Jun 28 2012

Obamacare Goes Down Today? No!

Published by at 6:31 am under All General Discussions,Obamacare

Update: Here it comes! The Affordable Care Act stands???

Good bye America, I barely knew you. Now we need Romney more than ever… – end update

I am in meetings this morning and will not be able to post immediately on the news, but there seems to be a consensus view that Obamacare will be significantly damaged today, if not completely destroyed.

Liberals (like E. j. Dionne) will wail and complain about democracy at work (Dionne called for Scalia to resign yesterday). It will be a sad parade of blaming others for their very unpopular socialist policies. Being the smartest people on the planet, the left will of course miss the point they are the ones who screwed up trying to shove their minority, naive view down the throats of a savvy, independent, American electorate.

These historically brilliant people missed the message of 2010, so I see no reason for them to get it now in 2012.

Anyway, either I will be eating crow come lunch or popping some champaign, and I am sure everyone is ready to get this thing over with, so have at it in the comments!

Update: Don’t buy the canard newly established norms in healthcare will immediately be pulled. Insurance companies know damn well if an aspect of Obamacare is popular they dare not remove it now, because their competitors will simply pick up a sizable chunk of their customers. So don’t buy into that Chicken-Little nonsense.

21 responses so far

21 Responses to “Obamacare Goes Down Today? No!”

  1. ivehadit says:

    Did Lucianne crash?

    Re this ruling today, I NEVER EVER want to hear George W. Bush’s name nor Jeb Bush nor ANY BUSH EVER again. I no longer will support them.

    Thanks John Roberts. My only happiness with this is that you and your children will enjoy the ObamaYears and get the government and country you deserve. Unfortunately my family will not deserve this.

    kathleen sebelius is going FULL STEAM AHEAD and now the insurance industry is going down totally in the next 7 months. The damage is done. Repeal will mean nothing because the economic damage of this will have already been done. And the precedent set of government OVERREACH. How in the hell that is constitutional, Mr. Roberts is beyond me. Even Justice Kennedy doesn’t buy it. How you as a Supreme Court justice could just legislate is beyond me as well.

    All your little nuances in this ruling ARE LOST on the American public because most of them ONLY respond to power. They will only hear that obama has won, regardless of the truth.


  2. DJStrata says:

    What I want to know is if the mandate was not a tax as Obama and the Democrats argued extensively while this was in Congress, how does it pass the Supreme Court as a tax?

    Way to legislate judges! I’m so unbelievably disappointed in our checks and balances system.

  3. ivehadit says:

    Yes, I don’t believe the country club republicans understand what we are up against with the Left. The Left wants to annihilate. They are not interested in a good-faith relationship. Sad to say, these cc repubs should just “put on their red coats and march in a straight line” in this war for our existence.

  4. Redteam says:

    Now Obama can take credit for a HUGE TAX INCREASE far, far greater than all the Bush Taxes.

    Obama will probably be forever known as the president that passed the LARGEST PERSONAL TAX INCREASE ever.

    old TAX AND SPEND himself.

  5. Mata says:

    I’m still waiting for the voluminous opinion to hit the web for reading. Haven’t seen it yet on the SCOTUS or FindLaw site, but it’s bound to show up at some point. So far, from what I can piece together from furiously spinning pundits is that Roberts said it’s not valid under the Commerce Clause, but under a narrow application of the taxing power of Congress, it can be accomplished.

    That doesn’t mean it can be accomplished the way the current law is set up, so it strikes me that they will have to be doing some changes as to collection and penalties for those not paying a “tax”.

    But that’s not anything new…it’s always been in Congressional power to do this as a tax. None of the lower court opinions disagree with that. As FL’s Vinson had noted, the taxation route would have been fine, but the evidence was strong that Congress never intended it as a tax. They chose not to for badly spent political capital in advance of the 2010 midterms. That didn’t work out so well for them anyway.

    It would seem to me that if they call this now a tax – something they went out of their way to do legislatively – they also have to revamp parts of the law about collection and penalties. If it’s a tax, and isn’t paid, it would fall under current IRS enforcement which can include seizure of assets and incarceration. Unless, of course, they change the IRS laws and enforcement regulations as it relates only to this particular tax. That would be unique in itself… one penalty for not paying a health care tax, and another penalty for not paying all the rest of taxes owed. Huh?

    I doubt that accomplishing O’healthcare by calling it a tax increase of about $6000 to $7000 on those that can’t afford health insurance is going to be a winning campaign slogan. Most especially in this economic climate. But I have no doubt they will be spinning this furiously… both sides.

    I think this, like AZ, is a mixed bag. My largest concern about O’healthcare was a rubber stamp of approval on Congressional expansion of the Commerce Clause. The good news is that the SCOTUS checked that power definitively in the opinion, from what I get from news bits. That’s a huge loss for Congress because now they don’t have that fall back, and have to call the pig what it is… a pig.

  6. ivehadit says:

    The public will not understand the nuances of your writings, Mata…sad to say. But, they will understand tax. Regardless this adminstration is moving very quickly to accomplish what they want and you and I both know what that is: to fundamentally transform America. And with this, they will. Are you aware of some of the extreme invasions of privacy this bill encompasses? 2700 pages…

  7. ivehadit says:

    And Mata, the media will not discuss one single thing about the nuances. They are already out with their talking poinst: victory for obama. Victory for the American People. Mandate upheld.

    John Roberts just kicked the moral authority of republicans to the curb…not to mention the Constitution which says that ONLY Congress can legislate. The court manipulated the words. That is not acceptable to me.

    …makes the vote against Holder look..useless, imho.

    I will say this: the Tea Party just got a tremendous boost..not from the country club republicans but from the hard-working American People. Karl Rove: I dare you to say one bad thing about them.

  8. ivehadit says:

    The thugs can do what they want…look at Arizona.

  9. Mata says:

    Believe me, ivehadit, I am no fan of O’healthcare. I’ve never believed it would pass the Commerce Clause sniff test, but did fear that could be an ugly outcome. Ultimately, despite my disdain for O’healthcare over all, I’m even less a fan of a SCOTUS opinion that would have given their blessings to that unprecedented expansion of the Commerce Clause. For that, I’m extremely happy. They put the kabosh on that idea. And that blessing would have led to the proverbial slippery slope.

    The bill lives in my files on my desktop, and yes… very aware of it’s pitfalls in more than one aspect. What remains to be seen now is how they intend to revamp the law to comply with it as a tax, and not a “penalty or fee” that eludes IRS enforcement.

    We’ll also have to wait to see the majority opinions details on commerce clause vs taxation powers. Roberts did say a “narrow” application of that taxation power, and I don’t know what else specific INRE that narrowed power that the court concluded. Only soundbytes from pundits.

  10. Jinny says:

    Here is the opinion: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Natl_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v_Sebelius_No_11393_US_Ju

    Pelosi was right, they had to pass the bill in order for us to find out what is in it. And since Sebelius can decide everything, we will have no recourse, including the death panels. (My death sentence no doubt.)

    I’m not going to condemn either Bush, but I do wonder why the judges didn’t use the wording of the law which used the commerce mandate and did not call it a a tax nor in the debate was it called it a tax. Instead it was absolutely clear according to Pelosi, Reid and Obama that it was NOT a tax.

    Now our job is to get the Senate in Republican hands, keep the House and elect Romney.

  11. Mata says:

    Actually, ivehadit, AZ was another mixed bag. I was reading that opinion the other day, and the provisions they struck down were because they were criminalizing employees (not employers) for job seeking, and requiring a registry that the federal Congress had already struck down previously. I see why they did those.

    However the mainstay of the AZ law – that LEOs had a right to demand papers – was upheld. This is why Jan Brewer claimed it as a success, while the liberals were claiming success on the other provisions knocked down.

    What was really an embarrassment to the court was that Obama gutted their “show me your papers” provision that was upheld by his selective enforcement of immigration law a week prior. Then he had his HSA flunky, Napolitano, pile on after the decision and they cut off any assistance to AZ.

    What that means is that the LEOs are free to demand the papers, and they can call ICE to alert them of an alien with cause for potential removal… however ICE has already given them notice they won’t be answering the phone. Sorta makes their attempts futile, don’t you think? They can check papers, but feds won’t do a thing about it.

    Also, it’s not out of line for the court to say that, even tho the LEO can check papers, any lawsuits may be filed if it’s believed to be discriminatory. That goes without saying…. so that’s not really a big deal. Just means that the LEOs would be closing watched for their enforcement policies. The ACLU, and Obama’s DOJ does that anyway. So the fact that language was in there isn’t surprising.

    What was telling was that SCOTUS said they couldn’t be laying claims to discrimination when the law had not been enforced for them to lay those claims. In other words, they were jumping the gn on the nanny “discrimination” claims.

  12. Mata says:

    Thanks, Jinny. Trying to multitask work here, and thanks for the prompt link. Saves me regularly checking.

  13. ivehadit says:

    Yes, I know about Arizona being able but to what end? Federal abuse of power is in effect and it will be more after this, imho.

  14. Jinny says:

    You’re welcome.

    I’m just thinking that Obama and his party thought they could win elections in perpetuity by “giving” the masses health care just as they did with Social Security and Medicare, making people dependent on the government. But look at what happened instead, every poll since it was forced into law shows that the majority of people in this country don’t want this.

    This will also be a huge incentive to rally the same people who changed the majority of the House to vote for a new Senate and President, as ivehadit said earlier. The Tea Party is not just one group, it’s the American people who want to preserve the constitution and freedom and this election has just become a thousand times more important. We may not attend rallies but that doesn’t mean we aren’t paying attention. The left can demonize the “Tea Party” all they want but it’s not going to get them votes.

  15. Mata says:

    DJStrata, still reading and have to divert my attentions elsewhere from the 197 pg opinions of Roberts, the court majority, supplemental by Ginsberg, dissenting opinion and supplement from Thomas… but the way the majority opinion assesses that this can be applied as a tax with Anti-injunction Act and direct tax is addressed starting on pg 17 thru 21 (Roberts). And again starting on pg 33 (court opinion).

    Eye glazing stuff for sure, and slithery…

    The blanket is pulled off the pig. O’healthcare is not within Congressional Commerce powers, so they did a tax increase and called the pig a dove.

  16. Redteam says:

    mata: I do understand the nuances you wrote about, and agree with you. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised when they find out this is a tax and it will be applied separately on their tax form.
    As I understand it, even the 49% of the people that now pay no taxes and do not have health insurance will now pay a minimum of 1% of their income (not sure if that’s ‘gross’ or ‘taxable’) as a tax. It would almost have to be on ‘gross’ to be of value for anything. If it is on taxable and you currently owe no taxable then you would not pay a tax nor would you have to buy insurance, so it would be completely useless. If it’s on ‘gross’ then all those people that are not currently paying taxes, will now begin to pay taxes.
    That’s why I say this is likely the largest ever tax on the people, and we all want to make sure Obama gets full credit for it.

    I see this as a ‘new’ thing for Congress. They’re going to have to listen to the people when they start asking what their ‘tax increase’ is going to be whenever they are proposing a ‘new law’. They tried very hard to sell this as ‘no tax increase’ but it turns out, that’s exactly what it is and a HUGE one.

  17. dbostan says:

    Never, ever, another Bush in any elected office.

    It is incredible how much damage this family has done to the country.

    G.H. Bush dismantled the Reagan legacy and got David Souter on the high court.

    G.W. Bush got us into a war we shouldn’t have gotten into, mismanaged it, did not counter the left’s lies, did not do enough to make sure the economy doesn’t go into the toilet, increased federal spending, passed bailouts, passed a new entitlement, tried to pass the illegals’s amnesty and got Roberts on the high court.

    Never, ever, another Bush in any elected office.
    Never, ever, another Bush in any elected office.
    Never, ever, another Bush in any elected office.

  18. Mata says:

    Okay, been thru all the sundry opines at least once and made bookmarks in my saved PDF copy.

    All but Ginsberg (in her supplemental) agreed the Commerce Clause was an constitutional overreach of Congressional authority… the only brief candle in a sea of dark in this.

    Majority plus Roberts own opinion then turned to the “was it a tax” argument. The Chief Justice engaged in judicial contortionist manuevers, using precedents that when there can be two interpretation of a law, one of them being constitutional and the other not, the High Court must examine the end result of the law, within what authority exists, even tho Congress erroneously ID’d it’s power or intent in the legislation itself. (see pg 37 of the doc). Or:

    And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning thatdoes not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).

    Thus had Roberts not considered this precedents, we’d all be having an entirely different conversation.

    This is where the dissenting judges argue differently. First, the Commerce Clause infringement, plus the overt intent of Congress by putting the mandate/penalty in Title I of the Act, instead of Title IX of the Act where the revenue provisions reside, was effectively the nail in the coffin. It is not the judiciary’s responsibility to correct Congressional errors in legislation.

    Speaking of correcting their errors, the dissenting judges took issue with the unconstitutionality of Sebelius withholding funds, or coercing the states, INRE the Medicaid Expansion. Roberts stated that could be corrected if they did not withhold the funds, since it didn’t alter the Medicaid program in it’s existing form.

    The dissenting judges argued that judicial remedy is chutpah (obviously, my own applied term… LOL), and that when that provision was unconstitutional, it should be struck as a whole.

    There is only one other small, weak battery flashing beam in this… on pg s 48-50, Roberts does issue a warning (with citation) that even the taxing power has limitations, stating that the “the power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.” At this moment, the amount being discussed does not meet that threshhold, but it certainly was left open should Congress…as they always do… attempt to abuse that taxation power as it relates to this psudo “tax” that was really a “penalty” in legislative intent.

    All in all, Roberts may have good citations to justify his hunt/peck to bail Congress out of their own deplorable legislative construction. But this whole things sucks…

  19. Mata says:

    oops… so sorry about not closing the blockquote tag above.

    The section starting from “Thus had Roberts not considered…” is no longer quotes from the opinion. My apologies. Dang, wish we had “preview” to catch this stuff!

    AJStrata: fixed