Supreme Court decisions, like babies, wait for no one, so it is at this late date that I put some thoughts together on the Supreme Court’s decision in upholding the federal health care law known as “ObamaCare” which was handed down last Thursday morning. The good news is that the dust is starting to settle and nuances of the decision are coming out including the revelation that Chief Justice Roberts changed his mind on the law in order to deliver Obama a 5-4 majority.
With all that has been said about the decision, it is worth noting that conservatives can often be counted on to support massive government power grabs, despite supposed ideological concerns, but liberals rarely surprise anyone by casting votes against government power. “Growth” only works in one direction, I suppose.
Ultimately, the health care mess, regardless of the Court’s decision, was going to fall back into the laps of the American people. Even had the Court ruled in the opposite direction by striking down ObamaCare, the need to peel back decades of government meddling (including Bush’s prescription drug benefit) and regulations was dire. Now, we just face another layer of rules and regulations.
Dare I state the obvious that the only surefire way to kill this law is non-compliance? If you don’t have insurance, don’t get it and don’t pay the fine. They can’t put us all in jail. Myself, I have a health savings account that is likely to become far more expensive due to ObamaCare.
I had heard that Justice Roberts did that at the last minute to force the Court to admit and rule that Obamacare IS a tax. Now that the Court has ruled that it IS a tax, wouldn’t that mean that “O” lied about that, too?
Would that make it easier to get rid of it?
That is the “silver lining” of this decision. On one hand, making it a tax does make it somewhat easier to eliminate in terms of procedure. The issue of Obama lying is really a moot point in my opinion. He has lied to his own base (much less conservatives) with no repercussions. He is a politician after all.
I would like to see our governor join with governors Rick Scott (Florida), Brownstade (Iowa), Brownback (Kansas) Haley (South Carolina), Heinman (Nebraska), Jindal (Louisiana) and Scott Walker (Wisconsin) in refusing to establish a state insurance exchanges. In addition, our governor should refuse to expand Medicaid eligibility to 133 per cent of the poverty level and not allow single , childless men to participate in the program as Obamacare requires. There are seven other states that have suggested that they are unlikely to expand their programs; Bently (Alabama), Bryant (Mississippi),Daniels (Indiana), Deal (Georgia), Fallin (Oklahoma), McDonnell (Virginia), Perry (Texas), and Jay Nixon (Missouri), a Democrat. Eventually states will have to pay for the extra cost of these programs which will devastate state budgets. The tax payers would be well served if the leadership of this state would just say no and refuse to be bullied into pouring money into a system that is unconstitutional and unworkable.