Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Obamacare on Deathbed...

     What ramifications will this have on the November election? 

Supreme Fight Update:

The government lawyers are making the argument that healthcare is a unique market, and that citizens can be compelled by the government to buy a product, because inaction (not buying a product) is an economic decision. Their example - one never knows when one may be in need of emergency medical care, and one could walk on the bill (or not be able to afford it) after treatment is given - as many do.  Therefore, by not having insurance, the price for individuals is higher than it should be, because some individuals are not paying.

Therefore, everybody is already engaged in the system (by using it at some time), the government (since it is already involved in Medicare and Medicaid) just wants to collect money from everybody in the form of insurance (which can be to a private long as they still exist). 

This ignores the person, I'll call him Mr. Freeman, who pays cash as he goes. Sure, Mr. Freeman enters the market, but he is allowed to exit it, and it is possible that his costs (on a as-needed bases, without insurance) will be below what the government wants to charge him every month, all the time.

Haven't we all been there?  I pay over $500 a month for my medical insurance.  In reviewing my taxes, my out-of-pocket medical bills last year (I cover 8 people!) were a few hundred dollars.  I could have saved the $6,000 I paid in premiums, and been on top.  The last two years, I could have saved over $12,000.  For me, it is not worth the risk.  Yesterday, the littlest Bannon boy had surgery - I'm sure just the anesthesiologist cost more than $6,000.  But for millions of Americans (and me for years after college) - the FREEDOM to choose when to pay, their economic freedom, must be preserved.

How did we get here? How did we go from our founding document, to a situation where the President and (at one point) a majority of our congress believes this is okay?  By the REFUSAL of the Supreme Court to check and balance the Legislature - by granting Congress the ability to 'regulate commerce between the states' - through ANY way possible.  And now, the lawyers for the government are throwing it in Scalia and Breyer's faces...with all due respect.

I am 98% sure, based on the questions the Supremes asked (which were the same questions the 11th and 4th Circuit Court's already asked), that they EASILY recognized the unconstitutionality of this.  The scary part, is that some do not.

What I fear, is that the bill will not be struck down completely.  If they strike down part of it, they leave a partial bill - which is not what congress wanted.  But as I have said before - the Individual Mandate - is NOT the only unconstitutional part of this bill. What about:


Woodsterman (Odie) said...

Why do you think the whole state of Nevada has a waiver?

LL said...

The 'waivers' simply provide more protection to persecuted minorities - and Democratic Party contributors including labor unions. Thus it underscores the mantra that in the ObamaNation, all pigs are equal under the law but some are more equal than others.