Maybe John Roberts did us a favor by saving ObamaCare

[TomSea]

Not only did I vote for Cruz in the primaries, if he were nominated to the Supreme Court, that is because of Trump voters, not those who try to squeeze in all kinds of un-Christian insults at Trump all the time. I'm more a Cruz supporters than all the hotdogging that goes on.

Perry, Walker, leaders with track records who have to lead, not just sitting around in a committee room theorizing.

[Hondo69]

The problem is that he set a terrible precedent: that the government can coerce people into things the government cannot constitutionally mandate through the tax code. Any future despot in waiting is going to take advantage of that and use Roberts's ruling to justify it.

In effect, the Roberts ruling stated, "ObamaCare is a tax and the government has the right to tax". 

Further, he argued that the Constitution has no stipulations on the logic, sanity, or decency of any such taxes.  Which means, for example, that should Congress dictate that all left-handed red heads be taxed at $100 per annum and walk down Main Street naked every Thursday at noon, no problemo.  It's constitutional.

So yes, maybe Roberts did us all a backhanded favor.  Unless we change our laws and/or the Constitution we are wide open to another Godzilla of a monster such as ObamaCare.

[txradioguy]

In effect, the Roberts ruling stated, "ObamaCare is a tax and the government has the right to tax". 

Further, he argued that the Constitution has no stipulations on the logic, sanity, or decency of any such taxes.  Which means, for example, that should Congress dictate that all left-handed red heads be taxed at $100 per annum and walk down Main Street naked every Thursday at noon, no problemo.  It's constitutional.

So yes, maybe Roberts did us all a backhanded favor.  Unless we change our laws and/or the Constitution we are wide open to another Godzilla of a monster such as ObamaCare.

But when Roberts did that...he arbitrarily changed wording in the law to make it fit his final ruling.  He was legislating from the bench and that is not what Conservatives believe in.

[skeeter]

That is not so.   The established precedent was that the Constitutionality of taxes cannot be challenged until AFTER they go into effect.  Roberts did not deviate from that precedent.

Unfortunately, no one saw fit to challenge the tax aspect of the law since it has gone into effect.  So Roberts has been denied the opportunity to now declare it 'unconstitutional'.

Perhaps that would've been true if the government wasn't arguing that it was a fee, not a tax. Roberts re-wrote their brief and then ruled as if it were a tax. He might as well have been Obama's counsel.

[Hondo69]

I'm going from memory here, but I think it went something like this . . .

[1] White House counsel says, "it's a tax".

[2] They changed their tune a week later and argued, "it's not a tax".

[3] Then they changed again and said, "oh, hold on a minute, yes it's a tax".

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The core of Obamacare was not the mandate - it was making health care an entitlement via Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  Even now, when the GOP is talking about repealing/replacing it, a starting point is not "depriving" anyone of health care.  It's just too difficult politically for most politicians to kill an entitlement .

The only hope was to have the Court strike it down so that GOP politicians wouldn't have to cast that vote.  Roberts saving Obamacare killed that hope, so now we're stuck permanently with a 4th major entitlement program.

No way to spin Robert's votes as a positive.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Cruz isn't well liked in the Senate. How that will impact his chances of confirmation I don't know.


I'd be happy with Cruz in there.

[Sanguine]

The core of Obamacare was not the mandate - it was making health care an entitlement via Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  Even now, when the GOP is talking about repealing/replacing it, a starting point is not "depriving" anyone of health care.  It's just too difficult politically for most politicians to kill an entitlement .

The only hope was to have the Court strike it down so that GOP politicians wouldn't have to cast that vote.  Roberts saving Obamacare killed that hope, so now we're stuck permanently with a 4th major entitlement program.

No way to spin Robert's votes as a positive.

Exactly!

[Jazzhead]

The core of Obamacare was not the mandate - it was making health care an entitlement via Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  Even now, when the GOP is talking about repealing/replacing it, a starting point is not "depriving" anyone of health care.  It's just too difficult politically for most politicians to kill an entitlement .

The only hope was to have the Court strike it down so that GOP politicians wouldn't have to cast that vote.  Roberts saving Obamacare killed that hope, so now we're stuck permanently with a 4th major entitlement program.

No way to spin Robert's votes as a positive.

No, the core of ObamaCare was to extend "guaranteed issue" individual insurance nationwide,  so folks with pre-existing conditions weren't limited to their employers' group insurance.  Ideally,  an ACA-type system could be a boon to the economy by encouraging labor mobility.  But, as folks who live in (pre-ACA) guaranteed issue states know,   it's very, very expensive insurance,  and without an individual mandate it is easy to game the system by only purchasing insurance when needed.   And, of course,  that free-rider phenomenon just raises the cost of individual insurance even higher. 

The goal of the ACA is laudable, the execution terrible.   It is a flawed law,  but one that can be fixed with the right changes.   Of course,  no one I'm aware of has the knowledge and/or political will to advocate for the right changes.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No, the core of ObamaCare was to extend "guaranteed issue" individual insurance nationwide,  so folks with pre-existing conditions weren't limited to their employers' group insurance.  Ideally,  an ACA-type system could be a boon to the economy by encouraging labor mobility.  But, as folks who live in (pre-ACA) guaranteed issue states know,   it's very, very expensive insurance,  and without an individual mandate it is easy to game the system by only purchasing insurance when needed.   And, of course,  that free-rider phenomenon just raises the cost of individual insurance even higher. 

The goal of the ACA is laudable, the execution terrible.   It is a flawed law,  but one that can be fixed with the right changes.   Of course,  no one I'm aware of has the knowledge and/or political will to advocate for the right changes.   

Yeah going back to the old way isn't tenable. I know people who had pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage whereas previously they were screwed. And of course, I know of people screwed over by Obamacare.


I trust the GOP more than Democrats to fix it. We need a "middle way" between the two positions.

[JustPassinThru]

Cruz is not going there.

First, Lord God the Donald chose to turn Cruz into Emmanuel Goldstein for his cultists. 

Second, Mitch McConjob still rules the Senate with an iron fist.  And there is NOTHING a RINO hates more than a bona-fide conservative.

Give it up.  Ted Cruz is the closest we'll ever see to the second coming of Reagan...but the nation no longer wants that.  Just as the nation didn't want REAGAN until all the RINO-Rockefeller-Republican alternatives had been exhausted.

[corbe]

   Many of Trump's appointments have been, surprisingly, 'unexpectedly good', for the liberal that HE truly is, @JustPassinThru , whoever has his ear, it's working out for me, so far.
   USSC Justice Ted Cruz would certainly fit in the mode of obummer putting Hillary in charge of state to rack up frequent flyer miles and keep her out of his 'clubhouse'.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Cruz is not going there.

First, Lord God the Donald chose to turn Cruz into Emmanuel Goldstein for his cultists. 

Second, Mitch McConjob still rules the Senate with an iron fist.  And there is NOTHING a RINO hates more than a bona-fide conservative.

Give it up.  Ted Cruz is the closest we'll ever see to the second coming of Reagan...but the nation no longer wants that.  Just as the nation didn't want REAGAN until all the RINO-Rockefeller-Republican alternatives had been exhausted.

I admire Cruz's intellect and ideology, for the most part. But he's no Reagan. He doesn't have his charisma. If he did, he'd be President elect rather than Trump.

[Sanguine]

I admire Cruz's intellect and ideology, for the most part. But he's no Reagan. He doesn't have his charisma. If he did, he'd be President elect rather than Trump.

Reagan didn't have Reagan's charisma.  It is only in hindsight and without the constant attacks by the media that his charisma has been revealed.  I'm old enough to remember the real deal and even his most charming moments were slanted and cut into churlish or stupid sounding sound-bites.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Jazzhead
No, the core of ObamaCare was to extend "guaranteed issue" individual insurance nationwide,  so folks with pre-existing conditions weren't limited to their employers' group insurance.

I just disagree with that.  While important for some, guaranteed issue requires subsidies to have a widespread effect.  The budget-busting core of the ACA are the subsidies and Medicaid.

To put it differently, eliminate the Medicade Expansion and subsidies, and the cost of the bill nosedives.

The goal of the ACA is laudable, the execution terrible.   

Do you think the government should have expanded Medicaid and provided subsidies, or otherwise spent hundreds of billions to provide people with health care?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Reagan didn't have Reagan's charisma.  It is only in hindsight and without the constant attacks by the media that his charisma has been revealed.  I'm old enough to remember the real deal and even his most charming moments were slanted and cut into churlish or stupid sounding sound-bites.

Of course they went after him, but that just proves the point about his charisma.  Because despite the unrelenting attacks by the press and the left, he was extremely popular anyway.

[Sanguine]

Of course they went after him, but that just proves the point about his charisma.  Because despite the unrelenting attacks by the press and the left, he was extremely popular anyway.

He wasn't "extremely" popular. 

Gallup Historical Presidential Job Approval Statistics      
      
Overall Averages      
      
President   Dates in office   Average approval rating
      %
Harry Truman   April 1945-January 1953   45.4
Dwight Eisenhower   January 1953-January 1961   65
John Kennedy   January 1961-November 1963   70.1
Lyndon Johnson   November 1963-January 1969   55.1
Richard Nixon   January 1969-August 1974   49
Gerald Ford   August 1974-January 1977   47.2
Jimmy Carter   January 1977-January 1981   45.5
Ronald Reagan   January 1981-January 1989   52.8
George H.W. Bush   January 1989-January 1993   60.9
Bill Clinton   January 1993-January 2001   55.1
George W. Bush   January 2001-January 2009   49.4

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx


Ronald Reagan was a fine man, but doing the right thing always comes at a price in popularity.

[bilo]

The core of Obamacare was not the mandate - it was making health care an entitlement via Medicaid expansion and subsidies.  Even now, when the GOP is talking about repealing/replacing it, a starting point is not "depriving" anyone of health care.  It's just too difficult politically for most politicians to kill an entitlement .

The only hope was to have the Court strike it down so that GOP politicians wouldn't have to cast that vote.  Roberts saving Obamacare killed that hope, so now we're stuck permanently with a 4th major entitlement program.

No way to spin Robert's votes as a positive.

 

I saw my health insurance more than double over night. I guess the positive was I ended up finding a Christian Healthcare Co-op which is a lot lower than my original premium was and I began moving a portion of my business to Central America where I've found great health care as well.

The repeal of obamacare is going to happen, but what then with Medicaid? So far Trump doesn't want anything to do with entitlement reform. 

[Bigun]

Reagan didn't have Reagan's charisma.  It is only in hindsight and without the constant attacks by the media that his charisma has been revealed.  I'm old enough to remember the real deal and even his most charming moments were slanted and cut into churlish or stupid sounding sound-bites.

 

The Washington establishment fears Ted Cruz above all others.

[JustPassinThru]

Reagan didn't have Reagan's charisma.  It is only in hindsight and without the constant attacks by the media that his charisma has been revealed.  I'm old enough to remember the real deal and even his most charming moments were slanted and cut into churlish or stupid sounding sound-bites.

Exactly.

And I don't think we've seen all of Cruz' wittier side.  Remember his opening statement on the second debate?  That was GOOD...an ironic, grin-inducing way of approaching the elephant in the room, the slanted, childlike, destructive mediuh.  I can see some of Reagan's cutting barbs in that little exchange.

But it doesn't matter.  The public, again as in 1968, rejects today's conservatives as they rejected the much-younger Reagan for the RINO Nixon.  Conservatism WORKS - but it offers no special license to anyone, so there's no great enthusiasm for it anywhere.  Just a bemoaning of the crony opportunities lost, of the Rent-Seeking that will be in vain.

It will be the last thing that's tried...after Sanders-style socialism reduces us to Venezuelan prosperity.  But by then, it may well be too late.

[roamer_1]

Yeah going back to the old way isn't tenable. I know people who had pre-existing conditions who can now get coverage whereas previously they were screwed. And of course, I know of people screwed over by Obamacare.


I trust the GOP more than Democrats to fix it. We need a "middle way" between the two positions.

Oh brother... 3rd way crap...

Conservatives would say the regulation is what's making health care expensive. Conservatives would say let the free market work it out. There is no 'middle way' between a free market and socialism. Anyone who thinks there is is stone dead wrong.

Remember 'We're from the government and we're here to help'?

How can any Conservative suppose that government is the solution? It's the problem.

[driftdiver]

Oh brother... 3rd way crap...

Conservatives would say the regulation is what's making health care expensive. Conservatives would say let the free market work it out. There is no 'middle way' between a free market and socialism. Anyone who thinks there is is stone dead wrong.

Remember 'We're from the government and we're here to help'?

How can any Conservative suppose that government is the solution? It's the problem.

@roamer_1

I want to agree with you as I believe a free market is the answer.  However, in real life things get complicated.  Without laws and regulations companies would do nothing but what makes them money.   A free market concept says consumer pressure would force business to make changes.  That only works where consumers have choice. 

Most companies would not spend money on computer security until they were forced to.  Even today many will not, because the executive making the decision is willing to gamble that nothing will happen on his watch.

The amount of regulation imposed on health care is staggering.  I know of one health system that spent 9% of its annual budge of nearly $1 billion just on compliance with billing regulations. 

[Hondo69]

First, it's good for you and me when insurance companies make money.  Call me Gordon Gecko but greed isn't the key component here, competition is the key.  When an insurance company goes broke that is one less choice for you and me.  The more choices we have the more competitive companies will be in a "free market", and I use the term loosely.  ObamaCare was designed to take away our choices and that is the core reason why it is such a failure.

Secondly, when I can buy insurance across State lines I am no longer trapped in the vice of my own State's regulations.  Again, freedom to choose creates greater competition and we all win.  Maybe I'll buy a policy in Maryland that covers preexisting conditions for my son and another policy in Iowa for myself that does not.  I could pick and choose because I would be free to choose.

The party line from the left that Conservatives have never offered alternatives is nonsense.  Liberals have been feeding us that gibberish forever - aided and abetted by CNN.  Look up the definition of "conspiracy" and you'll see a picture of the CNN logo.

Anyone who has been in Washington more than 5 minutes can easily check the record.  Viable solutions have been around for decades.

If I go shopping for a new car I have hundreds of choices and I like that very much.  But if I go shopping for health insurance I have two.  It's not exactly rocket science trying to figure out which system is better.

[driftdiver]

First, it's good for you and me when insurance companies make money.  Call me Gordon Gecko but greed isn't the key component here, competition is the key.  When an insurance company goes broke that is one less choice for you and me.  The more choices we have the more competitive companies will be in a "free market", and I use the term loosely.  ObamaCare was designed to take away our choices and that is the core reason why it is such a failure.

Secondly, when I can buy insurance across State lines I am no longer trapped in the vice of my own State's regulations.  Again, freedom to choose creates greater competition and we all win.  Maybe I'll buy a policy in Maryland that covers preexisting conditions for my son and another policy in Iowa for myself that does not.  I could pick and choose because I would be free to choose.

The party line from the left that Conservatives have never offered alternatives is nonsense.  Liberals have been feeding us that gibberish forever - aided and abetted by CNN.  Look up the definition of "conspiracy" and you'll see a picture of the CNN logo.

Anyone who has been in Washington more than 5 minutes can easily check the record.  Viable solutions have been around for decades.

If I go shopping for a new car I have hundreds of choices and I like that very much.  But if I go shopping for health insurance I have two.  It's not exactly rocket science trying to figure out which system is better.

Insurance companies are the root of the problem with Healthcare.   They'll reject claims just to see if  the insured will pay or protest.  They add tremendous costs and complexity to the system.

[txradioguy]

The party line from the left that Conservatives have never offered alternatives is nonsense.  Liberals have been feeding us that gibberish forever

Yeah we offer great alternatives...just not the ones that Liberals want.

For them it's either single payer or nothing.