Obamacare to be decided

Obamacare to be decided

Neal Boortz
Nov. 15, 2011

In some ways, the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is indicative of the crossroads at which we stand as a nation. Do we want to see yet another expansion of federal powers by upholding ObamaCare and the individual mandate, or do we want a limited government, which recognizes the individual’s rights to choose which products to consume (or not consume) in the marketplace along with the individual’s responsibility to take care of his own basic needs.

We’ve hashed out this no-brainer before .. it is unconstitutional for our government to regulate inactivity -- it's about an individual's right to choose to participate in a particular element of interstate commerce. But what do I know? Now it is all in the hands of nine presidential appointees. Who knows? In this day and age maybe they actually could find that the federal government has the right to tell you that you must go out into the private marketplace and purchase a specific consumer item. As of right now, here’s where they stand, according to this analysis by the Wall Street Journal:according to this analysis by the Wall Street Journal:

All four Democrat-appointed justices are almost certain to vote to uphold, and Justice Clarence Thomas--who in dissents and concurrences over the years has argued for reconsidering much of the New Deal's constitutional legacy--is an almost certain vote against.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy have a mixed record on Commerce Clause cases, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito have not yet heard such a case since joining the high court. So their votes are in at least some doubt.

Keep in mind that the individual mandate is just part of the decision. Here’s a breakdown of the issues that the Supreme Court will decide on ObamaCare:

1. Whether Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate.
2. Whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
3. Whether and to what extent the individual mandate, if unconstitutional, is severable from the rest of the Act.
4. Whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding (expanding eligibility, greater coverage, etc.) constitute an unconstitutional coercion of the states.

This should also be a lesson in how important Supreme Court nominations are to a president’s time in office. As you elect your next president, consider the fact that this person will possibly be responsible for the appointment of a lifetime justice to the Supreme Court, which can carry significant influence over your life. Just take a look at this ObamaCare battle.

God, I hope the Supreme Court strikes it down as unconstitutional, that would be awesome. If not, a Republican president can repeal it as soon as he's sworn it.

I hate that it has gotten this far. Obamacare, no matter what the Supreme Court decides, is a financial disaster for America, quite independent of its unconstitutional usurpations of our liberties.

This abortion of a law must be completely repealed.

TexasBlue wrote:Obamacare to be decided

Neal Boortz
Nov. 15, 2011

In some ways, the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is indicative of the crossroads at which we stand as a nation. Do we want to see yet another expansion of federal powers by upholding ObamaCare and the individual mandate, or do we want a limited government, which recognizes the individual’s rights to choose which products to consume (or not consume) in the marketplace along with the individual’s responsibility to take care of his own basic needs.

Everyone will have the right to choose their plan, but not everyone has the money to buy that plan... something that's never really adressed by these type of op-ed articles.

BubbleBliss wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Obamacare to be decided

Neal Boortz
Nov. 15, 2011

In some ways, the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is indicative of the crossroads at which we stand as a nation. Do we want to see yet another expansion of federal powers by upholding ObamaCare and the individual mandate, or do we want a limited government, which recognizes the individual’s rights to choose which products to consume (or not consume) in the marketplace along with the individual’s responsibility to take care of his own basic needs.

Everyone will have the right to choose their plan, but not everyone has the money to buy that plan... something that's never really adressed by these type of op-ed articles.

That's not the point. The point is that the gov't has no right telling me I have to have health insurance (or anything else). If the state of Minnesota said that I had to have health insurance, then it's a different story. Even then, I can leave my state to avoid it.

,

BubbleBliss wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:Obamacare to be decided

Neal Boortz
Nov. 15, 2011

In some ways, the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare is indicative of the crossroads at which we stand as a nation. Do we want to see yet another expansion of federal powers by upholding ObamaCare and the individual mandate, or do we want a limited government, which recognizes the individual’s rights to choose which products to consume (or not consume) in the marketplace along with the individual’s responsibility to take care of his own basic needs.

Everyone will have the right to choose their plan, but not everyone has the money to buy that plan... something that's never really adressed by these type of op-ed articles.

No, everyone will not have a right to choose their own plan.

What you don't realize is that Obamacare dictates to insurers exactly what sort of coverage their plans must have in great detail.

If I wanted to buy a plan that didn't cover childbirth and mental health, because I don't plan getting pregnant (being a guy) and I think psychs are quacks, I couldn't. Under Obamacare my personal choice no longer means squat. I would be FORCED to select a plan the all-powerful federal government approves of.

That is not "choice.",,,,,,,,