Posted on 06/07/2012 10:48:18 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Sebelius: ‘We’ll be ready’ if Supreme Court strikes healthcare law By Elise Viebeck - 06/07/12 11:53 AM ET
President Obama's top health official told an audience Thursday that the administration will be prepared to react if the Supreme Court strikes down its healthcare reform law.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she is "confident and optimistic" that the high court will uphold the law, but added "we'll be ready for contingencies" if it does not.
The remark, at a White House town hall on women's health, comes as the president and Democrats brace themselves for the court's decision, which is expected by the end of the month.
A report last week said Obama has privately expressed concerns he could have to revisit healthcare issues in a second term — an attitude that contradicts the confidence he's expressed publicly that the court will rule in the law's favor.
"Frankly, we're just working as hard as we possibly can to get ready for 2014," when new portions of the law will be implemented, Sebelius told the friendly audience Thursday.
"It's best to anticipate that the law is fully constitutional. ... Some of the deadlines are pretty daunting," she said.
The ruling could come at 10 a.m. on any business day before the end of June, when the Supreme Court will finish its session.
Sebelius called healthcare reform "the most important women's health law in at least 50 years" — on par with Medicare.
"We've been talking to women throughout the country about the Affordable Care Act and about how this law is already impacting their lives," she said. "What the law meant for them is peace of mind.
"Whatever the circumstances … care will be there. Affordable prices will be there. Coverage will be there that you need."
Sebelius is attempting to paint SCOTUS as being ‘anti-women’ if they strike the law. Nice attempt at PSY OPS, horse face Sebelius!
Make that "Ø Care."
What's troubling for me is the lack of clarity on the question to be addressed in this issue:
- Is just the individual mandate to be struck down? - Is the entire bill unconstitutional due to non-severability?
It is embarrassing to watch this....
I believe they are two separate points, and both were argued before the SC.
With guns and intimidation.
Well...um...here, have a pill.
Sounds like they know the individual mandate will be struck down.
Impeach her! There’s her contingency.
Exactly!
LOL!!
Kagan or Soto spilled the beans already no doubt.
” If declared unconstitutional, they cannot do anything: they cannot tax, they cannot spend. I am wondering how they would enforce a toothless non-existant law.”
Obama’s Executive Orders
Remember that you are saving $3,000 a year by getting the free contraceptives that Ms. Flucke cried about. (sarcasm)
Don’t forget that for the first two years of the Obama administration the Pelosi and Reid had over whelming majorities in which they could and DID pass what they and Obama wanted with every Republican voting against it. And since 2010 the Republicans have passed many bills that have ended up being ignored by Harry Reid because he refuses to bring anything, except perhaps naming post offices, for vote in the Senate. And Reid has not even put forth a budget bill to be voted on and then sent to the House for reconciliation.
It has contingencies already built into previous laws. Many of the stimulus packages have other bits and pieces in them they used to set the stage for 0bamacare.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20090217/hefty-health-spending-in-stimulus-bill
Feb. 17, 2009 — The economic stimulus bill signed by President Obama contains more than $140 billion in health care spending...
...Most of the money is targeted to programs providing health coverage to low-income families
...It also, for the first time, directly commits federal dollars to studies comparing medical treatments head-to-head in the hopes of finding out which ones work best or are the most cost-effective.
http://voices.yahoo.com/federal-health-care-grab-stimulus-bill-2638910.html
According to Betsy McCaughey at Bloomberg, provisions have been tucked into the Obama stimulus package that would, in effect, take the ability of making medical decisions away from doctors and grant them to the federal government.
...One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and ‘guide’ your doctor’s decisions.”
What is all this health care language doing in an “economic stimulus” bill? It’s simple: It’s a quick-and-dirty way to sweep in Big Brother medicine while avoiding any public debate on the issue.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/025597_health_care_economic_stimulus.html#ixzz1x8tFxQuv
All true.
They are gonna ignore the ruling.
“When they are reduced to peddling ObamaKKKare as “women’s health care” they’ve lost it.
Nothing in there about the elderly, the sick, the poor, the injured, and certainly not the chillun’
Sibelius might as well start checking into the nuthouse. “
This administration is peddling EVERYTHING as a womens’ issue..everything. They treat women like the weakest creatures on earth that need big brother government protection. As a woman, it makes me sick!
--Send a bunch of politicians from the same party behind closed doors with access to lawyers and lobbyists.
--Seek no input from the opposing party or the American citizens in general.
--Create a byzantine 2400 page+ document that creates a feeding frenzy for special interests.
--Pass it behind closed doors with little time for review.
--Act indignant when the population rejects it, but use the resulting uproar for political gain.
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.