believer;661657 wrote:You may be correct but I'm going to point this out again. Had the Dems who thought they had a "people's mandate" to ramrod this 2000-page monstrosity replete with Big Labor waivers and other flaws down the throats of the American people had allowed bi-partisan participation in the bill's processing, we might not even be discussing this right now.
Had the "mandate" been thrown out, had tort reform been examined, had the ability to offer private health insurance across state lines been included, etc. perhaps - PERHAPS - this bill might have had a chance to withstand the constitutional test.
I still picture the newly elected BHO wagging his condescending finger at SCOTUS during his first SOTU speech as he arrogantly chastised the high court with Pelosi snidely nodding in agreement behind him. This bill is about to land on the SCOTUS doorstep and Obama's crowning "achievement" is about to get its rightful place in American history...the shit can.
I'm with Apple on this one. This shows the wisdom of our nation's founders. The checks and balances we have in place are remarkable and my faith in "the system" has been restored.
1. The reason bho and his pals upset their base is because they did try to get bipartisan support for this bill that is MORE CONSERVATIVE than one's previously supported by Conservatives like Richard Nixon, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, etc. They wasted time trying to reason with people who did not want to reason because it was more important to believe that BHO is a socialist trying to bring down america.
2. Such a mandate is the only way we're going to keep a health insurance system with predominantly private providers. So, if you want to keep government small you're going to have to accept this point sooner or later. I'd rather have them making me pay a fine if I don't accept my natural burdens than designing my health plan.
3. They missed the opportunity to do much meaningful medical malpractice reform but again, when conservatives say "tort reform," they typically mean damage caps. conservatives seem to think that damage caps are some kind of magic pill when others like FFT, blue blood conservatives have demonstrated that this isn't the case...and as a matter of principle, it just seems strange that the side of individual rights is so eager to limit an individuals right to be compensated when harmed by negligence. There are things that can be done to reform this area but the fact it wasn't included in A MODERATE BILL should not have prevented support of it.
And, when you add in the fact that Tort law is a state law regime and that in our federal system the 50 courageous states have adopted their own tort laws, it is laughable to hear supposedly small government conservatives demand the feds create damage cap laws binding on the 50 states.
4. This bill DOES ALLOW PRIVATE INSURERS TO OFFER INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES in 2014 in a regulated market. Just like with say, public utilities for example we agree that their ought to be some regulation of their prices because of the high social cost of allowing a lot of competitors in....in the health markets we realize that insurance companies might try to maximize their profits by only offering insurance to healthy persons, so when we allow a nationwide health insurance market, which Obamacare does, we agree to regulate the insurance providers to some to degree to balance against the social cost of potentially only providing insurance to healthy persons, etc.
5. Given the political nature of the court and current commerce clause jurisprudence you're still going to have to show some evidence as to why they court would knock down the mandate. He's got 4 on his side already guaranteed. Two that have been favorable toward expanded commerce clause jurisprudence in the past. And, if history is any guide, when the public and the presidents have scolded the high court they have caved....because after all, they have no executive authority to enforce their decisions.
