Did the Supreme Court’s initial ObamaCare vote leak to Obama?

posted at 10:19 pm on April 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

Unless he’s trying to goose a slow news day with speculation, I have no idea why Drudge is pushing the “leak” angle. There’s nothing about it in the Reuters story he links to and, as far as I saw, nothing in O’s comments today in the Rose Garden to suggest he had inside info. If he had seized on some obscure part of last week’s arguments, like the Anti-Injunction Act, then that might have been a clue that something the media had overlooked was weighing heavily inside the Court’s own deliberations and that O had gotten wind of it. But he didn’t. He gave a straightforward pitch that, unless the Court rules his way, it’s illegitimate. I expected nothing less. Neither, I’m sure, did Anthony Kennedy, who has three months to make up his mind and therefore probably isn’t a firm yes or no yet. And, if you’ve been reading liberal pundits lately, neither did you.

Speaking of which, having endured a “train wreck” and a “plane wreck” at the Supreme Court last week, Jeffrey Toobin shakes off the trauma and joins in the left’s newfound appreciation for why judicial activism is a bad thing:

For example, the Justices had no trouble upholding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which used the [Commerce Clause] to mandate the integration of hotels and restaurants. “It may be argued that Congress could have pursued other methods to eliminate the obstructions it found in interstate commerce caused by racial discrimination,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote, for his unanimous brethren. “But this is a matter of policy that rests entirely with the Congress, not with the courts. How obstructions in commerce may be removed—what means are to be employed—is within the sound and exclusive discretion of the Congress.” In other words, Justice Kennedy had it backward. The “heavy burden” is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government

It is simply not the Supreme Court’s business to be making these kinds of judgments. The awesome, and final, powers of the Justices are best exercised sparingly and with restraint. Their normal burdens of interpreting laws are heavy enough. No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.

Rest assured, if Obama wins reelection and replaces Scalia or Kennedy with a hardcore liberal, the revered principle of judicial deference to Congress will be power-flushed down the toilet once a Republican president and legislature are in office together again. But never mind that, and never mind the fact that he sidesteps the question of whether people who aren’t participating in commerce are reachable by the Commerce Clause. He seems to be imagining here an almost conclusory deference to Congress by the Court on all things commerce. Imagine that the Court took his advice and declared that the “heavy burden” is on the states to show why Congress doesn’t have this entirely novel power to force people to buy things. What would the states have to show to convince Justice Toobin that they’d met that burden? This is a case of first impression so there’s no direct precedent that either side can point to. What argument, then, could the states theoretically make to convince Toobin that Congress had exceeded its commerce power? I’ve got a sneaking suspicion that, like so much of the left, he thinks there is no conceptual limit on the Commerce Clause except the Bill of Rights. If you can’t show that the mandate violates, say, the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause, then you’re out of luck. But that’s absurd; the whole point of enumerated powers is to set limits on what Congress can do apart from the Bill of Rights (which, of course, wasn’t even part of the Constitution originally). Within that larger context of circumscribed federal power, when you have Congress seeking to do something that it’s never done before, why should its prerogative enjoy heavy deference and not the states’?

Here’s Mark Levin unloading on The One for his comments about the Court today. Click the image to listen.


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

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Well, I’m pretty sure they don’t plan on forcing a bunch of healthy 20 somethings to pay for the chronically ill. Why do you believe that’s a morally supportable position?

Wendya on April 2, 2012 at 11:46 PM

I can’t wait until Roberts (we all know Roberts is going to write the decision) lectures the Constitutional law professor about how his law is not constitutional in his 5-4 majority opinion. Personally, though, I’d rather Thomas do it. Clarence Thomas is my man.

Hell, he should run for President. I’d vote for him, even if he put pubes on my coke.

Professor de la Paz on April 2, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Same thing we’ve always done with them…nothing. It is not our place to do anything WITH them.

Pattosensei on April 2, 2012 at 11:15 PM

Liberals are too stupid to get this; don’t bother. They believe that government exists to “do something” about every perceived injustice or suffering in life. Maybe we should get on the bandwagon and demand that government “do something” about liberal stupidity.

Jaibones on April 2, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Maybe we should get on the bandwagon and demand that government “do something” about liberal stupidity.

Jaibones on April 2, 2012 at 11:47 PM

But isn’t the role of government to punish and beat down the productive and elevate the incompetent?

Wendya on April 2, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I mean, just to be clear, you support the repeal or striking down of a law that requires insurance companies to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions. That is, you support allowing insurance companies to drop people with preexisting conditions, and those people will be left to scrape the money together for their treatment, or else die. Do you own that?

cjw79 on April 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM

You need to first own the defenseless elderly to which you are denying medical treatment and whose lives you are endangering. ObamaCare raids Medicare to pay for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions. And there are far more people on Medicare.

Chuck Schick on April 2, 2012 at 11:51 PM

I just had the best laugh of the night from a commenter on Breitbart at the video of Obama on the Supreme Court.

Obama is Cleavon Little in “Blazing Saddles” holding a gun to his own head:

“Do what he say! Do what he s-a-a-a-y!”

Andrea Mitchell: “Isn’t anyone going to help that poor man?!”

Marcus on April 2, 2012 at 11:52 PM

True or not, it does not matter

1. The Justice is a democrat
2. The evidence of the leak would have to involve video, audio, and the Pope as a witness
3, Obama would just select another leftie hack to replace her..
Lose/lose

JIMV on April 2, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Another fifty says she’s also wearing boxers, a wife-beater, and a really sturdy pair of black wingtips under the robe.

M240H on April 2, 2012 at 10:49 PM

… and a pair of gartered ankle stockings. ö

Red Creek on April 2, 2012 at 11:54 PM

The “heavy burden” is not on the defenders of the law but on its challengers. Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government…

Is it just me, or should there be no automatic presumption that acts of Congress are constitutional? He’s basically throwing the whole idea of judicial review under the bus. Why should the fact those yahoos are elected give them the benefit of the doubt?

I feel like I’m living in bizarro world.

changer1701 on April 2, 2012 at 11:55 PM

These inane remarks of Obama I think only hurt ObamaCare’s chances if there were any. I mean I bet they angered some of those presumptuous “unelected” SCOTUS busybodies he was referring to who might be thinking of trashing the law rammed down our throats behind closed doors (no promised CSPN) with sleazy vote buying. If some of these “unelected” judges were on the fence before they might now show just who gets the last putdown. Might even effect other rulings unfriendly to Obama.

I suspect ObamaCare is toast, and so is Obama.

Chessplayer on April 2, 2012 at 11:55 PM

True or not, it does not matter

1. The Justice is a democrat
2. The evidence of the leak would have to involve video, audio, and the Pope as a witness
3, Obama would just select another leftie hack to replace her..
Lose/lose

JIMV on April 2, 2012 at 11:53 PM

So, by statute, the justice was supposed to have recused herself from this case. There is undeniable evidence that she did work to support the arguments for the case while working for the government and the administration. What is the remedy for the fact that she blatantly ignored that requirement?

/yeah, I know, it would require that the Republicans somewhere have a pair and a spine, facts not in evidence

AZfederalist on April 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM

If he got a leak then the justices must have gone his way for him to react this way.

If he knew they were going the other way, he would have said all this and have the justices rule against him making all his bluster look impotent.

He must already know they are going his way and is doing all of this to make it look like he intimated the court into doing his own bidding.

Had the court ruled the other way and had it been leaked to him, he would be taking a “well, lets wait and see how they rule” approach. He isn’t going to get them to change their minds with a bunch of political bluster.

crosspatch on April 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Meant:

If he knew they were going the other way, he wouldn’t have said all this and have the justices rule against him making all his bluster look impotent.

crosspatch on April 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM

If you are already sick… then it’s not insurance. It’s welfare.

Spliff Menendez on April 2, 2012 at 10:43 PM

This is the plain unvarnished truth. Until we accept this, we cannot solve the problem or even decide if it is for us to solve.

slickwillie2001 on April 2, 2012 at 11:59 PM

In other words, he wants to make it look like he browbeat the court into going his way.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

So, by statute, the justice was supposed to have recused herself from this case. There is undeniable evidence that she did work to support the arguments for the case while working for the government and the administration. What is the remedy for the fact that she blatantly ignored that requirement?

/yeah, I know, it would require that the Republicans somewhere have a pair and a spine, facts not in evidence

AZfederalist on April 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM

After the decision, can the decision be challenged on these ground if it goes against us?

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM

I mean, just to be clear, you support the repeal or striking down of a law that requires insurance companies to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions. That is, you support allowing insurance companies to drop people with preexisting conditions, and those people will be left to scrape the money together for their treatment, or else die. Do you own that?

cjw79 on April 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Yes, I support repeal of a law that requires insurance companies to provide insurance to people with preexisting conditions.

Your argument that insurance companies will drop such people is ludicrous. They are bound by other laws to fulfill the terms of their contract. Anyone with preexisting conditions currently being covered by insurance cannot be legally dropped unless their contract so stipulates. Repealing Obamacare will not leave these people to die.

Regardless, you’ve missed the entire point. It is clear you cannot distinguish between insurance and welfare.

As for your false allegation that being against forcing a company to provide coverage for preexisting conditions is equivalent to killing them, let me ask you a question. Have you ever chosen not to donate to a charity? Think of all the people you have killed because you did not pay for their needs.

Pattosensei on April 3, 2012 at 12:10 AM

In other words, he wants to make it look like he browbeat the court into going his way.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

No way. If he knew he had the vote he’d keep his mouth shut. Why alienate them when he’s alienated them before at a State of the Union address.

Marcus on April 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

So when Obamacare gets overturned, and I’m sure that it is unconstitutional, what is the conservative view on people with chronic conditions? At the least, they need to put self employed in the same category as group plans.

JeffVader on April 2, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Here’s my conservative opinion:

1) Deregulate the insurance companies almost entirely. Let me pick what coverages I want and DON’T WANT, and let me pay only for those based on my own conditions and actuarial tables. Let financially sound companies design and sell any policy they want to sell in any state, and make them compete for business. Competition brings out greatness, and every market demo will be served when there is freedom to serve them without govt interference.

2) Massive Tort reform – Loser pays!!! Limit malpractice claims. Practicing defensive medicine, paying insane malpractice premiumns and claims plus other legal expenses etc. comprise a MASSIVE, completely unnecessary portion of healthcare costs.

Just those two steps alone will restore solvency and cost control to the private healthcare and insurance industries, enough that special risk pools, religious institutions, charitable foundations and myriad other resources that will be freed from the financial tyranny we endure now will emerge.

There’s no limit to the wealth and generosity of a truly free people. The USA is living proof of that.

Harbingeing on April 3, 2012 at 12:19 AM

liberal4life’s ignorance necessitates a Psychocare Act all its own.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:20 AM

As for your false allegation that being against forcing a company to provide coverage for preexisting conditions is equivalent to killing them, let me ask you a question. Have you ever chosen not to donate to a charity? Think of all the people you have killed because you did not pay for their needs.

Pattosensei on April 3, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark….

BlaxPac on April 3, 2012 at 12:21 AM

In other words, he wants to make it look like he browbeat the court into going his way.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

No way. If he knew he had the vote he’d keep his mouth shut. Why alienate them when he’s alienated them before at a State of the Union address.

Marcus on April 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Hypothetically, lack of self-discipline, -the same reason he got all snotty with them at SOTU the first time.

But I agree that he has sources and knows he’s lost it.

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:22 AM

If he knew he had the vote he’d keep his mouth shut. Why alienate them when he’s alienated them before at a State of the Union address.

Why alienate them if there is only one vote hanging in the balance that could be swayed?

If he lost and is acting like this, then it means he lost by more than one vote. Or it means he is stupid. He is a political animal and the first rule of Chicago politics is don’t support a loser. If he has lost this, he isn’t going to call attention to it with this kind of behavior unless he lost bigtime and he knows there is no way to change the outcome.

And thanks for mentioning that state of the union address, I had forgotten all about that. It seems to me that during he hearings, the justices were grasping for some way they could support the mandate but it didn’t sound to me like the Solicitor General gave them one. This might be Obama’s comeuppance.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:22 AM

After the decision, can the decision be challenged on these ground if it goes against us?

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Where would you challenge it?

AZfederalist on April 3, 2012 at 12:25 AM

As far as I know the Supreme Court is the ultimate appeals court. Your only avenue of appeal at that point is to Congress to change the law.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:27 AM

24 states have joined this suit. If the Senate were operating properly, that would be 48 Senators opposed to this bill. Makes you wonder how it passed in the first place.

We need to return the Senate to the state legislatures. At the very least, ONE Senator from each state should be elected by the legislature.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Preexisting Condition = My house just burned down and now I would like to buy fire insurance.

Making a 25 year old buy big comprehensive policies is stupid.
They need micro policies with a catestrophic rider.

barnone on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Preexisting Condition = My house just burned down and now I would like to buy fire insurance.

Making a 25 year old buy big comprehensive policies is stupid.
They need micro policies with a catestrophic rider.

barnone on April 3, 2012 at 12:30 AM

You forgot to add that if we don’t pay for you to have the best house money can buy with all the modern amenities……you’ll die and it will be our fault.

Pattosensei on April 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM

I’m wondering why there wasn’t a CHOICE for those under the age of medicare. If they wanted healthcare (medicare style) then instead of paying 5.65% out of their paycheck or the percentage that is for medicare not social security, then just add another 5%-10% for each person that they want to sign up as they get hired. Then they can be either ‘in’ medicare which is the government plan anyway you look at it or a private plan.

athenadelphi on April 3, 2012 at 12:34 AM

They can do what my state does (Washington).

And that is exactly where it should be handled, at the state level.

And tort reform is HUGE. As it stands now, a patient can sue every single doctor that even looked at their case and if multiple hospitals were involved, sue them, too, with practically no limit on non-compensatory “pain and suffering” claims.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

And tort reform is HUGE. As it stands now, a patient can sue every single doctor that even looked at their case and if multiple hospitals were involved, sue them, too, with practically no limit on non-compensatory “pain and suffering” claims.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

Democratics will die on that hill if necessary. Lawyers give them millions to make sure that this doesn’t happen. With a Republican Congress and a filibuster-proof Senate not counting RINOs like Snowe, and a Republican president, maybe.

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Heh. I remember when Clinton cured homelessness, only to have it come roaring back during GWBush.

Millions living in boxes, right up until January 1993. Then, all gone. No mention ever of any homeless person. They reappeared, as if by some media magic, in January of 2001.

Not to worry; they seem to be gone again (at least since January 2009.)

I have a hunch they’ll be back….

massrighty on April 2, 2012 at 10:41 PM

In my best Pete Seeger voice:

Where have all the homeless gone
Long time passing
Where have all the homeless gone
Long time ago
Where have all the homeless gone
Gone to NawLans every one
When will they ever learn
When will they ever learn?

Well, they’ve gone somewhere.
Where?

OkieDoc on April 3, 2012 at 12:53 AM

What’s new from that basement creep Levin? Always playing so called “cuts,” of audio that favors his BS.

I always wonder why he hasn’t be given his own show on fox already. Hmmm… Oh wait, creepy doesn’t sell.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

We don’t really need to hear about all your personnel problems and I doubt that ObamaCubaCare will cover a brain transplant for you anyway.

VorDaj on April 3, 2012 at 12:57 AM

In other words, he wants to make it look like he browbeat the court into going his way.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:00 AM

No way. If he knew he had the vote he’d keep his mouth shut. Why alienate them when he’s alienated them before at a State of the Union address.

Marcus on April 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM

If the vote was leaked, it was Kagan. She is the closest to Obama on SCOTUS.

This is all about damage control by the Obama and the Democrats. They need to spin why the Mandate is struck down. They’ll be twisting themselves in pretzels if the whole of Obamacare is invalidated.

If Obamacare and the Mandate in upheld, the Republicans should shove through a school voucher program next time they have all three branches. It’s a MANDATE that children in America receive an K-12 education; Republicans should ram it down the teachers’ unions throats.

Jurisprudence on April 3, 2012 at 12:59 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

When are the Democrats going to come up with a free market solution for medical care. Their Commie solution sounds like it maybe going down.

Kjeil on April 3, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Democratics Democrats will die on that hill if necessary. Lawyers give them millions to make sure that this doesn’t happen. With a Republican Congress and a filibuster-proof Senate not counting RINOs like Snowe, and a Republican president, maybe.

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:45 AM

Fixed, there is nothing democratic about that party of statists and just because they now insist on being called “democratics”, which, by the way, sounds stupid, doesn’t mean we have to buy the premise. Call ‘em what they’ve always been called, OK well the polite form of what they’ve always been called.

AZfederalist on April 3, 2012 at 1:01 AM

I WAS wondering why Obama slammed the supreme court so heavily today. It seemed to me that it would only hurt his chances with any justices that are wavering in their final verdicts.

The idea that Obama has inside info as to how the Supreme court will vote however, would explain a lot. Of course we don’t KNOW that he knows, but lets be honest, it is hard to truly keep secrets, especially in Washington. Yes Supreme Court staffers usually manage it, but not always, and its pretty rare for a Supreme Court case to be given this much attention.

If more than a dozen people aside from the justices know the preliminary vote, then there was almost certainly a leak somewhere. Perhaps it wasn’t a detailed leak, but chances are somebody somewhere said something that could give people a fair idea how things were going down.

If that is the case, and Obama knows, then suddenly it does make sense for him to start running against the Supreme court now. Because Obamacare is unpopular its already a tough sale, so laying out the necessary groundwork to deflect the damage NOW, makes sense. I mean, making this argument in the media firestorm surrounding Obamacare being struck down would be nearly impossible.

Granted, this is all speculative. While it seems likely that Obama at least has a vague notion how to court will vote, we just don’t know if he does, and we likely never will.

Still, the fact that he’s laying out his arguments is indicative that he is fairly certain how the Supreme Court case will go down. I imagine that, if he thought they’d uphold it, he wouldn’t be working to undermine the political credibility of the court now.

I mean, it’d seem really odd for him to spend weeks running against an activist court, only for them to find in his favor.

WolvenOne on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I mean, it’d seem really odd for him to spend weeks running against an activist court, only for them to find in his favor.

WolvenOne on April 3, 2012 at 1:20 AM

I really want to be this optimistic, but I just keep thinking back on when this abomination was being ramrodded through the congress. Every time we thought it was dead, someone managed to resuscitate it. I want the Supremes to drive a stake through its heart, bury it at a crossroads, cut off its head, and scatter its ashes; I fear they will apply the defibrillator and declare with the glee of Frankenstein, “It’s alive!” I won’t rest easy until the actual decision is handed down.

AZfederalist on April 3, 2012 at 1:26 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I am really tired of this nonsense from airhead4life:

1) The terms “health insurance” and “health care” are often used to obfuscate the issue. They are not the same thing.

2) The phrase “assigned risk” comes to mind.

growl on April 3, 2012 at 1:27 AM

Jeffrey Toobin is a grade A a$$**** and a partisan hack of the first degree.

WisCon on April 3, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Here we see the representative MO of the Obama administration – Intimidation and scare tactics. Oh, and deceit, don’t forget that one.
The liberal extremists who have taken over the democratic party love to use their liberally biased judges when it suits their purposes. Conservative judges at least TRY to follow the constitution. To liberals the constitution is something to be “changed” and mangled into something which represents their own distorted view of the world.

Be prepared, people. This administration has no problem bypassing our laws and proper political procedure in order to “get their way”(For one example just look at Wisconsin and the 14 democrat senators who ran out on their jobs and the people of WI when Gov. Walker’s policies were going through). They will not leave peaceably come November(should their re-election fraud not work). In fact, I would look for something catastrophic to happen before then if it looks like they will lose the election, and blamed on A. Christians, B. Conservatives(like Tea Party), C. Republicans.

Sterling Holobyte on April 3, 2012 at 1:37 AM

I hope to God the Supreme Court Justices have good personal security.

I wouldn’t put it past one of these wackjob libs to do you know what so Obama can appoint more radicals.

WisCon on April 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM

I imagine that, if he thought they’d uphold it, he wouldn’t be working to undermine the political credibility of the court now.

I mean, it’d seem really odd for him to spend weeks running against an activist court, only for them to find in his favor.

Well, lets see if he keeps it up or if this was just a “warning shot” across the bow.

But after what Obama did to the Supreme Court at the state of the union address that time, I would doubt he has a lot of sympathy with the court.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 1:43 AM

And tort reform is HUGE. As it stands now, a patient can sue every single doctor that even looked at their case and if multiple hospitals were involved, sue them, too, with practically no limit on non-compensatory “pain and suffering” claims.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 12:39 AM

My cousin is studying to be a nurse. She told me that for any procedure that is done there is a 2 year window to sue any doctor/nurse, etc, if there was a problem, except for labor/delivery, and then the window is 18 years.

cptacek on April 3, 2012 at 1:54 AM

And so “risk management” means many unnecessary tests are done which drives costs up even more.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Rest assured, if Obama wins reelection and replaces Scalia or Kennedy with a hardcore liberal, the revered principle of judicial deference to Congress will be power-flushed down the toilet once a Republican president and legislature are in office together again.

They’re not much for deference to legislative acts (or, for that matter, democratically-enacted state constitutional provisions) when those acts ban gay marriage or sodomy. And it’s a pretty common belief on the left that the Supremes should ban the death penalty (which the Constitution endorses twice).

As it happens, I don’t think the government should be in the business of saying who can marry who or how two consenting adults can have sex. But the left revels whenever a court strikes such a law down. It’s only their own attempts to overextend the power of the state that are sacrosanct.

Dodd on April 3, 2012 at 2:26 AM

It has come to this, a president that does not understand the basic structure of our government. The Supreme Court was created not to find guilt or innocents, or arbitrate fairness between parties or create law from the bench. Its purpose is to be the check and balance of the Administration and Congress. In relation to Congress it is to insure that Congress does not pass a law that does not meet the letter of the law laid out in our Constitution.
Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that if Congress passed a law, even if every single reprehensive voted yes, that the law is automatically constitutional. That might exist in another nations constitution, such as the Separation of Church and State, that is not in our constitution, was in the constitution of the Soviet Union.

Obama has clearly stated that he does not understand or rejects the role of the Supreme Court in its check on the power of Congress.

“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the law,” Obama said. “The reason is, because in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.Obama further warns; ” a ruling against it would be an “unprecedented” act of judicial activism.”

In other words, Obama is telling us that the court should not be concerned with applying the Constitution to the law, but only their past rulings, which in fairness necessitate that they declare it constructional without further review.

In a book that Obama would be familiar with as it sets guidelines for the socialist overthrow of Capitalism and our constitutional Republic; The Road We’ve Traveled, by Stuart Chase, there is laid out the crucial goals that he appears to be following. Of those there is to “create a strong centralized government; an executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arm; use of deficit spending to finance underwritings; underwriting food, housing and medical care by the government; heavy taxation of estates and incomes of the wealthy; State control over communications and propaganda; to name a few of his more obvious pursuits in his three years that are laid out in Chase’s book and other socialist guides.

Franklyn on April 3, 2012 at 2:38 AM

After the decision, can the decision be challenged on these ground if it goes against us?

slickwillie2001 on April 3, 2012 at 12:04 AM

Sorry, no place to challenge it to. That’s why it’s called the Court of Final Error. :-)

The only recourse would be back to a future Congress to undo the monster.

Lammo on April 3, 2012 at 2:39 AM

Even the liberal justices who sit there got more vetting than the “One”. Thrashing your own people is bad juju my dear. Bad game to slap your wife while you try to kiss her. Oh, and that feelie touchie thingy you are trying: keep it up. Oprah may do another special with you on it and I expect a tear on your cheek this time. That may win you some votes in San Fran, or even New Yak, but middle America, where people actually give a crap about their values and truth; they will can your butt faster than poop through a goose. Keep it up chuckle head. That 5 vote win you call a majority will look really funny when professional people beat your butt by one vote (5-4). Imagine that, a professional person not agreeing with the “One”. Sparks and firecrackers.

Molonlabe2004 on April 3, 2012 at 2:41 AM

That is, you support allowing insurance companies to drop people with preexisting conditions, and those people will be left to scrape the money together for their treatment, or else die. Do you own that?
cjw79 on April 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM

At least they’d have the option to scrape money together. Under Obamacare if the Death Panel says no, then you aren’t allowed to use your own money to pay for medical treatment. IOW, Obamacare=die quickly.

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 3:11 AM

Oh wait, creepy doesn’t sell.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 AM

You I take it you’re single?

Chuck Schick on April 3, 2012 at 3:18 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

We won’t abort their lives as you liberals love to do to babies.

What do Democrats plan on doing about 0bama’s SIX TRILLION DOLLAR spending spree? It isn’t as if they can steal BILLIONS from the Food Stamps Program to pay for their excesses again.

DannoJyd on April 3, 2012 at 3:29 AM

I hope to God the Supreme Court Justices have good personal security.
I wouldn’t put it past one of these wackjob libs to do you know what so Obama can appoint more radicals.
WisCon on April 3, 2012 at 1:42 AM

Well, it’s not like Obama knows anyone who’s tried to whack a Supreme Court Justice before. Oh wait!

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 3:31 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?
liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Ignorance isn’t a pre-existing condition. It’s acquired.

Rusty Allen on April 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM

In that speech, didn’t Obama criticize the Supreme Court as individuals that were not voted into position? So….. he getting rid of all those Czars then? I’m surprised no one has mentioned THAT inconvenient truth!!!

Snitchmo on April 3, 2012 at 3:57 AM

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 3, 2012 at 12:56 AM

…Mark probably has more listeners than every liberal talk show host…combined…sad sack!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2012 at 4:17 AM

ARE there any liberal talks shows? I’ve never heard one recently. Air America lasted for a while but nobody watched. Heck, given MSNBC’s ratings, I am surprised they are still on the air.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 4:58 AM

What about DOMA? Wasn’t that “duly constituted & voted on” too by the congress? Yet Holder & Obama NOT the courts determined that was unconstitutional.
Activism?
Imperialism?

Terri on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM

Terri on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Priopism?
Sadism?

Rusty Allen on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 AM

2) Massive Tort reform – Loser pays!!! Limit malpractice claims. Practicing defensive medicine, paying insane malpractice premiumns and claims plus other legal expenses etc. comprise a MASSIVE, completely unnecessary portion of healthcare costs.

There’s no limit to the wealth and generosity of a truly free people. The USA is living proof of that.

Harbingeing on April 3, 2012 at 12:19 AM

This might just be from my (relatively short) lifetime experience as a member of the lowe(r/st) class but changing the law to “loser pays” – in all cases – would be disastrous, I think. I personally probably wouldn’t have the ability to sue even Mengele (well, maybe in that case there’d be a lawyer to take the case on a contingency basis) – there’s no way I could afford the costs of losing a case, even one with merit up the wazoo. I’m very sympathetic to the plight of doctors across the country but I don’t think automatic “loser pays” is that great a solution. I’d prefer a modified system – loser pays if you can prove (perhaps at a somewhat low burden of proof) that the case was bogus and/or the plaintiff has a history of suing in bogus cases.

I think members of any profession should have to pay for the results of their malpractice and changing the law like this would, I believe, screw over far too many folks who couldn’t afford a lawsuit on anything but a contingency basis (a lot of folks out there).

Priopism?
Sadism?

Rusty Allen on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 AM

Priapism kinda requires something these folks seem to either lack or actively disdain. Sadism’s a good choice but I get the feeling there’re more adherents to that particular deviancy on the red side than the blue side. (Maybe the Dims have more jerkwad-type sadists, though.)

Aquarian on April 3, 2012 at 5:41 AM

Bad credit gets you higher interest rates or no new credit (unless you’re the Fed, of course).

Poor health and advanced age gets you higher insurance rates or no insurance.

Allowing insurance companies to actually compete freely is probably the way spread risk for them, and to lower rates through competition.

Also, I’ve long believed we should pay into our local health care systems just as we do for fire, police, etc. I may never need the fire department or the police, but I don’t complain about it as it helps others, myself indirectly, and could help me directly some day.

Another thing-privatizing local health care systems in my view has greatly increased health care costs. When the profit motive is thrown in, it is only natural that costs will go up in order to maximize profit. I wonder what percent of a hospital’s income goes to administrators who aren’t even doctors?

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 3, 2012 at 5:52 AM

liberal4life’s ignorance necessitates a Psychocare Act all its own.

Schadenfreude on April 3, 2012 at 12:20 AM

And you keep feeding it.

DevilsPrinciple on April 3, 2012 at 5:53 AM

Totally off topic.

Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world’s largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America (“STA”), filed for bankruptcy. And while one could say that the company’s epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE’s Stephen Chu.

HINT HINT

DevilsPrinciple on April 3, 2012 at 6:07 AM

There’s no striving here. Commerce clause, privacy, whatever. They’ll just vote the way they want to and then write their arguments accordingly.

Obama probably did get a leak. And he may have been told the court upheld his takeover of America. It’s the perfect opportunity to come out and threaten the court then, knowing they already voted in his favor. That way, he’ll “look tough.” Like the court responded to his threats and did what he wanted.

It’s all just theater. Gothic theater on a sinking ship. Man boys standing up and proclaiming ownership of the deck chairs and food courts, rounding up passengers and putting them in chains. All the while the ship is taking on water, stern tipping up and the bow headed for the bottom.

JellyToast on April 3, 2012 at 6:36 AM

Since the Democratic Party is the greatest single obstacle to a truly healthy commerce, I suggest the next Congress use its power to regulate by mandating that all Americans vote Republican in the next election. Better yet, eliminate Democrats altogether. I’m sure constitutional experts would not object, given their belief the government has broad powers under the Commerce Clause to do whatever it damn well pleases.

writeblock on April 3, 2012 at 6:39 AM

No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.

Good grief man it was 12 years ago.

Get. Over. It. Already.

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 6:45 AM

the revered principle of judicial deference to Congress will be power-flushed down the toilet once a Republican president and legislature are in office together again.

you are not kidding

judicial activism if the court decides against you…it’s the liberal way…

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 6:54 AM

I was watching Hannity where he played a speech of him on March 30th. He was stuttering and becoming break-voiced and red faced with rage. It’s gonna get a lot more fun.

Lanceman on April 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

He said in one of his crappy books that there is a rage inside of him that he works hard to suppress.

Romney needs to figure out how to push his buttons. We need the people to see what a POS little Bammie really is. Strip away the mask.

slickwillie2001 on April 2, 2012 at 10:49 PM

The narcissist:

* Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognised as superior without commensurate achievements);

* Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequalled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion;

* Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions);

* Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply);

* Feels entitled. Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favourable priority treatment;

* Is “interpersonally exploitative”, i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends;

* Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others;

* Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly;

* Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law”, and omnipresent (magical thinking). Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy.

Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 6:55 AM

toobin just another tool in dear leader’s belt….

idiot

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 6:55 AM

toobin just another tool in dear leader’s belt….

idiot

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 6:55 AM

Yep. I knew once the shock wore off from what he witnessed in Court he’d go back to being the bias partisan hack he’s always been.

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 6:58 AM

I really do not think Obama would risk publicly threatening the Supreme Court without knowing they already upheld ObamaCare. He wants the appearance of people cowering before him. He wants to appear intimidating. He’s not going to risk appearing as though he’s not.

The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. It has to be.

JellyToast on April 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM

No one expects the Justices to be making health-care policy any more than we expect them to be picking Presidents, which, it may be remembered, is not exactly their strength, either.

You’re the first liberal to ever admit that they are incapable of counting.It didn’t matter that Gore didn’t invent the internet or that climate change was another of Gore’s inventions created from whole cloth. Gore couldn’t even carry his home state.

Character counts except if you’re a liberal,in which case you may be a buffoon of the commedia della ‘arte.

DevilsPrinciple on April 3, 2012 at 7:05 AM

ARE there any liberal talks shows? I’ve never heard one recently. Air America lasted for a while but nobody watched. Heck, given MSNBC’s ratings, I am surprised they are still on the air.

crosspatch on April 3, 2012 at 4:58 AM

The View

Washington Nearsider on April 3, 2012 at 7:05 AM

Obama probably did get a leak. And he may have been told the court upheld his takeover of America. It’s the perfect opportunity to come out and threaten the court then, knowing they already voted in his favor.

I disagree. This spiel sounded in tone more like his reaction to Citizens United which we saw during his State of the Union Address. Same attitude. Same arrogance. Same thinly-disguised anger. Had the decision gone his way, he’d be much more likely to take the high road. He seems to know it’s going the other way, either because of a leak or because of the current buzz.

Another point: this is not just another law among laws. The SC realizes this is a turning point in history. In fact everybody in Washington knows this. That’s why it’s peculiar that the so-called “experts” have been treating this as if it were like any other commerce case. Conservatives recognized instead the Constitutional threat. And so does the majority on the Court. Given the high stakes, there’s no way the justices would sacrifice the country’s future for mere personal convenience. That’s just not going to happen. The decision will come down to what’s good for America, period–not what the President might want or threaten, and not what legal inertia might dictate. Besides, the Court knows the law is broadly unpopular. That’s hovering in the background of the case–as well as the recent assault on religious freedom.

writeblock on April 3, 2012 at 7:06 AM

Well, it’s not like Obama knows anyone who’s tried to whack a Supreme Court Justice before. Oh wait!

txhsmom on April 3, 2012 at 3:31 AM

Jokes aside, I really think this is the territory he is swimming in here. It is simply unbelievable that a sitting president would try to destroy the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court — and perhaps put the justices’ lives in danger given all the murderous nutballs who reside in the democrat party. If they find for Obama, I will be mighty pissed off — mighty pissed off — but that’s how it works in this nation of laws. Suck it up, move on, get rid of Obamacare at the Congressional level. That is what an American does. We accept the rulings of the supreme court of the land because we are a nation of laws, not men. A president does not undermine the court in the public’s eye — unless he wants to destroy the nation all together.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 7:09 AM

I really do not think Obama would risk publicly threatening the Supreme Court without knowing they already upheld ObamaCare. He wants the appearance of people cowering before him. He wants to appear intimidating. He’s not going to risk appearing as though he’s not.

The Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. It has to be.

JellyToast on April 3, 2012 at 7:03 AM

That would be kind of stupid of him to risk pissing off the Justices considering the final ruling isn’t supposed to come down until June. If their private discussions indicated they were going to uphold it, there would still be time for “minds to be changed.”

But then we are talking about Obama whose arrogant stupidity knows no bounds.

My thinking is that he’s gotten tipped off that Obamacare will be struck down and his comments yesterday were little Barack stomping his foot and throwing a hissy fit because he didn’t get his way.

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

It depends on who you ask and where you get your information.

Republicans, conservatives, and talk radio will describe catastrophic health care at low cost, tax credits to the poor, and tort reform so doctors can provide free care without problems from their insurance company.

Dumbie Wasserman-Slutz, the LSM, Obama and other leftists will say Republicans want to grind up the sick to make cheaper dog food to feed to senior citizens, make rape legal but charge women for rape kits, and stop giving Viagra to needy prison inmates.

WhatNot on April 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM

My take.

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 7:26 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

It depends on who you ask and where you get your information.

Conservatives will mention catastrophic health insurance policies with waiting periods on pre-existing conditions, interstate sale of health insurance, tort reform so doctors can provide free health care without problems with their liability insurance.

Debbie Wasserman-Sh!tz, Obama, leftist and the LSM will say Republicans want to grind up the sick to make cheaper dig food to sell to senior citizens, make r@pe legal, and stop giving V!agra to needy prison inmates.

WhatNot on April 3, 2012 at 7:30 AM

A president does not undermine the court in the public’s eye — unless he wants to destroy the nation all together.

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 7:09 AM

I agree his lack of prudence is disturbing. It’s certainly inconsistent with any notion he’s already won this case. Instead it appears he miscalculated by pushing to have the hearings this session–just before an election–as if daring the Court to take him on politically.

I think the Court realizes this–but is rising to the challenge. It knows the stakes are about more than politics, that the future of the country is at stake. It watched healthcare get rammed through Congress without a political consensus. It noted the public’s fierce resistance. It watched the political tsunami sweep away Democrats in 2010. It looked on as Sibelius attacked the Catholic Church. It’s not going to let all this pass under business as usual, given the lack of precedence under the Constitution and given the clear lust for power on the part of an ever-expanding federal government.

writeblock on April 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 6:58 AM

indeed

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 7:37 AM

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 7:26 AM

good one KJ

read it folks

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 7:39 AM

and the next time the court rules in his favor, they are the bestest in the land, nothing wrong with the court…

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 7:39 AM

cmsinaz on April 3, 2012 at 7:39 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on April 3, 2012 at 7:41 AM

But then we are talking about Obama whose arrogant stupidity knows no bounds.

Flora Duh on April 3, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Give the jug-eared commie a break. He is arrogantly stupid because he has never been told no. His entire career is based on running for a higher office before the bad things he did were discovered by a public who voted for the bastard because of his skin color.

Obamacare, the signature piece of legislation for this administration, seemingly did not fare well when challenged and Obama is ticked off that the SCOTUS has different ideas about its constitutionality. Thus the lecture about judicial activism from the commie who has installed czars and has legislated by executive order other than the rule of law.

Happy Nomad on April 3, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Supreme Court is so 18th century!

A throwback to a day when the slaveholders tried to impose their will on the poor through the law.

Argument coming from the left in 5…..4…..3…..

PappyD61 on April 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

How about we stop subsidizing health insurance paid for by employers and change that into a system where an employee sees the actual amount paid for their health insurance and can do one of the following: 1) utilize the employers plan, 2) take the money to get their own plan and pocket/pay the difference, 3) take it as ordinary pay.

This removes the hidden hand of government and the mirage that employer-based health coverage is ‘free’ to an employee. It is neither and has a cost involved with it. I suspect that some people would be quite surprised at the cost of their health insurance and begin to question the validity of the insurance based model we currently have.

If you tout a ‘National market’ do realize that individual States do have different mandates in them and that insurance purchased by a resident must have those mandates met. Yes the States can do this. If your wish is to regularize health care mandates amongst the States, that requires an agency that is run by States participating in such a deal to regularize their legislation so that there is a common and open playing field for all insurers amongst participating States. This will tend to drive mandates out of the most highly bureaucratic States so as to get to a lower level of such overhead and open up opportunity for their citizens. States with the lowest number of mandates can sit it out and perform the good utility of having low overhead, low cost insurance available to citizens of their State. This allows for a system run by the States that has feedbacks to it from the public and removes blanked federal law from the idea of health insurance regulation.

Third is to expand charitable deductions to be fully deductible when given to those charities performing direct work in medical care and treatment of the poor and elderly. Americans are the most giving people on this planet in the way of charity, and we actually outpulled our own government in monetary terms in the Christmas Tsunami… a government that had to support an aircraft carrier battlegroup there to support rebuilding. Ahead of all governments is the American People in giving and doing so in a thrifty, cost effective and timely manner. The UN spent weeks in 5-star hotels figuring out what they could do after the tsunami, yet direct US aid from private charities was showing up hours after it because of the reach of their organizations.

How do I propose to care for the poor and elderly for health care?

Get government out of the loop.

Get States to form a joint market to lower costs.

Give employees the ability to find better and better managed insurance options.

Reinforce charity in the areas of health care and provision to the maximum amount so that every cent given to them is a direct contribution to the care of the poor and elderly in America.

I am doing this latter part now for our veterans and for those struck by tragedy no matter where it happens on the planet so that Direct Relief made up of donations from US companies, institutions and individuals can get to the most stricken areas with medical supplies without regard to Nation, borders, language, or wealth. That also means America, too. If you expand the amount I can give in the form of a write-off on my taxes I will DOUBLE that amount per year, every year, and see more go out the door to sustain not just our honored, wounded veterans and those suffering under acts of Nature no matter who they are.

I’m doing more than my damned government CAN do in these areas as a percentage of what little I get in as funds. I can put my funds in better hands than any government EVER CAN.

So spare me the ‘what will we do with the poor, sick and elderly’ shinola. Until 10% of your income is going to the poor, sick and elderly via charity, you are a slacker and whining for government to do what you are incapable of doing: helping your fellow man. And I will give more if the government will just get out of the way of the most powerful force for building society on this planet: the American Citizen.

ajacksonian on April 3, 2012 at 7:45 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Why is it the Republicans responsibility? Why is it the governments at all? Please cite the article, section, and/or amendment that places the responsibility for healthcare upon the government at all. Let’s see if you can post more than one sentence at a time. I bet you can’t do it.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM

I think the Court realizes this–but is rising to the challenge. It knows the stakes are about more than politics, that the future of the country is at stake. It watched healthcare get rammed through Congress without a political consensus. It noted the public’s fierce resistance. It watched the political tsunami sweep away Democrats in 2010.

writeblock on April 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM

While I respect your commentary, I doubt this will influence the court
(nor should it>. If they do strike down the law or even parts of it,what you’ve said will only vindicate their decision in the eyes of the public in favor of striking it down.

DevilsPrinciple on April 3, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Right Obama . . . and we all know what a great bunch this “elected” gaggle turned out to be, don’t we. It’s called “separation of powers” and it’s they’re to thwart the rise of tyrant.

rplat on April 3, 2012 at 8:18 AM

If the Feds quit trying to set the price of medical services, like in services regarding automobiles, those poor people mental4life is whining about in its canned talking points would have no problem in covering themselves.
And I am betting they might not have to sell everything they own for treatment. They might actually get to keep their home, etc.
When I was younger & had no medical coverage bcs I couldn’t afford anything as a college student, I got sick & needed an ER/hospital visit.
It was over $5000 for an ER visit & a one night stay with some IVs & a few tests. I had the stomach flu & had become severely dehydrated.
Tell me in what world does a visit like that need to cost that much?
It’s just like college tuition.
The Feds meddle & the price skyrockets.
Catastrophic coverage with companies like AFLAC are perfectly reasonable.
I have a Cadillac policy through my employer, to which pre-existing conditions of any kind were accepted after a 30 day waiting period & I also have bought an accident policy with AFLAC. I am considering catastrophic cancer coverage.
Maybe even nursing home coverage.
They have pretty reasonable rates & reimbursements.
What I wish is that I could pocket my $1100/MONTH my family medical policy costs & SAVE it like bonding myself or something.
I feel the same way about liability insurance for our ranch at over $5000/YEAR & have had very few claims amounting to a pittance.
The insurance racket is disgusting, but in a sane world, the Feds would be out of it & free enterprise would take over, making available sane & reasonable choices for normal people.
And as always, when you have people who are unlucky, down & out, made poor choices, or are just plain stupid, there are charities & people out there who want to help.
So the pre-existing condition people are a perpetuated myth.
They can get care.
And they’d sure as hell get better care than they get now if they didn’t have to sell their soul to the GOVERNMENT when they need help.
They won’t get pressured to lower their income by the government so they can get on welfare to get help.
Liberals are a heartless bunch.
They don’t see how their programs DESTROY the fabric of our society.

Badger40 on April 3, 2012 at 8:21 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Typical liberal/leftist mind set. The real question is, what do those people and their families plan to do about their chronic illness and pre-existing conditions? if you want to be a ward of the government move to Cuba or some other communist/socialist sewer.

rplat on April 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Whatever it is, it’ll be better than this.

JeffWeimer on April 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM

I think Obama was simply trying to intimidate Kennedy before the final decision is rendered. Has a sitting President since FDR tried cheap thuggery before?

People are people. Bammy called out the SCOTUS in last year’s SOTU, in another cheap stunt. They may want to remind him who has the final say.

johnboy on April 3, 2012 at 8:29 AM

How do I propose to care for the poor and elderly for health care?

Get government out of the loop.

Get States to form a joint market to lower costs.

Give employees the ability to find better and better managed insurance options.

Reinforce charity in the areas of health care and provision to the maximum amount so that every cent given to them is a direct contribution to the care of the poor and elderly in America.

ajacksonian on April 3, 2012 at 7:45 AM

.
This whole comment is worthy of consideration by everyone who reads this blog! Thanks for your thoughtful analysis and the ideas based on Constitutional solutions, not socialist solutions. I have quoted only the four points that you elaborated upon but they seem, to me, to form the basis of a cogent and informed solution to healthcare insurance and healthcare delivery reform.

ExpressoBold on April 3, 2012 at 8:36 AM

What do Republicans plan on doing with people with chronic illness and pre-existing conditions?

liberal4life on April 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

What do Republicans plan on doing? Not a damn thing. Why should Republicans, for that matter, any politician, worry about people with chronic illness. It’s called survival of the fittest. What if that person with “chronic illness and pre-existing conditions” happens to smoke two packs a day. Are we to worry about his health issues?

And what about those individuals who don’t buy health insurance? You want people to have the ability to buy health care insurance on the way to the hospital with a costly injury that occurred moments ago. Ask the guy in Kentucky who didn’t buy fire protection and they let his house burn down, while they stood there and watched.

You simply cannot have affordable car insurance if you can buy a policy after you wreck your car, ditto for health insurance.

jpmotu on April 3, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Why is it the Republicans responsibility? Why is it the governments at all? Please cite the article, section, and/or amendment that places the responsibility for healthcare upon the government at all. Let’s see if you can post more than one sentence at a time. I bet you can’t do it.

NoFanofLibs on April 3, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Of course it isn’t there.
When something bad happens to people, it is not the job of any govt to step in & take care of it It’s what people & charities do.
We in this country have divested ourselves of the responsibility of our fellow man to govt agencies.
It has removed us from dealing with unpleasant thing personally.
It has removed from us the personal interaction that is required of charity & so we think we can just throw other people’s $$ toward a problem & believe that will fix things.
Charity brings compassion.
And compassion brings caring.
This is what govt involvement in social issues DESTROYS.

Badger40 on April 3, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Three years ago, my wife lost her job and I got cut back at mine. We had no money for health insurance coverage, so we cancelled. Along with cable TV, Internet, vacations, new clothes, new shoes, and pretty much everything else. We had to. Things weren’t looking up for a long time. Then a small windfall came through. We looked at that money and said, “We can either put this into insurance (and it will run out in six months), or we can put it into a business to get us out of this mess.” Today our business is profitable and growing, and we have health insurance again WHICH WE ARE PAYING FOR WITH THE BUSINESS. Now tell me, if there had been a government mandate to buy health insurance then, how would we have paid the mortgage?

JoseQuinones on April 3, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4