Healthcare

After an unprecedented attack by President Obama on the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal judge asked the Justice Department to give a written explanation of its opinion of what the president was conveying to the justices as they decide the fate of ObamaCare. It appears that the judicial system is defending itself as a co-equal branch of the United States government.

This is absolutely appropriate since the president seems to feel that unelected judges have no right to interfere with the legislative and executive process. At least when they are his executive and legislative processes. This is but one of the many radical changes that the president wants to bring about to our nation. He basically wants the judicial system to be a rubber stamp for his ideological agenda. It will certainly be educational as well as fascinating to see who wins this mammoth struggle, and the implications will be significant for the future identity of our nation.

Insurance companies will not be driven out of business. They will simply not insure.

Their model has always been passing the costs through and calculating the cost based on the risk.

Mandates on insurance companies can work if we have the stomach for the cost of the mandates, but the higher cost will discourage even more from paying in, which will make the pool even more expensive to stay in.

If the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate in ObamaCare unconstitutional, can it sever the mandate from the remainder of the bill?

If it can’t, the entire legislation is declared null and void. If this is the eventual outcome, Congress must commence from ground zero again.

The optimists on Charlie Rose Wednesday night said it’s likely the vote would be 6-3 to preserve ObamaCare. Turning back the way of life since FDR seemed unrealistic. The war of ideas between centralization and decentralization is supposed to have been settled at Cemetery Ridge. But this is not over. Sen. Mike Lee (R) of Utah said 5-4 turning back the Obama initiative.

Pundits say it is as important as Brown v. Board of Education. It is a good comparison in that yes, what the court rules this week will change America. I felt the best perspective was in an editorial, "Bracing for the Court," in the New York Sun. They compare the challenge today to an appeal to the Supreme Court in 1935 by a family of kosher butchers, challenged the constitutionality of the National Industrial Recovery Act, which was the centerpiece of the New Deal. They appealed to the Supreme Court on much the same grounds as the states are now making their appeal on healthcare.

If the other 49 states want compulsory healthcare insurance, there is no reason why they cannot have it if permitted under their constitutions. However, there is no reason for the federal government to impose ObamaCare on the 26 states contesting its constitutionality.

Without getting into the technical merits of the constitutionality of ObamaCare, clever attorneys can cogently argue both sides of the issue. However, the case for ObamaCare requires an Orwellian expansion of the Commerce Clause which few Americans can understand.

UltraViolet, a group aimed at expanding women’s rights and combating sexism, has launched a campaign in favor of ObamaCare. As UltraViolet puts it, “the big healthcare bill that President Obama signed has a ton of benefits in it that impact women specifically:”
 
1. Being a woman is no longer a "pre-existing condition." 
2. Insurance companies can't charge you more for being a woman either.
3. Having a pap smear still sucks, but at least you don't have to shell out a co-pay for it.
4. You also don't need a co-pay for birth control anymore.
5. Have kids? Or want to? The law helps with that too. 
 
That’s the key word — “specifically.” Too often, women’s groups on the left are focused on negotiating specific benefits for women without considering the larger impact these “advantages” have on the economy and our freedom.

Barack Obama supported the healthcare mandate that was originally championed by Republicans — and the right calls him a socialist. Mitt Romney enacted the healthcare mandate after working with Ted Kennedy — but Republicans champion him for president. Hillary Clinton supported the mandate — and the right treated her like the devil incarnate. The Heritage Foundation pushed for the mandate — but the right champions Heritage as capitalist heroes, not socialist villains. If Ron Paul is a champion hypocrite for supporting earmarks and running ads defending Romney on the Etch a Sketch matter, the Republican Party wins the Olympic gold for hypocrisy with its two-faced position on the healthcare mandate.

No one should really be surprised that the "Affordable" Care Act is going to have a tab of almost twice as much as the original projection.

It is highly probable the purveyors of this massive governmental plan understood that through some clever manipulations and presentations they, along with their media cronies, would easily be able to deceive the masses into believing they were actually doing something that would save money. They knew all along what the true costs were.

It really does seem like anything goes this election season.  

The controversy over the HHS mandate requiring “free” coverage of contraceptive services — and the recent hearing on religious liberty — has breathed new life into the already tired Democratic message that Republicans are waging “war on women.” (Read what I’ve already written about it here.)

Leading the charge for the Democratic Party is Rep. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), who yesterday signed a fundraising letter for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that is absolutely absurd:

The president’s ObamaCare compromise is that Catholic charities don't have to offer contraceptives to their employees through their mandatory healthcare insurance policies. Instead, their insurance companies must provide employees the contraceptives for free. This is not a compromise, but a sleight of hand.
 
Who does the administration think is going to pay for these contraceptives? If they think the insurance company, out of the goodness of its heart, will pay out of profits, they are gravely mistaken. Instead, when the insurance company quotes a Catholic charity a health insurance policy that excludes free contraceptives, they will knowingly price it at the same rate as that of an institution that must provide contraceptives to its employees. If they are prohibited from charging the Catholic charities the same rate as other institutions and must charge a lower rate, then the insurance companies will pass the costs on to all the non-Catholic-charity policyholders. That means the rest of America must subsidize contraceptives for the workers of Catholic charities.