Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 27, 2012, 12:18:04 PM
-
I'm thinking 6-3 down w the mandate
5-4 upholding the rest.
-
Is Obama Planning to Reinstate Obamacare via Executive Order?
National Review Online - The Corner ^ | June 27, 2012 | Avik Roy
“We will be prepared,” said Obama aide Valerie Jarrett this week when asked about White House contingency plans in the event that Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court. But on Twitter, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic said something interesting: that the White House has executive orders ready to go if Obamacare is struck down. “Their content and timing I don’t know,” Marc says. “But they’ve got contingency plans a-plenty.”
It’s not clear to me exactly how much of Obamacare can be reinstated via executive order. It’s certainly conceivable that the president could issue costly mandates that affect private insurers. But the president couldn’t expand Medicaid on his own, or ration Medicare without congressional approval.
-
SCOTUS will uphold Health Care Law
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, Â who taught both President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, says he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the health care law. Tribe also discussed the politicization of the court.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/47963303
btw - wtf is up with Scalia. The guy is the very epitome of an "activist judge" and is even cricizing the administration for something that is not even part of a case that is before the court and citing the New York Times. Bizarro behaviour for a sitting SC judge
-
SCOTUS will uphold Health Care Law
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, Â who taught both President Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, says he believes the Supreme Court will uphold the health care law. Tribe also discussed the politicization of the court.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/jansing-and-co/47963303
btw - wtf is up with Scalia. The guy is the very epitome of an "activist judge" and is even cricizing the administration for something that is not even part of a case that is before the court and citing the New York Times. Bizarro behaviour for a sitting SC judge
Scalia was dead right to attack obama since Obama proved scalias' point by his lawlessness in ending the program w AZ after he lost on that one point.
Obama is the most radical lawless extreme freak show EVEr to hold office.
-
Is Obama Planning to Reinstate Obamacare via Executive Order?
National Review Online - The Corner ^ | June 27, 2012 | Avik Roy
“We will be prepared,” said Obama aide Valerie Jarrett this week when asked about White House contingency plans in the event that Obamacare is struck down by the Supreme Court. But on Twitter, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic said something interesting: that the White House has executive orders ready to go if Obamacare is struck down. “Their content and timing I don’t know,” Marc says. “But they’ve got contingency plans a-plenty.”
It’s not clear to me exactly how much of Obamacare can be reinstated via executive order. It’s certainly conceivable that the president could issue costly mandates that affect private insurers. But the president couldn’t expand Medicaid on his own, or ration Medicare without congressional approval.
Can't use Executive Order on this.....
-
5-4 SCOTUS strikes it down entirely.
The whole thing goes. They are not going to pick through a 3000 page bill trying to decide what goes and what stays when there is no severability clause.
-
5-4 SCOTUS strikes it down entirely.
The whole thing goes. They are not going to pick through a 3000 page bill trying to decide what goes and what stays when there is no severability clause.
More than likely, they already had their minds made up beforehand...it makes no difference
-
Scalia was dead right to attack obama since Obama proved scalias' point by his lawlessness in ending the program w AZ after he lost on that one point.
Obama is the most radical lawless extreme freak show EVEr to hold office.
wtf is a justice doing giving his personal opinion from the bench on a subject that is not part of any court case in front of him.
Bizarro behaviour
-
being an activist judge is okay, if we agree with your ideology.
-
wtf is a justice doing giving his personal opinion from the bench on a subject that is not part of any court case in front of him.
Bizarro behaviour
No - i heard today someone mention that sometimes justices read from their dissents from the bench.
-
being an activist judge is okay, if we agree with your ideology.
How is it being an activist judge to rule something un-constitutional that has no precedent in the history of this country?
-
being an activist judge is okay, if we agree with your ideology.
by definition, an activiist judge is only someone who doesn't agree with your ideology
-
How is it being an activist judge to rule something un-constitutional that has no precedent in the history of this country?
I read on DU that scalia was a real dick. that's enough for me to make my decision.
-
I read on DU that scalia was a real dick. that's enough for me to make my decision.
Everyone to the right of stalin and mao is a dick according to those bottom feeders at the DUmp.
-
No - i heard today someone mention that sometimes justices read from their dissents from the bench.
yes, that does happen (suprised you hadn't heard about it before) but Scalia was not referring to the case at hand but making refernce to something (Obama's recent Executive Order) that was not part of the case at hand and not part of any case before them. That is the very definition of activism on the bench
In dissenting from a court ruling that struck down all but one part of Arizona’s law on illegal immigrants, Justice Scalia strayed far from the case at hand to deliver animadversions on President Obama’s recent executive order barring deportation of people who entered the country illegally as children. Based on nothing more than news reports, Justice Scalia opined that this policy would divert federal resources from immigration enforcement, thus creating “the specter” of a “Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”
This gratuitous outburst, regarding a matter that might someday come before the court as a legal case, followed Justice Scalia’s performance during oral arguments on health care, which included a wisecrack about striking down the “Cornhusker Kickback” — even though that infamous dollop of Medicaid money for Nebraska, allegedly inserted in return for the vote of that state’s senator, was no longer in the statute. He sneered that asking the justices to read the entire 2,700-page Affordable Care Act would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He launched into a muddled riff on an old Jack Benny comedy routine that became so protracted and distracting that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., amused at first, eventually had to declare “that’s enough frivolity for a while.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/justice-scalias-partisan-discredit-to-the-court/2012/06/27/gJQAoVEG7V_story.html
-
yes, that does happen (suprised you hadn't heard about it before) but Scalia was not referring to the case at hand but making refernce to something (Obama's recent Executive Order) that was not part of the case at hand and not part of any case before them. That is the very definition of activism on the bench
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/justice-scalias-partisan-discredit-to-the-court/2012/06/27/gJQAoVEG7V_story.html
I'm glad he did that since Obama thumbed his nose at the court by going around the congress and acting in a lawless manner.
How you progressives can still support this out of control maniac is beyond comprehension.
-
How is it being an activist judge to rule something un-constitutional that has no precedent in the history of this country?
Scalia was veered from the case at hand and was talking about Obama's recent Executive Order and the action Obama took has precedence with at least 4 other recent POTUS's
-
No - i heard today someone mention that sometimes justices read from their dissents from the bench.
You're a lawyer and you just heard it today that Justices can read their opinions from the Supreme Court bench? REALLY? Do you pay any attention to the Supreme Court (or the Federal Judiciary in general)?
-
Scalia was veered from the case at hand and was talking about Obama's recent Executive Order and the action Obama took has precedence with at least 4 other recent POTUS's
Oh you are full of shit and you know it. Congress creates the laws and the visa requirements and standards, not the executive branch.
-
I'm glad he did that since Obama thumbed his nose at the court by going around the congress and acting in a lawless manner. How you progressives can still support this out of control maniac is beyond comprehension.
Obama was well within his authority to do what he did and Scalia is certainly free to offer his opinions on any topic but not from the bench
Cases resulting from that EO might wind up in front on him someday. Did he just disqualify himself from those potential future cases?
-
You're a lawyer and you just heard it today that Justices can read their opinions from the Supreme Court bench? REALLY? Do you pay any attention to the Supreme Court (or the Federal Judiciary in general)?
Of course I do, but people are making it out to be some outrageous thing Scalia did. Poor cry babies think Obama should never be criticized for his lawlessness and usurpation of powers. Fuck em.
-
Oh you are full of shit and you know it. Congress creates the laws and the visa requirements and standards, not the executive branch.
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton all had times where they "selectively enforced" immigration laws
I would say "you know it" but most likely you don't know it and will forget it as soon as you're done reading this so you can rant about it again later
-
Of course I do, but people are making it out to be some outrageous thing Scalia did. Poor cry babies think Obama should never be criticized for his lawlessness and usurpation of powers. Fuck em.
not just me but plenty of others including other conservative judges
-
You're a lawyer and you just heard it today that Justices can read their opinions from the Supreme Court bench? REALLY? Do you pay any attention to the Supreme Court (or the Federal Judiciary in general)?
333 is barely a lawyer
he's basically a glorified debt collector
-
Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 and Clinton all had times where they "selectively enforced" immigration laws
I would say "you know it" but most likely you don't know it and will forget it as soon as you're done reading this so you can rant about it again later
Selective enforcement is one thing - what obama is doing is creating a new class of immigrants specifically rejected by the congress.
-
Selective enforcement is one thing - what obama is doing is creating a new class of immigrants specifically rejected by the congress.
we've been over this
Obama was well within the powers of his office
If not, why has no congress person (it only takes one) started the impeachment process?
-
we've been over this
Obama was well within the powers of his office
If not, why has no congress person (it only takes one) started the impeachment process?
Because its too close to election and Reid and Senate demos will never letter it go anywhere.
-
Because its too close to election and Reid and Senate demos will never letter it go anywhere.
so what
why would that stop the House from doing something
All it takes is one angry tea bagger to get it started
Could it be that even the dumbest teabagger congressperson knows the action Obama took was totally within his authority?
-
so what
why would that stop the House from doing something
All it takes is one angry tea bagger to get it started
Could it be that even the dumbest teabagger congressperson knows the action Obama took was totally within his authority?
Senator Kyl yesterday floated around impeachment unless Obama is reigned in for his lawless tyranny that you progressives applaud.
Like I contend, you so called progressives desire a king and dictator who can by pass any election results, any rejection of your radical marxist ideas by elected representatives, or losses in the judicial system.
-
Senator Kyl yesterday floated around impeachment unless Obama is reigned in for his lawless tyranny that you progressives applaud.
Like I contend, you so called progressives desire a king and dictator who can by pass any election results, any rejection of your radical marxist ideas by elected representatives, or losses in the judicial system.
I thought impeachment had to start in the House
Didn't Kucinich introduce articles on impeachment Bush and I think Cheney too and he did it knowing full wel that Pelosi wasn't going to let it go anywhere
What's stopping any Republican Congressperson from doing the same thing.....unless of course they know they have no grounds to do so
Didn't Issa say the WH did nothing wrong regarding Solyndra a few weeks ago and and just last week that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the administration in the Fast and Furious witch hunt
-
I'm thinking 6-3 down w the mandate
5-4 upholding the rest.
My call is 6-3, mandate goes down; 5-4 the whole thing goes.
Without the mandate, there's no funding; thus it falls to pieces, anyway.
-
Return to the Article
Why the Whole Health Care Law Is in Jeopardy
By Sean Trende - June 27, 2012
Email Print
Comments Share
By Sean Trende
The real Supreme Court news on Tuesday wasn't the Arizona immigration decision or even the summary reversal of the Supreme Court of Montana in the "Citizens United 2" case. It was that the chief justice of the United States didn't write any of these opinions.
This is critically important, because we can now deduce with a reasonably high degree of certainty that John Roberts is writing the lead health care opinion. If we are right about this, then the law is in even deeper trouble that most observers imagined.
Let’s start from the beginning. The Supreme Court tries to spread its opinions equally among the justices, both for the term and for its monthly sittings. There are three opinions left and, fittingly, three justices who have authored fewer than seven opinions: Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas.
Roberts is the likely author of the health care decision for three reasons. First, Thomas is the only justice without an opinion from the December sitting, so he is probably authoring the First American opinion still outstanding from that sitting (and it unlikely that a staunch originalist like Thomas could hold together a majority on an issue like the health care law).
Second, it is unlikely that an opinion of this magnitude would trickle down to a junior justice like Sotomayor. The Alvarez opinion from February seems more appropriate for her.
Third, Roberts hasn’t authored an opinion from the March or April sittings. He’s the only justice of whom that can be said. This, more than anything, makes him the likely author of the only opinion outstanding from either sitting, the health care law.
If we’re right about this, then it’s a real problem for the Affordable Care Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy gave slight indications during oral arguments that he at least sympathized with the government’s position; Roberts did not.
Some have suggested that the chief justice would vote strategically. The idea is this: He is the last justice to cast his vote during conference. If there were four votes to strike down the law, then he would provide the fifth to do the same. But if five votes had been cast for the law, Roberts would then cast a sixth vote in favor.
This would allow him to write the opinion either way, and to control how broad the opinion emerging from the court was. This is what Chief Justice William Rehnquist was suspected of doing in 1999 in United States v. Dickerson. He had been an ardent foe of Miranda, and most thought that he was a sure vote to overrule it when given a chance. But he surprised people by announcing a 7-2 decision upholding Miranda.
But there is a problem with this analogy. The task of assigning the author of an opinion falls to the most senior justice in the majority. Had Rehnquist dissented in Dickerson, the most senior justice in the majority would have been John Paul Stevens. Rehnquist had reason to fear that Stevens would assign the opinion to himself. Because Stevens was the most liberal member of that court, and given some of the nuances of Dickerson, Stevens could have gutted decades of decisions chipping away at Miranda if he had written a broad enough opinion. The chief justice’s incentives to write the opinion at all costs were fairly high.
Absent Roberts, the most senior justice in a majority to uphold the law -- who would presumably assign himself the opinion -- would be Kennedy. But Kennedy is actually fairly conservative on federalism issues. He joined the opinion of the court in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, two critical Commerce Clause cases. Even if he wanted to uphold the health care law in its entirety, it’s unlikely he would write an opinion that would set the stage for overruling those other decisions. In other words, Roberts doesn’t have the same incentive that Rehnquist might have had to vote strategically. (In fairness, we should also bear in mind that Rehnquist might have voted sincerely in Dickerson.)
So, do I see any chance at all that the law will be upheld? Yes, and here’s why: First, oral arguments are not dispositive, and I think conservatives have been irrationally exuberant over the tone of those arguments. The Arizona immigration decision and the juvenile life-without-parole cases looked to be in real trouble post-argument, and yet both turned out fairly well for liberals.
Indeed, even votes cast at conference aren’t dispositive. Most famously, Kennedy is reported to have changed his vote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey very late in the opinion-writing process. Regardless, we can’t really write off the possibility that the chief justice simply believes the law is constitutional -- the question does, after all, split conservative legal scholars.
Second, Justice Scalia’s dissent in the immigration case caught my attention. In 2000, a co-worker of mine who had clerked for Scalia pointed to this gratuitous concurrence in NFTC v. Crosby as a sign of future losses for conservatives. Sure enough, bad losses followed in the partial-birth abortion decision and a major school prayer case.
Since then, I have noticed that Scalia’s opinions do, in fact, become more caustic when things aren’t going well for conservatives. So it seems noteworthy that his scathing dissent in Arizona v. United States dwelled at length on the erosion of state sovereignty, which is really at the core of the conservative argument against the individual mandate. Is this a sign of his frustration with the way things are going on the health care law?
If this seems like thin gruel to you, I concur. I wouldn’t give more than a 15 to 20 percent chance of the Affordable Care Act being upheld. And even that slim chance really is more a nod to the fact that we don’t know what is going on in the justices’ heads, so even when all the evidence points one direction, we have to leave some room for the opposite outcome.
I won't dwell on the arguments for and against striking down the individual mandate, which have been beaten to death by this point. But I do wish to emphasize that there’s also a substantial chance that the court will strike down the entire law, contrary to what almost all news outlets have reported recently. This issue turns around the arcane question of severability, and there’s a reason CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin called the arguments on this issue a “plane crash” for the government (as opposed to a mere “train wreck” after the arguments on the mandate).
Basically, laws typically include a severability clause specifying that if any portion of the law is struck down as unconstitutional, the remainder should survive. But Congress didn’t include a severability clause in the health care law.
The good news for liberals is that the court typically maintains a presumption in favor of severability. In other words, even if there isn’t an explicit severability clause, it will nevertheless sever the unconstitutional portion if it feels it can do so without affecting the rest of the law. This makes eminent sense; if it finds an abortion rider to the HHS appropriations bill unconstitutional, there’s no reason to say that Congress can’t spend money on, say, Head Start, since Congress pretty clearly wouldn’t have intended for the two issues to either rise or fall together.
But the health care law is a much closer call. During the run-up to enactment, it was depicted as a series of interlocking parts: Guaranteed issue meant that anyone was eligible to purchase insurance, making universal coverage possible. The individual mandate meant that the so-called “death spiral,” where people wait until they are sick to purchase insurance due to guaranteed issue, thus driving up costs, would not occur. The subsidies enabled people to comply with the mandate. The exchanges allowed market forces to control costs after all of these regulations were implemented.
It isn’t at all clear how well these other pieces work without the individual mandate, nor is it obvious how the justices are supposed to decide what stays and what goes. There are congressional findings, for example, suggesting that the mandate is essential for the proper functioning of the exchanges, but there are also reasons to believe that the exchanges could still function well -- albeit not perfectly -- without the mandate. There are also items such as the Black Lung Benefits Act, which plainly could operate without the mandate. So once the court starts down the road of striking down things other than the mandate, it really has to go through a 2,700-page bill and make hundreds of judgment calls as to what stays and what goes. .
I think there are two main reasons that the court might choose not to infer severability and either throw out the entire law, or throw out Title I (and possibly Title II), effectively gutting the bill. First, the government let the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent: It conceded that if the court threw out the mandate, then a few other provisions, such as guaranteed issue and community rating, would have to go as well.
The problem is, once you’ve conceded that the court has to go down this road in some cases, the justices have a much harder time drawing a principled line in the sand as to where they should stop.
Second, and relatedly, having read the transcripts, I don’t see much evidence suggesting that the five justices believed they could decide which pieces to throw out and which to keep. Consider the following colloquy:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, if that is true, what is the difference between guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions on the one hand and other provisions that increase costs substantially for insurance companies?
DEPUTY SOLICTOR GENERAL EDWIN KNEEDLER: Congress did not think of those things as balancing insurance companies. Insurance companies are participants in the market for Medicaid and -- and other things.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But you are saying we have the expertise to make the inquiry you want us to make, i.e., the guaranteed-issue, but not the expertise that Justice Alito’s question suggests we must make.
MR. KNEEDLER: Well --
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I just don’t understand your position.
And so it went. The questions directed at Paul Clement (representing the plaintiffs in the case) didn’t push him at all on the substance, they simply pressed him on exactly what test the court should apply. Again, we can’t know when the justices were playing devil’s advocate, and when they were expressing their “true” views. But the evidence that they won’t sever the law is substantially greater than the evidence that they would uphold the entire thing.
Two arguments are typically presented in response. First, that Chief Justice Roberts is concerned about the court’s credibility. I do think that is the case, but I also think he can read a poll as well as anyone else, and the polling suggests that the American people are at the very least comfortable with the idea of striking down the law in its entirety. While the legal academy might be up in arms, the American people wouldn’t view striking down the law as another Bush v. Gore.
The second argument is that Justice Kennedy wouldn’t want to go down this road. This badly misreads him. Kennedy was typically lumped in with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as a moderate. Kennedy is a centrist, but in the sense that libertarians come out as centrists on typical political ideology tests. Kennedy is not squishy -- he is heterodox, and he isn’t afraid to author broad opinions taking strong stands. If he thinks the whole law has to go, he’ll vote to knock out the entire law.
At the end of the day, this really is like Kremlinology -- trying to deduce the inner workings of a hermetically sealed institution. There’s substantial uncertainty here. I do think the most likely course of action for the court is striking down the mandate and related insurance provisions, simply because of the tendency to presume severability and the closeness of the question. But it is a close question.
//
Sean Trende is Senior Elections Analyst for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at strende@realclearpolitics.com.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/27/why_the_whole_health_care_law_is_in_jeopardy_114626-full.html at June 27, 2012 - 06:36:26 PM PDT
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
My Prediction on Tomorrow’s Obamacare Ruling
National Review ^ | 06/27/2012 | Ed Whelan
Posted on June 27, 2012 9:41:39 PM EDT by SeekAndFind
I’ve abstained up until now from making any predictions on how the Obamacare cases will be decided. But I’m now ready to offer my own reading of the tea leaves. Specifically, the fact that Justice Scalia read his dissent from the bench in the Arizona immigration case leads me to believe that the Court will invalidate the individual mandate by a 5-4 vote.
Let me explain the logical links (and expose their potential weaknesses):
1. As I understood it when I was a law clerk for Justice Scalia twenty years ago, there was an etiquette at the Court that any single justice would read a dissent from the bench no more than once each term. I gather that that etiquette is no longer uniformly acknowledged or accepted—Justice Ginsburg, I believe, has read two or more dissents in some terms. But I believe that the public record would show that Scalia has continued to abide by it.
Maybe I’m wrong on this (in which case the premise of this post collapses). I’m not aware of any reliable record of cases in which justices have read their dissents from the bench, so perhaps Scalia hasn’t continue to abide by the standard. Or, even if he hasn’t departed from it before, perhaps that’s just happenstance.
2. It seems very likely that the Chief Justice is the author of the lead opinion in the Obamacare cases. Among other things, he is the only justice not to have issued a majority opinion from the March and April sittings. Also, he has written only six majority opinions so far this term, when nearly everyone else is at seven or eight. (Justice Thomas has written only six opinions, but he presumably was assigned the remaining ruling from the November. Justice Sotomayor is also at six, but she appears to have lost the majority in one of the October cases.)
3. If the Chief Justice were authoring an opinion upholding the individual mandate and if Scalia were dissenting from that holding, Scalia, as the senior justice in dissent, would have the prerogative to assign himself the lead dissent. I don’t see why he would pass over that option. Further, given what seem to be the relative magnitudes of the Obamacare and Arizona immigration cases, I think it highly likely that Scalia would preserve the Obamacare dissent for the one he would read from the bench. Indeed, the fact that his dissent in the Arizona case was a solo dissent (neither Thomas nor Alito joined it) makes it even less likely as a choice. Therefore, from his reading his dissent in the Arizona case, I infer (tentatively, to be sure) that Scalia is not in dissent in the Obamacare cases.
(Obviously, if Scalia is voting to uphold the individual mandate, my analysis collapses.)
[Update: Oops. It turns out that I’m demonstrably wrong on Scalia’s practice on reading dissents, as he had already read his dissent from the bench in March in a pair of linked cases. Maybe that bolsters my bottom-line prediction by making it even less likely that he would read a dissent for a third time in a single term, but it certainly upsets my line of reasoning.]
-
I won't engage in predictions on the outcome; we will know soon enough. With that said, I think that if the Supremes strike down the mandate it will be because S.G. Verrilli failed to clearly articulate how the mandate can be upheld without giving Congress what would, essentially, amount to a blank check to impose other mandates (i.e. the famous broccoli argument).
Let's get our opinion-reading glasses on folks! ;D
-
I won't engage in predictions on the outcome; we will know soon enough. With that said, I think that if the Supremes strike down the mandate it will be because S.G. Verrilli failed to clearly articulate how the mandate can be upheld without giving Congress what would, essentially, amount to a blank check to impose other mandates (i.e. the famous broccoli argument).
Let's get our opinion-reading glasses on folks! ;D
the problem is that there is not one single case cited by TJE govt endorsing TJE idea that the F'ed govt can compel commerce in order to regulate it.
-
I won't engage in predictions on the outcome; we will know soon enough. With that said, I think that if the Supremes strike down the mandate it will be because S.G. Verrilli failed to clearly articulate how the mandate can be upheld without giving Congress what would, essentially, amount to a blank check to impose other mandates (i.e. the famous broccoli argument).
Let's get our opinion-reading glasses on folks! ;D
Im gonna go ahead and steal your stance for my own, as it makes a lot of sense to me.
Thank you for making my mind up for me.
-
I won't engage in predictions on the outcome; we will know soon enough. With that said, I think that if the Supremes strike down the mandate it will be because S.G. Verrilli failed to clearly articulate how the mandate can be upheld without giving Congress what would, essentially, amount to a blank check to impose other mandates (i.e. the famous broccoli argument).
Let's get our opinion-reading glasses on folks! ;D
True. The implications even beyond broccoli are frightening.
-
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees#p1
-
The notion of a mandate vs a tax is very offensive to me. not that I like taxes, I don't. But taxes are legal wo question. a mandate to. Purchase private goods and services wo limit is beyond words offensive to my thinking.
-
Henninger: The President That Time Forgot
ObamaCare was a legislative monolith, out of sync with an iPad world.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Leaked national security secrets may be a dime a dozen now, but the Supreme Court still sits as the last major American institution that doesn't conduct its business out the back door. Which is to say none of the Supreme Court's nine justices called me to reveal their ObamaCare decision before its Thursday annunciation. What difference does that make? Anyone who had to wait for the Supreme Court to tell them what the Affordable Care Act represents is too far behind the curve to ever catch up. Alas, that includes Barack Obama, the president that time forgot.
ObamaCare was a legislative monolith, out of sync with an iPad world. Photo: Getty Images
.
.
Whether ObamaCare was affirmed or overturned by the ladies and men in robes, nothing was going to change one unimpeachable fact: From day one, the Obama health-care legislation was swimming against the tides of history. It was a legislative monolith out of sync with an iPad world. In the era of the smartphone, ObamaCare was rotary-dial health reform.
The signs this was so were everywhere, but Barack Obama and the Pelosi-Reid edition of the Democratic Party blew past them. Years before it arrived at the Supreme Court's door, the Obama health-care law was unpopular with the American public. With occasional exceptions, its unfavorables have been above 50% for nearly three years. And why not? It runs counter to the daily experience of virtually everyone.
Electronics, foods, fashion, entertainment, apps, social media, appliances—pretty much anything that escapes the cold hands of a public agency is laid before us in a dazzling, unprecedented array of choices. Despite all the incoming, people learned to navigate the options. Virtually everyone has become adept at customizing a personal milieu that suits them. Given a reasonably growing economy, they'll be able to sustain these choices.
In this context, the Affordable Care Act gave new meaning to the word "outlier." Starting with the insurance mandate. Of course most people hated it. They're living in a world turning more anti-mandate by the minute, and the Democrats are ordering them all into a national health-insurance pool.
Back in 2010, some Democrats talked like it was 1937 all over again. They intoned how for 70 years they've wanted to enact a big national health-care law. The Depression—those were the glory days. Or they said ObamaCare's coverage-for-all would close the policy loop left open 45 years ago with Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. So naturally one pillar of the Obama health-care law was to push more people into Medicaid's already faceless, frightening maw.
This is a Democratic Party whose political survival now is yoked to monolithic public-employee unions that themselves haven't allowed a new idea in 40 years. The teachers unions persist in an irrational, immoral refusal to try other ways of teaching inner-city kids.
Public-employee unions in California are letting towns and cities—the latest is Stockton—slide over the fiscal cliff. Since JFK, the Democrats have departed once from a political one-size-must-fit-all, and that was the Clinton welfare reform, which freed impoverished women to enter the private economy inhabited by everyone else. That was it. The Republicans, to their discredit, don't have an alternative to ObamaCare, but at least they're not still building more Titanics.
The Affordable Care Act is the exhibit du jour, but there is a disconnect nearly everywhere between governments and the reality of the way life is lived by the people they govern. Across Europe, the young are being drowned by something known as "the welfare state." It sounds more Orwellian than it did the first time. Other than the crude imperatives of survival amid a modernizing people, the Chinese Communist Party is clueless.
It remains astonishing that even now, the one American politician who instinctively grasped that the standard model of 20th-century government needed to adjust was Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama deployed the new world of social media in 2008 to become president, and then violated every new thing social media represents with a health-care law whose central processing unit is the antiquarian Department of Health and Human Services. He similarly nationalized student loans, forcing college students to deal with the punch-card mainframes or whatever they use at the U.S. Department of Education.
The public sector of its nature will always be behind the curve. But does it have to be routinely out of it, as Washington is now? The American people await a national politician or political party whose public policies at least occupy the same universe that the electronic tablet represents—real value that can be altered and upgraded to admit new realities.
Over time, a health-care dinosaur like ObamaCare was likely to implode under its own weight. It was inevitable that some future Congress would be forced to allow the delivery of medicine to join the rest of us in the 21st century. With or without the Supreme Court's thoughts Thursday on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, that day lies in the future.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
A version of this article appeared June 28, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The President That Time Forgot.
-
FUCKING AWESOME!
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live
-
I'm thinking 6-3 down w the mandate
5-4 upholding the rest.
why do you think the SC upheld it?
-
why do you think the SC upheld it?
Not wanting to talk right now.
Why do I think Roberts upheld? I think Roberts is like W - a liar, a fraud, a snake, and an establishment statist.
-
I'm thinking 6-3 down w the mandate
5-4 upholding the rest.
One of your great predictions...
Landslide coming ::)
-
One of your great predictions...
Landslide coming ::)
You Obama drones are just blind to the fact Obamacare is going down and your messias will fail. Im 333... and i have been right all along but you welfare leeches are to brainwashed to see it.
Romney 2012!!!
-
One of your great predictions...
Landslide coming ::)
Good, cheer on this bullshit, typical. Fucking typical of the obama drones.
-
Why do I think Roberts upheld? I think Roberts is like W - a liar, a fraud, a snake, and an establishment statist.
Roberts decided with the Left on Arizona and Stolen Valor as well as Obamacare.
-
Good, cheer on this bullshit, typical. Fucking typical of the obama drones.
i think they're just shitting on you, rather than cheering on obamacare.
I just hope we get more from romney than "I'm going to repeal it".
Romney needs to come out with an ALLTERATIVE. Simply saying "I'll end is so things can be as bad as they were without it" didn't work for repubs 4 years ago, and it sure as shit won't work now that SCOTUS supports it.
And, watch the 'me too' bandwagon as polls suddenly show americans support the bill. watch and see, it'll shift now.
-
At this point, a repub congress in 2013 can unfund parts of obamacare, BUT, anything that is regulatory in nature, THEY CANNOT TOUCH.
So when Romney says "I will repeal obamacare", what he is really saying is "The repubs in the house will get a bill thru, senate will approve with 51 votes, and I wont stand in the way - and we will be able to reverse SOME OF THE PARTS of obamacare".
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/can-mitt-romney-really-repeal-obamacare
And many agree it'll be too late to change the actual reality of what people see - it'll be a paperwork change but the companies will have already changed over.
-
Not wanting to talk right now.
Why do I think Roberts upheld? I think Roberts is like W - a liar, a fraud, a snake, and an establishment statist.
that's a first for you
dude - think the of the 100's of hours you wasted ranting and raving only to be proven completely and totally wrong
-
that's a first for you
dude - think the of the 100's of hours you wasted ranting and raving only to be proven completely and totally wrong
He writes on the tab of the people he represent. He is a lawyer remember?
-
He writes on the tab of the people he represent. He is a lawyer remember?
yep, either that or he doesn't work very much which is my guess
-
yep, either that or he doesn't work very much which is my guess
He works 24/7 he is a true free market capitalist remember?
-
i think they're just shitting on you, rather than cheering on obamacare.
I just hope we get more from romney than "I'm going to repeal it".
Romney needs to come out with an ALLTERATIVE. Simply saying "I'll end is so things can be as bad as they were without it" didn't work for repubs 4 years ago, and it sure as shit won't work now that SCOTUS supports it.
And, watch the 'me too' bandwagon as polls suddenly show americans support the bill. watch and see, it'll shift now.
I hate this Obama care shit... but i like shittin on 3333.
-
I hate this Obama care shit... but i like shittin on 3333.
Fine - i was wrong on this. Can't say otherwise.
Its still a disastrous ruling opening thwe doors for literally anything at all for the govt to force us to do.
-
I hate this Obama care shit... but i like shittin on 3333.
I like it...but i also like shittin on 3333 :)
-
Fine - i was wrong on this. Can't say otherwise.
Its still a disastrous ruling opening thwe doors for literally anything at all for the govt to force us to do.
Youre like a child...
"fine"
-
How could you guys have been so wrong?
6-3 or 5-4 was most of your guys predictions.
Confident Obama is still not getting reelected?
-
How could you guys have been so wrong?
6-3 or 5-4 was most of your guys predictions.
Confident Obama is still not getting reelected?
No one ever imagined Roberts would be turncoat. Everyone thought it would be Kennedy alone.
-
3333 right as always
;D
-
How could you guys have been so wrong?
6-3 or 5-4 was most of your guys predictions.
Confident Obama is still not getting reelected?
With regards to your last question, I am.
I would have been wrong anyway, had it gone down, because I said it would be 6-3.
Ironically, on the way home, I was listening to Savage, who called it saying it'd be upheld since Roberts was writing the opinion.
If Romney has an angle, it's to hit Obama with his line about not raising taxes on the middle class.
By 2016, you will be charged nearly $700 if you don't guy health insurance.
-
3333 right as always
;D
I was wrong.
But that doesnt make it any better or worse at just how fucking disastrous this all is.
-
By 2016, you will be charged nearly $700 if you don't guy health insurance.
a month, or year?
-
a month, or year?
You are forced to pay a % of your income as a tax and the IRS is the enforcement mechanicsm.
Yeah Freedom!
-
Y
-
Fine - i was wrong on this. Can't say otherwise.
Its still a disastrous ruling opening thwe doors for literally anything at all for the govt to force us to do.
paranoid much
the problem you have is that you are mentally and emotionally unstable and I think thing are only going to get worse for you over time
Do us all a favor and before you snap and grab your guns try to step back and relax and seek some medical help
-
How could you guys have been so wrong?
6-3 or 5-4 was most of your guys predictions.
Confident Obama is still not getting reelected?
I said it was going to be upheld in the prediction thread a couple of days ago and did so with no equivocation or hedging
-
With regards to your last question, I am.
I would have been wrong anyway, had it gone down, because I said it would be 6-3.
Ironically, on the way home, I was listening to Savage, who called it saying it'd be upheld since Roberts was writing the opinion.
If Romney has an angle, it's to hit Obama with his line about not raising taxes on the middle class.
By 2016, you will be charged nearly $700 if you don't guy health insurance.
I am surprised, i didn't think it was going to pass either.
-
To me, this is just another thing that supports the theory of the puppet show in that the whole repub vs dem is nothing but BS.
-
paranoid much
the problem you have is that you are mentally and emotionally unstable and I think thing are only going to get worse for you over time
Do us all a favor and before you snap and grab your guns try to step back and relax and seek some medical help
Straw - lets say Romney wins and he is facing a massive loss on GM bailout to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. To recoup said losses he says that every American is forced to buy a Chevy product every five years or face a tax.
Would you be ok with that?
If not, why not under the same rationale used to justify ObamaCare?
-
To me, this is just another thing that supports the theory of the puppet show in that the whole repub vs dem is nothing but BS.
great call. many of us said we'd be in libya and with obamacare with a president mccain right now too.
-
Straw - lets say Romney wins and he is facing a massive loss on GM bailout to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. To recoup said losses he says that every American is forced to buy a Chevy product every five years or face a tax.
Would you be ok with that?
If not, why not under the same rationale used to justify ObamaCare?
1. Romney is not going to win
2. No one is going to make you buy a chevy or anything else. What's with you and these absurd scenarios?
-
1. Romney is not going to win
2. No one is going to make you buy a chevy or anything else. What's with you and these absurd scenarios?
Why is it any different than what happened today?
-
Why is it any different than what happened today?
In your delusional fractured mind, it isn't.
-
In your delusional fractured mind, it isn't.
Really - how about an answer?
-
An answer based in logic, common sense or just collective opinion will not penetrate your cloak of denial and shield of deflection.
-
Why is it any different than what happened today?
I'm going to entertain your stupidity for one post and then I'm done
first I'd like to point at that I took a couple well deserved jabs at you this morning but really nothing more than what I do on any day. If this ruling had gone the other way I'm sure you'd be in a frenzy of self-congratulations right now while constantly insulting anyone who disagreed with you.
On to your absurd premise
first the health care law was not created to help prop up insurane companies or recoup losses from insurance companies so right out of the gate you're on the wrong track
second, if it followed the health care ruling then if you already had a car they couldn't use this law to make you buy a car
third if you couldn't afford a care you'd probably be exempt from the requirement to buy one or given assistance to buy one or you would be exempt from the penalty
fourth - if you could afford to buy a car but chose not to buy one then you could pay a penalty rather than being forced to buy a car
fifth - the entire premise is profoundly stupid and misguided and has no basis in reality - refer back to my first point
-
An answer based in logic, common sense or just collective opinion will not penetrate your cloak of denial and shield of deflection.
Whatever you stalking gay wretch.
Under this ruling the government can force us to purchase ANYTHING or face a tax.
-
I'm going to entertain your stupidity for one post and then I'm done
first I'd like to point at that I took a couple well deserved jabs at you this morning but really nothing more than what I do on any day. If this ruling had gone the other way I'm sure you'd be in a frenzy of self-congratulations right now while constantly insulting anyone who disagreed with you.
On to your absurd premise
first the health care law was not created to help prop up insurane companies or recoup losses from insurance companies so right out of the gate you're on the wrong track
second, if it followed the health care ruling then if you already had a car they couldn't use this law to make you buy a car
third if you couldn't afford a care you'd probably be exempt from the requirement to buy one or given assistance to buy one or you would be exempt from the penalty
fourth - if you could afford to buy a car but chose not to buy one then you could pay a penalty rather than being forced to buy a car
fifth - the entire premise is profoundly stupid and misguided and has no basis in reality - refer back to my first point
Thank you for exposing your statist progressive govt knows best always belief system.
-
Whatever you stalking gay wretch.
Under this ruling the government can force us to purchase ANYTHING or face a tax.
why do you always accuse everyone of being gay
clearly you think calling someone gay is some kind insult
You have to be the biggest homophobe and closet case on this board
-
Thank you for exposing your statist progressive govt knows best always belief system.
I see once again that nothing can penetrate that belief system of yours
-
Under this ruling the government can force us to purchase ANYTHING or face a tax.
I haven't yet read the ruling to know if that's the case, but commentary I heard suggests that Roberts tried to tailor the decision as tightly as possible. We'll see what the decision implies as we go through it and read it carefully. It's just not possible to digest such a decision in one reading.
Interesting times we live in...
-
why do you always accuse everyone of being gay
clearly you think calling someone gay is some kind insult
You have to be the biggest homophobe and closet case on this board
You think?
Lives with mommy
Middle age, never married, no kids
Imaginary girlfriend
In a constant state of drama and hysterics
Can't control his gay projections on the board.
Gayer than a Mitt Romney charm bracelet.
-
You think?
Lives with mommy
Middle age, never married, no kids
Imaginary girlfriend
In a constant state of drama and hysterics
Can't control his gay projections on the board.
Gayer than a Mitt Romney charm bracelet.
maybe it's the reason why he so damn angry all the time
profound self loathing due to being a closet case
-
maybe it's the reason why he so damn angry all the time
profound self loathing due to being a closet case
Nah - a little something called facicsm and tyranny I have a problem with.
-
Nah - a little something called facicsm and tyranny I have a problem with.
But home land terrorist acts and pathological lying is Ok in your eyes.
::)
-
Nah - a little something called facicsm and tyranny I have a problem with.
feel free to leave
better hurry before Master Obama makes you buy a Chevy Volt
-
But home land terrorist acts and pathological lying is Ok in your eyes.
::)
You mean pathological lying like Obama......
- ObamaCare isn't a tax.
- It'll cost under a trillion dollars
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
- If you make under $250,000, your taxes won't increase "one dime".
- It will decrease premiums
-
- If you like your plan, you can keep it
Why do you say that particular statement is a lie?
-
Why do you say that particular statement is a lie?
Because most companies are going to drop their plans and pay the fine and dump their employees into the govt exchange.
-
Im a sad panda. D=
-
Why do you say that particular statement is a lie?
If your boss deems your policy too expensive to foot the bill, he's going to drop the plan, leaving you to find another plan (surprise, surprise!! It'll be the government's plan).
-
If your boss deems your policy too expensive to foot the bill, he's going to drop the plan, leaving you to find another plan (surprise, surprise!! It'll be the government's plan).
My friend at Boeing thinks this is the plan.
If the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore.
Think how much money the huge megacorp's can save by not offering health insurance.
-
My friend at Boeing thinks this is the plan.
If the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore.
Think how much money the huge megacorp's can save by not offering health insurance.
Obama and his cult lemmings deserve ..............
-
If your boss deems your policy too expensive to foot the bill, he's going to drop the plan, leaving you to find another plan (surprise, surprise!! It'll be the government's plan).
I'm not familiar with federal employment law vis-à-vis health insurance, but is that different from before ObamaCare (modulo the 'government plan' bit)? After all, isn't your employer free to decide to stop offering health insurance, just like you're free to find another job if health insurance is important to you? Or were employers already required to offer health insurance before ObamaCare?
My friend at Boeing thinks this is the plan.
If the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore.
Think how much money the huge megacorp's can save by not offering health insurance.
Huh? This just doesn't compute... if your employer has a corporate insurance plan and you're on it, then you're covered and there's no "tax" (aka penalty) you have to pay. Under ObamaCare the "tax" only comes into play if you don't maintain health insurance.
So, how exactly does your friends' thinking correspond to reality?
-
I'm not familiar with federal employment law vis-à-vis health insurance, but is that different from before ObamaCare (modulo the 'government plan' bit)? After all, isn't your employer free to decide to stop offering health insurance, just like you're free to find another job if health insurance is important to you? Or were employers already required to offer health insurance before ObamaCare?
Huh? This just doesn't compute... if your employer has a corporate insurance plan and you're on it, then you're covered and there's no "tax" (aka penalty) you have to pay. Under ObamaCare the "tax" only comes into play if you don't maintain health insurance.
So, how exactly does your friends' thinking correspond to reality?
False false false.
employer gets to pay 2000 dollar fine and dump your ass into govt exchange.
-
False false false.
employer gets to pay 2000 dollar fine and dump your ass into govt exchange.
First of all, you aren't answering my question. Before ObamaCare were employers required to provide health insurance? If not, they could stop offering the plan at any time. So how does that change?
Secondly, Shockwave's friend believes that "f the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore." How does that make any sense? If they have healthcare from Boeing now, they would pay no Obamacare penalty/tax. So what expensive tax is he referring as far as employees deciding to drop coverage? How would an expensive tax factor into such a decision?
-
I can't wait to hear dumb ass Rick Perry's reason for refusing to cover some 6 million Texans now with no insurance, with the Fed share at 100% for the 1st 3 years, because he WILL. Or else. HaHaHa.
Great reflection of a party candidate.
-
First of all, you aren't answering my question. Before ObamaCare were employers required to provide health insurance? If not, they could stop offering the plan at any time. So how does that change?
Secondly, Shockwave's friend believes that "f the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore." How does that make any sense? If they have healthcare from Boeing now, they would pay no Obamacare penalty/tax. So what expensive tax is he referring as far as employees deciding to drop coverage? How would an expensive tax factor into such a decision?
I believe he was referring to the "Premium insurance tax" (I remember him referencing 40% somewhere), and it being passed on to the employee, and the employee's dumping it.
You'll have to forgive me, Im not well read up on the subject. He did a lot of research, is fairly liberal and was for a universal healthcare system, but he was pretty pissed off.
-
First of all, you aren't answering my question. Before ObamaCare were employers required to provide health insurance? If not, they could stop offering the plan at any time. So how does that change?
Secondly, Shockwave's friend believes that "f the employees decide to drop the coverage due to the expensive tax, then Boeing won't have to offer it anymore." How does that make any sense? If they have healthcare from Boeing now, they would pay no Obamacare penalty/tax. So what expensive tax is he referring as far as employees deciding to drop coverage? How would an expensive tax factor into such a decision?
Employers got a tax write off before. however, now they will pay a fine if the insurance offered is too good or can pay. A fine if not offering anything. The fine is less than the cost of ObamaCare. thus, most employers are going to dump the expensive plans , pay the fine, and dump people into the govt plan.
-
Employers got a tax write off before. however, now they will pay a fine if the insurance offered is too good or can pay. A fine if not offering anything. The fine is less than the cost of ObamaCare. thus, most employers are going to dump the expensive plans , pay the fine, and dump people into the govt plan.
That is very simplistic thinking. Employees (and prospective employees) look at perks as a big part of the offer when considering different employment opportunities.
And given the choice between a job with a nice plan and a public "bare minimum" plan, they will probably go for the nice plan, all other things being equal.
-
That is very simplistic thinking. Employees (and prospective employees) look at perks as a big part of the offer when considering different employment opportunities.
And given the choice between a job with a nice plan and a public "bare minimum" plan, they will probably go for the nice plan, all other things being equal.
CBO said 20 million are going to lose their plans due to this issue.
-
CBO said 20 million are going to lose their plans due to this issue.
I take the CBO predictions with a grain of salt. Speaking for myself, if I were evaluating two competing job offers that we're equivalent except for the health plans, I'd choose the private health plan over the public plan.
Perhaps that won't be an option in 10 years. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
-
I take the CBO predictions with a grain of salt. Speaking for myself, if I were evaluating two competing job offers that we're equivalent except for the health plans, I'd choose the private health plan over the public plan.
Perhaps that won't be an option in 10 years. I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
In a depressed economy many employees will not have a choice of they want to keep their job.
-
In a depressed economy many employees will not have a choice of they want to keep their job.
Whether you have Obamacare or not, how is that different. An employer says: "Fuck it, I don't want to spend any money on employee healthcare. I am dropping the healthcare plan effective July 1st!" Sure employees could try to complain but, as you so aptly put it, "in a depressed economy many employees will not have a choice of they want to keep their job."
I don't buy this notion that employers will magically drop healthcare plans. The simple fact of the matter is that when people are looking for jobs, they examine their options and rate them based on criteria important to them. If good healthcare options are important, then employers will have to provide those options to lure the best people to come work for them, whether Obamacare is an option or not.
The calculus that businesses engage in isn't just "Oh, I can pay this fine and save this much over the healthcare plan I have now." That's a part of the equation, to be sure. But the remaining part, that is just as important is the part that says: "my current employees say that the plan I have them on, which has perks X, Y and Z was a big factor in their decision to work for me and maybe dropping this plan would make keeping existing talent and recruiting new one more difficult."
-
Whether you have Obamacare or not, how is that different. An employer says: "Fuck it, I don't want to spend any money on employee healthcare. I am dropping the healthcare plan effective July 1st!" Sure employees could try to complain but, as you so aptly put it, "in a depressed economy many employees will not have a choice of they want to keep their job."
I don't buy this notion that employers will magically drop healthcare plans. The simple fact of the matter is that when people are looking for jobs, they examine their options and rate them based on criteria important to them. If good healthcare options are important, then employers will have to provide those options to lure the best people to come work for them, whether Obamacare is an option or not.
The calculus that businesses engage in isn't just "Oh, I can pay this fine and save this much over the healthcare plan I have now." That's a part of the equation, to be sure. But the remaining part, that is just as important is the part that says: "my current employees say that the plan I have them on, which has perks X, Y and Z was a big factor in their decision to work for me and maybe dropping this plan would make keeping existing talent and recruiting new one more difficult."
And, therein lies the problem. People think, because a disaster doesn't happen instantly, there's no problem with the law.
As stated elsewhere, cancer doesn't kill immediately, either. It starts off small. But, by the time you realize it's there, it (almost) is too late to stop it.
-
And, therein lies the problem. People think, because a disaster doesn't happen instantly, there's no problem with the law.
As stated elsewhere, cancer doesn't kill immediately, either. It starts off small. But, by the time you realize it's there, it (almost) is too late to stop it.
Oh, don't misunderstand. I don't like Obamacare and don't think it's good law†. I just don't think that the situation that 333386 was describing is sensible. Employers won't just magically drop their own healthcare plans in favor of the minimum possible coverage that ObamaCare providers.
† I do think that a workable solution to some of the problems could have been achieved, without necessarily requiring such a heavy-handed Government intervention, but that's an unrelated issue.
-
And, therein lies the problem. People think, because a disaster doesn't happen instantly, there's no problem with the law.
As stated elsewhere, cancer doesn't kill immediately, either. It starts off small. But, by the time you realize it's there, it (almost) is too late to stop it.
Yes public health care is cancer ::)
Look at the bright side you will now be able to get treathment unlike before