And now for some relevant news

With the media and all the politicians on the left in a frenzy about poor Trayvon Martin and that racist white Hispanic dude that killed him in cold blood going on, you might be missing that the Obamacare health insurance mandate was being debated by the SCOTUS today.

Early in the arguments, the veteran justice cut to the heart of the debate over the so-called individual mandate — which was the focus of Tuesday’s hearing — asking the federal government’s attorney to explain what constitutional power the government had to force all Americans to obtain health insurance.

“Can you create commerce to regulate it?” Kennedy asked Solicitor General Don Verrilli.

That question addressed the key issue about whether Congress exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to pass laws governing economic activity among the states. Verrilli said that’s not happening with the mandate; rather it is a regulation of a pre-existing health care marketplace.

Later, Kennedy described the law as unique and said the mandate “is different from what we have in previous cases — and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

He acknowledged the Court normally gives Congress the benefit of the doubt on laws that it passes, but in this instance there was a “heavy burden of justification” necessary for supporters of Obamacare to prove its legal worth. He also wondered about what limits to federal power would be in place if the court signed off on law.

Look this argument is simple to deal with in my mind. If the government can tell you that you HAVE to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty for not doing that, then they can tell you that you have to do whatever else they want too. This isn’t like states mandating car insurance where you can simply opt to not drive a car and hence you avoid that cost. You are being told you HAVE to buy it, and for now, if you don’t you are going to pay a fine of some kind. Today that fine is small and the usual big government suspects are trying real hard to pretend that there is no assumption of criminal behavior that goes along with that penalty, but that’s bunk. And you are definitely a criminal if you don’t pay. Once they can tell you what to do they can penalize you and criminalize you into buying healthcare too.

Look, it now is obvious to me that Obama care was set up to allow a bunch of assholes in black robes to add more and unmitigated power to the big government machine. If that fails the next goal is to force an unholy alliance between government and the insurance industry that will allow government to inflict irreparable damage that will forevermore break the ability of a private health insurance industry to provide coverage. And when they get that it opens the door to single payer system government would control that the left has always wanted.

The only way the people get spared this road to hell is if this thing gets squashed dead and voted away. I am afraid that we have been had however. It may take a couple of decades, but they are hell bent on having government control health insurance, access to health insurance, and by default people that will have no other recourse. The people at the DMV will then have power over life & death. Tyrannical government by degrees. We are screwed. Lets hope this thing dies in the SCOTUS, but then lets get real active to stake Obamacare in the heart, cut off it’s head, and expose it to sunlight so this vampire dies for real.

“We are from the government and we are here to help you.” Run for your lives people.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    Pretty much everyone agrees the SG go his ass handed to him today. Even liberals are saying that Obamacare is in deep deep trouble.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Aussiesmurf

    Its times like this that I, and those oppressed citizens of every other Western country, quake under the oppressors’ jackboot of government-paid health care and curse to the heavens that we are not lucky enough to live in the United States of America.

    Ah – the USA! The ONLY country clever enought to leave the issue of the health of its citizens in the hands of private corporations driven solely by the profit motive!

    Seriously, Alex. Do you look at the rest of the Western world and see a series of countries in tyrannical situations because there is a state-financed health-care system? More specifically, can you say with some detail as to why the system in the United States is superior to the Medicare system in Australia?

    Thumb up 0

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    Ah – the USA! The ONLY country clever enought to leave the issue of the health of its citizens in the hands of private corporations driven solely by the profit motive!

    It’s called capitalism… as opposed to crony capitalism which is what Obamacre will bring about.

    And if we wanted to be like everyone else there would have been no point in 1776.

    Thumb up 6

  4. Hal_10000

    If I understand the aussie healthcare system, it is mostly private. The govt provides basic health insurance (and, in that case, reimburse the patient and let’s them negotiate prices). I think we are probably going to end up there in this country.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Ah – the USA! The ONLY country clever enought to leave the issue of the health of its citizens in the hands of private corporations driven solely by the profit motive!

    Actually the US leaves the health of it’s citizens up to them. Many, like me choose corporations to do it because I understand the capitalist model and profit motive well. If a company isn’t giving me what I want, I can go elsewhere. When government controls it all, therer are no recourses.

    The stupid ones are the ones that think handing something this important over to government bureaucrats – the people you see working at the DMV that suffer from delusions of grandeur, go on power trips unless you allow them to work at a snail’s pace or waste your time, and in general provide service at a level that reminds you of how a bull services a cow – makes sense. But, hey, you can keep deluding yourself that government cares about you more than you would.

    Healthcare isn’t a right. Despite what anyone says. Because if healthcare is a right, then many other things that are far more important for your daily existence like food, water, shelter, and even job, could be argued to also be “rights”, which basically breaks the system down completely.

    If I understand the aussie healthcare system, it is mostly private. The govt provides basic health insurance (and, in that case, reimburse the patient and let’s them negotiate prices). I think we are probably going to end up there in this country.

    I have always believed that what we needed was a universal catastrophic health care system that would kick in to protect citizens when their expenses reached a certain limit that would negatively impact their finances. Not a system like we are being forced to swallow now that wants to put control of healthcare dollars and decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats.

    The problem is that the left doesn’t want something like that because it doesn’t really allow them to get their hands on all the money while getting absolute control of life & death decisions like Obamacare does.

    Thumb up 2

  6. Aussiesmurf

    A few points :

    It would be true to say that our system is more ‘government-funded’ rather than ‘government-run’. Doctors are employed as private individuals. After you visit a particular doctor, you receive a rebate of some or all of the expense from Medicare upon presentation of a receipt. Certain General Practitioners are run on a ‘bulk-billed’ basis, which essentially means that they will charge Medicare direct, and you will only need to present your Medicare card upon your visit upon which you will not be charged. This latter kind are the ‘no frills’ general practitioners.

    The medicare levy, as it is known, covers 2-3 % of all income of employees.

    There is also private health insurance, which covers such things as pregnancy, dental care, optical care, ambulance travel and so forth. By way of comparison, the health insurance premiums for my family (me, wife and young child) is around $110.00 per fortnight.

    Genuine question : I frequently here advocates for a laissez-faire system in the UNited States argue that it is wrong to have government employees making decisions about the funding of medical procedures. But don’t health insurance employees (also office workers) currently make these decisions all the time? Doesn’t the presence of a profit motive give these employees a huge incentive to err on the side of denying people costly and necessary medical care?

    Thumb up 1

  7. RightOnDave

    Genuine question : I frequently here advocates for a laissez-faire system in the UNited States argue that it is wrong to have government employees making decisions about the funding of medical procedures. But don’t health insurance employees (also office workers) currently make these decisions all the time? Doesn’t the presence of a profit motive give these employees a huge incentive to err on the side of denying people costly and necessary medical care?

    Short term, yes, long term, maybe not. Similar to a manufacturing company that gets a reputation for building lousy products that don’t last and whose warranties are not honored, insurance companies could face poor prospects if word gets around that they don’t honor their contracts.

    Secondly, currently there is an option to sue. And the government has shown it isn’t necessarily reluctant to punish big (insert business here). Eliminate the insurance companies and replace with government workers? I”m not sure there’s an incentive for them to do anything. Or correct any mistakes. Lose the paperwork? Oh, sorry. Incorrect denial of claim? Good luck with the lawsuit. Disagree on the definition of “necessary?” Great, go to the same people who are denying your payment. Simply put, I don’t trust the government in a role of watchdog over itself.

    Thumb up 4

  8. AlexInCT *

    Genuine question : I frequently here advocates for a laissez-faire system in the UNited States argue that it is wrong to have government employees making decisions about the funding of medical procedures. But don’t health insurance employees (also office workers) currently make these decisions all the time? Doesn’t the presence of a profit motive give these employees a huge incentive to err on the side of denying people costly and necessary medical care?

    Awesome question. Here is the straight answer. Yes, today employees of the insurance companies make these decisions daily. They do so based on contracts they have with their members based on laws that stipulate what they can or can not do. When they violate those contracts you have a recourse. Granted it is a court of law and by the government, but you have some form of recourse to address the issue. Granted it might be after the fact too, but you can then punish the culprits.

    Remove the insurance companies and their employees and put health care in the hands of government employees. When they fuck up, who do I turn to? I certainly can not trust that the courts, another branch of government, will be looking after my interests. I don’t buy it. Especially when government can not afford the system like I see in most of these countries with socialized healthcare. Heck even if there is recourse, how likely am I to get anything but grief and the risk that in the future I can be punished for having the temerity to buck the system?

    You would never argue that it is a good idea to put the crazies at the insane asylum in charge of the place, but that’s the argument proponents of government healthcare are really making. No insult to crazy people intended BTW when thy are compared to government employees.

    Thumb up 0