Home » The HCR ruling: there’s a pony somewhere

Comments

The HCR ruling: there’s a pony somewhere — 13 Comments

  1. Reading through the various opinions found here , just noted this comment from Ginsberg at p. 18:

    “THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s novel constraint on Congress’ commerce power gains no force from our precedent and for that reason alone warrants disapprobation.”

    However, Robert’s analysis could well serve as a blueprint for future rulings finding limits to the commerce clause, even if its a purely academic statement today.

  2. I agree on the long struggle part. To those feeling down again I say remember the prohibition fight. It was won and against an amendment not just a law or court opinion!

  3. Well, legally speaking, social security is a tax but for nearly 80 years people have believed that they’re paying into a little strong box with their name on it. So I’m not anticipating any riots in the street against this latest switcheroo that the dems played on us.

    Also, like SS, Obamacare is a parasite attached to an activity we would and should be doing anyway, having health insurance, there is no way to “resist” this law without hurting ourselves.

    The only silver lining I can see and I’m squinting hard to see it is that we will realize that there is no cavalry to ride to the rescue.

  4. Why is it that the Supreme Court “swing vote” usually comes from the conservatives? The lefties always hang together, law be damned. Maybe they understand what is at stake.

  5. I agree that this ridiculous ruling should fire up conservatives, but it is indeed ‘stinky macaroni’. Thanks to all of you who are looking for the silver lining on such a dark day. You’ve lifted my sour mood a bit.

  6. I think Roberts made a grand compromise and fell on his sword to limit the commerce clause without wading into politically-determined policy. This was as close to overturning the mandate and keeping everything in place (best possible outcome) as possible and still side with the 4 liberal justices (they all have to work together again.)

    It’s a victory.

  7. To all the “pessimists”, I understand how you feel (yep sucks a big one!), but get up and fight and enjoy the fight. We remain our biggest enemy. This is not the Mongols in the suburbs killing every living thing and coming our way(though that could be quite salutory in some places) we retain many advantages, let’s use them. One observation, I think Roberts has given out a poison pill that the Dems will wish they hadn’t swallowed.

  8. Wonks, please help me here:

    It’s a tax in that if you don’t get insurance you pay a penalty which goes to the government, the idea being that with this stick, the young and healthy and cheap will compensate the insurance companies for having to cover the old, sick and expensive. So far, so good?

    But this tax or penalty is peanuts compared to the cost of buying health insurance, so it’s cheaper to pay the tax and buy insurance only when you already have a medical problem, which the ACA will compel insurance companies to sell you no matter what.

    This, as the law stands, is perfectly legal. But how can it not have the effect of swiftly bankrupting the insurance companies? Or was that the idea all along? that the govt would have to step in and “rescue” the health system?

    So for those who want to nationalize healthcare, their plan is right on schedule.

  9. holmes: I wish I could agree with you that it’s a victory, and I appreciate the pep talk, but I think it’s a defeat, although a defeat from which the right can recover, if it is strong enough.

    The problem is that legal rulings are complex, and this one certainly is. The distinction between commerce clause powers and taxation powers may be clear to us, but to most people all this will mean is “Obamacare was upheld, therefore it’s a victory for Obama.”

    And that’s the way the MSM is spinning it, of course. People often read headlines and not much else. Here’s a typical headline that blurs the distinction: “Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax.” The article goes on to say in its first sentence, “In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld his signature health care law’s individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. “

  10. armchair pessimist: I believe that was the intent.

    In fact, as luck would have it, right now Rush Limbaugh is playing on his show the tape of Obama (I think from the 2008 campaign) where Obama is talking to supporters and says that in his first term he will pass a health insurance law that will have some of the characteristics he wants, but won’t yet eliminate employer-provided health insurance. He says that will happen later–give it perhaps 10 years.

    I just found a link to it. It was actually in 2007, addressing the SEIU:

    OBAMA 2007: My commitment is to make sure that we’ve got universal health care for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we can set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out.

  11. It’s a defeat – for now.

    If you want repeal, you can no longer rationalize a fantasy that the Supreme Court will do your heavy lifting for you. You’ve got to get out and elect candidates who will repeal it

    Considering nearly 3/4 of all Americans want it repealed and they haven’t been hit by it yet, I’d say the electoral environment just got a lot friendlier for those who pledge repeal, and a lot more hostile to those opposed.

    You think someone in favor of repeal is *only* going to repeal Obamacare, think again. Even if we don’t win enough of this coming election for repeal, it only gets worse for the Obamacare supporters from here on out. There is no doubt in any economist’s mind precisely what it is going to do to the economy.

    Finally, whatever else John Roberts has done today, this is the first acknowledgment *in law* that government imposed taxes and costs of regulation are taxes. This may be the greatest Trojan Horse in history – and the four liberal justices signed off on it.

    Not to mention the ruling on the Medicaid funds, which is going to put a real spike in the federal government’s ability to *force* states to comply.

    This could be Progressivism’s high water mark, as well as a Pyrrhic victory of epic propertions. Yes, they hold the field for now. But a generation later, Rome had conquered Pyrrhus’ homeland

  12. Still think it’s a pyrrhic victory (as someone else noted) when the win entails a massive tax on everybody to support a program that is generally unpopular.

  13. Melson: yes, yes,yes! This is what I meant by a poison pill. The Libs are now trapped by this thing. They must now defend taxation, something they did everything on earth to avoid including lying. Since it’s unpopular they must enforce it. No amount of it’s “for the children” etc will save them. Though they hold the field they have ceded the intiative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>