Replies

Looks like Roberts knew what he was doing.

That statement could be interpreted to mean "what he was doing" was to destroy federalism, but assume you meant he was trying to create a poison pill for Obamacare. Whatever his motives, I am not convinced this is a good thing. Time will tell.

With all the liberal patting Obama on the back over this huge 'victory' (to get him re-elected) and the Republican whining on the other side over'losing' , this part of the SCOTUS ruling was ignored.

Some on FR have not discussed it, but in general it was hardly ignored.

Suppose that several states refuse the Obamacare expansions.

1) Dems are ready to demagogue governors and state legislatures who do not embrace the expansion. That could make a bigger difference in the 2014 elections than 2012.

2) Blue states are going to take all the fed money, and we all have to pay for that eventually. What happens if a blue state goes bankrupt because of its eventual "required contributions?" Bailout?

3) Don't the illegals, etc., go to federally-propped-up exchanges? Don't we get bigger government, more pork, more debt?

If Obamacare folds because of the Roberts ruling, the consensus will be that he is a genius, a long term thinker. Otherwise, many will blame Roberts, even if the GOP could have used the ruling to destroy Obamacare, (although I believe that would be much easier said than done -- perhaps beyond the capability/determination of GOP politicians).

Again, time will tell.

RE :”That statement could be interpreted to mean “what he was doing” was to destroy federalism,...”

Destroy???
As I recall when Republicans were in charge they thought federal power was a GREAT thing because THEY were in charge of it. But don't worry, with Romney we won't have that problem right?? After all his main excuse for Romney-care is Federalism so he must mean it.

I didn't vote for Roberts did you?

I like Roberts decision about Medicaid because for two years I have been saying that House Republicans should send a Senate a bill that allows any state to completely opt-out of Obama-care.(there would have to be a requirement that any state that stays in that it must not add to the deficit.) I still think that would be a better strategy than a 50 state repeal that includes even the liberal states who may want it, or at least claim they do. And yet they send the same bill OVER and over knowing it is going no place, just to distract us from their REAL spending bills.

By sending 50 state repeal bills to the Senate over and over they put little pressure on Democrats to do anything with it.

Most Republicans don't believe in states having their own say. They believe in themselves ruling the country instead of Democrats. The Romney states rights excuse is laughable.

Like I said, states can now opt out of at least part of Obama-care (the one that would have bankrupted them) and the reaction by most Republicans(it seems) is "Ho-hum, I wanted Roberts to repeal the entire bill for all the states. After all, I am supporting the guy I don't trust to do anything right so it was Roberts job to do it for him"