Posted on 04/06/2015 4:38:42 AM PDT by rootin tootin
A Supreme Court ruling against the Obama administration in King v. Burwell, according to conventional Beltway wisdom, will create serious political problems for governors and legislators in the 34 states that declined to set up Obamacare insurance exchanges. Most of these officials are Republicans, the thinking goes, and will thus be blamed for letting petty partisanship deprive their constituents of subsidies while plunging state insurance markets into chaos. Public wrath, we are told, will eventually force them to create PPACA exchanges. However, a new voter survey conducted in the affected states suggests that this is very unlikely to occur.
According to the survey, published by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA), the refusal of governors and state legislators to create Obamacare exchanges would not be seen by the electorate as the cause of any lost subsidies or disruptions in their insurance markets: “Instead, the vast majority of the voters are likely to blame Congress or the IRS.” This view is held by more than two-thirds of the electorate in the 34 states that would be impacted by the Supreme Court ruling—46 percent believe that the subsidy problem is the fault of sloppy lawmaking in Congress, while 22 percent believe the problem originated with the IRS.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
There is no loophole in the Constitution that makes an exception for unconstitutional laws that are inconvenient or politically problematic or will cause “chaos in the marketplace.”
Blaming Republican governors and legislatures requires several steps in critical thinking. Most people will not get beyond the first step which is an understanding that it’s called Obamacare because he owns it.
The question asks who will be “blamed”, ignoring the fact that most people who have to be forced to purchase a product don’t mind when the force is removed. Conservatives would happily take the credit, in the unlikely event that the Supreme Court rules based on the Constitution and not based on politics.
That is true, and what you understand is what the beltway mavens do not. They think that people are ALWAYS going to vote for everything that puts so much as a dollar in their pocket. Sometimes people vote to save the country.....a big picture notion that totally escapes the 24 hour news cycle issue by issue psychosis of the DC culture...media and consultants and those elected.
No need to worry. Roberts is willing to take the heat from constitutional conservatives for bad decisions, but he is not willing to stand up against the leftist bandwagon of the media. Roberts will vote with the majority that regardless of what the law actually said, what Congress meant to say was exactly the opposite. He will not upset the apple cart. We are stuck with this monstrosity? Roberts was another Bush disappointment.
Why do these moonbats think that there will be blame that does not go to obamacare? They don't, they are just doing wishful thinking.
The assumption in the article is that a ruling against subsidies for states without exchanges would be the end of it. But how can a law be constitutional that doles out entitlements to citizens of some states but not others? Logically, that is not equal treatment under the law, so the entire subsidy system would have to be ended — not just in free states, but slave states as well.
The slavers will seek to blame conservatives for the loss of handouts, but it is the Democrat governments of those states that will feel the dependents’ wrath. Conservatives were not going to get those votes anyway.
Unfortunately I was schooled on the way Roberts came to his twisted ‘logic’. Even though the Left was arguing the ‘fee’ was a ‘tax’ or not a ‘tax’, (depending on who was talking at the moment), Roberts decided it was a ‘tax’. It is his prerogative to ‘interpret’ words. If the word ‘tax’ had been in the original Bill, it never would have passed as the Dems wouldn’t have wanted to be seen imposing a new, massive tax on EVERYONE. The Bill should have been sent back for a revote. Period. One of the greater problems with Obamacare, all Taxation must start in the House. Reid took a House Bill, wiped it clean, then inserted all the Obamacare wording and they voted on it. The Bill has a House designation, but it was actually created in the Senate. EVERYTHING about Obamacare stinks to high heaven, but not even our SCOTUS could be bothered to be honest about the Constitutionality. All of our 3 branches have been corrupted by the lies of the Left.
The subsidies were set up as bait and switch anyway. The suckers who set up the exchanges are in it up to their eyeballs.
Do you think any Republican will have the political courage to stand up and say, "look to Obama for ways to fix this problem, it's HIS baby."
The Obamacare law was written that way to force states to create health care exchanges and that is clear both from the law and from Prof. Gruber’s revelations about how the law was created to hide the facts from the stupid American people.
No logical one, but SCOTUS makes up law all the time. See too, the rule that long standing unconstitutional laws are converted into constitutional ones, just by being on the books.
Ted Cruz has it in spades.
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.