Oh, Stewie is hot and bothered, and the jokes are teh funny! Elbows get thrown at Obama himself. Utter gobsmacked disbelief at how no matter how mad they get, the guys at the head of the government can’t get the VA to provide health care in anything like a timely manner.
All the while, expecting that ObamaCare is going to improve the healthcare for rest of us.
I look forward to his delightful rants when it doesn’t. They won’t accomplish anything, but they’ll make me feel superior to the old clown.
Which is about the best I can hope for at this point.
The best way to think about Romneycare is on a left-right scale of 1 to 10. If 10 is a libertarian utopia, and 1 is a left-wing dystopia, Governor Romney moved Massachusetts’ individual health-insurance market from a 2 to a 4. That is, it moved that market modestly to the right.
The New York Post has the skinny on what ObamaCare is going to do for us.
If you get your health insurance through a job, you might lose it as of Jan. 1, 2014. That’s when the new “employer mandate” kicks in, requiring employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide the government-designed health plan or pay a fine. The government plan is so expensive, it adds $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee.
So you can land on Park Place with a Hotel, or you can land on Boardwalk with 4 houses. Or you can Go to Jail.
When you file your taxes, you will have to show proof that you are enrolled in the one-size-fits-all plan approved by the federal government. It’s mandatory, starting Jan. 1, 2014, or the IRS will withhold your refund. If you’ve been going without insurance, or your employer drops coverage, your options will be enrolling in Medicaid (if you’re eligible) or buying a government-approved health plan on your state health exchange.
Which I’m sure will be very reasonably priced.
If you’re a senior or a baby boomer, expect less care than in the past. Cuts to future Medicare funding pay for more than half the Obama health law. Hospitals, for example, will have $247 billion less to care for same number of seniors than if the law had not passed. Hospitals will spread nurses thinner. California nurses already are striking over the increased workloads.
Hmmm. It’s almost as though mandating something doesn’t, of itself, create more of something! Such puzzlers, these economic questions!
For the first time in history, the federal government will control how doctors treat privately insured patients. Section 1311 of the law empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to standardize what doctors do. Even if you have a private plan from Cigna or Aetna and you paid for it yourself, the federal government will have some say over your doctors’ decisions, with an eye toward reducing health-care consumption.
Are the feminists listening? The people who wail unto the heavens that they don’t want the government controlling what a woman does with her body? Are they now understanding what they have crawled over broken glass to vote for? Hello? Is this thing on?
“The President’s health care law must be fully repealed as all of its promises have proven false. We were told it was not a tax hike, but this ruling confirms it is an unprecedented and enormous tax on the poor and middle class Americans. President Obama needs to explain why he is enacting this middle class tax hike over the objections of the American people during the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.
“We were told it would lower health costs, but health care premiums are exploding. We were told that Americans could keep their personal health plans, but millions will now lose it. We were told it would improve our economy, but it is now the largest obstacle to employers hiring new workers.
“This government takeover of health care remains as destructive, unsustainable, and unconstitutional as it was the day it was passed, unread, by a since-fired congressional majority. Now as then, our first step toward real health care reform and economic renewal remains Obamacare’s full repeal, down to the last letter and punctuation mark.
“I urge every governor to stop implementing the health care exchanges that would help implement the harmful effects of this misguided law. Americans have loudly rejected this federal takeover of health care, and governors should join with the people and reject its implementation.”
The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy.
It’s tempting to believe that some kind of political pressure brought about this inane ruling. But we need to face the reality that the court has two swing votes now.
On the other hand, he did strike down the Commerce Clause ruling.
Protein Wisdom was right, and we were wrong. Roberts has surrendered to Leviathan, and given us a ruling that makes no sense on a law that makes no sense.
The AFA (ObamaCare) cannot be justified under the commerce clause, but can be justified as a tax. The Administration explicitly said it was not a tax, but the Supreme Court now says that it is.
Also, the Medicaid expansion got limited, but not thrown out. Which means that the federal government can offer states Medicaid cash, but can’t penalize states for not participating in it. Whatever that might mean.
For all intents and purposes, we are back to the Warren Court, under which Caeser could do whatever he damn well pleased, and the Court took it upon itself to re-write the law and lay it down upon any puddle in Caeser’s path.
Justice Kennedy’s dissent (yeah, you read that right. Reagan’s crappy post-bork justice got this right, and Bush’s super-conservative Prince of Judicial Restraint got it wrong. Nice job, George), downloaded from Business Insider:
The case is easy and straightforward, however, in another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by thetext of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendmentratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon thesovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limitsupon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to taxand spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.
Exactly. And in case you were wondering, this is what the word regulate (as in “regulate interstate commerce”) means:
In Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the power to regulate commerce is the power “to prescribe the rule by whichcommerce is to be governed.” That understanding is con- sistent with the original meaning of “regulate” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, when “to regulate” meant“[t]o adjust by rule, method or established mode,” 2 N.Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828); “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” 2 S. Johnson,A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); “[t]oadjust, to direct according to rule,” 2 J. Ash, New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775); “toput in order, set to rights, govern or keep in order,” T.Dyche & W. Pardon, A New General English Dictionary (16th ed. 1777).1 It can mean to direct the manner of something but not to direct that something come into being. There is no instance in which this Court or Congress (or anyone else, to our knowledge) has used “regulate”in that peculiar fashion. If the word bore that meaning, Congress’ authority “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 14, would have made superfluous the later provision for authority “[t]o raise and supportArmies,” id., §8, cl. 12, and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,” id., §8, cl. 13.
We do not doubt that the buying and selling of health insurance contracts is commerce generally subject to federal regulation. But when Congress provides that (nearly) all citizens must buy an insurance contract, it goes beyond “adjust[ing] by rule or method,” Johnson, supra, or “direct[ing] according to rule,” Ash, supra; it directs the creation of commerce.
A society in which you cannot refrain from buying something is not a free society.
The subjects entrusted to the federal government by the Constitution — those largely “external” powers — simply don’t lend themselves to corruption. On the other hand, when the government lays a heavy regulatory hand on almost every business and industry, the temptation for those regulated to buy off the regulators — or to simply buy “protection” from them — becomes much greater. That has increasingly been the pattern in recent decades, even as, not so coincidentally, the public’s trust in the national government has steadily declined. As P.J. O’Rourke famously said, when buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold will be legislators.
The truth of this seems obvious once stated, but it’s not stated often enough. Conservatives, who expect the government to be corrupt, don’t bother with it much (although Jonah Goldberg devotes and entire chapter of Liberal Fascism to it). And as it contradicts the essential element of Progressive ideology — that Leviathan fights against corruption — proggies can’t acknowledge it.
They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
As someone who’s been more or less on the right since he was 18 years old, I can’t really argue with that. I just wonder if the celebration is premature. Yes, the oral arguments look promising. But for all we know, Sotomayor is working her wise-Latina charm on Kennedy and Roberts. We don’t know what the Supremes are going to say, based on what we’ve seen them do. Until we know, we might want to keep our powder dry.
Because if the vote goes the other way, the proggies will return all our mockery and amateur psychoanalysis ten fold. And I can’t say that I’ll blame them.