Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time. Posted on 03/30/2012 8:04:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama's health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.
There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June.
If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment.
But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking. Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That's a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent. Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters.
Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it's not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president's health care plan. It's the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions.
This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.
Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.
Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.
It's not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it's the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care. For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That's why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive.
Democrats favor pre-paid plans so that some of their constituents (nurses unions spring to mind) can better plan their efforts to obtain higher pay and more benefits.
Did I just say the Democrats would trash the US Constitution for a possible $0.12 per hour pay raise?
Oh, yes, that's what they do.
Strike option 1. The SCOTUS doesn’t have the guts to overturn Obamacare.
Strike option 2. With Romney as the nominee, and lots of “good conservatives” staying home, Obama is all be a shoe in.
Option 3... Ahhh haaa haaaa, that IS the plan! The ones that have insurance and like it, they’re the problem, in Obama’s world. Cloward Piven will take care of it.
I am rally tired of the negativity. Be a little more confident. Sheesh
“Be a little more confident. Sheesh “
And you find the freepers staying home something that inspires confidence?
He’s a Browns fan. All he KNOWS is defeat.
author seems to think that skittles $h!dding unicorns are going to magically disassemble a fedzilla octopusses tentacles from the pieces already in place...
never has happened yet, even when 'unfunded', the machine keeps rolling along with an open checkbook to do whatever is next on the agenda...
but public opinion, or the supremes, or elections or etc will be the turning point...
and the Jews thought a hot shower would be nice after a long train ride too...
Strike option 2. With Romney as the nominee, and lots of “good conservatives” staying home, Obama is all be a shoe in.
I can understand your "Joe Bflspk" pessimism, after years of rooting for those losers from the village of burning rivers, not the Steelers, from Three Rivers, but at least wait and see what the SCOTUS does before you go down to the Flats and get stoned.
Cleveland, the city that elected dennis, kookoo, the menace as mayor, home of the browns, the place that even lebron james abandoned.
But, winners that they are, the Indians won the world series in 1948. Chin up.
BOOKMARKED!!! Negativity must die because it’s self-fulfilling!!!
“But, winners that they are, the Indians won the world series in 1948. Chin up.”
I’m wondering, were you born brain damaged, did you have an accident, or are you just willfully an ignorant sack of puss?
Some folks think political decisions and everything in general is about them, not the country. No candidate that can pull half the votes in a national election will ever be pure enough for them. They prefer losing and will make sure they always lose. Not voting is their insurance policy against taking any responsibility.
Candidates who can garner half the votes in a national election aren’t conservative enough for me either, but I have enough sense to know Obama must go, and that we need control of congress to have a prayer of saving this country. Those two things go together in a national election.
The crybabies won’t decide the electon. Their number are much smaller than they estimate, and most of them will vote when the time comes, no matter how much they whine until then.
the beast is feeding, even without any ‘funding’, the baby teeth are being shed for new fangs...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2865908/posts
/BFL
O will do as much damage as possible
I heard an interesting theory how the Supreme’s (Court) is going to save face, and rule 6-3 in favor of the Constitutionality of Obamacare...
We all know where the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse will go...Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will be the bedrock of the majority...Kennedy has said in his responses this week that he is “open” to agressively finding a way to wrap around that concept, as is Chief Justice Roberts...There’s your 6...
What I gleened from this was that in the interest of keeping the countries panties from getting too much in a wad, Robert’s will go with the majority to keep this from going to a 5-4 decision, and thus be able to write the majority opinion himself...
This move would save the face of the SCOTUS and at the same time allow him to pose extreme restrictions and scope on the law itself, give it an extreme narrow implementation scope...
Basically limiting the government to doing this for Healthcare ONLY...
But what bothers me about this is the fact that we know, once SCOTUS allows this to become Constitutional by their opinion, Congress and any President after this will be able to do things through procedures and precidents on previous contraversial acts (laws)...
I hope this is wrong...But in someways it makes sense...
I hope SCOTUS nukes it. I don't see a McConnell/Bohner led Congress having the stones to repeal it.
I’m wondering, were you born brain damaged, did you have an accident, or are you just willfully an ignorant sack of puss?
Oh, sorry, I forgot they also won in 1920.
It was you, brownsfan, that started off with doom and gloom and sounding like glenn beck.
So with both humor and sarcasm, I point out the reasons for your sour and sour attitude, you attack me with liberal like screaming, you're brain damaged, you were injured in an accident, or you are an ignorant sack of puss.
It's too bad you have no ability to thrust and parry, but you being a browns fan, I understand, bless your heart.
Please don't continue to get into a gun fight when you are only armed with skittles and a soft drink.
Nurses only have unions in a very small part of the east coast (two states maybe) and in California. In the entire rest of the Country, Nurses have staved off the unions against all odds...and you want to lump them in with the sellouts?
You know..there may only be a few ladies out there willing to stand on the right..why not push them over the edge as well./s **Spit**
“So with both humor and sarcasm... “
No, you attacked me with the skill and precision of a 2 year old with a chainsaw. Fortunately, the attack itself nets no result. I don’t assign my fortunes to millionaires playing a game. And since I don’t live in Cleveland, you may attack that place at will. It’s another American city lost to liberals.
As I see you reuse my post, and attempt to reply in kind, with nothing further to add, I see you lack skill and original thought. It has nothing to do with a sports franchise, or the good folks of Pittsburgh. You simply are not a very good example of what a thinking person should be.
Now, back to the original post. If you can’t handle the nature of the post, pass it by. If you want to tell me why it’s wrong, that would be a pleasant surprise, and indicate you are more than a vapid individual.
The SCOTUS has been and is influenced by politics, and it’s difficult to imagine them over turning the law. Justice Kennedy commented on the special nature of health insurance, Justice Scalia remarked that they are not up to the task to go through the 2700 pages of the law. Best case, they’ll strike down the mandate, but allow the law to stand, giving the politicians plenty of room to reimagine what they’ve done.
As for people staying home and not voting for Romney? Really? You take issue with that? Here? “No Romney No Way”? Are you serious?
And finally, read up on Cloward Piven if you haven’t already. The theory states that the way to reform a capitalist system’s safety nets is to overwhelm and break them.
Debate the substance if you will. If all you have is more insults, I have no time for you.
First of all sorry about your back problems and I hope your doctor can help you with it. Second, the negativity on Speaker of the House John Boehner and Minority Senator McConnell, and that they wouldn’t have the stones to repeal it, that you and others have expressed, really disturbs me. You don’t know what they will do. And if you remember we only have the House. McConnell can not hold a gun on Harry Reid and force him to repeal the health care law
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.