Video: Why the White House should be afraid, very afraid, over the ObamaCare arguments this week

posted at 10:25 am on March 29, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Reason’s Damon Root attended the final day of the ObamaCare oral arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday and has extensively analyzed the proceedings from earlier in the week as well, and concludes that the White House underestimated the difficulty of its task.  While the Left has focused most of its blame on the performance of Solicitor General Donald Verilli, Root says that the problems stem from the arguments that the Obama administration made about the PPACA, and how quickly the justices poked significant holes in them:

“If I was in the Obama administration, I would not be comfortable with how the last three days went.”

Reason‘s Damon Root was in attendance for the third and final day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), which focused primarily on the issue of severability, which brings into question whether the individual mandate be excised from the law, or if the law in its totality must be struck down.

Now that the case is in the hands of the Court and a decision isn’t expected until late June, Root thinks the Obama administration has reason to be concerned not only because their Solicitor General’s performance rated poorly, but because “their arguments were nowhere near as strong as they thought they were going to be.”

Democrats are starting to hit the panic button, as this Washington Post article makes clear.  While a few publicly say that a Supreme Court rejection would make for good politics for Barack Obama and other Democrats in the fall election, most understand privately that losing the entire bill or even just the mandate would be a huge political embarrassment:

The Supreme Court’s skeptical consideration of President Obama’s landmark health-care legislation this week has forced his supporters to contemplate the unthinkable: that the justices could throw out the law and destroy the most far-reaching accomplishment of the Obama presidency.

The fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is uncertain. A ruling is not expected until June. White House officials are refusing publicly to consider that the law might be struck down or to discuss contingency plans, insisting that they do not address hypothetical questions.

Other Democrats have begun assessing how such an outcome could affect the political landscape of 2012, with some surmising that a backlash against Republicans could follow a ruling against the law. But supporters argue that on a substantive level, the results would be devastating. …

The court will effectively render judgment on the leadership of the president. It was Obama who, at every turn during the original health-care debate, pressed for a more ambitious package that required Americans to purchase insurance.

A nullification would serve as a dramatic rebuke of that decision as well as the judgments Obama and his advisers made about the legality of the law.

“He’s mortgaged his presidency, at least his first term, on health care,” said George C. Edwards, the author of a new book on Obama called “Overreach” and a historian at Texas A&M University. The law “would have restructured a major aspect of life in America. It would have been a major, major legacy for the president. If that is thrown out, he has much less to show for it.”

Meanwhile, the White House is keeping a stiff upper lip, at least publicly.  Yesterday, deputy press secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the Obama administration hadn’t begun gaming out a Plan B in case the court tossed ObamaCare out:

The White House has no contingency plans in place in the event the Supreme Court rules the healthcare law is unconstitutional.

White House officials said Wednesday they remain “confident” that the healthcare reform law is constitutional and is implementing all the provisions of the law.

If the law is thrown out, there’s “no contingency plan in place,” principal deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said at Wednesday’s press briefing with reporters. “We’re focused on maximizing the benefits of this law.”

Don’t bet on that.  After this week’s developments at the Supreme Court, no political organization would shrug off the possibilities of defeat.  If nothing else, they will have begun to formulate a political plan of attack in the event of a total or partial loss when the decision comes down, most likely in late July, and you can also bet your bottom dollar that it will include a strategy of launching nasty attacks on the integrity of the justices who vote it down — unless the final vote comes out differently than the 5-4 split everyone is expecting.

Update: Perhaps this is a trial balloon for the post-overturning strategy?

Obama pollster Joel Benenson at Third Way breakfast downplays #hcr; “the president has many signature accomplishments over his first term.”

Well, there was the stimulus that failed to stimulate, the Recovery Summer That Wasn’t, bankruptcies at Solyndra and other Obama-donor-linked companies that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, high gas prices, and … er … the Lily Ledbetter Act.  Yeah, that strategy probably won’t fly.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

We are talking about pre-existing condition here.

medicaid does not solve the problem currently because if you have a pre-existing condition and are out of the income range you don’t get covered. In order for Medicaid to truly work, the income restriction must be lifted so that regardless of pre-existing condition one can still get coverage

liberal4life on March 29, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The reality is that the “pre existing condition” problem is much, much, much smaller than liberals claim. It can be dealt with in some fashion w/o attempting to socialize all of health-care. Reforming medicaid so that it covers such people w/ a sliding scale for co-pays, etc., depending upon income is one possibility.

But Obamacare is hardly necessary, or even a good policy, for dealing with the per-existing condition problem.

there are issues with health care costs. Obamacare is just about the worst possible answer to those issues.

Monkeytoe on March 29, 2012 at 1:11 PM

because conservatives who oppose forced wealth distribution by government fiat or force are always tarred as empathy devoid sociopaths who want grandma and junior to die it’s worth noting just who it is that gives more to charities . you know charities- people donate to them of their own free will because they feel it’s the right thing to do . charities- that pay for expensive health care for poor sick children. charities that open free clinics and soup kitchens. charities that distribute food, clothing and necessities to the poor. charities that send millions overseas to help poor little children.

it’s those who identify as conservatives who by far give more to charity than self professed liberals who demand that the money (mostly of the middle classes given our insane tax structure. romneycare specifically undermines the lower middle classes that are ‘too wealthy” for subsidized care but “too poor” to afford mandated insurance madness.) ‘donated’ has to come from captive country of wage slaves who have no right to the fruits of their own labor.

liberal incomes are 6 times higher on average yet conservatives give 30% more to charity. they give more time and donate more blood. red states and states that voted for bush over kerry have residents who give more to charity than blue states .for all their screaming and ranting about how conservatives hate the poor and want sick babies to die , liberals aren’t themselves doing as much for the less fortunate( unless it would appear those less fortunate are polar bears or rare tree frogs or trees or already wealthy proponents of global warming http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/al_gore_the_first_carbon_billi.html .) but demanding other peoples money be confiscated against their will by the government to make solar panels and expensive egg beater powered cars.

http://amzn.com/0465008232

neither liberals nor many RINOs seem to understand exactly how insurance works-which is part of the reason we were screwed even before romneycare/obamacare- both of which make things worse .when things degenerate because of stupid government policy it’s the ‘less fortunate’ who will always suffer the most. both laws have the same end- destroy the health insurance and health care delivery systems and force creation of an american national health service. who exactly do liberals think will be most hurt during the transition?

medicare/medicaid is already insolvent-with what will it be expanded? stealing from also insolvent social security?

mittens on March 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

White House officials are refusing publicly to consider that the law might be struck down or to discuss contingency plans, insisting that they do not address hypothetical questions.

Translation — They only address entirely unforeseen, disastrous, and now likely hypotheticals in the Panic Room. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. Imagine the screaming, screeching, and finger pointing.

Does anyone really believe the SCOTUS Q&A has not made the distinct possibility Obamacare may go down in flames the #1 Priority for Team Obama or that it now occupies almost all of their time and attention?

farsighted on March 29, 2012 at 1:12 PM

..please change your nickname. Posts like these are — in the context of your sobriquet — offensive in the extreme.

May I suggest something like, “HeadUpMyAsss”?

The War Planner on March 29, 2012 at 12:14 PM

We’ll all turn our nicks into “headupmyass” if you answer the following challenge …

Name one Republican President in your lifetime who ever CUT the size of government.

Can’t answer it but you’re still voting Republican?

Heh – maybe you’re the one with your head up your ass!

HondaV65 on March 29, 2012 at 1:13 PM

HondaV65 on March 29, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Heh, I love it when two tough dudes duel.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Obama at his next SOTU address: “The Supreme Court acted stupidly”.

Paul-Cincy on March 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

LOL

You think Obama is regretting making Kagan an SG an then appointing her to the bench??

Her one job was to create a strong case to protect the law when it went before the SCOTUS and it failed. :D

MityMaxx on March 29, 2012 at 12:54 PM

One of my favorite parts about the argument yesterday afternoon was when Kagan openly mocked Clement to laughter in the courtroom and then was immediately slapped back down by Clement in a Reaganesque comeback. Beautiful.
To paraphrase:
Kagan: WOW, you would question a gift of 10 Million dollars based on where it came from???? (laughter from Kagan and audience)
Clement: Yeah, if it came from my bank account. (Stunned silence from Kagan and audience)

Liberals think our tax money belongs to the federal government in the first place.

txmomof6 on March 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

it still dont solve the pre-existing condition problem.
Expanding medicare to include that pool will be a good idea
liberal4life on March 29, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I don’t have car insurance but I backed my car into a hydrant. Can I go get car insurance now and expect them to fix the damage I had since before they covered me?

Same difference.

Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The fallacy of the pre-existing conditions argument is that the data shows a miniscule number of people denied insurance because of pre-exisiting conditions…and there are still a large number of insurers who will cover you. But, It’ll cost a bit more.

Saddling the rest of the entire population with huge additional financial burdens to take care of less that 2% of the population?

This makes sense? This makes sense to anyone but the must rabid progressive or socialist?

Lastly, there are hundreds of private organizations and foundations, some pegged to specific diseases and disorders, who provide funds, medical expertise, and cover hospitalization and treatment…gratis…one merely has to ask, and submit to a thorough physical.

So…what percentage of those claiming to be denied health insurance coverage have actually been denied medical treatment?

Other than Barrack Hussein Obama’s proven-false claim that his mother died because she was denied medical care because of a pre-existing condition.

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

You can have all the things you listed and we’d still make it, but you wouldn’t, you bloodsucker.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Good for you, you Mad Max utopian.
I mean, civilization is for losers, right?
You are so much more real than most of the wannabees here.
Will you teach us how to make a radio out of potatoes?
Actually, scratch that. Radio waves is just another way for the government to control you.
Can you at least make a potato, though?

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Over at C-SPAN, I’ve been listening to the audio of the arguments and as, I think it was Ginsburg or Kagan, suggested that Social Security was an instance of the government requiring all people to pay for something they might not need or want, it might not differ from the ACA. Verrilli tried to riff off that but my thought was that that argument, for me, cast doubt on the validity of the social security system.

Zusnn on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Good for you, you Mad Max utopian.
I mean, civilization is for losers, right?
You are so much more real than most of the wannabees here.
Will you teach us how to make a radio out of potatoes?
Actually, scratch that. Radio waves is just another way for the government to control you.
Can you at least make a potato, though?

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I’m starting to believe you’re a bit of an idiot.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Wait, I know Congress has been excluded from Obamacare, but did they forget to exclude the Supreme Court Justices!!!!

jeffersonschild on March 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m starting to believe you’re a bit of an idiot.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Well if I’m going to play on par with the Schadenfreudes, etc.,
I might have to convince you.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I’m starting to believe you’re a bit of an idiot.
Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

You must be late to the game.

Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I think it was Ginsburg or Kagan, suggested that Social Security was an instance of the government requiring all people to pay for something they might not need or want, it might not differ from the ACA. Verrilli tried to riff off that but my thought was that that argument, for me, cast doubt on the validity of the social security system.Zusnn on March 29, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Heh. Sometimes things don’t work out so well.

a capella on March 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I can’t help but consider that if the Democrats wouldn’t have forced this bill through, they could have been better served in the long run to take the time and develop the proper arguments or allowances that fell within the Constitution. Instead, they were so reckless, hasty and forceful that they didn’t even consider that constitutionality could be in question. They never had a Plan B.

I’m not counting my chickens before they’re hatched that this bill will be struck down, but power clearly blinded Democrats as they pushed through this bill before making sure anyone knew what was in it.

pjean on March 29, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Latest White House Lib-Prog Meme on ACA -

Earnest said the healthcare law “was originally a Republican idea” and was backed by “the former governor of Massachusetts.”

powerpickle on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

“But it should be just like car insurance! Everyone has to buy car insurance!”

Um,
My State Farm agent has told me that when I move to another state I can keep State Farm but will have to purchase it through an agent in that state.

And, I do not have to buy car insurance if I do not own a car.

Geez.

Is there another myth that needs to be debunked?

Tenwheeler on March 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I thought I heard Obutthead’s plan B this morning in now calling the mandate “personal responsibility” which as far as I can tell is just libturd code for “paying your fair share,” eh?

stukinIL4now on March 29, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Latest White House Lib-Prog Meme on ACA -

Earnest said the healthcare law “was originally a Republican idea” and was backed by “the former governor of Massachusetts.”

powerpickle on March 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM

This is SOOOO incredibly amazing, Obama is totally doubling-down on the “It’s Not My Fault” campaign strategy….

powerpickle on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I don’t have car insurance but I backed my car into a hydrant. Can I go get car insurance now and expect them to fix the damage I had since before they covered me?

Same difference.

Akzed on March 29, 2012 at 1:18 PM

In fairness, not all per-existing condition people lack insurance do to their choices. Some were born with the condition and age out of their parents’ insurance and then can’t get coverage. Others perhaps lose their jobs and can’t afford to continue their insurance through cobra and then develop a condition, etc. Or a child born to parents that don’t have insurance and the child has a condition. It’s not the kid’s fault his parents did not get insurance.

Not saying Obamacare is the answer or a requirement to cover per-existing conditions is an answer. I think there needs to be some policy for people in this situation who can’t afford care but who have jobs and make too much money to be eligible for medicaid.

Sure, some are people who simply chose not to get insurance when they could and then develop a condition – and I have little sympathy for them. They made their bed. But there are individuals who lack insurance through no real fault of their own.

But, Obamacare is the worst possible policy for any problem with health care and/or health care insurance.

Monkeytoe on March 29, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Well if I’m going to play on par with the Schadenfreudes, etc.,
I might have to convince you.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Mission accomplished.

So to recap: anyone against ObamaCare must be some Unabomber nutjob living out in a shanty, making radios out of potatoes. As you know, this is now most of America. America has thoroughly rejected this sack of crap and hopefully SCOTUS will put the steak through your heart.

Hope it was worth it.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Ridiculous but it must be quiet around there.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I can’t help but consider that if the Democrats wouldn’t have forced this bill through, they could have been better served in the long run to take the time and develop the proper arguments or allowances that fell within the Constitution. Instead, they were so reckless, hasty and forceful that they didn’t even consider that constitutionality could be in question.

That would require the bill to be discussed in committee, be marked up, brought before the full Senate for discussion, voted on, sent to the House, a similar bill treated the same way in the House, the two bills being sent to a conference committee to carve out the differences, them the completed bill being sent to the President for his signature…..

Oh wait.

Meantime, THREE YEARS with no budget from the Senate. But they got this POS rammed through on Christmas Eve…

Tenwheeler on March 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

If they had any honor, they would resign in disgrace.

John the Libertarian on March 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

steak through your heart.

Hope it was worth it.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

T-Bone or Porterhouse?

Monkeytoe on March 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

“stake through heart” not “steak”. I must be hungry.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Why is it that liberals/progressives seem to only want to help other people with other peoples’ money?

coldwarrior on March 29, 2012 at 12:35 PM

That’s the pure genius and beauty of liberalism. Only after Jim Carey was making $20 million per picture did he decide that Communism was more rational than any other system. Almost all the rich people in the country–certainly all the rich celebrities–are radical leftists because it involves absolutely no personal sacrifice whatsoever.

Burke on March 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Liberals think our tax money belongs to the federal government in the first place.

txmomof6 on March 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

+1

Reality Checker on March 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Will you teach us how to make a radio out of potatoes?
Actually, scratch that. Radio waves is just another way for the government to control you.
Can you at least make a potato, though?

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Good thing the government created radios… and PCs… and iPads…

mankai on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

After this week’s developments at the Supreme Court, no political organization would shrug off the possibilities of defeat. If nothing else, they will have begun to formulate a political plan of attack in the event of a total or partial loss when the decision comes down, most likely in late July, and you can also bet your bottom dollar that it will include a strategy of launching nasty attacks on the integrity of the justices who vote it down — unless the final vote comes out differently than the 5-4 split everyone is expecting.

I’ve already heard the beginnings of this line of attack on the Justices — not by anyone officially connected with the White House, of course, but from Obot bloggers (who we all know get their marching orders from Axlerat) are already starting this meme.

Don’t shrug off the Obot bloggers, they had a huge effect in the 2008 primary & GE spreading the worst slanders against all of Obama’s opponents in those contests, which Obama could pretend to not be connected with and even pretend to “condemn.” It was a coordinated effort with the Obama camp (remember JournoList?) that gave Obama plausible deniability.

Dark Star on March 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Good thing the government created radios… and PCs… and iPads…

mankai on March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM

And potatoes.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

So if someone loses their job and develop a pre-existing condition, we should let them rot? Thanks for your honesty.

At least someone is being honest about how they feel about poor people who cant get insurance

liberal4life on March 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

So let me ask YOU a question…

How much have YOU given away to help poor people in those conditions? Have YOU given anything to help them pay for insurance?

If you haven’t, doesn’t that HONESTLY make you a heartless liberal who is only using the poor to score political points to ram your agenda down our throats?

And before you ask me the same question, I’ll say YES I HAVE. My sister has a brain condition where her brain produces too much fluid and it has to be periodically drained or it causes her migraines. Her husband was put on disability after he started blacking out at work… without pay. They had no money to buy food, pay mortgage, or pay the co-pay for doctor visits. WE supported them for a month until her husband could get it under control and found another job. WE took care of their kids when they couldn’t.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE ABOUT THESE POOR, WITH MEDICAL CONDITIONS?

If liberal healthcare schemes remain, then we have LESS money to help my sister and her family through their problems.

Maybe the problem isn’t with too few government healthcare options, but with TOO MANY LIBERALS WHO REFUSE TO HELP OTHERS.

/rant off

dominigan on March 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

On the day the SCOTUS overturns PPACA: “The Supreme Court acted stupidly.” – B. Hussein Obama

CatchAll on March 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I posted this in headlines, but I’m going to re-post it here, because its worth repeating:

I can’t believe the GOP is trying to make hay about Obama’s Russia comments, as if Russia or foreign policy is going to be a general election issue. This is a distraction from this week’s Obamacare hearings. It says a lot about Romney that he (and his surrogates) would rather talk about friggin’ Russia than Obamacare. Obama took office during a global recession, compounded with an international debt crisis, and proceeded to waste a year of his presidency passing a deeply-unpopular, budget-busting health insurance entitlement, which is now on the verge of being ruled unconstitutional.

If the individual mandate is struck down, the rest of O-care will fall with it, and Obama’s first term will look like a joke. Doubly so given that the longest job he ever held before becoming President was as a constitutional law professor, and yet he somehow did not foresee the constitutional defects in his signature initiative (on which he wasted a year of the country’s time, during a crisis). I don’t care if Mitt Romney is uncomfortable talking about Obamacare, he needs to learn how to fast, because Russia will not win the 2012 election for Republicans.

Lawdawg86 on March 29, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Lawdawg86 on March 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Lawdawg86 on March 29, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think the continued shafting of our cold war allies is a pretty big deal.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The GOP position on health care reform has been, and remains, one of lowering COST, both in terms of health care insurance,as well as health care services and supplies. If the individual mandate is excised from the legislation, or, the entire legislation is struck down, the GOP will move to institute these reforms.

Tort reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Caps on awards. This would lower the malpractice insurance premiums paid by physicians and providers that are exorbitantly high and force the cost of providing care up. It would also free providers from routinely ordering multiple diagnostic tests, when fewer would suffice for the best care of the patient, that are meant specifically to protect the provider in the event of a lawsuit. This would lower the cost to the patient and facilitate a more timely, and often, comfortable, course of treatment as well.

Portability. The health care insurance of the individual should be tied to the individual, rather than the employer, so that when a person, for any reason, changes jobs, their health care insurance travels with them.

No denial of coverage of preexisting conditions.

Tax equalization. Small businesses who provide health care insurance for their employees should receive the same tax breaks that the corporations receive.

The ability to purchase and sell health care insurance across state lines. This would increase competition and help to drive the cost of health care down.

On a personal note: If we are going to subsidize anything more in health care, I think starting with subsidizing the education of more young doctors, nurses and technicians would be an excellent investment. Medical school costs are prohibitively high. Young physicians with massive student loan debt and high malpractice insurance premiums would still like to have a home and a family too. This massive liability can dissuade students with the ability to become excellent physicians from entering the field. Those with potential should be encouraged to enter the field and a subsidy to help defray the cost of their education would go a long way toward encouraging them to enter the medical field. This would increase the availability of quality care and thus, drive down prices through competition. Building more hospitals and clinics would also help, in the long run, to advance competition and drive down costs while seeing that Americans receive the quality health care that we need.

thatsafactjack on March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM

txmomof6 on March 29, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Is there a place we can hear this exchange (preferable without listening to several hours of argument)?

Pattosensei on March 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think the continued shafting of our cold war allies is a pretty big deal.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

In any other week I would agree, but not this week. This week should be about bludgeoning the White House with Anthony Kennedy’s blistering critiques of the individual mandate. It should be about reminding the country of why the bill is so awful, and reminding everyone that Obama squandered a year of his presidency passing this monstrosity, which is almost assuredly responsible for prolonging the recession.

Yes, Obama’s Russia comments are a big deal. But Obamacare and our stagnant economy are THE deal. Come November, no one is going to vote based on what Obama said about Russia. Why isn’t Mitt Romney, the would-be Republican frontrunner, attacking the White House on Obamacare every chance he gets??????????

Lawdawg86 on March 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

So to recap: anyone against ObamaCare must be some Unabomber nutjob living out in a shanty, making radios out of potatoes. As you know, this is now most of America. America has thoroughly rejected this sack of crap and hopefully SCOTUS will put the steak through your heart.

Hope it was worth it.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM

A recap only if you can’t follow a thread.
I certainly didn’t mean ‘anyone’ – just the no government/no society/no civilization crowd.

Look forward to more of your astute ‘recaps’.

(…’hopefully SCOTUS will put the steak through your heart.’
wow. so dramatic. I too am looking forward season two of Game of Thrones.)

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM

In fairness, not all per-existing condition people lack insurance do to their choices. Some were born with the condition and age out of their parents’ insurance and then can’t get coverage. Others perhaps lose their jobs and can’t afford to continue their insurance through cobra and then develop a condition, etc. Or a child born to parents that don’t have insurance and the child has a condition. It’s not the kid’s fault his parents did not get insurance.

You’re looking for medical assurance, not insurance. Insurance is not a moral obligation, it’s a fiscal one to one’s self. Those who have much to lose get insurance so they don’t loose it and/or go bankrupt because of medical costs.

There should be two medical systems – public and private. Anyone can go to the public one but the private are pay-as-you-use, just like school systems where we pay taxes for public but some still elect to go private. To access the private system for $10,000+ medical bills you buy insurance. The public system would have a prescribed limit to tests, medical regimens and generic drugs, and have limited medical liability. Those points alone would bring the per-patient cost down by 75%.

shuzilla on March 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think the continued shafting of our cold war allies is a pretty big deal.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Anyone who could vote for Obama after hearing the hot mic discussion deserves a kick in the bits.

ABO, even if it’s Romney. Romney at least loves his country.

kim roy on March 29, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Can you at least make a potato, though?

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

YOU are the idealistic Utopian, Upton Sinclair type.

I’m a simpleton.

Can you at least make a potato, though?

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

I sure can, grow one. I can also milk a cow and shoot really, really, really good.

Oh, and thanks for calling me “real”.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Mark Levin has deftly explained why the social security argument does not hold. SOTUS caselaw holds that SS witholdings are a direct tax. Forced compulsion of individuals and businesses into private contracts of insurance by means of penalties has not been upheld.

If Obama had the political clout and control of Congress: a single payer health care takeover would likely pass muster with the SOTUS under current precedents.

wraithby on March 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Lawdawg86 on March 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

I don’t think we should exclude anything at anytime, how many stupid hot mic opportunities are we going to get? Shine the light on truth when the opportunity arises. Plus we are going to get the chance to discuss Obamacare when the ruling comes down. Better be prepared for all the possibilities.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Make that SCOTUS.

wraithby on March 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Is there a place we can hear this exchange (preferable without listening to several hours of argument)?

Pattosensei on March 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I listened to the whole thing, but I thought it was fascinating and I had the time. I know, I know my kids think I am a complete nerd as well. I do not know how to pick out that particular soundbite, but it was delicious, as were those of Breyer’s when he was kind of irritated with Verrilli. Ace had a post about it last night. Several places have the audio including CSpan.org. I know the court was extremely interested in the argument because Roberts gave both sides 15 extra minutes.

txmomof6 on March 29, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ok, fair enough.
No offense intended.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 2:20 PM

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Plus, on your “civilization is for losers”…

Nah, it’s not for losers, but what you want is not civilization.

In fact all of ‘humanity’ is not very human, nor civilized.

It’s my biggest disappointment, the man has not evolved into such, in such a long time.

Your aims will keep the masses back, enslaved in modern fashion, uneducated, not evolved, just for votes. It’s very sad.

Read Juan Williams’ article of yesterday. It is very enlightening, for those who truly see.

Oh, no offense taken. My nom is impervious to such :)

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It’s my biggest disappointment, the man has not evolved into such, in such a long time.

Your aims will keep the masses back, enslaved in modern fashion, uneducated, not evolved, just for votes. It’s very sad.
Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:24 PM

We see things differently.
I’ll read the Juan Williams’ article.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Obama got Osama.

That’s all you’ll hear about in November.

LOL

ButterflyDragon on March 29, 2012 at 2:28 PM

We see things differently.

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 2:27 PM

We sure do. At least we try to “see”.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:29 PM

So if someone loses their job and develop a pre-existing condition, we should let them rot? Thanks for your honesty.

At least someone is being honest about how they feel about poor people who cant get insurance

liberal4life on March 29, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Please provide the list of people who have been left to rot after losing their jobs and getting sick. According to your side, there are millions of people dying on the streets because the eeeeeeevil health insurance companies won’t give them coverage.

Surely there is a list compiled of these poor souls.

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

angryed on March 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Only Michelle Obama wrote a document, as a $450,000/yr. consultant in a hospital, to dump patients, which is illegal.

Media, cover this, you fools in Obama’s azz. Otherwise, suffocate from what you consume, what you dwell in.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 2:38 PM

A recap only if you can’t follow a thread.
I certainly didn’t mean ‘anyone’ – just the no government/no society/no civilization crowd.

Look forward to more of your astute ‘recaps’.

(…’hopefully SCOTUS will put the steak through your heart.’
wow. so dramatic. I too am looking forward season two of Game of Thrones.)

verbaluce on March 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Who again wants no civilization and no government.

Geez, grow up.

Chuck Schick on March 29, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Pulling a page from William O. Douglas’ “penumbra and emanations” – It would make me perfectly happy if SCOTUS would put the concept of “limited” back into “limited government” and refuse to Congress to continue pushing the Commerce Clause as the except that swallows all of our individual liberties.

EdmundBurke247 on March 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Heh, I love it when two tough trolls dudes duel.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2012 at 1:15 PM

DevilsPrinciple on March 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Pulling a page from William O. Douglas’ “penumbra and emanations” – It would make me perfectly happy if SCOTUS would put the concept of “limited” back into “limited government” and refuse to Congress to continue pushing the Commerce Clause as the except that swallows all of our individual liberties.

EdmundBurke247 on March 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Thank YOU !!!!!!

DevilsPrinciple on March 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Well, there was the stimulus that failed to stimulate, the Recovery Summer That Wasn’t, bankruptcies at Solyndra and other Obama-donor-linked companies that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, high gas prices, and … er … the Lily Ledbetter Act. Yeah, that strategy probably won’t fly.

Hey, he personally got onto his modified PS3 and controlled a Marine who killed Osama Bin Laden with amazing video gaming skills.

Or, something like that. He’s still dancing in the Endzone on that one. When all you have is being a High-school QB to your name it’s the first thing you tell anyone even when you’re 50 after all.

He’s the Al Bundy of Presidents, living on a single accomplishment of some note that wasn’t even entirely his accomplishment to begin with.

gekkobear on March 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

After this week’s developments at the Supreme Court, no political organization would shrug off the possibilities of defeat. If nothing else, they will have begun to formulate a political plan of attack in the event of a total or partial loss when the decision comes down, most likely in late July, and you can also bet your bottom dollar that it will include a strategy of launching nasty attacks on the integrity of the justices who vote it down — unless the final vote comes out differently than the 5-4 split everyone is expecting.

I’ve already heard the beginnings of this line of attack on the Justices — not by anyone officially connected with the White House, of course, but from Obot bloggers (who we all know get their marching orders from Axlerat) are already starting this meme.

Don’t shrug off the Obot bloggers, they had a huge effect in the 2008 primary & GE spreading the worst slanders against all of Obama’s opponents in those contests, which Obama could pretend to not be connected with and even pretend to “condemn.” It was a coordinated effort with the Obama camp (remember JournoList?) that gave Obama plausible deniability.

Dark Star on March 29, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Here’s a Primo example. Thanks to law prof Althouse for sharing the linkee. This was published yesterday in Esquire:

Tony Scalia’s Retirement Has Started Early

Here’s the deal. I think Justice Antonin Scalia isn’t even really trying any more. It’s been clear for some time now that he’s short-timing his job on the Supreme Court. The job bores him. All these inferior intellects coming before him. All those inferior intellects on the bench with him, now with some other Catholics who aren’t even as Catholic as he is, Scalia being the last living delegate who attended the Council of Trent. Inferior Catholics with inferior minds. What can a fellow do? He hung in there as long as he could, but he’s now bringing Not Giving A F*ck to an almost operatic level.

-snip-

t is plain now that Scalia simply doesn’t like the Affordable Care Act on its face. It has nothing to do with “originalism,” or the Commerce Clause, or anything else. He doesn’t think that the people who would benefit from the law deserve to have a law that benefits them. On Tuesday, he pursued the absurd “broccoli” analogy to the point where he sounded like a micro-rated evening-drive talk-show host from a dust-clotted station in southern Oklahoma. And today, apparently, he ran through every twist and turn in the act’s baroque political history in an attempt to discredit the law politically, rather than as a challenge to its constitutionality. (What in hell does the “Cornhusker Kickback” — yet another term of art that the Justice borrowed from the AM radio dial — have to do with the severability argument? Is Scalia seriously making the case that a banal political compromise within the negotiations from which bill eventually is produced can affect its ultimate constitutionality? Good luck ever getting anything passed if that’s the standard.) He’s really just a heckler at this point. If he can’t do any better than that, he’s right. Being on the court is a waste of his time.

Be sure to read all of the hateful Comments, which come from folks just as brain-dead as the doofus who wrote this steaming turd.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/scalia-retires-7675276#ixzz1qXGHyLXb

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM

White House officials are refusing publicly to consider that the law might be struck down or to discuss contingency plans, insisting that they do not address hypothetical questions.

This has GOT to be the most idiotic statement yet to come out of the White House.

disa on March 29, 2012 at 3:19 PM

He’s the Al Bundy of Presidents, living on a single accomplishment of some note that wasn’t even entirely his accomplishment to begin with.

gekkobear on March 29, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Please don’t insult Al Bundy like that.

And at least the guy who played him wasn’t forever typecast by that role!

/

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The guy looks like Joel Hodgson from Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The guy looks like Joel Hodgson from Mystery Science Theatre 3000.

itsspideyman on March 29, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Put some jug ears on Tom Servo and VOILA!

Roy Rogers on March 29, 2012 at 3:57 PM

What really is the most scary result if SCOTUS votes yes for the mandate is that it would open the door to forcing citizens to be at the mercy of the Federal Govt. Socialism people!!

In accepting this mandate it is Congress creating commerce to rule the people.

karlinsync on March 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM

interesting point in the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE & RELATED INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER PPACA (PPACA=Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act—what a sick joke that is!!!!!)-AKA Obamacare.

Summation prepared for congress and congressional committees by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

On FAILURE TO PAY PENALTY (for not having health insurance under the individual mandate:

“Taxpayers who are required to pay the penalty but refuse to do so will receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they owe the penalty.If they do not pay the penalty, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tex refunds in the future.(emphasis mine—) HOWEVER INDIVIDUALS WHO FAIL TO PAY THE PENALTY WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO ANY CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OR PENALTY FOR SUCH FAILURE. The Secretary CANNOT FILE NOTICE OF A LIEN OR FILE A LEVY OF ANY PROPERTY FOR A TAXPAYER WHO DOES NOT PAY THE PENALTY.”

I guess the trick is, if Obamacare should survive the SC, to not overrpay the IRS so they can’t refuse your requested refunds.

MaiDee on March 29, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Yep – don’t play for the refunds anymore -which you should never do anyway but lazily we often do.

The last president to balance a budget I believe was Eisenhower.
Which just goes to show how long it has been since anyone seriously thought about it.

Oh and he was a republican, so don’t blame us righties for hoping another one might get there again.

Zomcon JEM on March 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

“This bill really is Pelosicare. She wrote it. She made me do it.” — Obama

Typicalwhitewoman on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I guess the trick is, if Obamacare should survive the SC, to not overrpay the IRS so they can’t refuse your requested refunds.

100% correct.

This sudden drying up of these “free loans” will significantly hurt the machine – win/win.

Make them choke on their crap.

SilverDeth on March 29, 2012 at 5:14 PM

What really is the most scary result if SCOTUS votes yes for the mandate is that it would open the door to forcing citizens to be at the mercy of the Federal Govt. Socialism people!!

In accepting this mandate it is Congress creating commerce to rule the people.

karlinsync on March 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM

It only works if you let them.

Refuse to comply.

They say: Jump?

You say: no.

They say: Jump now?

You say: Come and make me.

We are long past the point where we should follow the law when the law becomes detrimental to liberty and freedom.

And hey… our government under Obama ignores laws, regulations, and rules as they see it – we have two concurrent constitutional crisis’s going on right this very moment, the admin was found in contempt of 2 different courts, many members of the admin don’t bother paying their taxes… congressional oversight of everything from wars to then they are in session to appointees has been completely bypassed – we are simply following the stellar example or our betters.

One word.
One Syllable.

NO.

SilverDeth on March 29, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Facial hair fail.

KeninCT on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Facial hair fail.

KeninCT on March 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Relevance fail.

SilverDeth on March 29, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Why the White House Sketchy should be afraid, very afraid, over the ObamaCare arguments this week

Face it. Should 0bamacare go down to defeat, all lil 0 will have to do is claim it was a flawed notion created by LIBERAL Mitt RonMe.

Think about it.

DannoJyd on March 29, 2012 at 5:40 PM

“This bill really is Pelosicare. She wrote it. She made me do it.” — Obama

Typicalwhitewoman on March 29, 2012 at 5:09 PM

This bill really is Romneycare. He wrote it.” — Obama

FIFY, and what really hurts is that is the truth.

DannoJyd on March 29, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Why is the sales tax on selling your house in the health care law? Scheduled to come into effect 2013.

mixplix on March 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

So one wonders: How is BHO going to compromise the Supreme Court to get the verdict to go the way he wants? That would be why the WH wasn’t sweating Verilli’s stumbling and incoherent arguments.

KenInIL on March 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Yep – don’t play for the refunds anymore -which you should never do anyway but lazily we often do….

Zomcon JEM on March 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Yep, Californians have already learned that painful lesson.

slickwillie2001 on March 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

The law “would have restructured a major aspect of life in America. It would have been a major, major legacy for the president. If that is thrown out, he has much less NOTHING to show for it.”

There….all fixed and shiny.

timberline on March 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Panic at the White House: Smells like Team Spirit!

Mr. Joe on March 29, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Nothing better than the smell of “Team Spirit” burning in the morning.

timberline on March 29, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Nothing better than the smell of “Team Spirit” burning in the morning.

timberline on March 29, 2012 at 8:25 PM

The sick joke is that Justice Kennedy is for all intents and purposes, the most powerful man in the civilized world right now.

Kennedy the Mush.

SilverDeth on March 30, 2012 at 6:13 AM

I can’t speak for anyone else but I think the continued shafting of our cold war allies is a pretty big deal.

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Hear, hear. Look, the past 3.3 years has been a disaster of epic proportions and there is so much to slam the One on that it’s hard to know where to start.

I do agree that Romney had better get his act together with regard to Obamacare,if the law doesn’t fall at the SCOTUS level. If it does, he really has nothing to say about it in particular, but he had better talk about health insurance reform.

Notice, libbies, I said health insurance-not health care. It’s the third-party payer system that has caused care costs to skyrocket, among other things, and you can thank the Feds for that. Again.

totherightofthem on March 30, 2012 at 6:49 AM

You know, maybe… just maybe, it wasn’t even the weak arguments the White House made about Obamacare. Just maybe it was the fact that Obamacare IS unconstitutional! Maybe it has nothing to do with the arguments, but with the truth.

GWB on March 30, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I don’t know why everyone gets so bent around Romney’s ‘vulnerability’ on health care. He has one REAL GOOD out. All Romney’s gotta say is, “Socialized healthcare? Worked great for MY State…HORRIBLE idea for the Feds because they simply don’t have that authority.” He can kill two birds with one stone; Gets him out of ObamaCare’s shadow, and let’s all the conservatives know he believes strongly in that whole ‘Any power not enumerated to the Feds belongs to the States’ thing. Even better for him if the SCOTUS upholds O’Care, because now he can say he was the intital genius to the libs, and argue how wrong the SCOTUS was to the conservatives. win-win.

(And yes, people ARE stupid enough to believe it either way…look who’s shovelin’ it from the West Wing currently.)

a5minmajor on March 30, 2012 at 9:32 AM

So our “race to be Greeks” will slow if ObamaCare is overturned ?

J_Crater on March 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I thought I heard Obutthead’s plan B this morning in now calling the mandate “personal responsibility” which as far as I can tell is just libturd code for “paying your fair share,” eh?

stukinIL4now

Personal responsibility is putting the aspirin between your knees. What is O’s personal responsibility to the taxpayer? More vacations. More golf. More parties.

Let him eat cake.

elm on March 31, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4