The WSJ editorial this morning, The Roberts Rules, was excellent — as it dissects the inconsistencies within the ObamaCare decision. Read it through, but here are some highlights:
The remarkable decision upholding the Affordable Care Act is shot through with confusion—the mandate that’s really a tax, except when it isn’t, and the government whose powers are limited and enumerated, except when they aren’t.
and this:
The Chief Justice ruled that ObamaCare’s mandate violated the Commerce Clause, joined by the Court’s conservative bloc, but he also said that the mandate fell within Congress’s power to tax, joined by the Court’s liberal bloc. In practice this is a restraint on federal power without real restraint—and, worse, the Chief Justice had to rewrite the statute Congress passed in order to salvage it. The ruling will stand as one of the great what-might-have-beens of American constitutional law.
more:
According to Chief Justice Roberts, the penalty is merely a tax on not owning health insurance, no different from “buying gasoline or earning income,” and it thus complies with the Constitution. This a large loophole.
and this:
But if the mandate is really a tax, why doesn’t the law known as the Anti-Injunction Act apply, which says that taxes can’t be challenged legally until they’ve been collected? The Chief Justice actually rules that the mandate is a tax under the Constitution and a mandate for the purposes of tax law.
Additionally, the WSJ lent some more credence to the assertion that Chief Justice Roberts was actually in agreement with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito (giving a 5-4 strikedown), but at the last minute changed his mind. “One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent” and “the dissent” on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind”. This theory was floated yesterday first by Paul Campos and Brad Delong who noticed language confusion and tone changes in the opinion. Their ideas are examined more in depth here.
Now that we have a both a scrutiny of the dissonance and a peek at some silver linings, where do we go from here? It is clear that November must be our top priority — both at the Presidential level and Congress, especially the Senate. And then, we’ll see whether American can be preserved.
The act of defiance of our President against our Constitution and Congress is the latest in a string of executive activism that defines Obama’s administration. The content of the Dream Act is, in and of itself, not that controversial. What Obama announced was a policy very similar to Mark Rubio’s undrafted legislation that was expected to enter Congressional debate very soon. Instead, the controversy lies with Obama’s blatant disregard for the proper function of our government.
The astonishing thing is that Obama didn’t even try to work with Congress. Remember, Obama was the guy who was supposed to bring everyone together – and he just ran roughshod over everyone. Now compare Bush to Obama. I’m not much of a fan of Bush in general; however, he did try to get his somewhat unpopular ideas passed through Congress – and a fairly hostile Congress at that (remember Social Security reform, immigration reform, etc). Yet Bush didn’t circumvent our Constitution – andhe wouldn’t have even considered the idea. Obama, on the other hand, did precisely that, with no attempt to work together, and no notice that the Executive Order was coming other than a few hours prior to a press statement.
With this action on a very volatile and polarizing issue, Obama is purposely catering to a particular voting bloc in order to gain for himself the election in November. He attempted this with his HHS mandate, expecting the majority of women to support his initiative…which he found was not quite the case. What’s next? Speculation has it that it will be marijuana legalization in October, mainly to bring independents, youths, and libertarians to the voting booth.
It is not the issue itself –immigration — that is the problem in this case. Rather, it is the willful disregard for our Constitution for the sake of an election power grab. Obama has demonstrated that he is willing to toss aside our founding document on a major and specific issue as a means to sway a large segment of the population. If Obama can cheapen the presidency by begging for donations vis-a-vis gift registries, and if he can imperialize the presidency through his continued unchecked actions, this country is in grave danger for November. Obama doesn’t have to commit blatant voter fraud anymore; he merely has to Executive Order it done.
The basic premise that everyone should be protected in case of serious illness or injury with appropriate insurance is not an unsavory idea. But the concept of an individual mandate does nothing. Not only does it not help with that problem of encouraging everyone to carry coverage, it confuses the entire idea of what “health insurance” is or is supposed to be — so much that it affirmatively discourages or reduces the likelihood that people will have insurance. I propose that the concept of health insurance should only really be related to major medical situations, like other true “insurances”.
The individual mandate is both unconstitutional and ineffective because it leads to a poor allocation of resources. In order to understand why, it requires an understanding between the difference of real health “insurance” and what currently counts as health insurance (a broad medical coverage plan).
Insurance, by definition, is a payment of a premium to cover the very unlikely event that would result in high economic consequences. Therefore, it has the effect of relatively low premiums to protect against that economic possibility.
In contrast, what counts as medical insurance in this country is a small portion of real insurance, but is largely pre-paid medical care: you pay your monthly premium which you get back every time you go to the doctor because you’ve already contributed x so many dollars a month which covers the doctors’ fees (minus a “co-pay” or “deductible”). It’s not an efficient practice, however, nor a cost-effective one. It gives the false impression that going to the doctor is cheap, when in reality, you’ve already paid in advance for doctor visits – that you may or may not have.
This is in contrast to other types of true insurance. I submit it is necessary to remodel the health insurance system after other insurance sectors – such as life, fire, or home insurance. For instance, it is both accepted and reasonable that you will pay more for life insurance at the age of sixty than at twenty-five. The reason for this practice is the understanding that the risk is higher.
Likewise, people buy fire insurance because the economic loss is from a fire is extraordinarily great and the cost for coverage is relatively low. But even with fire insurance, you pay more if you home is made of wood and not brick, and if you live farther from a fire station than closer — that is the matter of risk.
Everyone should have routine doctor visits. If everyone paid for those out-of-pocket, it would be more economically viable, because one would only be paying for what he needed – and would probably result in more healthy citizens who have an economic incentive to take better care of themselves. Instead, the government intentionally combines and obfuscates the meaning and definition of insurance to include medical coverage or routine costs. The only people who truly need that are the same people who can’t afford anything — and should be treated like those who can’t afford routine food.
You don’t need insurance to go to a doctor. That is welfare. For the average person who pays 15-20K a year of medical coverage, a very large percentage of the cost is not insurance – it’s the prepaid care for a larger pool of people. Therefore, individuals are really overpaying when it is set up this way because the real insurance part is intentionally combined with health care so you can hide the cost of those with higher risks, i.e the cost is buried within premiums.
The term “individual mandate” is intentionally confusing. The individual mandate — as the administration would describe it — is a requirement that everyone buy their own health insurance. The basic concept of everyone having their own health insurance is not, in and of itself, terrible — if health insurance were actually insurance in the same way life or fire insurance are. Obama Care, however, is not and therefore the individual mandate is not a mandate to buy health insurance as we’ve been told — it’s a mandate for universal and pre-paid medical care.
Since people of different ages, medical conditions, pre-existing situations, etc have different anticipated costs, the purpose of an individual mandate has nothing to do with getting people to buy their own insurance. It is the forcing of individuals to buy into a system that makes people pay for medical treatments that are not theirs, support welfare, and overpay for services in order to create a coverage that is similar for all person. That is legal plunder and anti free-market. The health care industry would best serve our citizens if Obama Care and the individual mandate was rescinded and if it restructured health insurance as a ‘true insurance’.
On this two year anniversary of ObamaCare, we must remember a greater anniversary, the sage words spoken 237 years ago today.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
This begs the question. If ObamaCare was such a monumental piece of legislation as the White House claims, why no mention in the news today?
Watching Meet the Press this past Sunday was a remarkable experience. Among the roundtable contributors were Peggy Noonan, Al Sharpton, and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. The show was fairly enjoyable throughout most of the program – including a very civil discussion about women.
Then right before the close of the program, moderator David Gregory asks Al Sharpton about his recreation of the old Selma to Montgomery march (1965). Sharpton launches into a tirade about how we need to do this march again because our government is trying to disenfranchise millions of people.
REV. SHARPTON: The message is that with the new voter ID laws being proposed in over 30 states, the Brennan Institute says it will disenfranchise five million people. There has been no established reason to change the laws. There’s no widespread fraud that has been in any way documented. And we do, do not believe that we should have these millions of peoples disenfranchised. This is–has a disproportionate impact on young people, seniors and minorities. And immigration laws in Alabama are horrendous and we think they violate the civil rights of people. And we sought to dramatize, not just to commemorate 47 years ago, but to continue today to fight those issues.
Incredibly, this ludicrous and partisan comment goes unanswered. David Gregory just nods along and doesn’t even respond, and neither does Peggy Noonan. Gregory switches topics and wraps up the program with a quick analysis of the upcoming primary on Tuesday, March 13.
Watching this unfold made the whole program seem like a set-up. Everything was quite civil earlier on, so when Sharpton made his outrageous remark, no one batted an eye or refuted the absurdity. It allowed the program to pretty much end with Sharpton’s statement out there to the audience.
Therefore, I was jaded enough to not even be surprised when, the following morning (Monday), the Department of Justice announced the following:
The Justice Department’s civil rights division on Monday objected to a new photo ID requirement for voters in Texas because many Hispanic voters lack state-issued identification.
Texas follows South Carolina as the second state in recent months to become embroiled in a court battle with the Justice Department over new photo ID requirements for voters.
Should I even be surprised? Sharpton’s Meet the Press commentary seemed to coincide with the announcement of government decisions effecting voters in an election year. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have fair and free elections by requiring identification at the polls. We already require IDs for so many other things that to somehow cry discrimination when it comes to IDs for our sacred electoral process is nothing more than sheer political poppycock.
Well, isn’t this cozy. The Occupy movement, which began in September, has occupied several universities this spring. USA Today highlights a course being taught at Roosevelt University in Chicago (surprise?) called “Occupy Everywhere”. Similar classes on the history and/or significance of the Occupy cause are being offered at Brown University, USC-San Diego, and New York University. While Columbia could not get approval for such a class in time, it did offer college credit for participation in OWS.
This seems like the perfect opportunity to infiltrate academia just in time for the 2012 election. Don’t forget, the college vote overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008. There’s even an occupycolleges.org website.
I wonder how many classes are being offered regarding a movement that will celebrate its 3rd birthday in a few days? Sparked by the Rick Santelli “rant” on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, the first Tea Party protests were organized on February 27, 2009. In contrast to the months-long Occupy movement — well noted for filth and crime — the Tea Party significantly impacted the 2010 Congressional elections merely a year later, and has continued to grow as an organized, grassroots group.
The desperation on the Left here is astounding, since most Americans have moved on from the Occupy Movement. At the ivory towers, however, I suppose the closest we could get to a Tea Party class is a course on the Constitution. If they offer one.
A friend of mine over at CATO, Ed Crane, sent me a link to an ad currently running in the Washington Post, Politico, and other papers. I wanted to share it with you because it’s a good effort to education people on Constitutional authority. Their thrust is that it’s good that the GOP wants the House to cite the Constitutional authority for new legislation, but there is a danger the response will be a casual reference to the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause. This ad points out (for the benefit of Congress) the true intent of those clauses, including the Necessary and Proper Clause. This is work from CATO’s excellent Center for Constitutional Studies.
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
