Official Health Care Ruling Thread (Obamacare upheld)

[FSP-Rebel]

Here's Eric Erickson's take on the SC from Red State

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

is he for realz?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not going to lie, I'm stunned by this news. I can't see any way this mandate is Constitutional. I really didn't see this coming.

I'm pretty stunned too.

 

[LadyBastiat]

I actually think we f'd up the healthcare system the minute we allowed someone else to pay for our bills...whether it's insurance or whether it's government in the form of medicare, medicaid, Obamacare or whatever. At that moment, it stopped being a market for healthcare and started being a market for insurance. Since many people have/had their employers paying for their insurance (and taxes pay for medicare) we stopped worrying about it. Until recently. And this is what we get for it.

The root of the whole shebang! The one opportunity to utilize the commerce clause in an appropriate way would be to open up competition across state lines for the purchasing of insurance and to eliminate individual state licensing requirements.

But, yes, today's SC decision can be traced back to wage controls put in place by the government following/during WWII that led to companies offering "health insurance" and "benefits" as a way to compete for employees.

 

[romancito]

I actually think we f'd up the healthcare system the minute we allowed someone else to pay for our bills...whether it's insurance or whether it's government in the form of medicare, medicaid, Obamacare or whatever. At that moment, it stopped being a market for healthcare and started being a market for insurance. Since many people have/had their employers paying for their insurance (and taxes pay for medicare) we stopped worrying about it. Until recently. And this is what we get for it.

You are quite right. And I have a solution. Run healthcare like the construction industry is run. Designers vs. Contractors. Diagnosticians vs. Treatments. Bid everything to get the lowest bidder per patient diagnosis and per patient treatment. No insurance, no government. Just sue if not happy with results.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Stunned is an understatement.

 

[jbauer]

The private sector not affiliated with the government will be crushed by this ruling. Secondly, you're underestimating the supply and demand implications brought forth by this ruling. Quality of service will decline. The amount of quality medical personnel will decrease. This all leads down the same path. Ruin.

You're NEVER going to get rid of the private sector insurance game. We're headed to a single payor system like medicare where you'll be able to buy supplemental insurance if you want.

You're also assuming that we have quality of service and access to the service now. What if I don't see it that way? What if I see a whole bunch of folks who can't see the doctor because they're scared of what will show up on their medical reports?

This country is headed to ruin regardless of this ruling. I'll take my chances with a sigal payor system over what we have now even with it's imperfections. I'm absolutley convinced the only people that speak highly against this are those that are getting health benis paid by their employers now. Those of us who are paying our own way already see how F ucked up the system is.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

God this is just so freaking terrible...

In fact, it is terrible enough to at least get me to consider voting for the other GOP candidates outside of the POTUS.

Ron gets my vote no matter what, but this here today may very well swing me towards actually defeating any Democrats we can.

 

[jmdrake]

What this means is that electing a republican president so that he can make "conservative" appointments to the SCOTUS is meaningless.

 

[AuH20]

You're NEVER going to get rid of the private sector insurance game. We're headed to a single payor system like medicare where you'll be able to buy supplemental insurance if you want.

You're also assuming that we have quality of service and access to the service now. What if I don't see it that way? What if I see a whole bunch of folks who can't see the doctor because they're scared of what will show up on their medical reports?

This country is headed to ruin regardless of this ruling. I'll take my chances with a sigal payor system over what we have now even with it's imperfections. I'm absolutley convinced the only people that speak highly against this are those that are getting health benis paid by their employers now. Those of us who are paying our own way already see how F ucked up the system is.

I'm talking specifically about the private sector (especially those with an employee base of 50 or more) who will have to subsidize this monstrousity. They will simply close their doors or altogether downsize.

 

[romancito]

Oh no, I get it plenty good enough. With the mandate and penalty there is no reason for anyone to buy insurance until they're sick. Atleast that puts us all back on a level playing field. All neighbors will pay the fine, the durggie won't pay the fine because you wont be able to find them and they wont have taxible income anyways.

Heck admit it we're already socialist. Now we've got socialized medicine. This was the next "logical" step regardless of whether it was a step in the right or wrong direction.

If you like that way, wonderful. The doctor will order through the insurance company that the city cut your front lawn tree because it causes allergies to passers by. You will pay the tree cutters. Whatever is deemed unhealthy will be eliminated by doctor's orders, but you will be billed for it. Is nice socialism.

 

[jmdrake]

God this is just so freaking terrible...

In fact, it is terrible enough to at least get me to consider voting for the other GOP candidates outside of the POTUS.

Ron gets my vote no matter what, but this here today may very well swing me towards actually defeating any Democrats we can.

Except John Roberts was nominated by a republican president. So what difference does it make?

 

[abruzz0]

I'm so fucking pissed off right now...Just absolutely enraged....anyone posting here from FEMA ragion 9, I'll see you in the camps in a couple years along with the other "tax evaders"

 

[jmdrake]

Here's Eric Erickson's take on the SC from Red State


is he for realz?

Ummm...that's what I'm thinking. So Roberts voting for Obamacare means we need to elect Romney so that he can nominate other justices that will strike down Obamacare? Oh..and how many times have we in this movement heard this statement?

We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

If anything this is making me rethink the wisdom of the whole "stealth republican" strategy.

 

[AuH20]

Hmmm. I wonder what's happening in gun stores around the country? this ruling has to be great for business. Maybe I will purchase another toy as well...

 

[romancito]

June 28th 2012... another date to add in the long list of days that will be pointed back to when people ask, "How do we lose our freedoms?"

Very, very, very, depressing day...

Absolutely. This will bring about not only an absolute infiltration of the federal government into personal life, but will trickle down to the state, county and city government. Look for more city vans roaming around your neighborhood looking for unhealthy practices, like mowing your lawn without wearing face masks and ear plugs. Do not move until you are given permission by authorities and the place you are moving and you are leaving are completely microbe free.

 

[Spikkle]

Here's my thought...

I am thinking the unconstitutionally oriented powers-that-be (all 3 branches of govt, last I checked..) have set this country on the path. If I am to choose between the two evils for my children, I'd rather go the socialist route than the facist one.

What if we get so overburdened by the social programs that we have to (actually) cut off our military spending overseas in order to pay the interest on our socialist debt? Wouldn't that be great.

The mix of the two (socialist nanny-ism and facist super-military complex) is much more dangerous than just one or the other. That's when you get to where we are now with drones peering into our windows and backyards, terrahertz scanners peering through our clothes, and being rounded up for fema concentration camps to "protect" us.

Take away the facist military budget and pay for the socialist budget and you have people telling you how to look, what to eat, and where to live, and taxing you to heck and back, but at least you might not get shot.

 

[TrishW]

I am going to make an unwelcome opinion.


It is our own fault that health care and insurance has become so pricey. We can't face death. We will spend millions just trying to live another month of two. If people were more realistic about life and death, and did not want every test and every medication available than insurance would not be so high. Yes, I am saying, let grandma die. Let her die with dignity and love..., rather that filled with a countless number of drugs, and hooked up to every machine imaginable.

I also think it sad that people need to be forced by law to take care of their own expenses.

Still... I do not want government involved in health care,. They have a horrible track record. SS, Medicare, even the Post office are all in trouble. Things are going to go from bad to worse, and there is enough blame to go around for everyone.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Here's Eric Erickson's take on the SC from Red State

is he for realz?

A real douche-bag. Lindsey Graham was using this exact same talking point on Fox this morning. These guys are guilty of expanding government to satisfy their blood-lust for wars. Of course they will make apologies, they share in the responsibility for this! And Lindsey Graham is the Senator who has been happy to confirm any Supreme Court nominee put to the Senate for confirmation, including the last three who voted for the mandate!

 

[jbauer]

If you like that way, wonderful. The doctor will order through the insurance company that the city cut your front lawn tree because it causes allergies to passers by. You will pay the tree cutters. Whatever is deemed unhealthy will be eliminated by doctor's orders, but you will be billed for it. Is nice socialism.

Not to be a prick, but whats different about today that wasn't there yesterday? WE ARE SOCALISTS, we've been that way for quite sometime. Get used to it. I'm pretty sure you coudl google a tree being cut down by order of the government and billed to the home owner. Stuff like that happens all the time.

 

[Todd]

I am thinking the unconstitutionally oriented powers-that-be (all 3 branches of govt, last I checked..) have set this country on the path. If I am to choose between the two evils for my children, I'd rather go the socialist route than the facist one.

What if we get so overburdened by the social programs that we have to (actually) cut off our military spending overseas in order to pay the interest on our socialist debt? Wouldn't that be great.

The mix of the two (socialist nanny-ism and facist super-military complex) is much more dangerous than just one or the other. That's when you get to where we are now with drones peering into our windows and backyards, terrahertz scanners peering through our clothes, and being rounded up for fema concentration camps to "protect" us.

Take away the facist military budget and pay for the socialist budget and you have people telling you how to look, what to eat, and where to live, and taxing you to heck and back, but at least you might not get shot.

When that day comes we will have sold our security to a Supranational organization and be under complete tyranny. Terrible either way.