan to try again next year, and hope for a Supreme Court ruling that gives them guidance. "This just ensures to the taxpayers of Mississippi that when we pass the law, we won't end up in a long court battle," said Republican Rep. Becky Currie.

As in Mississippi, South Dakota lawmakers also have rejected a measure based on the Arizona law, but its sponsor, Republican Rep. Manny Steele of Sioux Falls, says he's ready to try again. "I would be excited to get another bill going back in there, according to what the Supreme Court decision is," Steele said.

In Rhode Island, Rep. Peter Palumbo said he was pleased by the Supreme Court's apparent support for allowing states to enforce immigration law. "It's tremendous," said Palumbo, a Democrat who would like to empower the state police to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement.

In several states where neither major party has a monopoly on power — Iowa, Colorado, Montana and Kentucky, among them — lawmakers said the fate of any hardline immigration bill likely will depend on the outcome of state elections in November. One of Kentucky's leading critics of illegal immigration, Republican Rep. Stan Lee, said an Arizona-style bill has little chance of overcoming staunch opposition from the Democratic majority in the House. "Even if the Supreme Court upholds all or virtually all of that, I don't expect to pursue any of that type of legislation unless there's a significant change in the makeup of the House," Lee said. "The votes, as I've discovered, just aren't there."

In Minnesota, Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski said he'll consider proposing a bill modeled in part on the Arizona law but acknowledged that it could well be vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton, whose term runs until 2014.

In Kansas, where Republicans dominate, GOP legislators are split over immigration, preventing action both on proposals to crack down on illegal immigration and a business-backed program to place some immigrants in hard-to-fill jobs in farming and other sectors.

Among the leaders of the get-tough faction in Kansas is Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a former law professor who helped write the Arizona and Alabama laws. Kobach said the Supreme Court arguments bolstered his view that the most controversial part of the Arizona law — the "show your papers" provision — would withstand a legal challenge.

If the Supreme Court upholds key parts of the law, "it will be a huge green light," he said. "All of the other states will have a blueprint that they can copy."

In Virginia, which already has numerous restrictive immigration laws, Republican Delegate David Albo said there may not be room for many more.

"We're already bumping up against the legal limits of what we're allowed to do," said Albo, author of a law that denies adult illegal immigrants non-emergency public benefits such as food stamps and welfare benefits.

In many states, there is little or no prospect for adopting Arizona-style laws anytime soon. In some cases, such as in Idaho, it's because the agriculture industry worries about losing needed workers; elsewhere it's a question of immigrant-friendly politics.

"I can't envision the state adopting the position that we should be enforcing immigrant laws," said New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, noting that his state has ample law enforcement challenges on its plate already.

In Illinois, which has some of the most immigrant-friendly laws in the nation, Republican Rep. Randy Ramey has tried four times to propose an Arizona-style law but failed to get a measure out of committee. Heartened by the Supreme Court arguments, Ramey said he may try again despite the odds. "It encourages me, but doesn't mean anything will move here as long as Democrats are in charge," he said. "They'll just laugh at it."

Stands on the issue don't always follow predictable party lines. Republican Govs. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada — both Hispanics — say Arizona-style laws aren't needed in their states. Hispanics account for 46 percent of the population in New Mexico, the highest proportion of any state. "Gov. Martinez fully believes that any policies addressing illegal immigration have to begin at the federal level," said her spokesman, Greg Blair.

There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Of that total, roughly 6.1 million are from Mexico, down from nearly 7 million in 2007, according to a Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. That decline has coincided with a cooling-off of the immigration debate in some states, such as Tennessee. "It doesn't seem to have the same numbers that were here a couple of years ago," said state Sen. Bill Ketron, a Republican who has sponsored a number of bills targeting illegal immigrants.

Clarissa Martinez of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization, predicted that most states — regardless of the Supreme Court's decision — would stay away from Arizona-type laws out of self-interest. "For most of them, the balance sheets do not add up," she said, referring to the Alabama law that has created burdens for some business and caused farmers to complain about lack of workers to pick their crops.

Vermont, where a growing number of Hispanic migrants work in the dairy industry, is among a handful of states overtly welcoming immigrants regardless of their legal status. Last fall, Gov. Peter Shumlin urged police to "look the other way" when the only legal problem might be an immigration violation. "Vermont is the antithesis of Arizona," said Rep. Suzi Wizowaty of Burlington, who has backed a bill to require police to follow such policies. "Our goal in Vermont is to be the kind of place that welcomes all kinds of people."

The welcome mat is out in Alaska, also. "We want more immigrants," said Republican Rep. Paul Seaton. "There just aren't people from here to do the work."

[Jolie Rouge]

PUNITIVE IMMIGRATION LAWS SEEM LIKELY TO EXPAND
By Cynthia Tucker – 23 hrs ago

The U.S. Supreme Court seems inclined to back at least a portion of Arizona's xenophobic immigration law, which countenances racial profiling. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court's liberal wing and its first Hispanic, signaled to the Obama administration, which has opposed the law, that its arguments were "not selling very well," according to The New York Times.

That's too bad. Several states that rushed to copy Arizona's terrible example, including Georgia and Alabama, need to be rescued from their bigotry. Actually, the entire nation needs a respite from the fevered anti-immigrant sentiment that has gripped some of its regions.

According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, the tide of immigration from Mexico that changed the face of many U.S. cities and towns over the last 15 or so years has come to a halt -- or perhaps reversed. Pew says that several factors, including the Great Recession and increased border enforcement, significantly decreased the flow of undocumented workers over the southern border.

But the mean-spirited and frequently self-defeating statutes that have flowed from GOP-dominated assemblies show no signs of abating. Legislatures keep voting to keep illegal immigrants out of college, out of decent housing and away from the economic mainstream.

In 2010, Arizona leapt to the front lines of the nation's immigration wars with a harsh statute that, among other things, requires local police agents to check the immigration status of anyone they "suspect" is in the country illegally. That begs for the sort of profiling by surname and skin color that turns the U.S. Constitution on its head.

(Oddly, the Obama administration decided not to tackle the law on that basis, choosing instead to portray Arizona as infringing on federal turf by enacting its own immigration law. Should the high court uphold the law, opponents may still challenge it on the grounds of racial unfairness.)

But the protests, boycotts and widespread condemnation from immigration advocates that greeted Arizona's actions did nothing to deter the nativists in other states who wanted to take the same approach. Actually, the controversy seemed to cheer some ultraconservatives, who were itching to prove they wouldn't back down.

I can only assume that backward bravado helped to carry the day in Georgia and Alabama, both of which passed similar laws last year. Indeed, Alabama is widely believed to now have the nation's harshest law aimed at illegal immigrants.

If Arizona at least had the excuse of having a significant population of undocumented workers, my home state, Alabama, had no such excuse. Its 120,000 or so illegal immigrants -- an estimate from the Pew Research Center -- is less than 3 percent of the total state population.

Because of the folly of its elected officials, Alabama has suffered the embarrassment of national headlines detailing the arrest of a Mercedes-Benz executive last year for lack of appropriate documents. The state had been proud of its savvy at attracting foreign car manufacturers -- a triumph now sullied by a dumb law.

Georgia has also suffered for its foolishness. Last year, the state's farmers lost nearly $80 million in unpicked crops because of a severe labor shortage, according to Charles Hall, director of the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association.

If economic interests haven't persuaded local legislators to dump these laws, there seems little hope of rescinding them anytime soon. Nor does there seem much hope that a deeply polarized Congress will step in to offer a path to legal status to the nation's millions of undocumented workers.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., frequently mentioned as a vice presidential prospect, recently said that he would offer immigration reform legislation -- a conservative counter to Democratic bills. But House Speaker John Boehner said last week that even Rubio's proposal is unlikely to pass.

Many critics of illegal immigration still indulge the fantasy that more tough sanctions will cause millions of illegal immigrants to "self-deport," leaving the country closer to an ethnic balance with which they are comfortable. So if the Supreme Court won't strike down these hateful laws, they're likely to keep cropping up.


(Cynthia Tucker, winner of the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a visiting professor at the University of Georgia. She can be reached at [email protected].)

http://news.yahoo.com/punitive-immigration-laws-seem-likely-expand-050205370.html

comments

The issue for so many of us is not immigration, per se, but ILLEGAL, not following the rules, cutting the lines, cheating, jumping the fence, however you want to name it, enterance. My husband is a LEGAL IMMIGRANT. We went through the process. Even though I made less than 30K at the time, I completed the paperwork myself and paid all the fees. We went through all the separation and waiting to do this according to the law. My husband is now a permanent LEGAL resident with a GREEN CARD. He has a former foster daughter that we would love to have come to the US, but because she is not legally related we can not sponsor her. We are following the law.

,,

Plus, the author has no global perspective. Nobody in their right mind would try to sneak into another country. If you are caught trying to enter almost any other country in the world, you will go directly to jail. The police and prison guards may not even speak your language. And they could care less - because you are a criminal and the only reason you are trying to sneak into their country is probably because you can't get in legally.

There is no logic to the author's position and like most liberals ignores the essential facts to make their arguments.

..

I didn't know they awarded the Pulitzer prize for class warfare. What this author and the liberal elites fail to point out is that the reason Arizona's law will be not be rules as unconstitutional is because it mimics federal law. The reason the feds lost the argument is because they have no argument.

..

Ms Tucker, what illegals do is not immigration -- its tresspassing. If you tresspass on my land, you will be punished. So, yes, I support punitive tresspassing laws. Nor do I feel required to provide an education, decent housing or access to our economy and workforce to such people. They are breaking our laws. These benefits are for citizens -- the taxpayers that foot the bill.

Your comment about anti-immigrant sentiment in this country is pure spin. The prevailing sentiment is anti-law-breakers. And you know that. To cast all illegals as persecuted innocents is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst.

..

The U.S. Supreme Court seems inclined to back at least a portion of Arizona's xenophobic immigration law, which countenances racial profiling... xenophobic? Tucker you are an idiot... the laws are not xenophobic at all.. i immigrated here from Germany, followed those laws you call xenophobic, paid my way and have continued to do so since then and all YOU can do is spew your crap about how these laws are xenophobic?.. get over yourself you silly little twit and stop writing this garbage..

..

How about Cynthia tries sneaking through either of our borders, North or South, and see what happens when they catch her. How about trying that on ANY other country in the world. Arrest and deportation at least, if not imprisonment. Cynthia, you are one world class :hmmmm:

...

"Punitive"? "Xenophobic"? Why, because they prefer to enforce immigration laws that are already on the books?

..

It's one thing for Yahoo to welcome all opinions. It's quite another to torture us with Tucker's ridiculous drivel every weekend. If the peabrain moves a tiny bit more to the left, she will be on Mars. What in the heck can she be 'teaching' at the University of Georgia? Hating Whites and Republicans, 101.....?

..

Just has the Laws stand in Mexico,SO should the Laws stand in America!!!!

..

Xenophobic? ok that's not the least bit over the top at all, nooo. Let's continue to misrepresent the problem, and that is illegal immigration being the problem, not lawful legal immigration which is good for our country, because it revitalizes our labor pool. Tucker seems to like to confuse us with intertwining legal and illegal, like the left constantly does.

..

Wow, and you actually get paid to spew this anti american, anti white racist bile!

[hblueeyes]

Too bad some hacker couldn't get the Obamas and other pro illegal government officials SSNs and sell them to illegals and really cause havoc. I wonder how long it would take when the eldest daughter cannot get into college because she is already attending 4 other universities.

Me

[Jolie Rouge]

If AZ attempting to uphold the FEDERAL LAWS regarding immigration and the LAWFUL application of such... would Cynthia Tucker consider Mexico's immigration policies xenophobic, punitive, mean-spirited, and/or racist ??

Simple solution: have the U.S. duplicate Mexico's immigration laws...

◦in the country legally;

◦have the means to sustain themselves economically;

◦not destined to be burdens on society;

◦of economic and social benefit to society;

◦of good character and have no criminal records; and

◦contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

◦immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

◦foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

◦foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;

◦foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

◦foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

◦those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

[Jolie Rouge]

White House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
By Doug Powers • May 4, 2012 02:03 PM

“Don’t overturn the health care law http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/ or else _____ will happen” part deux: http://www.freep.com/article/20120504/NEWS07/205040342/Scuttling-health-care-act-will-freeze-Medicare-White-House-warns


Medicare’s payment system, the unseen but vital network that handles 100 million monthly claims, could freeze if President Barack Obama’s health care law is summarily overturned, the administration quietly informed the courts.

Although Obama’s overhaul made significant cuts to providers and improved prescription and preventive benefits, Medicare was overlooked in Supreme Court arguments that focused on the law’s controversial requirement that all individuals carry health insurance.

Havoc for Medicare could have repercussions as both parties avidly court seniors in this election year and as hospitals and doctors increasingly complain the program doesn’t pay enough.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers warned of “extraordinary disruption” if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act.
[...]
Last year, in a lower court filing, Justice Department lawyers said reversing Medicare payment changes “would impose staggering administrative burdens” on the government and “could cause major delays and errors” in claims payment.


If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, brace for a re-make of the “pushing grandma off a cliff” ad with the Court’s conservative members taking the place of Paul Ryan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U&feature=player_embedded

I can’t believe the administration would be concerned about Obamacare getting overturned, especially considering Donald Verrilli’s tour de force performance during oral arguments. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-solicitor-general-donald-verrilli-had-rough-start-200423085.html


**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/04/white-house-medicare-obamacare/

comments

This from the WH that decries scare tactics. Mmmkay….we’re vewy scawed..next.

..

It seems that those that are now in medicare will be hauled into medicade if bhocare is not killed? I saw F&F this morning talking about this. Hospitals(for elective surgery) and a VAST majority of doctors DO not take medicade patients per those on Fox this morning. You might want to check all this out, and if this indeed true, ALL people in medicare needs to see others get this information. bho/team have not been all that wonderful telling the truth? I know a sarc needs to be here?

This is bho/team’s way to make the SC the scapegoat if they DARE overturn bhocare. Seniors need the truth and bhopress WILL not give it to them.

...

So it’s constitutional because it would be too much work for the government to undo? How about how much work it is for the private sector to comply?

..

Gee, and here I thought that the problem with medicare is that no doctor wants to see patients with that coverage! Waiting for reality to bite and the sh!t to hit the fan.

....

This argument has worked time and time again. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but typically in this country, because legislatures cannot control nor make criminals abide by the law, they pass laws to control law abiding citizens in reaction to criminals behavior. It’s easier to control us than them..the government is all about what’s “easy.” A perfect example of this is laws making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain simple allergy medicine because they can’t stop methheads.

..

so let me get this straight? if the scotus overturns a unconstitutional law, it will cause undue damage to the government? i think this is why it is unconstitutional, it is we the people, not the government is all powerful.

...

Chutzpah. This administration clearly has no problem bullying those who dare question its infallibility. I wonder how well the SCOTUS Justices, especially the conservative ones, will respond to this blackmail?

[Jolie Rouge]

.
Supreme Irony: Would a 'single payer' health care plan be less vulnerable to the court than the Affordable Health Care Act?
Yahoo! News – 2 hrs 13 mins ago

If the Supreme Court does decide to strike down any or all of the Affordable Health Care Act, the implications will range from the political to the medical to the economic.

For me, such a decision will take its place among the more supremely ironic of unintended consequences: a law designed to avoid greater government intrusion into health care will have been invalidated as an unconstitutional overreach of government power, while a far more intrusive approach would have clearly passed muster.

How could this be possible? Welcome to the wonderful world of constitutional interpretation.

Let’s begin by imagining that Congress and the president decided to adopt a genuinely radical health care plan—the kind in place in most of the industrialized world. They decide on a “single-payer” system, where the government raises revenue with taxes, and pays the doctor, hospital and lab bills for just about everyone.

Put aside the question of whether this is a good idea, or an economically sustainable notion. The question is: would such a law be constitutional?

The answer, unquestionably, is “yes.” In fact, it would be the simplest law in the world to enact. All the Congress would need to do is to take the Medicare law and strike out the words “over 65.” Why is it constitutional? For the same reason Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power. Its reach is immense. During World War II, the maximum income tax rate was 91 per cent (it was paid by few, thanks to loopholes, but still). The same Congress that could abolish the estate tax could set just about whatever limit it chose; it could impose a 100 percent tax on estates over, say, $5 million. If it decided that a national sales tax was an answer to huge budget deficits, it could impose one at whatever level it chose.

(The remedy, of course, lies with the voters, who would be more than likely to send a powerful message at the next election, which is why the lack of constitutional limits on the taxing power do not lead to confiscatory rates.)

So why is Obama’s health care plan, with a far more modest use of government power, in serious jeopardy? It’s because the key element in the plan—the “mandate” to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty—was not based on the taxing power, but on Congress’s power, under Article I, Section 8, to regulate interstate commerce. And that power, while broad, has its limits...even if those limits are murky.

Up until the late 1930s, those limits were more like shackles. The Supreme Court repeatedly struck down sate and federal laws regulating wages, hours and working conditions on the grounds that the commerce power only touched the distribution of goods, not their manufacture. But once the court changed its mind—after an effort by FDR to “pack” the court with additional justices had failed—there seemed to be no limits at all. Back in 1942, the court said the government could stop a farmer from growing his own wheat for his own use, because of the potential effects on the wider market. But in 1995, for the first time in decades, the court said “no” to a federal law based on the Commerce clause—one banning firearms within school zones—because it could find no reasonable connection between the law and interstate commerce.

In the health care case, the questioning by several justices indicated strong skepticism about the mandate. If the commerce clause can compel a citizen to buy a specific product—in this case, health insurance—what couldn’t it do? Could it, as the now famous question had it, compel citizens to buy broccoli on health grounds? (Well, a defender might have pointed out, the government does compel taxpayers to “pay for” all kinds of things in the form of government subsidies, such as ethanol. It could clearly do the same with a broccoli subsidy.)

As a policy matter, it’s clear that a “mandate” is a much more modest extension of government power than a single-payer system. The citizen would choose which insurance to buy; in fact, under the law, a citizen could choose not to buy any insurance, and pay a penalty instead. The whole premise of a mandate is to spread risk as widely as possible; as Mitt Romney used to note when he was defending the Massachusetts plan he designed, the mandate to prevent “free riders” from benefitting from treatment once they are sick or injured. That’s why the genesis of the idea came from such conservative roots as the Heritage Foundation.

As a constitutional matter, however, the idea of compelling a citizen into a specific economic activity raises alarm bells. It evokes the specter of some bureaucrat inviting himself into your home, while checking the shelves to make sure you’ve purchased multigrain cereal and cage-free eggs. (It’s a specter the administration tried to avoid by arguing that the health-care market is unique, one in which we are all likely participants at some point, voluntarily or otherwise. Unlike life in a Robert Heinlien libertarian “utopia,” hospital ERs do not have the power to say to an uninsured heart attack or auto accident victim: "you chose not to buy insurance? Sorry...have a nice day.”)

So, for its effort to design a health care plan that moved in the direction of less government intrusion, the Obama administration faces the distinct prospect of having its signature domestic program shot down for exceeding the limits of the constitutional power it did choose to use.

I somehow doubt the White House will appreciate the irony.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-irony--would-a--single-payer--health-care-plan-be-less-vulnerable-to-the-court-than-the-affordable-health-care-act-.html

comments

Let's see - the system would be...the government raises taxes, and pays the doctors and hospitals for everyone.....except.......​......more than 1/2 of the citizens of this country don't pay taxes....Hmmmnnn...A great first step for Obama would have been to work on the Economy, with reform of the tax code as part and parcel of this effort. Instead, he launched his Affordable Health Care Reform Act "rocket" with Nancy Pelosi at the controls....Where, now, do we go from here?

..

[Jolie Rouge]

.
The ObamaCare poll that the White House hates: 4 takeaways
By The Week's Editorial Staff | The Week – Fri, Jun 8, 2012.

.A new survey shows that a full two-thirds of Americans would like to see all or part of ObamaCare struck down by the Supreme Court
Two-thirds of Americans would like to see the Supreme Court strike down all or part of ObamaCare, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS. The poll comes as the country awaits the Supreme Court's decision on President Obama's signature legislative achievement, which is expected to be handed down sometime before the end of June. During oral arguments in the spring, conservative justices expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of ObamaCare's central provision: The individual mandate, which requires most Americans to buy health insurance. Here, four takeaways from the latest poll:

1. ObamCare is still very, very unpopular

According to the poll, 41 percent of Americans would like the high court to overturn the entire law, while another 27 percent said only the individual mandate should be struck down. A mere 24 percent said the justices should uphold the entire law. Republicans are particularly opposed to ObamaCare, with about two-thirds saying the whole law should go. However, the law isn't all that popular with Democrats either, with only 43 percent saying the court should keep the entire law intact.

2. The Supreme Court has political cover

Court watchers have long debated whether the nine justices take public opinion into account when making decisions, and the judges would likely deny any allegation that they did. However, if you're a conservative justice, "and you want to rule against the individual mandate but you're worried about a public backlash, this poll calms your fears," says Ezra Klein at The Washington Post.

3. But the high court is more unpopular than ever

Only 44 percent of Americans "approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing and three-quarters say the justices' decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal or political views," say Adam Liptak and Allison Kopicki at The New York Times. The court's "standing with the public has slipped significantly in the past quarter-century," due to growing distrust of government institutions and suspicions that the court is a nakedly political animal. Only one in eight respondents said the court decides cases on a purely legal basis.

4. Obama's political fortunes are very much on the line

The continued unpopularity of ObamaCare has Democrats complaining that the president "did a terrible job selling the overhaul to the American people," says Donna Cassata of The Associated Press. An ObamaCare defeat at the Supreme Court "could demoralize Democrats" just months before the November election. Indeed, says Erika Johnsen at Hot Air: The crowning achievement of Obama's first term could very well become "the crowning failure of his one-term presidency."

http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-poll-white-house-hates-4-takeaways-144500895.html

comments

Why isn't Obama Campaigning on Obamacare!?!?! He was Sooooo Proud to shove it down our throats on Christmas Eve!!!!

Obama, next time 70+% of people tell you they don't want something, you should Listen!!!!

...

Obamacare was never popular! The majority of Americans were AGAINST Obamacare from the moment the bill was introduced! If it has alwasy been unpopular, the real question is "why was it forced upon us?" The passage of this law was completely unconsitutional and a kick in the teeth to the American people. Elected officials IGNORED their constituants: a violation of their oath of office...Inexcusable.

..

Pelosi still doesn't know what it is she passed. It has not been completely implemented and it is understood they made horrible mistakes that will need to be fixed so I for one hope they trash it.

...

Unions exempt , politicians exempt , Mcdonals , and goodness knows howmany others . Any contributors. to D.N.C. ? ; ANYONEONE ELSE WANT TO TRY ?. Supreme court , don't you want to exempt yourselves , and pass it ?

..

There are more exemptions from Obamacare in Pelozi's congressional area of the San Francisco bay area then any other place in the whole US. The liberals want it but not for themselves.

[Jolie Rouge]

.
Court keeps upcoming health care decision secret
By JESSE J. HOLLAND | Associated Press – 10 hrs ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — It's the biggest secret in a city known for not keeping them.

The nine Supreme Court justices and more than three dozen other people have kept quiet for more than two months about how the high court is going to rule on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. This is information that could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect this fall's national elections, including the presidential contest between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But unlike the Congress and the executive branch, which seem to leak information willy-nilly, the Supreme Court, from the chief justice down to the lowliest clerk, appears to truly value silence when it comes to upcoming court opinions, big and small.

No one talks, and that's the way they like it.

Contrast this with the rest of the government, which couldn't keep secret President Barack Obama's direct role in supervising an unprecedented U.S. cyberattack on Iran's nuclear facilities or the existence of a double agent inside al-Qaida's Yemen branch who tipped the U.S. to a new design for a bomb to put on a jetliner.

As Republicans air their suspicion that the leaks might be deliberate to enhance the Obama administration's stature, Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed two U.S. attorneys to investigate those two disclosures and probably additional recent national security leaks. Because far more people, of necessity, know about such secret national security operations, those investigators must examine hundreds, even thousands, of federal workers who might have known at least a chunk of the guarded information.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the law in the upcoming week or so. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking to a lawyers' convention June 15, noted a steady stream of "rumors and fifth-hand accounts" in the media about what the high court was likely to do. "My favorite among the press pieces wisely observed: 'At the Supreme Court ... those who know don't talk, and those who talk don't know,'" she said.

The justices, of course, know, having officially voted on the results the same week they heard arguments. But they are not the only ones in the loop: Each of the nine justices has four clerks who know not only how their justice voted but also how the other justices stand because these clerks help research and craft the majority opinions and dissents that are circulated for justices to sign if they agree.

In addition these 45 people surely in the know, there are an assorted number of secretaries, aides, security guards, janitors, support staff and family members keenly attuned to the inner workings of the Supreme Court's upper floors where the justices keep their chambers. At the last moment possible, printers who prepare the paper opinions to be handed out will know. If any of these people also know anything about how the case is going to come out, they're not talking.

Unlike the president, who needs to be re-elected every four years and needs positive publicity to help, the justices have lifetime appointments and don't need favorable publicity to keep their jobs. Unlike the other constitutional branches, the justices rarely appear on television and don't even allow cameras inside their main workplace, the Supreme Court.

But that silence trickles down even beyond the justices.

Those 36 clerks, who have inside knowledge of the court's deliberations, are just as mum as their bosses despite growing up in the Internet age of bloggers, camera-phones, social media and instantly free-flowing information. Clerks are warned from day one not to reveal anything about their work, said lawyer Stephen Miller, who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Miller remembered Chief Justice William Rehnquist warning all of the clerks in his year of the perils of leaking information from the court. "Leaks were unacceptable," Miller remembers the chief justice sternly telling all of them. In addition to losing their job, one of the most highly sought positions for up-and-coming lawyers in the nation because it usually leads to a six-figure salary upon completion, any clerk caught revealing information would immediately be ostracized in the legal profession, Miller said. No law firm would be willing to take a chance on a lawyer who talks or leaks information to outsiders without permission.

If the leaking clerk isn't caught, the entire class would have that stigma, leading to strong peer pressure to stay silent, he said. "So what's in it for a clerk to leak?" Miller said.

The court's mystique and reputation for silence means there have been no special warnings from the justices for employees not to spill the beans on the health care decision. It's not that the health care decision isn't important. It's that clerks, secretaries, aides, janitors, and all of the other staff know they are not supposed to talk about anything the court does until the official announcement. That doesn't mean that the court's always been perfect at withholding information until its formal release. For example, the court inadvertently posted opinions and orders on its website about a half hour too soon in December.

The last apparent leak occurred more than 30 years ago when Tim O'Brien, then a reporter for ABC News, informed viewers that the court planned to issue a particular opinion the following day. Chief Justice Warren Burger accused an employee in the printing shop of tipping O'Brien and had the employee transferred to a different job.

Miller noted that all the lampposts at the entrances and exits of the Supreme Court building are supported by turtle sculptures, which can also be found elsewhere in the building. It's an apt symbol for the court. "They like information to move slowly and deliberately," Miller said.

___

Online: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/court-keeps-upcoming-health-care-decision-secret-085527388.html

comments

This is as it should be. The media all want to have the scoop. They are a major part of the problem we have in this country now.

..

I'm glad someone has the sense to not leak things to the press, because the press is so good at really screwing up things up before they get the real story!

,,

those who voted for it, without first reading it, should tossed from office, and subject to arrest.

[Jolie Rouge]

SCOTUS watch: Decision week for Obamacare, Arizona immigration law, and more; Update: Part of Arizona immigration law upheld; No Obamacare decision today
By Doug Powers • June 25, 2012 09:25 AM

This week (possibly today) we should find out the fate of some hotly contested laws that we’ve talked about here for a long time. Drudge’s siren is warming up in the bullpen. http://twitchy.com/2012/06/24/drudge-readies-siren-for-a-thursday-supreme-court-decision-on-obamacare/?tw_p=twt

The “biggies” are of course Obamacare and the Arizona immigration law, but there are also a few more. SCOTUSBlog has a rundown of the remaining cases. http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/the-remaining-merits-cases-as-of-june-23-in-plain-english/ Decisions are on the way this week (possibly this morning) regarding Obamacare and the Arizona immigration law, but here are some others:


First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

Argued on November 28, 2011

Plain English Issue: Whether lawsuits under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which allows homebuyers to sue banks and title companies when they pay kickbacks for the closing of a mortgage loan, are constitutional if the kickback does not affect the price or quality of the services provided?
***

United States v. Alvarez
Argued on February 22, 2012

Plain English Issue: Whether a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech.
***

Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

Argued separately on March 20, 2012

Plain English Issue: Whether a sentence of life without parole for someone who was convicted of murder when he was fourteen violates the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

It’s unclear which decisions will be released today. I have a feeling the Obamacare announcement won’t come until later in the week, but we’ll see. There are actually three separate Obamacare lawsuits which, lumped together, question the constitutionality of the mandate, whether the rest of Obamacare can remain in effect if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, and if Congress has the authority to withhold federal Medicaid funding from states that aren’t compliant with the law.

I’ll post updates as decisions are released. If SCOTUS totally punks everybody and releases no decisions today, my backup plan is that we try to guess what those deep fat fryers were doing on White House grounds. http://twitchy.com/2012/06/24/lets-move-deep-fat-fryers-spotted-on-white-house-grounds-speculative-hilarity-ensues/?tw_p=twt

Update: Some decisions coming down now… from the SCOTUSBlog live blog: http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/


The Court holds that the Eighth Amendment forbids a scheme of life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles.


Also, in a case I think I forgot to mention above, SCOTUS reversed the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that Citizens United doesn’t apply to Montana state law (PDF http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1179h9j3.pdf ). First Amendment wins again. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/

Arizona immigration law ruling coming down now. Ninth Circuit “reversed in part and affirmed in part.” Reuters sums it up:

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS KEY PART OF TOUGH ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW, IN DEFEAT FOR OBAMA


s that ruling (PDF http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf ). The “key part” that was upheld, from my understanding, is the requirement that law enforcement check the immigration status of people they are detaining. However, http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/ “On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.”

SCOTUSBlog is reporting there will be no ruling on Obamacare today. Reportedly it will be Thursday at 10 a.m.






**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/25/scotus-watch/

[Jolie Rouge]

What Obama may do if the Supreme Court rules against ObamaCare
By Juan Williams Published June 19, 2012

Every political strategist working the fall elections sees a game changer coming by the end of the month.

That’s when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act (also known as "ObamaCare"). The Democrats have a nuclear option in this political game if the high court throws out the health care law as unconstitutional.

That blowup-the-system button, not pushed since FDR’s attempt to stack the court with Democrats during the New Deal, is for Obama to use the bully pulpit of the White House, and the national stage of a presidential campaign, to launch a bitter attack on the current court as a corrupt tool of the Republican right wing.

It is a move that could energize Democrats and independents even as Republicans celebrate a major legal victory. Some Democrats, sensing a political windfall, can’t wait to start the offensive. Nebraska’s Sen. Ben Nelson, a retiring Democrat, sent out a news release last week condemning the “activist Supreme Court,” for potentially dismantling a health care law. The senator said without the new law, health insurance premiums will be “skyrocketing,” and endanger “health care for more than 100,000 Nebraska kids with pre-existing medical conditions such as asthma or diabetes.”

That protest comes from a conservative Democrat who held back his vote for the bill until the White House awarded his state a special Medicaid deal. The deal was rescinded but not before the GOP memorably labeled it an attempted bribe, “The Cornhusker Kickback.”

Now even Nelson is climbing the political ramparts to defend Democrats.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/19/what-obama-may-do-if-supreme-court-rules-against-obamacare/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz1yqBaIUeK

White House Readies Ramming Speed if Supremes Strike Down Mandate
By Chris Stirewalt Power Play Published June 19, 2012


"Legislatively we can't do a thing, and we are going to move full speed ahead (with implementation).”

-- A Democratic “congressional official” talking to the Associated Press about plans in the Obama administration to proceed with the president’s 2010 health law even if the Supreme Court strikes down its central provision requiring all Americans to either purchase insurance or be enrolled in a government program.

The looming Supreme Court decision on President Obama’s 2010 health law has Washington in a state of high anxiety. Like tourists who ordered dinner without being able to read the menu, most politicians, pundits and policy wonks are pretty sure they won’t like what’s about to be served up.

Today, the talk is about an Associated Press story which cites a whisper from a Democratic “congressional official” who has been working with the White House on the way forward if the high court guts the president’s law. “Congressional official” sounds like a euphemism for “staff member,” and it’s not surprising that senior aides would be huddling with Team Obama about what to do if the court says the federal government does not have the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance.

Some in the press corps suggest the news value here is that it is evidence that the president, despite public bluster, is concerned that the decision could go against him. Well, of course he is. So what? The real news here is that the plan would be to allow the law to roll forward without the mandatory insurance provision that provides the economic underpinnings for Obama’s the new health-insurance entitlement program.

With no mandate, the law would smash into the private insurance system like a cannonball.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that private insurance costs for consumers would increase by as much as 20 percent if the law were to be imposed without the mandatory insurance provision. But that would be just the beginning. As costs rise, more companies would opt to accept fines rather than share insurance costs with employees, which would, in turn, dump more people into the government-subsidized end of the risk pool.

That market shrinkage for private insurance would mean an even faster contraction in the number of healthy customers on whom to spread risk, meaning premiums would climb again. And that is what a death spiral for private insurance would look like. Remember, the mandate was included in the law because moderate Democrats were scared off by the cost of Obama’s plan for a government-run insurance program open to all. Not only was it considered too expensive, but moderate Dems warned that private insurance would crumble in the face of a subsidized competitor. If the mandate were to go away, that’s what we’d essentially have anyway.

Democrats talk about all the goodies in the law, especially the new coverage requirements for private insurance. But it is only by the government forcing healthy, mostly young, Americans to buy their products that private insurance can profit under the new rules.

If that profit cushion is ripped away just as the new law forces less profitable customers onto their rolls, that’s bad news for big insurance. Add in the pain as more and more employers ditch their benefits packages and it’s easy to see how lots of insurers would decide that the health care wasn’t such a good business anymore.

Now, if Mitt Romney wins the election, it doesn’t matter as much. Romney would, at the very least, use executive power to freeze the implementation of the law. Romney might not be able to rip out the rest, but could work with Republicans and moderate Democrats to do something to prevent blowing a hole in private insurance for everyone.

But if the court were to slice out the mandatory insurance and Obama were to win re-election, there is a path for liberal Democrats to get most of what they wanted anyway.

How Obama would respond to such a decision, though, might have a lot to say about who wins in November. If the president really were to say “full speed ahead” there would be a huge outcry, especially from the bitter, clinging, Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Republicans already hate all 2,000 pages of the law, but without the mandate, Obama would face an insurrection in his own party.

Obama could make a show of calling for a legislative fix, perhaps the “public option” plan he previously supported, but with Congress stymied even by the simplest questions, that would have to wait for January.

Would Obama really run for re-election on a call for a government-run insurance program more expensive than the already unpopular law passed two years ago? Because of the alarm bells from the influential insurance industry the Clintonian uprising, Obama would have to say something.

There are political plusses and minuses for Obama if the court upholds or strikes down his law in full, but there seems little doubt that the cruelest cut that justices could deliver would be to strike down the mandate and leave the rest standing.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/19/white-house-readies-ramming-speed-if-supremes-strike-down-mandate/?utm_campaign=Feed:%20foxnews/politics%20(Internal%20-%20Politics%20-%20Text)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1yqCYTXYf

[Jolie Rouge]

The Day in Quotes


“As the department has not yet produced these documents — and unless it does so [this] morning — I will not be able to offer you the committee’s assessment of them at [today’s] meeting.”

-- Letter from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight Committee, to Attorney General Eric Holder forecasting an unproductive negotiating session this evening as the two men and other congressional leaders haggle over a looming contempt vote in the House against Holder for withholding documents.


"The governor feels that his time is best spent working in West Virginia to move our state forward instead of attending a four-day political rally in North Carolina.”

-- Chris Stadleman, campaign spokesman for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, D-W.Va,, on the governor’s decision to skip the Democratic National Convention. Attending would have required Tomblin, caught in a difficult re-election contest with Republican Bill Maloney, to declare his support for President Obama today. Fellow West Virginia Democrats Sen. Joe Manchin and Rep. Nick Joe Rahall are also boycotting the DNC.


“[Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.] has not been asked complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates."

-- Jonathan Karl, senior political correspondent for ABC News, writing that according to “knowledgeable Republican sources” Rubio is not being considered as a potential running mate for Mitt Romney.


“There is no one that has more experience or understanding of the presidential debate process than John Kerry. He’s an expert debater who has a fundamental mastery of a wide range of issues, including Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts. He’s the obvious choice.”

-- David Axelrod, senior political adviser to President Obama, to the Washington Post on the decision to have the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee be Obama’s sparring partner in advance of the president’s three debates with Romney.


“Maybe this was Mitt Romney’s supermarket scanner moment.”

-- Andrea Mitchell, an anchor for MSNBC, setting up a clip of Mitt Romney from a weekend campaign appearance in Cornwall, Pa. talking about touch-screen ordering at WaWa convenience stores. Mitchell explained that Romney was amazed by the now-common technology pioneered by the Sheetz chain, mocking him for being out-of-touch with the experiences of ordinary Americans. The network edited out the portion of the video in which Romney was contrasting the ease of ordering a sandwich with the difficulty of interacting with the federal government.



And Now, A Word From Charles

“This is all patchwork. I think everybody understands that the train is headed over a cliff. But they patch it up slightly so you get an extra couple of months. But I don't see any way that Europe is able to pay off the extravagant living it's been on, the social entitlement state it's been on for 65 years. It can't be done. It will stop. The only question is it going to be a crash or something more slow motion? I think it will be a crash.”

-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/19/white-house-readies-ramming-speed-if-supremes-strike-down-mandate/?utm_campaign=Feed:%20foxnews/politics%20(Internal%20-%20Politics%20-%20Text)&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&intcmp=obinsite#ixzz1yqCmRp39

[Jolie Rouge]

With fate of Obamacare in question, HHS cranks up pace of spending to implement the law
By Doug Powers • June 24, 2012 11:19 AM

They’re like kids with one parent who has given them cash to go to the candy store but who know they they might at any time get a call from the other parent telling them not to spend the money. Does the kid wait for the go-ahead from parent #2, or set a new world “get to the store to spend all the money” land speed record?

In the above semi-hypothetical example, the Supreme Court is parent #2 and the Obama administration and HHS are the kid in the store. Oh, and I forgot to mention that parent #1 gave the kid your money: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77752.html


Conservatives wanted the White House to stop spending on the health care law until the Supreme Court rules on whether it’s constitutional.

But the administration has forged ahead, spending at least $2.7 billion since oral arguments in the case ended on March 28. That’s more than double the amount that was handed out in the three-month period leading up to the arguments, according to a POLITICO review of funding announcements from the Department of Health and Human Services.

While much — if not all — of this funding was in the pipeline well before March, the timeline for handing out specific funds is not set in stone, which gives the agency leeway over the kinds of dollars it has been handing out.

And the stakes have increased as the date of a Supreme Court ruling approaches, because money that is spent won’t have to be repaid, most likely. But remaining funds will dry up if the court strikes down the law.
[...]
The $2.7 billion includes grants and awards that have been handed out since the Supreme Court arguments — including more than $90 million in funds for health insurance cooperatives that HHS announced Friday afternoon.

By contrast, the administration gave out about $1 billion in grants, loans and other awards during the three months before the Supreme Court arguments.

There are two goals. The first is to obviously spend money faster than Nancy Pelosi at Botox Depot to get it into the predetermined pipelines. The second is to get the cumbersome wheels of implementation in motion so the administration can claim that if the Supreme Court overturns all or parts of Obamacare, people will be harmed and the money already spent will be wasted (the sudden concern for stewardship of taxpayer dollars should make for a nice addition to the “Great Moments in the History of Disingenuousness” series).

We’ll probably find out in the next few days which way the Supreme Court falls on Obamacare. Between that, the expected SCOTUS decision on the Arizona immigration law and the full House vote on the Holder contempt charge, it’s going to be a busy week. Until then, try not to get run over by HHS officials in a reckless hurry to spend spend spend!



**Written by Doug Powers http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/24/fate-of-obamacare-spending/

[Jolie Rouge]

Boehner warns 'no spiking of the ball' on healthcare ruling
June 25, 2012|By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON -- As Congress awaits the Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's healthcare legislation, House Speaker John A. Boehner had a stern warning for rank-and-file Republicans he has struggled to keep on message. “There will be no spiking of the ball,” Boehner wrote in a memo to GOP lawmakers. Even though Republicans have opposed the law, and tried to repeal it, there will be no celebrations if the court strikes down the law or parts of it.

Republicans have worked to keep their troops focused on what GOP leaders see is their best talking point heading toward the November election: jobs and the economy. “Republicans are focused on the economy,” Boehner went on in the memo circulated late last week. “We will not celebrate at a time when millions of our fellow Americans remain out of work, the national debt has exceeded the size of our nation’s economy, health costs continue to rise, and small businesses are struggling to hire.”

The message from Boehner also offered another indication of the difficulties of the GOP’s “repeal and replace” strategy on the new healthcare law. While Republicans voted to repeal the law in one of their first acts since taking the majority in the House -- and are planning do so again this month if the court keeps the law, or parts of it, in place -- they have yet to advance legislation to replace the Democratic-led attempt at reform. “The House will act in the coming weeks on legislation to repeal any part of ObamaCare that is left standing by the Supreme Court,” Boehner said in the memo.

In fact, Republicans may find themselves in a difficult spot if the court keeps popular provisions of the law in place -- for example, those that allow young people to remain on their parents’ insurance policies until they are 26 years old or another that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to customers with preexisting medical conditions. But the speaker also said the repeal votes also serve the GOP’s greater goal: “Such action is critical for jobs and our economy and for the healthcare of millions of American families.”


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/25/news/la-pn-boehner-warns-no-spiking-of-the-ball-on-health-care-ruling-20120625

If Court Doesn’t Strike Down Entire Health Care Law,
The House Will Move to Repeal What’s Left of It
http://therightnewz.com/?p=3361

[Jolie Rouge]

SCOTUS upholds 'Obamacare'
By Theresa Seiger

WASHINGTON (RNN) - In a surprise move, the Supreme Court ruled Congress has the right to require Americans to buy health insurance by 2014, a key provision of the Obama Administration's healthcare reform law. The decision is a re-election victory for President Barack Obama, who has framed the legislation as a key achievement of his presidency.

The ACA: At Issue
1.The Anti-Injunction Act and the Minimum Coverage Provision: The Supreme Court ruled the individual insurance mandate doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause, but it does fall under the Taxing Clause. Because Congress has the authority to tax citizens and the Supreme Court says that the individual mandate can be interpreted as a tax, individuals cannot refuse to pay the tax.

2.Severability: Justices didn't discuss whether the mandate can be severed from the rest of the legislation because they upheld the minimum coverage provision.

3.The Expansion of Medicaid: The court ruled Congress has the authority to expand Medicaid to people within 138 percent of the poverty line, but they cannot threaten to take away all Medicaid funding for states that don't want to expand their programs.

Most anticipated Justice Anthony Kennedy would hold the deciding vote to save or overturn the ACA, but it was actually conservative Chief Justice John Roberts whose fifth vote saved the legislation. "Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction ... under the taxing power," Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion. "This is sufficient to sustain it."

The entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) survived Supreme Court review Thursday.

The decision was arguably the most anticipated in the court's history.

Justices also ruled the ACA's expansion of Medicaid benefits to those within approximately 138 percent of the federal poverty line is constitutional. However, they also ruled the government could not withhold Medicaid funding to states who chose not to expand their programs. "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use," Roberts wrote."What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding."

The ACA was passed in 2010 after a grueling set of negotiations in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The nearly 3,000-page long bill is considered landmark legislation for the Obama Administration.

http://www.wafb.com/story/18903349/scotus-to-deliver-healthcare-decision-thursday


[I]the Supreme Court says that the individual mandate can be interpreted as a tax[/I

Wasn't the Administration tying itself in KNOTS saying this was NOT a "tax" ??

[Jolie Rouge]

What Today’s ObamaCare Ruling Means
Thursday, June 28, 2012

1—There are limits on Congressional power. Congress CAN’T force you to engage in “commerce.” That’s the above-the-fold, good-news headline of the day.

2—The ObamaCare law survives, because the “individual mandate” isn’t a “mandate” but a tax. The Obama Administration argued that the mandate was a huge tax hike, and the Supreme Court agreed.

3—As a result, ObamaCare is now the biggest middle-class tax hike in history. Thank you, President Obama.

4—Because ObamaCare survives, people who hate ObamaCare are now motivated to elect people to repeal it. This pumps up the GOP base.

5—Because ObamaCare is a tax hike, nobody’s going to want to defend it. Democrats who voted for it now have more explaining to do.

6—Because President Obama repeatedly claimed the mandate isn’t a tax, he now has to explain why he went to the SCOTUS and said it was. He also has to defend raising taxes on the middle class, after repeatedly promising he wouldn’t.

7—Because the Supreme Court said “Congress can raise taxes on anything, any time they want,” it really matters who you elect to Congress. Voters will have four months to figure that out.

BOTTOM LINE: This is a win-win for America. The SCOTUS upheld the “negative powers” of the Constitution and limits on government, while simultaneously hurting President Obama’s re-election prospects.

Personally, I wish they’d just thrown the thing out, but I’m not looking this gift horse in the mouth.

http://michaelgraham.com/archives/what-today-rsquo-s-obamacare-ruling-means/

comments

So the government CAN force you to engage in commerce as long as they call it a tax?

...

I've been commenting throughout your posts Mike, and I'm not convinced that a limiting principle exists as far as the Constitution as a whole is concerned. Think about it: the government is STILL forcing you to buy health insurance, which means that progressives can STILL mince and dice the Constitution and pull amendments and clauses out of their asses to pass anything they want. The bottom line actually is that today we mourn the US Constitution and its original intent to stop the threat of a powerful central government infringing on our individual freedom. Even if Romney is elected with a Republican majority who repeal the law, the fact of the matter is that ObamaCare will now be stare decisis, a precedent.

..

Unfortunately this is a win for those who think that federal power should increase at the expense of the states power.

[candygirl]

Landmark healthcare law upheld by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled to uphold all of the 2010 healthcare reform law, including the controversial mandate that all Americans must be insured by 2014.

" Yet another victory for President Barack Obama " :congrats::congrats::congrats:

[Jolie Rouge]

The mandate survives “as a tax.” That should help the middle class dig out of the recession. (flashback 2009: Obama says individual mandate isn’t a tax http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/ )

This doesn’t mean we’re stuck with Obamacare forever — it means that November 6th just got much more important, and I didn’t think that was possible.

More details:


On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.
[...]
The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn’t matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
[...]
In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”
[...]
In Plain English:The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

Link to the opinion (PDF). http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[Jolie Rouge]

Jindal calls healthcare ruling "blow to our freedoms"
Posted: Jun 28, 2012 10:06 AM CDT Updated: Jun 28, 2012 10:16 AM CDT WAFB Staff

BATON ROUGE, LA (WAFB) - Gov. Bobby Jindal released a statement following the US Supreme Court decision on President Barack Obama's healthcare mandate.

"Ironically, the Supreme Court has decided to be far more honest about Obamacare than Obama was," Jindal wrote. "They rightly have called it a tax. Today's decision is a blow to our freedoms. The Court should have protected our constitutional freedoms, but remember, it was the president that forced this law on us.

"The American people did not want or approve of Obamacare then, and they do not now. Americans oppose it because it will decrease the quality of health care in America, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and break the bank. All of this is still true. Republicans must drive hard toward repeal, this is no time to go weak in the knees," the governor added.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, the largest health insurer in the state, also released a statement after the ruling was made.

"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana has long been committed to ensuring everyone has high-quality, affordable healthcare coverage," stated Mike Reitz, president and CEO. "We will continue to implement the law while working with policymakers to fix provisions that will increase costs, such as the health insurance tax that will add hundreds of dollars to families' premiums each year. On behalf of our 1.4 million members, we will continue to lead efforts in our local communities—partnering with doctors, nurses, hospitals and others—to rein in costs, improve quality, help people stay well and better manage their care when they need it."

http://www.wafb.com/story/18904394/jindal-calls-healthcare-ruling-blow-to-our-freedoms?=#WNPoll120453

Landmark healthcare law upheld by Supreme Court
Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold most of President Obama's health care reform?
Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the results so far:

Yes ~ 25%
No ~ 71%
Undecided ~ 4%

[pepperpot]

OMG! He craps rainbows & butterflies!! :rolling

[Jolie Rouge]

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold most of President Obama's health care reform?
Yes ~ 25%
No ~ 71%
Undecided ~ 4%

This is a local poll .... if this holds true nationally ... "Obamas' Victory" may not be so sweet in Nov.

[Jolie Rouge]

.
Health Care Ruling: What It Means For You
By Matt Negrin | ABC OTUS News – 1 hr 31 mins ago.

The Supreme Court ruling on President Obama's health care law is complicated, just like the law itself. Today the court said the law is mostly constitutional. Here is what it means for you:

- You have to buy health insurance or be subject to a tax

- If you are under 26, you can get health insurance from the plan your parents use.

- If you're on Medicare, you can get free mammograms.

- If you have what's called a pre-existing condition, you can get health insurance.

- Insurance companies can't deny you coverage even if you get sick and make a mistake on your health insurance application.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-health-care-ruling-means-144940301--abc-news-politics.html

comments

Why are the politicians exempt from this "plan"?

..

Wonder what the penalty is for not having insurance...will it be cheaper than buying insurance? I heard once $3,000 per year. I have NO idea how accurate that is though

..

Since Congress likes it so much I expect them to utilize it to the fullest just like the public they impose this law on.

..

Now that it was upheld (mostly), the requirement should be… If you are a government employee you are required to enroll in Obamacare. If you are an elected official you are required to enroll in Obamacare. If you are the president you are required to use Obamacare and not the naval medical doctors that are supposed to be for our soldiers and sailors that go FIGHT for our freedom. The saying is what is good for the goose (us) is good for the gander.

..

There are people out ther who actually blieve it means the government is going to give them free heath care............ Wait until they find out the truth. I don't think it's going to be the change they were hoping for

...

If you work and make more than 60 grand a year then you just got boned. If you make less than 32 grand then you just got paid. Problem is that the system will fail so in the end everyone just got boned.

..

Now employers will stop insuring employees, saying ...we don't have to cover you anymore, but....by law you have to purchase insurance yourself, or you can't work here anymore...

..


I don't want to buy "sick care" insurance. I don't want to support a broken system with my hard earned money. The insurance companies are greedily rubbing their hands together in joy! Birg Pharma is overjoyed and seeing more $$$$$.

..

One thing is clear. This country will never be the same. Even if Romney get elected and repeals Obamacare the Supreme court ruling is still in place. From now on the Federal Government can force citizens to buy a product under the guise of a tax. Ex. Feds can now pass a law requiring all people to buy a new extinguisher for their house each year. This would now be classified as a Tax.

..

If free loaders can buy cigarettes with an EBT card nowadays, what in the hell makes you think they will have to pay for their healthcare? Are you that naive? What in the hell do you think the Occupiers are all about? Our government gives them free telephones, free food, free housing, free money and whatever else they want and you think they are going to be forced to pay for something as important as healthcare? Are you that naive? America literally died today, because of the Supreme court judge's decision on Obamacare. Welcome to the Obama States of America. After Obama is re-elected in November, the price of gasoline will go sky high, energy bills will double again, insurance premiums will be so high we can't afford it or we won't qualify. Hope you are ready to OBEY Obama! Just think, Obama will now have the power to determine whether you qualify for healthcare or not.

..

Here is what it means to me. I used to get an annual physical with blood work, chest x-ray and EKG all for a co-payment of $35. My last physical, with the same insurance plan, included the blood work for a cholesterol check only. The basic blood work is no longer covered. My bill from the lab was $860 after my $45 co-pay to my doctor. Since routine blood work is no longer covered by my policy, none of the $860 was or will be applied to my deductible because it isn't a coverage they offer any longer. Meanwhile, my employer is paying 43% more in premiums and we are getting another increase that will trickle down to us because of the 26-year-old child required coverage. My x-ray prescription is still in my wallet after 60 days because I am making payment on the lab work. This isn't a cut-rate policy, either. It is an 80/20 policy with a $1,500 deductible from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. My employer is paying more than $250,000 per year to cover 18 employees. On top of that, we are each chipping in another couple hundred per month.

This is what ACA means to me. I'll be okay if I come down with something deadly but I cannot afford to do anything preventative.

[pepperpot]

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/28/2872456/romney-response-to-supreme-court.html


Romney response to Supreme Court on health care

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's response to Thursday's Supreme Court decision to uphold President Barack Obama health care law, as transcribed by Roll Call:

---

As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and I agree with the dissent.

What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do.

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy.

Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that.

Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare - cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

Obamacare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people.

And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it's important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare.

What are some of the things that we'll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system?

One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people - up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.

And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It's becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they've always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don't pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don't have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare.

That is my mission, that is our work, and I'm asking the people of America to join me. If you don't want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that's killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.

[Jolie Rouge]

A Couple Things to Ponder on This Banner Day of The SCOTUS Rewriting Law
By drillanwr, on June 28, 2012, at 5:00 pm



When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

- Thomas Jefferson

In the last 3 1/2 years I have accumulated "dots" with this administration and its wonks in the democrat party. Eventually dots connect for a full picture.

Here are few dots that have been running on a loop within my mind since this morning's SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare after Justice Roberts and the four leftists on the high court rewrote the "law" for the Legislative Branch.

Now that the SCOTUS has deemed the mandate is a tax (and during the ObamaCare hearing arguments heard by the SCOTUS last March this fact was still in question by the defender of the law himself)... http://usamericanfreedom.com/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-gets-laughed-at-in-scotus-obamacare-hearing/

See for yourself : http://youtu.be/Tt2yGzHfy7s http://youtu.be/nUkzV8h3Wp0

There are those who, for years, have said the IRS has grown and taken on far too much control and power since its inception, and should be, at the very least, scaled way back if not abolished. The SCOTUS's ruling today has given Obama the legacy of having imposed the largest tax-hike in history on the American people. It will have to be enforced...

I'm just sayin. It will have to be funded, and funding (which is/was the mandate, now a "tax") will need to be enforced ... and the enforcers funded as well.

Now I am hearing talking heads in the MSM saying Mitt Romney and the republicans won't and shouldn't try to use this as a keystone in the coming election(s) ... That the voters are more concerned with the economy and jobs and will be turned-off.

You "voters" that do not think today's SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare has anything to do with the economy and jobs are clueless.

You current (or currently in school) medical professionals that do not think today's SCOTUS ruling on ObamaCare will have an effect on your (future) practice/career are clueless.

As a side note, today's reasoning behind the ruling has pretty much opened a Pandora's Box for the U.S. government to regulate and tax whatever it wants to tax in our lives.

Looks like I'm not the only one. Uh huh... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77968.html


“Our freedom of choice just met its death panel: the Supreme Court of the United States ... Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world ... And the people who were characterizing it as such were right and were telling the truth. We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country’s worst recessions ... What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama’s domestic army."

http://babalublog.com/2012/06/a-couple-things-to-ponder-on-this-banner-day-of-the-scotus-rewriting-law/



I predict future happiness for Americans
if they can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people
under the pretense of taking care of them.

- Thomas Jefferson

[Jolie Rouge]

Now We've Got Obamacare Supporters Right Where We Want 'Em!
By W. James Antle, III on 6.28.12 @ 4:11PM The Spectacle Blog

There has been some counterintuitive analysis suggesting John Roberts is an evil genius and today's health care ruling is a hidden conservative victory. Here's one example from Jay Cost on the right: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-did-scotus-just-do_647932.html


First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power....

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.


Here's another example from Ezra Klein on the left: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/the-political-genius-of-john-roberts/


But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, [Roberts] nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.


I'm as pleased as anybody about the commerce clause jurisprudence here, but there are two obvious problems with this argument. First, you have to find an actual expansion of government that will be prevented by the commerce clause precedent but is not permissible under Congress' taxing power. Maybe such an expansion will be proposed, and certainly the taxing power has a much bigger political downside than regulating imaginary interstate commerce. But right now, that's a highly abstract proposition in exchange for upholding one big, very real expansion of government.

Secondly, Roberts had an undeniable chance to strike down the mandate and even the whole Affordable Care Act. All he had to do was vote with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, and Sam Alito. Instead he chose to rewrite an existing constitutionally problematic statute in a way that allowed it to narrowly pass constitutional muster. That's not judicial restraint. Moreover, if Congress and the president can assert an unconstitutional power to claim something isn't a tax, and then have it re-labeled a tax by the Supreme Court, that undermines the political limits on the taxing power.

Until you can find a real-world expansion of government power worse than Obamacare that this decision would enjoin, it seems that Roberts' conservative defenders are being too clever by four-fifths.


http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/28/now-weve-got-obamacare-support

[Jolie Rouge]

Obamacare Decision A Disappointment, But Could Aid Repeal
By W. James Antle, III on 6.28.12 @ 11:10AM

"In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." So wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the Supreme Court, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Yet Kennedy's view did not prevail because Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Court's liberal bloc and rescued the individual mandate by classifying it -- despite Barack Obama's repeated assertions to the contrary -- as a tax. The essence of the law was thus upheld on the basis of an argument the solicitor general refused to make.

Given how close we were to having the act struck down entirely, conservatives are rightly disappointed by the decision. But there are a few silver linings. The Court ruled that states can't be penalized for declining to participate in the Medicaid expansion. Roberts did not endorse the Obama administration's expansive interpretation of the commerce clause, preventing this ruling from creating a general police power for the federal government.

Most importantly, the ruling that the individual tax has broad political implications. First, it immediately makes Obama a middle-class tax hiker, as certified by the Supreme Court. Even Mitt Romney ought to be able to run against the health care tax. Second, this paves the way for the mandate to be repealed through the reconciliation process. No filibusters will be allowed. All it will take is 50 Republican senators, a Republican House, and a Republican president.

Romney has said he is for Obamacare repeal. He has given us some reasons to doubt that commitment, but that has been his position throughout this campaign. If he is serious about it, the ball is squarely in his court. It has been placed there by the Court.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/28/obamacare-decision-a-disappoin

[Jolie Rouge]

DNC staffers gloat over Obamacare, taunt GOP ‘b--ches,’ ‘mother******s’

Posted at 10:59 am on June 28, 2012 by Twitchy Staff


Patrick Gaspard@patrickgaspard

it's constitutional. B--ches.

28 Jun 12

That is the executive director of the DNC, reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. Classy!

Even some members of the media found it appalling.



In case you're wondering how your DNC feels about those who disagree with them: bit.ly/N0snIe #tcot #GOP #teaparty

28 Jun 12

Indeed. You aren’t people to them; they hold you in sneering contempt and deep disdain.

The DNC’s new media director also jumps aboard the oh-so-classy train.


@ggreeneva

Overheard in the office: "TAKE THAT MOTHER******S!!"—

Greg Greene (@ggreeneva) June 28, 2012
http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-b tches-take-that-mothers/


Left attacks Sarah Palin’s ‘sl t’ daughters and ‘retard’ son after she tweets about SCOTUS ruling; Update: Death wishes

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/left-attacks-sarah-palins-sl t-daughters-and-retard-son-after-she-tweets-about-scotus-ruling/


Justice Thomas dissents, Left hurls vile racial slurs ‘house n gga,’ ‘Uncle Tom’

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-n gga-uncle-tom/


Obama’s gloating gone wrong

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/obamas-gloating-gone-wrong/

http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obama-gloating-1.png?w=430&h=430


http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obama-gloating-2.jpg?w=430&h=430


http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obama-gloating-3.jpg?w=430&h=430


http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obama-gloating-8.jpg?w=430&h=430

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/380750_10150904688025911_1325369564_n.jpg

[pepperpot]

DNC staffers gloat over Obamacare, taunt GOP ‘b--ches,’ ‘mother******s’

Posted at 10:59 am on June 28, 2012 by Twitchy Staff



That is the executive director of the DNC, reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare. Classy!

Even some members of the media found it appalling.




Indeed. You aren’t people to them; they hold you in sneering contempt and deep disdain.

The DNC’s new media director also jumps aboard the oh-so-classy train.


http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-b tches-take-that-mothers/


Left attacks Sarah Palin’s ‘sl t’ daughters and ‘retard’ son after she tweets about SCOTUS ruling; Update: Death wishes

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/left-attacks-sarah-palins-sl t-daughters-and-retard-son-after-she-tweets-about-scotus-ruling/


Justice Thomas dissents, Left hurls vile racial slurs ‘house n gga,’ ‘Uncle Tom’

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/justice-thomas-dissents-left-hurls-vile-racial-slurs-house-n gga-uncle-tom/


Obama’s gloating gone wrong

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/obamas-gloating-gone-wrong/

http://thisistwitchy.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/obama-gloating-1.png?w=430&h=430

I swear, I feel like we're dealing with a bunch of really bratty kids.

[Jolie Rouge]

Consider this : Justice Roberts argued that the healthcare bill is constitutional if it operates as a tax.

President Obama assured us that it “absolutely not a tax increase.”

:hmmmm: :hmmmm:

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/#ixzz1zExo5Z9y

[Jolie Rouge]

Justice Roberts May Have Done Us a Big Favor
posted on June 29, 2012 by The Godfather
By Kate Kicks, Townhall.com

The following is excerpted from an article written by Kate Hicks at Townhall.com:











Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, . . you raised our taxes [and on the people who can’t afford it. You did it on the backs of the poor.] Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.

For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was recharacterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.

Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledge that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.

This third observation is one that isn’t immediately evident, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.

So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.


Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5922/justice-roberts-may-have-done-us-big-favor-2/#ixzz1zF0Ltqja

[Jolie Rouge]

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 11 hrs ago.


The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it. "We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."

Under the Affordable Care Act, states must set up a health insurance exchange program by Jan. 1, 2014, and will receive grants from the federal government to implement it. Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law would be repealed or struck down by the court. Now that the law has been upheld, Jindal said he won't change course and is looking to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to lead the repeal effort if he takes office in 2013.
"Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we're not implementing the exchanges," Jindal said. "We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We're going to do what we can to fight it."

Despite the court ruling, there is still a chance that Republicans in Congress can repeal much of the law next year even if they don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Because Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance—one of the key provisions of the law—was a tax, Republicans can use a procedure called "budget reconciliation" to pass a repeal bill that requires only a simple majority to pass. But this scenario relies on the Republicans' ability to win the White House, keep the majority in the House and gain enough seats in the Senate.

On the same conference call on Friday, McDonnell, also considered a contender to become Romney's running mate, said he would "evaluate" his options in Virginia now that the court has upheld the law. "We don't even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like, so there's still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is, and in the next days and weeks we're going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia," McDonnell said. "I think each state is going to have to weigh that and look at the time frame to determine what to do. But I agree absolutely that the priority right now is to elect a new president and a new Senate so this law can be repealed."

McDonnell, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association, added that he has not yet polled fellow state executives in the GOP about how they plan to proceed after the ruling, but said that most are looking to the election in November for guidance.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/louisiana-gov-bobby-jindal-refuses-implement-obamacare-despite-152429092.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Has the Supreme Court Opened Pandora’s Box With Individual Mandate Ruling?
posted on June 29, 2012 by da Tagliare

As you all know by now, yesterday the United States Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the individual mandate along with most of the rest of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. But I can’t help but wonder if their ruling hasn’t opened up Pandora’s Box for future government mandates.











The Obama administration had argued before the high court that the individual mandate was constitutional because they had the authority to control interstate commerce. The court disagreed with that argument, but did state that the individual mandate was constitutional because the fine for not having health insurance was being handled as a tax by the IRS and Congress does have the power to levy taxes on the people.

In other words, Congress can now force Americans to purchase or do practically anything they want by placing the penalty for failure to comply to be in the form of a tax collected by the IRS.

For example, Congress could mandate that everyone purchase American made vehicles and failure to comply will result in a vehicle penalty tax for every year you own the foreign made vehicle. Or they could mandate that anyone owning a firearm of any type will pay an annual firearms tax as long they own the weapon.

If you think these sound absurd, ask yourself if four years ago you would have thought that Congress could force people to purchase health insurance or be fined in the form of a tax? I truly fear that the Supreme Court’s ruling has opened a Pandora’s Box of congressional nightmarish legislative possibilities.

If Obama is re-elected and the Democrats regain control of the House, look out. If they did it once and it was upheld by the Supreme Court, then they’ll certainly do it again and again and again until they have sucked every last penny out of our empty pockets

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5912/has-supreme-court-opened-pandoras-box-with-individual-mandate-ruling/#ixzz1zF1omAOy

[quote]If Obama is re-elected and the Democrats regain control of the House, look out. p/quote]

REGARDLESS of you wins in Nov... the American people lose because NO politician of any party will pass up the chance to line their pockets.

[Jolie Rouge]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/map-where-obamacare-expand-medicaid-most-175400889.html;_ylt=Ag6jImrURDxIPcXUlAdv_NabCMZ_;_ ylu=X3oDMTRpODBramk1BG1pdANGZWF0dXJlZCBCbG9nIFRoZS BVcHNob3QgTmV0d29yawRwa2cDODcwYmZhMzAtZDQxMy0zMjVi LTlkZjgtODVkMjI5ZGQ3OTAwBHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNZWRpYUZlYX R1cmVkTGlzdAR2ZXIDYWQ4ZTgwMzItYzIxMy0xMWUxLWI2OWYt YTk1N2QyYTIwMThm;_ylg=X3oDMTMybWg4NW5yBGludGwDdXME bGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDOWVjZTYyNDItOGI1YS0zYjI0LW IxMzUtY2Y2ODU1ZTNlMWRiBHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0aGV0aWNr ZXQEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3

[Jolie Rouge]

June 29, 2012 12:00 P.M.
Why Roberts Was Right
He exercised discretion where it was needed.
By Michael Knox Beran

However painful it was to read the headline “Obamacare Stands” on Drudge yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts made the right call.

Roberts’s opinion, far from being an act of cowardice or betrayal, is true to the tradition of the early Republic, when the Supreme Court exercised the power of judicial review to strike down federal statutes only very rarely.

Before 1803, federal judges, acting on Alexander Hamilton’s arguments in Federalist 78 and Sir Edward Coke’s ruling in Bonham’s Case, flirted with the idea of judicial review of federal laws. But it was only in 1803 that the doctrine came into its own, when the Supreme Court struck down a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 because it was, in Chief Justice Marshall’s words, “in opposition to the Constitution.”

The case, of course, was Marbury v. Madison. But the justices were hardly intoxicated by their newly asserted power. The Court didn’t invalidate another federal law again until 1857 — in Dred Scott v. Sandford, not exactly the crown jewel of American jurisprudence.

Judicial review, like any other form of authority, is subject to the Actonian principle that power corrupts.

Learned Hand deplored the way this particular power was corrupting the integrity of the Supreme Court, and in his 1958 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures at Harvard he warned that the Court was becoming a “third legislative chamber.”

True, the dissenters in the Obamacare case had compelling arguments for invalidating the statute in question, as the Warren and Brennan Court justices too rarely did in their efforts to remake the Constitution in their own image. The dissenters did not resort, as Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut did, to a make-believe jurisprudence of “penumbras” and “emanations” to make their case, and Roberts would certainly have been within his rights had he joined them.

But he was wiser, in this instance, to give the legislature the benefit of the doubt. His wisdom and restraint contrast starkly with the folly of President Obama and former speaker Pelosi. They were within their rights when they pushed through so consequential a law on a nakedly partisan basis. But they were not wise to have done so.

In giving the elected lawmakers the benefit of the doubt, Roberts didn’t give them carte blanche, and he took the managers of the welfare state to task when he mocked the idea that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause is a kind of Fill-in-the-Blank Tsarist Ukase that lets the federal government do whatever it likes.

But rather than give President Obama an easy target at which to strike in an election year, he said yes, Washington can impose Obamacare on the nation, provided that the nation understands that as far as the Constitution is concerned Obamacare is a gigantic tax.

The very thing the president said it wasn’t.

In making the judgment that he did, Chief Justice Roberts deprived American advocates of a European-style social state of one of their most precious conceits, that right-leaning justices on the Court will stop at nothing to prevent the country’s health-care system from rising to the level of, say, Cuba’s, a system which, as Hugo Chávez can testify, is smokin’.

There is a larger point. If the only way Americans can defend their liberties is to hide behind the verbiage of a Supreme Court opinion, it’s already too late for freedom here.

My guess is that the chief justice doesn’t think it’s too late. He knows, as we all do, that the remedy — a remedy far more potent than any judicial decision — is at hand.

If conservatives in an election year like this one can’t win the battle of the ballot box, no Supreme Court judgment can save them.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304428/why-roberts-was-right-michael-knox-beran

[Jolie Rouge]

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/552329_379948102059289_682360258_n.jpg



Let me get this straight ...

We are going to be "gifted" with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase and fined (taxed) if we don't ....

which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor ...

but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents ...

writen by a committee whoes chairman says he doesn't understand it ...

passed by a Congress that didn't read it ...

but exempted themselves from it ....

signed by a President who smokes ( and admits to drug usage )...

funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes ...

for which we will be taxed for FOUR YEARS BEFORE any benefits take effect...

by a goverment which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare ...

all overseen by surgeon general who is obese ...

and financed by a country that is broke...

( don't forget the attorney general held in contempt of Congress and who refuses to enforce the laws of this counrty )

[pepperpot]

- If you are under 26, you can get health insurance from the plan your parents use.

When I was growing up, I was covered under my parents until I was 18 or it extended to 23 (?) if I were a college student.

I felt that was kind of fair and a motivation to "get my act together". When I turned 18, I had a choice.....continue my education and not worry about my healthcare plan or start supporting myself like an adult, to which I was.

Now, one no longer needs to be a student in order to have healthcare? They can delay taking on adult responsibilities until 26?

Now, one may say in this economy, who can find a job, much less one that has healthcare? This plan was put together 4-5 years (or more) ago when the economy was in a different place.

Why are we letting the "next generation" become so dependent? It's the never ending childhood.....no responsibilities for self is required.

[Jolie Rouge]

Why are we letting the "next generation" become so dependent? It's the never ending childhood.....no responsibilities for self is required.

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/545073_438103276211526_2080578505_n.jpg

We have entire generations who have not had to "grow up" ... just depend on "Big Nanny" goverment to take care of them ... and continue to Vote for those who promise to continue to do so ....

[pepperpot]

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/545073_438103276211526_2080578505_n.jpg

We have entire generations who have not had to "grow up" ... just depend on "Big Nanny" goverment to take care of them ... and continue to Vote for those who promise to continue to do so ....

Lesson learned by Liberal = they're racist :doh

[Jolie Rouge]

White House: The Mandate Is a Penalty, Not a Tax
— Patterico @ 9:32 pm 6/29/2012


If Romney does not absolutely tear them to pieces on this, I may not bother to walk to the polls to vote for him: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-statement-obamacare-mandate-tax-contradicts-supreme-court-ruling


The White House said Friday that the Obamacare insurance mandate tax is a penalty for not having insurance – a statement that directly contradicts what the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

According to press reports, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One that the penalty was not a tax but a penalty. “It’s a penalty, because you have a choice. You don’t have a choice to pay your taxes, right,” Carney is quoted as saying by Yahoo News.

It doesn’t just contradict what the Supreme Court said. It contradicts what his own lawyers said in court.

Let’s get this straight.

Obama clearly stated that this was not a tax — to get it passed.

Then he sent his lawyers into court to argue it was a tax — to get it upheld.

Then he sent his press secretary before the press to claim it was not a tax — to get the decision accepted.

Mitt Romney must bring this up again and again. He must bring it up more than once in each Presidential debate. And when he does, he should say something like this:


Barack Obama claimed that this wasn’t a tax. He said that, because he knew if he said it was a tax, it would never be passed. Then he argued in court that this was a tax. He said that, because he knew that if he said it wasn’t a tax, it could not be upheld. Now, as soon as I finish my answer, he is going to tell you again that it’s not a tax. He will say that, because he knows that if he admits it’s a tax, you voters will blame him for raising taxes. This President just ping pongs back and forth between positions, willy-nilly, and hopes you won’t notice. He’s about to do it again. Just watch. Mr. President, did your lawyers say this was a tax? And when you had them argue that, were they telling the truth?

Mitt Romney, please don’t put me in a situation where I’m screaming at the TV because there is a good argument to be made, and you’re not making it.

Nail this guy to the wall on this issue.

Nail him to the wall.


http://patterico.com/files/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-29-at-10.39.04-PM-450x291.png

http://patterico.com/2012/06/29/white-house-the-mandate-is-a-penalty-not-a-tax/

[Jolie Rouge]

Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Obamacare Edition

By W. James Antle, III on 7.1.12 @ 3:00PM


1. Before storms rocked the D.C. region, there was the Obamacare ruling. There is a growing consensus in Washington, across the political spectrum, that John Roberts switched his vote in the health care case. The joint dissent by Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito reads like a majority opinion and refers repeatedly to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's partial dissent/partial concurrence as "the dissent." There have been reports that after Roberts switched sides, Kennedy led a campaign to try to win him back.

2. There are four reasons I don't buy the conservative/libertarian defenses of Roberts even if I do think the ruling contains silver linings:

~ Kennedy voted with the conservatives, meaning that the reversal of the law rather than some concessions from the liberal justices was the best attainable outcome

~ The Medicaid penalty is thin gruel compared to the individual mandate and could cut both ways for federalism if it even has any impact at all

~ Roberts is writing for himself on the commerce clause and necessary and proper sections of his opinion; neither the liberal justices nor the conservative dissenters join, making the commerce clause limitations of little value as precedent

~ Even if regarded as precedent, it is hard to imagine what future expansion of government Roberts' logic will enjoin that is worse than Obamacare.

3. We are already seeing that the Democrats are going back to the statute's language and calling the individual mandate a penalty rather than the tax the ruling they embrace claims that it is. They even have a bit of a point, since the mandate is clearly a punishment rather than something designed to raise revenue. But the political value of this is limited: if the Democrats were to resist a Republican repeal attempt through reconciliation, it is hard to see where they would have a legal leg to stand on.

4. For Barack Obama, the tax language is the biggest political downside from the ruling. The Supreme Court has basically declared him a middle-class tax hiker.

5. For Mitt Romney, the biggest political downside is that it puts the focus back on the individual mandate. Obama and his media supporters are already making hay of Romney's past for support for the mandate and its roots in Republican/conservative policy circles.

6. In non-health care news, last week was a good one for incumbents. Orrin Hatch easily survived his primary challenge. Charlie Rangel's contest was more competitive, but he still won by a comfortable margin. New York will, however, avoid the shame of having a congressman whose Jew-baiting was sufficient to win him the endorsement of David Duke despite being a former Black Panther.

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/01/weekend-political-wrap-up-obam

This is only the first betrayal. Next will be Mitt Romney's---but only if he succeeds in becoming President Etch-A-Sketch and has the opportunity to make his half-hearted non-attempt to repeal legislation he clearly favors.

You guys STILL don't get it. It isn't Republicans vs Democrats, or even conservatives vs liberals. It is Ruling Class vs Proles. We are the Proles.

[Jolie Rouge]

Pelosi: ObamaCare’s not a tax, it’s a ta-penalty

Democrats had a little trouble with their messaging yesterday in the wake of what should have been a big victory for them last week at the Supreme Court. Instead, the legal victory has given way to a huge political headache, and perhaps even a linguistic headache as well. How can Democrats argue that ObamaCare isn’t a huge tax when the Supreme Court decision that upheld it clearly states that it’s only constitutional as a huge tax? Nancy Pelosi tried arguing that it’s not a tax but a penalty when challenged by David Gregory on Meet the Press, but even she couldn’t spit that one out cleanly: http://youtu.be/kag-nQRmqLQ

Politico’s Josh Gerstein noticed it, too:



“It’s a penalty that comes under the Tax Code,” Pelosi said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” as host David Gregory pressed her to say whether she agreed with the Supreme Court, which deemed the law constitutional because the fee used to enforce the individual mandate amounts to a tax, or with President Barack Obama, who has maintained the fee is not a tax.

“It’s a ta—; it’s a penalty for free riders,” Pelosi said, nearly uttering the dreaded T-word before cutting herself off.

Actually, Pelosi slips twice in this clip. The first time comes when she asks Gregory, “Well, who is the ta — who is the penalty on?” Obviously, Pelosi hasn’t grown comfortable with the official Democratic nomenclature as they try to unwind the political damage that comes from their legal victory.

Of course the mandate is a tax, and neither Gregory nor Chris Wallace with Jack Lew actually get to the heart of the problem. Both of them limit the tax question to just the penalty, but the mandate requires taxpayers to spend a significant amount of money in a very narrow way. They must buy health insurance from private providers — and not just any insurance or a plan that best meets their own specific needs, but a one-size-fits-all plan — or pay a penalty to the IRS. That’s a tax either way; the only difference is who collects it. It’s the first federal tax applied in general to the public (as opposed to an excise tax on certain sales transactions that could be avoided by not participating in that kind of trade, for instance) that has to be paid to a private entity rather than government. Either way, though, the government forces taxpayers to spend that money just on the basis of their existence, and that’s clearly a tax even if you never have to pay the penalty to the IRS.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/02/pelosi-obamacares-not-a-tax-its-a-ta-penalty/

comments

In the tradition of the great Bill Clinton, democrats once again butcher the english language in order to do the semantic gymnastics necessary to pretend that a word means something other than it really does.

..

Not only are they assessing a ta-penalty if you don’t buy health insurance, it must be insurance that meets the obamacare definition of acceptable insurance. I don’t think that point is getting enough attention. What are the current costs for a decent catastrophic plan for a 25 year old, vs the cost for an Obamacare- approved plan? That is an additional ‘tax’ as well. And it will be hitting the 20-somethings who are having a heck of a time finding a job and paying off student loans the hardest.

OT: my spellchecker keeps trying to correct ‘obamacare’ to ‘obfuscate’. Appropriate, no?

...

Yesterday on the talking heads shows the inquisitors kept badgering republicans about Mitt Romney having a tax in MA, trying to make some point about this, I guess that Mitt Romney’s tax must be legal?

But, in MA, the penalty is very interesting. The MA income tax forms give you the option to take a bunch of things for a deduction. For instance if you rent, I don’t, you can take a portion of your rent, and get a deduction toward your tax bill. If you adopt, you might get a deduction, if you don’t adopt, no one says you are taxed for not adopting. Not adopting does raise your taxes. Not renting raises your taxes but we are not in the habit of saying that we are taxed for not renting. We also can figure the commuter deduction and deduct MBTA fares and tolls, but we don’t say that we are taxed for not using these services. Any thoughts Justice Roberts?

So, it is with the health care number you get from your insurance company, you enter it on the form if you have it, and take the personal deduction. Then the State knows who is in compliance and who is not. You lose a personal deduction if you don’t have a qualified insurance, but more recently they have added more fines.

MA has been under liberal control since Mitt left, including 3 MA Speakers of the House that have gone to jail, and they are responsible for voting up the penalties, they were not a significant amount until recently, however, the MA legislature has never been nice to small business, and they may be coerced under different rules since they are not individuals.

We have aggressive Obamacare implimentation over the top of the Romney plan, because the liberals in charge like it, and they were already on the radio here saying that if the law was overturned they were keeping all the changes. I am suspecting over the short term something is going to burst. They are experimenting with OUTCOMES and rewards, and while that sounds like a merit system to conservatives, I think I read liberal machinations. Think: Outcomes, unless you cater to an under served population. How is anyone under served if everyone has insurance????

...

What else did Pelosi say?:



It’s a penalty that comes under the tax code for the 1 percent, perhaps, of the population who may decide that they’re going to be free riders. But most people are not affected by it.

Really? This federal takeover of healthcare was created to bring a meager 1% of the population in line? And “most people are not affected by it”? How the hell does she define the word “most”? Every single American is affected by this monstrosity, no if, ands, buts —– or “mosts” about it.

...

Wasn’t the original claim that 48 million Americans were uninsured and were one medical emergency away from bankruptcy. I know math is hard for liberals but 48/310 is 15% (rounded). That is a far cry from 1% (1500% error). Even the global warming true believers aren’t that bad at math. So what she is saying is that they lied about the number of uninsured also to pass the 2700+ page ode to lunacy.

[Jolie Rouge]

https://blu163.mail.live.com/Handlers/ImageProxy.mvc?bicild=&canary=jun6lUmfJo7sQjDASXQvk6CztGRvvz%2b5EXFl8o0qS v0%3d0&url=http%3a%2f%2fmedia.townhall.com%2fTownhall%2fC ar%2fb%2fFoden20120703-Obamaduck20120702025107.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

.
Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago.

..


WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.

That's still only a sliver of the population, given that more than 150 million people currently are covered by employer plans. Nonetheless, in his first campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000.

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.

"The bad news and broken promises from Obamacare just keep piling up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who wants to repeal the law.

Starting in 2014, virtually every legal resident of the U.S. will be required to carry health insurance or face a tax penalty, with exemptions for financial hardship, religious objections and certain other circumstances. Most people will not have to worry about the requirement since they already have coverage through employers, government programs like Medicare or by buying their own policies.

A spokeswoman for the Obama administration said 98 percent of Americans will not be affected by the tax penalty — and suggested that those who will be should face up to their civic responsibilities.

"This (analysis) doesn't change the basic fact that the individual responsibility policy will only affect people who can afford health care but choose not to buy it," said Erin Shields Britt of the Health and Human Services Department. "We're no longer going to subsidize the care of those who can afford to buy insurance but make a choice not to buy it."

The budget office said most of the increase in its estimate is due to changes in underlying projections about the economy, incorporating the effects of new federal legislation, as well as higher unemployment and lower wages.

The Supreme Court upheld Obama's law as constitutional in a 5-4 decision this summer, finding that the insurance mandate and the tax penalty enforcing it fall within the power of Congress to impose taxes. The penalty will be collected by the IRS, just like taxes.

The budget office said the penalty will raise $6.9 billion in 2016.

The new law will also provide government aid to help middle-class and low-income households afford coverage, the financial carrot that balances out the penalty.

Nonetheless, some people might still decide to remain uninsured because they object to government mandates or because they feel they would come out ahead financially even if they have to pay the penalty. Health insurance is expensive, with employer-provided family coverage averaging nearly $15,800 a year for a family and $4,300 for a single plan. Indeed, insurance industry experts say the federal penalty may be too low.

The Supreme Court also allowed individual states to opt out of a major Medicaid expansion under the law. The Obama administration says it will exempt low-income people in states that opt out from having to comply with the insurance requirement.

Many Republicans still regard the insurance mandate as unconstitutional and rue the day the Supreme Court upheld it.

However, the idea for an individual insurance requirement comes from Republican health care plans in the 1990s.

It's also a central element of the 2006 Massachusetts health care law signed by then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney, now running against Obama and promising to repeal the federal law.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Wednesday the new report is more evidence that Obama's law is a "costly disaster."

"Even more of the middle-class families who President Obama promised would see no tax increase will in fact see a massive tax increase thanks to Obamacare," she said.

Romney says insurance mandates should be up to each state. The approach seems to have worked well in Massachusetts, with virtually all residents covered and dwindling numbers opting to pay the penalty instead.
..
http://news.yahoo.com/tax-penalty-hit-nearly-6m-uninsured-people-194442599.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Obamacare ‘is still unconstitutional’ one year after Supreme Court approval
The closer the law draws, the more disastrous it looks
By Sen. Rand Paul - Friday, June 28, 2013

One year ago, the Supreme Court upheld a law that radically transforms our health care system in a way that continues to frighten and beleaguer most Americans.

Friday is the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. The 5-4 decision declared that the federal government could force Americans to buy health insurance — not just any insurance, but insurance covering procedures dictated by the federal government. Obamacare established a labyrinth of red tape and bureaucracy, colossal even by Washington standards, and most important — penalizes the uninsured through the individual mandate.

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declared that the individual mandate could be considered a tax and that the power to tax was also the power to enforce the law. Dissenting Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. vehemently disagreed, writing in their dissent: “[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. [W]e have never — never — treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’”

I think that Obamacare is still unconstitutional. I still think that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito got it right.

One year later, the federal health care law is even more concerning. In addition to potentially causing upward of 20 million Americans to lose their private health insurance policies, it could destroy an estimated 800,000 jobs.

The particular jobs that Obamacare creates are perhaps the most troubling.

Obamacare authorizes 16,000 more jobs at the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS also is given the authority to enforce and police compliance with Obamacare. The same agency that admittedly targeted groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names now is given the responsibility of making sure our individual health care plans fall under the guidelines and restrictions imposed by this administration.

In June, many considered Obamacare a nightmare. Surveying the ramifications of this law a year later, it looks even worse. Even Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, calls it a “huge train wreck.”

After the IRS scandal became public, President Obama declared his “outrage” and vowed that those responsible would be held “fully accountable.” Yet nothing has been done.

Instead, we are using taxpayer dollars to reward IRS agents with $70 million in bonuses. So the IRS gets millions in bonuses and thousands of new jobs. Meanwhile, they and the other Washington bureaucrats implementing Obamacare, along with the Supreme Court and the law’s namesake, are exempt from key parts of the Obamacare mandates.

Americans are not enthusiastic about the so-called Affordable Care Act, to say the least. Gallup reported this week: “Americans are more negative than positive about the health care law’s future impact on their family and on the U.S. in general. Forty-two percent say that in the long run, the law will make their family’s health care situation worse; 22 percent say it will make it better. And almost half believe the law will make the health care situation in the U.S. worse.”

A Fox News poll this week showed that “58 percent of voters favor repealing all or some of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.”

Faith in Obamacare seems to correlate with the public’s increasing overall distrust in government. Americans have no reason to trust an administration that admittedly engaged in targeting individuals based on their personal beliefs and views. They also have good reason to fear what the government may do to wreck everyone’s health care.

It is more than a little worrisome that the IRS is charged with the enforcement of Obamacare. The IRS union gave more than $1 million to Democrats over the past two election cycles. Conservatives are justified in worrying about the IRS being in charge of their health care.

A year after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare, its full, disastrous impact still looms ahead.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/28/obamacare-one-year-after-supreme-court-approval/#ixzz2XX5FeNcK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Jolie Rouge]

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/p320x320/1380817_636371489727742_1957213220_n.jpg


Law of the Land? It All Depends.
Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:26

Lately, the Democrats and Obama supporters in the media (aka the JournOlist) have settled on a new meme that’s been repeated by Senator Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, among others. http://www.cantonrep.com/opinion/editorials/x1837089595/Too-late-Republicans-Obama-s-health-care-plan-is-law-of-the-land Sayeth Senate Majority Leader Reid: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/reid-defunding-obamacare-dead-on-arrival-in-senate/


Obamacare is the law of the land, and will remain the law of the land as long as Barack Obama is president of the United States and I am Senate Majority Leader.

So says ordinary citizen Hillary Clinton: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/hillary-clinton-obamacare-defunding-97283.html



On the one hand a law was passed, it was upheld by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land …

For some reason, the progressive left have settled on that argument, that Obamacare is “the law of the land,” AS IF this president and his cronies have ever cared about the law of the land.

The First Amendment is the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect that law? No. Just ask James Rosen how the Obama administration respects freedom of the press http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/feds-publicly-id-fox-newss-james-rosen-as-leak-recipient-165556.html Ask Tea Party members how the Obama administration respects freedom of speech and the right to freely assemble http://freepatriot.org/2013/09/25/irs-agent-targets-tea-party-runs-away-full-benefits/ Ask Christian members of the military http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/17/proponents-of-religion-push-for-more-freedom-of-ex/?page=all or the Catholic Church how the Obama administration respects freedom of religion. http://washingtonexaminer.com/little-sisters-of-the-poor-sue-over-obamacare-fines-contraception-requirement/article/2536338

The Second Amendment is the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect that law? No. Just ask the NRA and law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens how the Obama administration respects the right to keep and bear arms.

Laws against illegal immigration are the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect those laws? No. Just ask the good citizens of border states– who deal on a daily basis with being overrun by illegal aliens–how the Obama administration protects our citizens’ rights, when Obama has illegally given executive-order amnesty to all those illegal non-citizens. http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/08/23634-obama-issues-executive-order-granting-amnesty-to-all-illegal-aliens-who-are-primary-providers-for-children

The Fourth Amendment is the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect that law? No. Just ask anybody (most of us) whose emails and telephone records were grabbed and stored by the NSA how the Obama administration respects our right to be secure from unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57599579/nsa-gathered-thousands-of-americans-emails-fisa-court-records-show/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-violations/

Federal drug laws are the law of the land. Do Obama and his minions respect those laws? No. Just ask the citizens of states like Colorado, where federal officials have been instructed to look the other way when people break drug laws. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/29/obama-administration-oks-washington-colorado-marij/?page=all

The laws of the land that Obama and his minions have chosen to ignore or openly flout are too numerous to mention, but one requires special mention:

The Constitution of the USA is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

Does Obama respect that supreme law? http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility No.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

If you’re Obama or one of his supporters, it all depends upon the letter of the law whether or not you’ll uphold the law of the land. It all depends.

http://beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/10/law-of-the-land-it-all-depends-open-thread-3-2468702.html

http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/2394557.jpg

Obamacare is the “Law of the Land”: Yeah, So?

It’s hysterical when liberals say this, in a voice that may possibly be the whiniest I’ve ever heard.


“Obamacare is the law of the land, stop trying to overturn it, this is the way things are, just accept it!”

Uh-huh.

Here’s some other things that used to be the law of the land.*

The clause of DOMA that prevented the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages.

Slavery.

Prohibition. (That one was a freakin’ amendment to the constitution and we still axed it.)

Women not being able to vote.

The Sedition Act of 1918.

And many, many more.

Are liberals trying to insinuate that they want to return to the days when all of these were the law of the land? What do all of these laws have in common? They restricted freedom, either through the very obvious use of enslavement of a human being or through the inability to legally purchase alcohol or have a say in your countries political decisions because of your sex.

Giving up freedom is sort of a deal breaker for conservatives. Try as you might, you aren’t going to sell us on the belief that forcing us to buy insurance is all in the name of “freedom”, because it’s really not. So try as you might, your whining about how “Obamacare is the law of the land!” is not going to work.

For the same reason it didn’t shut up woman’s suffragists or abolitionists. If a law is taking away my freedom is it not a law that should exist at all nor should it be followed if it does get rammed through with a wham, bam, thank you ma’am.

To quote a heavyweight political mind: John Locke reminded us frequently of the fact that the power to rule came from the consent of the governed and that -

“Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every common-wealth; yet, First, it is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another.”

- John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government: Chapter XI

For those of you confused by 17th century English, here’s approximately what this means : The legislature may be the most powerful entity in a country, but it still only has the ability to pass laws that are governed by natural rights. Just as I do not have the right to rob you of your life, liberty, or property, neither does the legislature.

Well the governed have spoken and over 51% of the people in the country don’t want Obamacare.

Moreover the law doesn’t serve my natural rights to liberty or property (if I don’t want insurance I shouldn’t be required and I shouldn’t have to pay you for the privilege of making that decision for myself) and quite possibly my life, especially if our government runs healthcare the way they run most government programs.

So, no. I don’t care that it’s the law of the land. You can shut you trap liberals, because that argument is going to get you nowhere fast.

*Why is it that it’s only when liberals don’t like a law that it needs to be repealed?

Here’s a couple of things that are still the law of the land, but liberals could care less about that. They would love to throw them out entirely.

The second amendment.

Immigration laws.

The enumerated powers of the federal government in the constitution.

http://freedomrollcall.com/post/63169032873/obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land-yeah-so

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4662815249337650&w=218&h=175&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7http://d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/092.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/liberal-logic-101-421.jpg

[Jolie Rouge]

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/p320x320/599623_638533836178174_169708998_n.jpg


But then, since does Obama care about the Constitution?
http://liberallogic101.com/?p=3241

[Jolie Rouge]

ROBERTS REFUSES TO GRANT OBAMACARE EMERGENCY STAY http://bit.ly/1gBrlQA

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/375676_473825769390878_2101476474_n.jpg

I remember the day he came back with his NUTTY decision in the summer of 2012, I was DEVASTATED and knew then that we HAD NO BACKUP, We the People were being RULED OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION; again it is reinforced by this arrogant decision and it is the most unbelievable thing for him to IGNORE THE HUMAN TRAGEDY unfolding before our eyes. ~jg

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has refused a group of doctors’ request to block implementation of the nation’s new health care law.

Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/06/roberts-refuses-to-grant-obamacare-emergency-stay/?

[Jolie Rouge]

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare
Posted: 11/07/2014 12:55 pm EST

Obamacare once again faces death before the Supreme Court.

The justices announced Friday they will decide on a lawsuit claiming that the language of the Affordable Care Act doesn't allow the government to provide tax credits to low- and moderate-income health insurance consumers using the federally run Obamacare exchanges operating in more than 30 states. The lawsuit contends that the ACA only permits subsidies to be distributed by state-run exchanges.

President Barack Obama's administration maintains this argument is baseless and that Congress always intended these subsidies to be available nationwide.





A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, King v. Burwell, would utterly devastate Obamacare.

The chief aim of the law is to expand health insurance coverage and offer financial assistance to families that can't afford it. Since most states declined to set up their own health insurance exchanges, the federal government was left to set them up instead. As a result, more than two-thirds of the people who had signed up for health insurance of April 30 purchased their insurance from a federal exchange. Among all enrollees, 85 percent received subsidies to help pay for it -- that's almost 5 million people. The average value of these tax credits was $264 a month, which represents a discount off the sticker price of more than three-quarters.

The Supreme Court is taking up the case -- a decision that required the consent of at least four of the nine justices -- despite the fact that no appeals court has decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The Obama administration had asked the court to hold off on hearing the King lawsuit or similar cases including Halbig v. Burwell, given there was no split decision at the appeals level.

In 2012, the high court voted 5-4, including Chief Justice John Roberts, to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate that nearly every U.S. resident obtain health coverage or face tax penalties.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a press conference Friday that administration officials "continue to have high confidence in the legal argument," and that it's common sense that people in all states should be eligible for financial assistance under the Affordable Care Act.

"The congressional intent here is quite clear," Earnest said.

A Supreme Court decision against the Obama administration would essentially trigger huge price increases for the health insurance held by millions of consumers, but the consequences wouldn't stop there.

Absent financial assistance, many fewer people would be able to afford coverage and likely would drop their insurance or never purchase it. Higher prices also would discourage healthy people who are cheaper to insure from buying policies, leaving a sicker pool of customers on insurers' books. That, in turn, would force health insurance companies to raise rates further, driving even more people out of the market. The industry term for this phenomenon is "death spiral."

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are zeroing in on a brief phrase included in the Affordable Care Act: "exchange established by the State," and asserting it makes distributing tax credits through a federal exchange illegal.

The Obama administration counters this language amounts to little more than a typo, at worst. The totality of the statute and the legislative history of its drafting plainly demonstrates Congress always intended to provide tax credits to people using any form of health insurance exchange, the administration and its supporters argue.

Last week, five Democratic lawmakers who helped author the law published an op-ed in the Washington Post on the subject. "None of us contemplated that the bill as enacted could be misconstrued to limit financial help only to people in states opting to directly run health insurance marketplaces," wrote Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Reps. Sander Levin (Mich.), George Miller (Calif.) and Henry Waxman (Calif.).

Congress could easily rectify the uncertainty about what the statute says by passing legislation to alter the language, but has failed to do so. And the Republicans poised to take control of the full Congress next year remain focused on attempting to repeal Obamacare or otherwise damage it, not move bills to make it function better. States also could choose to set up exchanges to ensure their residents can receive subsidies, but none of the ones that have failed to do so are poised to change course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/07/supreme-court-obamacare-subsidies_n_6122370.html

[Jolie Rouge]

2015’s estimate Obamacare enrollment figures revised down… way, way down
posted at 4:01 pm on November 10, 2014 by Noah Rothman

After repeatedly shifting the deadline for the end of Obamacare’s open enrollment period in past spring, the White House crowed when it determined it had finally reached its goal of enrolling 8 million Americans in Affordable Care Act-associated insurance plans. Few in the press made mention of the administration’s downward revision of that figure in October from 8.1 to 7.1 million Obamacare enrollees.

Don’t expect many in the administration or the media to make much of another revision of the estimated number of projected Obamacare insurance customers for this year’s open enrollment period. Anticipating slightly less than 6 million new enrollees, the CBO had projected a total of 13 million Americans would be signed up for ACA insurance by the end of the year. On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services significantly revised its expectations when that agency revealed that fewer than 3 million more Americans would seek insurance under the ACA in the coming year. http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/10/news/economy/obamacare-enrollment-2015/


“The revised goal is 9 to 9.9 million,” CNN reported. “It raises questions about whether Obamacare enrollment will reach projections down the road.”


The CBO had projected enrollment would hit 25 million by 2017, but now the administration says it will probably take at least one or two more years to reach that threshold.


CNBC observed : http://www.cnbc.com/id/102169534#.


“The reduced projection is due to recent data showing ‘mixed evidence’ about how quickly—and how dramatically—people will shift from employer-sponsored health insurance and non-Obamacare plans into insurance plans sold on government-run marketplaces such as HealthCare.gov, according to HHS,”

None of this takes into account The Washington Post’s reporting on Monday which indicated that administration officials fear Healthcare.gov’s kinks may not have been completely ironed out. http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/10/officials-race-to-have-healthcare-gov-contingency-plans-in-place-ahead-of-enrollment/


“[F]ederal health officials and government contractors are scrambling, according to confidential documents and federal and outside experts familiar with this work,” The Post reported on Monday. “They have been making contingency plans in case the information technology or other aspects prove less sturdy than the administration predicts. And some preparations are coming down to the wire.”

All of this news makes it clear that the ACA is the law, set in stone and immutable, and Republicans are engaging in a misguided crusade when they seek to repeal the persistently unpopular health care reform law… right?

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/10/2015s-obamacare-enrollment-revised-down-way-way-down/

[Jolie Rouge]

See also http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-information/658501-obama-administration-health-insurers-must-cover-birth-control-no-copays-13.html


U.S. top court revives Notre Dame's Obamacare contraception objections
By Lawrence Hurley - 10 hrs ago

WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived the University of Notre Dame's religious objections to the requirement for contraception coverage under President Barack Obama's healthcare law, throwing out a lower court decision in favor of the federal government.

The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision against the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision.

The case is part of national litigation concerning religious objections to the contraception provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare.

The law requires employers to provide health insurance policies that cover preventive services for women including access to contraception and sterilization.

Various challengers, including family-owned companies and religious affiliated nonprofits that oppose abortion and sometimes the use of contraceptives, say the requirement infringes on their religious beliefs.

Mark Rienzi, a lawyer with the religious rights group Becket Fund for Religious Liberty who has been involved in similar cases, said Monday's action was "a strong signal that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the government's narrow view of religious liberty."

The court threw out a February 2014 appeals court ruling denying Notre Dame an injunction against the requirement.

The appeals court ruling pre-dated the Supreme Court's June 2014 ruling saying family-owned Hobby Lobby Stores Ltd could seek exemptions on religious grounds from the contraception provision.

Days later, in a case similar to the Notre Dame dispute, the justices allowed an Illinois college a temporary exemption while litigation continues.

Last August, the government amended its compromise plan for nonprofits with religious affiliations, meaning the legal landscape has changed substantially since the appeals court ruled against Notre Dame.

Courts that have ruled on the issue since the Supreme Court decision have all decided in favor of the government, finding the compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs' religious beliefs. Religious rights are protected under a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The compromise allows the groups to certify they are opting out, which then forces insurers to pick up the tab.

Notre Dame says the certification process still essentially forces the groups to authorize the coverage for employees even if they are not technically paying for it. Religious institutions are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement.

The case is Notre Dame v. Burwell, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 14-392.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-top-court-revives-notre-dames-obamacare-contraception-objections/ar-AA9yrDh?ocid=ansnewsreu11

[Jolie Rouge]

White House Warns of ‘Utter Chaos’ if Supreme Court Rules Against Administration in Obamacare Case

http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/obama/video-white-house-warns-of-utter-chaos-if-supreme-court-rules-against-administration-in-obamacare-case/

[Jolie Rouge]

What does anyone expect? At least 2 of the people on the court were on the committee to help frame obamacare so their mind was already made up. They helped write the shitty language so of course had to accept it. Obviously they need to go back to English class so they can understand the written word.

‘SCOTUS Care': Supreme Court Again Unlawfully REWRITES Obamacare for Obama

Government WatchHEADLINES June 25, 2015 Matthew K. Burke

Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution give ALL legislative powers to the Congress. This was such an important principle to our wise Founding Fathers that they placed this crucial part of our system upfront and center for all to view.

Never was it ever imagined that unelected, lifetime appointed judges would have the power to change laws passed by the people’s representatives.

Yet again, the Supreme Court of the United States has usurped congressional authority to make and change laws by adjusting Obamacare to please Obama.

In 2012, chief Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said:


“If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits … I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

Even so, in King v. Burwell, The Supreme Court ruled that tax subsidies can go to individuals who purchase healthcare insurance on the federal exchange, even though only those registered in state exchanges are eligible per the law itself.

Much like in 2012, where the SCOTUS ruled that the government somehow has constitutional power to force Americans to buy certain things that Democrats think they must be forced to purchase, in a 6-3 decision on Thursday, the court ruled that those on federal exchanges would in fact be eligible for subsidies even though the law itself disallows those very subsidies.

Again, treasonous Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, unlawfully voted with his progressive colleagues in support of Obamacare, as did Anthony Kennedy, a wolf in sheep’s clothing appointed by the late Ronald Reagan.


“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissenting opinion. “It rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere.”

Like the previous decision, Scalia said the courts used “somersaults of statutory interpretation,” and that the “discouraging truth” is that the Supreme Court favors some laws over others in their rulings:


“The somersaults of statutory interpretation they [SCOTUS] have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”


“And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Additionally, Scalia wrote that twisting the words of an insurance exchange “by the state” to one set up by the federal government is “nonsense.”


“Words no longer have meaning if an exchange that is not established by a state is ‘established by the state,'” Scalia wrote.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott a leader in bringing together a coalition of 27 states suing over Obamacare, said that the SCOTUS had “abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law.”


“The Supreme Court abandoned the Constitution to resuscitate a failing healthcare law. Today’s action underscores why it is now more important than ever to ensure we elect a President who will repeal Obamacare and enact real healthcare reforms.”

Along with Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also voted in favor of of the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and separation of powers.

http://politistick.com/scotus-care-supreme-court-again-unlawfully-rewrites-obamacare-for-obama/

[Jolie Rouge]

Aetna CEO sees piles of taxpayer financed profits thanks to Obamacare

By Nick Sorrentino on February 4, 2015

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/wp-content/uploads/aetna-chart-cc-565x502.png

That’s nice. It sure is good to know that the crony deal of the century (so far) Obamacare, is working out for the giant insurance companies. I was worried for them.

I’m joking of course since the giant health insurance companies along with Big Pharma wrote a good piece of the law. A law which was not even supported by a majority of Americans but was forced through Congress on questionable procedural grounds. A law which has now financially addicted a good portion of the American people like it was designed to. Yep, good times for the health insurance companies.



Not the small businesses of course. That’s a different matter. But they don’t have lobbyists and friends in the White House so that’s the way it goes in Obama’s America.

And all the profits the Aetna CEO is so happy about? They are a direct transfer of wealth from the middle class via taxes to his corporation’s bottom line. Congratulations big government people. Way to embrace corporatism.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/02/03/aetna-ceo-calls-2015-obamacare-growth-attractive/


Health insurer Aetna AET +1.99% (AET) said it would make more money than originally anticipated thanks to “attractive growth” from new enrollment on public exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

Aetna now expects its 2015 earnings per share of “at least $7.00” compared to an earlier projection of at least “$6.90” per share, according to chief executive officer Mark Bertolini who told Wall Street analysts and investors the public exchange business can become “an attractive growth opportunity.”

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2015/02/aetna-ceo-says-obamacare-an-attractive-growth-opportunity/

[Jolie Rouge]

HHS: 'Explore OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING' to Cover Obamacare Losses
Jeff Dunetz | November 20, 2015 12:00am ET

Obamacare is killing the heath insurance industry, but help for health insurers is on the way - and it will be coming out the pockets of American taxpayers via higher insurance rates and a federal bailout.

When the government says, "Explore other sources of funding" and "working with Congress on the necessary funding," it's time to hide your wallet and get ready to study a few more pages of tax code.

As MRCTV reported Thursday, United Healthcare lost $425 million on its policies sold via the Obamacare exchanges, and they might back out of the exchanges all together after 2016. And United Healthcare isn’t alone. U.S. insurers had to absorb nearly $2.9 billion in unexpected medical expenses from their customers in Obamacare's exchanges in 2014, according to new data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal reports that some of the deficit will be made up with higher premiums, much higher premiums. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/tough-times-for-health-care-insurers--and-patients-b99612794z1-348003521.html


Many insurers have requested premium increases of 20% to 40% for next year. In August, Blue Cross Blue Shield secured approval in Tennessee for a 36.3% price hike, while Oregon OK'd a 25.6% increase for Moda Health Plan.

Even these premium increases are mild compared with what's coming when the risk corridor provision and other stopgaps expire.

A recent University of Minnesota study found that after 2016, the cheapest plans would experience some of the most dramatic premium increases. Families who purchased "bronze" plans on the exchanges could see 45% increases. Some unlucky individuals could see their premiums shoot up 96%.

"Our data still indicate that — for at least the next decade — premiums will increase faster than they did in the years before the Affordable Care Act's implementation," cautioned one of the study's authors. "Federal subsidies for ACA plans won't be able to keep up."

But, the federal government is going to try make the subsidies keep up. Pres. Obama's Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) is promising insurance companies that taxpayers will help them out.

After the United Healthcare announcement on Thursday, HHS issued a letter to insurance companies recognizing the 2014 shortfalls and declaring that the U.S. Government needs to make good: https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/Downloads/RC_Obligation_Guidance_11-19-15.pdf


In the event of a shortfall for the 2016 program year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations. This includes working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments.

Risk corridors were created by the Obamacare bill. The corridors are meant to redistribute money (sound familiar?) from insurance companies who make a bigger profit from exchange plans than expected and give to companies who lost money on the exchange plans.

The problem with the risk corridor in 2014 was that too many companies lost money - so, there wasn't enough money to cover everyone's losses. HHS is promising a bailout, or in HHS language, it will work with Congress to get more money for the risk corridors in order to cut insurance companies losses.

Robert Laszewski, president of consultancy Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia, told CNBC:


"'The Obamacare business model doesn’t work,’ ‘Obamacare has got to be retooled.’ Laszewski cited the fact that insurers overall still are losing money selling exchange plans in the second year of Obamacare, and that as a result many of them are raising prices, which could in turn lead to current and prospective customers taking a pass on further coverage.”

According to Nathan Nascimento, Senior Policy Advisor for Freedom Partners:



“We already knew that this Administration has no problem with putting special interests ahead of Americans’ health care – but yet another bailout for insurance companies on the backs of taxpayers only throws more good money after bad. Washington’s flawed one-size-fits-all approach to health care has failed, leading to plan cancelations, skyrocketing premium and out-of-pocket costs, and instability for American families and business. The solution is to get government out of the way – not dig the hole even deeper."

Supporters of Obamacare are in denial. Much higher heath insurance premiums, insurance company losses needing a federal bailout, and news that almost half of the state-run Obamacare exchanges have bitten the dust, add up to one inconvenient fact: Obamacare is a failure.

Sadly, it won't be the politicians who forced the program down the American people's throats who will be reaching into their pockets to pay for that failure. It will be the rest of us, average American families, our children, and our grandchildren paying for this unmitigated disaster.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/

[Jolie Rouge]

ObamaCare's predictable collapse

By Rick Manning, contributor

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/260948-obamacares-predictable-collapse

[Jolie Rouge]

5 devastating obamacare facts every American should know/

Last week’s devastating Obamacare announcement by United Healthcare — it expects to lose $600 million on Obamacare policies next year — further confirms what conservatives have known and said all along: Obamacare is a disaster.

The nation’s largest health insurer is even considering pulling out of Obamacare altogether.

Below, then, are five devastating Obamacare facts every American should know about President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement:

1. Insurance companies are withdrawing in droves

Commenting on the potential withdrawal from all Obamacare exchanges, UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said in an investor call Thursday morning “We cannot sustain these losses . . . We can’t really subsidize a marketplace that doesn’t appear at the moment to be sustaining itself.”

Additionally, a critical element to Obamacare was the creation of co-ops in order to spur competition and create less expensive coverage for consumers. However, as Breitbart reported, with the recent closure of the Michigan Obamacare co-op, more “than half of the 23 original co-ops have now failed. Previous closures include the co-ops in Arizona, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado, Iowa/Nebraska, Louisiana, New York, Nevada, Tennessee, Oregon, and Kentucky.”

2. “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” was a brazen and cruel lie.

Obama repeatedly promised Americans “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” This may have been a catchy political phrase for approval of his senseless program but after millions of Americans had their plans cancelled Obama’s infamous fabrication was named the 2013 PolitiFact Lie of the Year.

3. Still waiting on that $2,500 in savings Obama promised you? You’re not alone. Premiums are skyrocketing nationwide.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama boasted his healthcare plan would reduce the typical family’s annual premiums by up to $2,500 per year. To the contrary, rates have skyrocketed. As Breitbart recently reported “Across the board, Obamacare premium prices are increasing 20.3 percent for 2016” – this increase is on top of the more than 20 percent 2015 Obamacare hike.

4. Obamacare customers say their plans are “useless” due to soaring deductibles

In an effort to convince people to sign up for Obamacare, Obama officials have hyped low premiums available on the exchanges. Unfortunately, the sky-high deductibles are making these plan useless. The New York Times described a common experience of Obamacare consumers “The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor,” said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. “We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.”

Furthermore, as the New York Times article reported “In many states, more than half the plans offered for sale through HealthCare.gov, the federal online marketplace, have a deductible of $3,000 or more.”

5. The Obamacare “death spiral” conservatives warned about is real.

As Breitbart highlighted, “Obamacare appears to have entered an insurance industry “death spiral.”

Basically, too many sick people are signing up, and too few healthy people are doing so. This causes prices to surge, and that causes fewer healthy people to sign up. The death spiral continues until the insurance program collapse completely. The 20.3 percent price increase for 2016 is probably the cause of the current round of the Obamacare death spiral.

As these facts make painfully clear, Obamacare is not the answer. What is needed is a product Americans want to buy, one based on common sense and easily understandable benefits and incentives. A program that forces people facing tough budget choices to purchase a product they don’t want to buy through penalties is a train wreck in the making. The time has come for Oblimination — the full scale dismantling of Obamacare and replacing it with a system based on free market principles that actually work.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/23/5-devastating-obamacare-facts-every-american-should-know/

[Jolie Rouge]

Barack Hussein Obama's Legacy Continues to Take Shape!

When a new POTUS with no executive experience, after no accomplishments within a two-year effective stint in the Senate other than its use as a political springboard for higher office, forces an eponymous healthcare law through Congress using Reconciliation - because his party no longer has enough votes to pass it using regular order - that did NOT receive a single vote from the Grand Old Party of Know in either chamber of Congress, elected by the Smart Electorate, what would the Smart Electorate expect to happen within a relatively short amount of time?

Exactly what we just learned. To wit:

"The CEO of UnitedHealthCare (the country’s LARGEST insurer) on Tuesday (12/1/15) said he REGRETTED the decision to enter the ObamaCare marketplace last year, which the company says has resulted in millions of dollars in losses.

'It was for us a bad decision,' UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said at an investor’s meeting in New York, according to Bloomberg Business.

UnitedHealth . . . announced last month that it would no longer advertise its ObamaCare plans over the next year and may pull out completely in 2016 — a move that sent shockwaves across the healthcare sector.

Hemsley’s remarks double down on his earlier warning that the ObamaCare exchanges remain weaker than expected after two years and that it will take far longer for insurers to profit from the millions of new enrollees.

Now, UnitedHealth officials have said that (participating in Obamacare exchanges) will result in a half-billion dollars in losses over two years."

Obamacare was created when a Veterans' Housing Benefits Bill which passed in the House was GUTTED like a deer by Dirty Harry Reid in the Senate, who then inserted error-ridden Obamacare text - with no opportunity for correction and emendation in committee due to Reconciliation - into its carcass and rammed it through the Senate with only 51 votes and NOT the customary 60.






http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261617-unitedhealth-ceo-regrets-entering-obamacare-marketplace