Get the feeling the Dems aren’t that confident about a SCOTUS win for Øbamacare?
If you were watching CBS This Morning, as I was, you know the hot topic is that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has Øbamacare as the topic of the week, and you were “treated” to interviews with Democrats Howard Dean and Sen. Gillibrand. You also know that the damage control is beginning in anticipation of a loss.
Both were asked if the offending individual mandate provision of Øbamacare would be deemed unconstitutional and if it could survive if that ruling came down. Both said unhesitatingly that it could survive, mostly because of all the “good” provisions in it. Dean (and here) did not think the individual mandate provision would survive, and Gillibrand (go to the 3 minute mark) was doubtful as well, but they both seemed to think that the law could survive without it. They were certainly trying to put a good spin on it, but this sounds like they aren’t too confident.
Others are trying to make the case that ruling Øbamacare would have “grave” and “profound” ramifications for the country (as if its passage wouldn’t!):
David Boies (of Gore v. Bush fame) is of the opinion that this ruling could determine the reach of gov’t well beyond this case extending back to the New Deal, and that this would a bad thing. He argues that the car insurance mandate comparisons are not relevant as they are state based and the states have the power to do things like this while the fed does not. Where was this guy two years ago?
Neal Katyal, who, as acting US Solicitor General, defended the constitutionality of Øbamacare in lower courts, warned of “grave” and “profound” consequences if the Supreme Court accepts a challenge to the law. His argument basically came down to “cut the mandate and you cut all the supposedly good provisions of the law”.
So we appear to have a two pronged spin approach by the Democrat mouthpieces: Øbamacare can withstand the loss of the mandate, and/or it can’t. They are covering all the bases as much as possible, i.e. make it a political win regardless of the outcome, despite the majority of those recently polled saying they disapprove of the law, and 67% saying it should be repealed all or in part.
On the same topic, Gillibrand went on to call for the televising of the SCOTUS proceedings, saying “this decision fundamentally affects every single American and that they should be part of the discussion, asking the questions and being engaged” and “transparency and accountablilty in this branch of government would also benefit”. I don’t recall her speaking out for the closed door, partisan planning and writing of this bill two years ago. Where was the call for transparency then? Where was the call for us to be engaged in the process? Where was she when Pelosi said “you will have to pass the bill to see what is in it”??
Hey Senator: we have seen the bill and the majority of people are against it. In light of the aforementioned polls, all this proves is that the Democrats will ignore you if you go against their grandiose plans and power grabs.
Let the games begin…
23 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
Dims you are so right that opinion polls are pushing the weak links to hedge their bets. The O however, will never admit that he shanked a 3-iron on this one, and he will blame everyone he can.?
It will no doubt be Bush’s fault.
Below is a link stating the history of SCOTUS overturning state and federal laws.? Because of its brevity, I’m not sure it is the complete history, or only landmark cases.? But it does make for an interesting read.? It is a slippery slope for the Court, but I am hoping the “right” decision.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0861368.html
Hey Truthseeker, your article link is as long as the ones I post. Skimming is the only way to get through! If they are scared, it could be good for US (take your pick us or? United States). However, this is our last chance to put a stake in the heart of Obamacare, if President is elected again.
Should be President Obama OR THE President, but I assume you know what I mean. But then again you know what “assume” does.
Yeah, 67% want it repealed…about the same percentage of CT residents who want the death penalty to stay on the books. That ain’t happening, because our legislators are so much smarter than us common rabble. I guess O felt he had to do the whole pie art once, rather than their usual MO of incrementalism that has worked so well in the past for the Dems.
Dimsdale, excellent post…..?these?socialists are miserable hypocrites…. did you see Obama debating himself on the mandate? great ad!!
Great post. ?Plus, as Mark Levin has pointed out numerous times, the auto insurance mandate comparison is invalid because if a person does not own a vehicle, they are NOT mandated to have insurance anyway. ?With Obamacare, everyone is mandated to have health insurance.
Perhaps now Obamanation is sorry he dissed the SCOTUS at 2010’s state of the union.
I don’t think the auto insurance analogy works too well here. I’d say that although people may choose not own a vehicle, nary a soul would choose to forgo health care/services.
No Sammy, most would not go without health care / services. But I can only speak for myself and 67% (the NY Times Poll said 70%) who do not want Obamacare. It is the mandate that is wrong. I want to buy a policy that fits my family’s needs, not a one policy fits all. I want one I can afford. If Obamacare is so wonderful why, don’t members of Congress? or the 1200 waivers want it. You’ve heard it all before….
It isn’t my analogy; it is that of ?bamacare defenders.
“?It is the mandate that is wrong. I want to buy a policy that fits my family?s needs, not a one policy fits all.?”
This was brought up in?today’s hearings…..how prophetic you are!?
And I don’t want to pay for health services for people who choose not to buy healthcare insurance. Tell me what the fix for that is!
Frankly Sammy, we are already doing that at at much less cost then Obamacare. Everyone gets treated at a hospital and we pay for it. And thanks Tom.
Lynn I think that was Sammy22’s point! The only fix I see working is if we are all in the same health insurance pool, we all have to join one to reduce all of our healthcare costs. We all pay to keep each others air, food, water, and air travel. Why?can?we not work together to keep all of us in affordable healthcare? Please do scream socialism?if that is all you have?because we all have a share of it already.
I think the fix is easy (but no body wants to hear it):?
a) don’t pay for it.?? Nothing will make people go find their own insurance faster than a couple of well publicized, precedent setting cases where someone that could afford to buy insurance but chooses not to gets his/her pay garnished, property seized etc.? Passing the buck to the rest of us simply coddles the cheapskates.? If someone truly can’t afford insurance (and this is verified, i.e. checks that all assets aren’t transferred to non participants), then you have Medicaid etc.? Heck, just putting people to work (a fine idea in itself) rooting out the rampant fraud would cut costs dramatically.
b) let people actually buy their own insurance instead of someone “giving” it to them (especially the gov’t).? When it is your buck, you are a lot more concerned with where it is going.
c) get the lawyers out: double damages for frivolous lawsuits, loser pays.? Unnecessary tests will not be done, money saved.
d) specific legislation to fix (hopefully) the problem areas of healthcare, like preexisting conditions etc.
A. You are for government seizing property? This is the Tea Party?
B. People have that option now but do not choose to. Do you favor no health benefits from employers?
C. Many lawsuits against healthcare providers are not frivoulous and required. Determining what is a crime would be determined by whom then?
D. You would be for then extending government reach in this area? More Tea Party values?
a) It’s not seizing; it is deferred payment.? Taking my taxes to pay for some deadbeat is seizing.
b) I favor health benefits any way one can get them.? Unfortunately, like tax withholding, if you don’t see it, it doesn’t hurt as much (as in writing a quarterly check).? Let the pay go up with what the employer would have contributed and let the employee go out and shop for insurance.? It will be portable and cheaper.? Win-win.
c) the courts decide what is frivolous as they do now.? Loser pays will make them think twice before bringing a suit they know is frivolous.
d) this is legislation in lieu of a brobdingnagian, non partisan, hack bill like ?bamacare, i.e. the way it should have been done.? If not, no sweat off my brow.? If so, then things like the preexisting condition issue can be handled with restraint if it must be handled.?
OPEN, even though this is in archives, I can’t let your statement stand. There are 1200 corporations and Unions who have waivers. Plus the entire US Govt. will not be a part of Obamacare. HOW on earth can you say we all have to work together? this clearly is establishing an elitist caste system.? Your argument dies on the vine.
Some easy fix! Lynn says:” Everyone gets treated at a hospital and we pay for it”. And that is the way it is now.? And instead of someone paying a $15 co-pay to a doctor, we ALL pay for a FAR more expensive ER visit.
Well, you might not like my fix, but it cuts to the chase, getting gov’t out of the equation and addressing the individual mandate issue.? No tickee, no shirtee.? My solution isn’t hard, it is just unpalatable to those that think the gov’t is a free ride, and ignore the fact that the “free ride” is on the backs of their neighbors.? Letting gov’t into the mix will just screw it up (see Medicare).
OH Sammy, Come off it. I am so tired of writing the same thing over and over. Read what I wrote in the archives for every Obamacare post. Dims did an admirable job and he didn’t use BIG words. I think even President Obama could understand it, if he cared enough. So you seem bright enough, I’m sure you could understand if you tried. If your eyesight is failing, maybe someone could read it for you. Honestly we will have to be doing everything for people now, they are so used to the govt. doing everything for them.? I’m going to eat some chocolate now and get in the groove! And I can eat it all by myself!