Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The King v. Burwell Aftermath
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... /the-king-v-burwell-aftermath/
Published: Jun 25, 2015
Author: John Hayward
Post Date: 2015-06-26 09:03:32 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 2803
Comments: 32
As Chief Justice Roberts makes abundantly clear in his ruling, he looked at politics, not the law, concluding that upholding the clear text of the Affordable Care Act would have killed it, and inflicted chaos on a health insurance system already driven mad by ObamaCare. He made a political judgment – with copious pressure from President Obama and his followers, and the weight of his own previous decision to put politics above the law to preserve the individual mandate – that the Affordable Care Act was a writ of nearly-unlimited power to do what its framers say they want to accomplish today, not a law with a balance of both power and responsibility based on what it said at the moment it was signed. This is a very bad precedent to set, especially if Roberts’ reasoning is followed to the conclusion that the bigger and more ambiguously-written a law is, the more untrammeled executive power it grants. No matter what ultimately becomes of ObamaCare, that will come back to haunt us in many other contexts in the future. As for the political fallout from the decision, much of the punditry written beforehand assumed the federal subsidies would fall, and Republicans would either be muscled into passing a quick fix to restore them, or face a presidential campaign season filled with tinkly-piano ads about how mean old Republicans took away Mommy’s health care subsidies. It really is hard to escape the conclusion that this would have been the worst possible political outcome for the GOP – watching the marshmallow leadership fall all over themselves to get a clean subsidy fix passed before they jetted off for summer vacation would have driven the GOP base – and the millions of persuadable American voters suffering higher premiums, higher deductibles, worse access to providers, and paying taxes to subsidize other peoples’ plans – out of their minds. I am of the opinion that tough political outcomes are a burden worth bearing to preserve the rule of law, but here we are instead: Democrats doing a creepy “ALL DEBATE IS NOW OVER!” victory dance to celebrate the Constitution-smashing preservation of a law the American people don’t like, whose passage has already blown them into a congressional minority, and which they own 100 percent. It would be easier to maintain optimism about Republicans fighting on such favorable political terrain if they had demonstrated an institutional talent for fighting winning battles on solid ground, and doing important things with the power thus obtained. The American people are getting a raw deal out of ObamaCare, but the President was not wrong when he crowed today that the law is working the way he wanted it to. The American system has been bent and twisted beyond recognition by the agonizing pain of digesting a law that conflicts with such basic values as the freedom of religion, and even the freedom to decline engaging in commerce. The “consent of the governed” matters less than ever. The amount of money sucked down by ObamaCare and distributed to the government’s Little Partners in the insurance industry is staggering. A huge swath of the formerly independent middle class is now helplessly dependent on subsidy payments, whose termination can be threatened if they get any funny ideas about putting the Leviathan State on a diet. The price Democrats paid for all that was the loss of seats in a national legislature they have marginalized, to the point President Obama simply dismissed the 2014 midterm elections by declaring he would exercise power on behalf of the people who didn’t vote. The Roberts decision renders the plain text of laws less meaningful than what the executive branch desires. If we end up with a Democrat president and one or both houses of Congress in Republican hands next time, the importance of Congress will be further diminished. It’s all been a bit rough on the individual Democrats who lost their seats over ObamaCare, but don’t worry – they parlayed their years of “service” into very comfortable fortunes and parasitic post-congressional careers, they’ll be just fine. The GOP leadership doesn’t seem powerfully inclined to defend the prerogatives of Congress or uphold the rule of law. With law out of the picture, they had better understand how everything is about politics and power now. The gloves need to come off. The Left will redouble its efforts to silence and marginalize Americans who are suffering under ObamaCare. Republicans should demolish that scam with vigor. Get those people out there to talk about their huge premium hikes, ridiculous deductible payments, and restricted doctor networks. Make sure they mention how good they had it before ObamaCare came along. Spotlight every state exchange failure, every insurance company collapse, every shuttered hospital, every study that shows how emergency rooms are being abused worse than ever. (That last bit is important, because for a lot of average voters, the argument that mandatory insurance coverage was the only way to control cost-shifting was one of the most sensible cases made in favor of ObamaCare.) It will be a lot to hope for the GOP to consolidate behind a unified repeal proposal and ObamaCare alternative, especially during a presidential race when every candidate wants to tout their fix, but I’d say one the presidential candidate is determined, the rest of the GOP would be well advised to close ranks behind their preferred proposal. The American people really do respond to firm, clear promises, as the Republicans’ 2014 midterm sweep demonstrated. (Let us avoid contemplating what they’ve actually been doing with the congressional majorities they asked America for, except to understand it as an example of what should be avoided in 2017.) A clear statement of ObamaCare’s problems, combined with a logical case for the alternative, is salable political product. Keeping those promises in 2017 would allow Republicans to make a devastating case that they can be trusted, in a way the Democrats who desperately need everyone to forget ObamaCare’s 2010 promises cannot. The Left loves their Alinksy tactics, their Cloward-Piven attacks – creating chaos and then offering bigger government as the only solution, finding the weak points in private systems and ruthlessly attacking them. The Right can do the same thing. Exploit the weaknesses in ObamaCare without mercy. Throw the Roberts decision back in the Left’s face at every opportunity – we can write ambiguous laws and interpret them as we see fit, too! Play up the complaints, unrelentingly hold ObamaCare up to the standards set when it was passed – never let the Left-media convince you those “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” clips are past their sell-by dates. ObamaCare was always designed to fail, and usher in single-payer health care. The Left’s panic at stress moments when it looked like ObamaCare would collapse prematurely was very instructive. Don’t let this thing run its course, especially since the Roberts decision could be interpreted as allowing much of single-payer to be imposed by executive fiat without any new legislation passed. Why not? The “context” of the ACA was to give everyone health care, right? If this monstrous law implodes, why should any new legislation be necessary to nationalize health insurance completely, followed by medicine itself? There must be some more “ambiguous” language in there that could be stretched to the necessary dimensions. Aggressively get Democrats on the record defending ObamaCare, and sneering at the people who don’t like it. It won’t be hard to do – there are few things more ugly and callous than a Democrat telling working people struggling with 150 percent premium hikes to get bent, because their sacrifice is necessary to give the Democrats’ preferred constituents a free lunch. It will be especially easy to squeeze such brutal sound bites out of Hillary Clinton – she once brushed off the economic chaos that would be caused by her own health care power grab by snarling that she’s not responsible for the collapse of “undercapitalized” businesses. This sort of thing is her weak spot. Hit it hard. Most people get a queasy feeling when they hear the phrase “the ends justify the means.” They know that’s wrong, and they know those words have been cited to justify tyranny and evil. The Roberts decision is wholly based on that idea. The American system was founded on the opposite ideal: that the ends do not justify the means, the system should not be shredded to impose a “good idea” with haste, the rule of law is more important than any goal that could be achieved by discarding it. A great deal of the Left’s moaning about “divisive” politics is a demand for conservatives and taxpaying Americans to roll over and play dead, offering no resistance to fierce liberal armies marching over them. ObamaCare was a declaration of war against the American middle class, and those trumpets are sounding louder than ever after the Roberts decision in King v. Burwell, which takes liberty and dignity away from individuals and gives it to politicians and bureaucrats, because it says they must be given as much power as they need to accomplish their vaguely-defined ends, and that power has to come from somewhere. Greater power means less freedom, always. A “law” that imposes no restraint or obligation on the government, not even the need to respect the plain text of the law itself, contains a payload of power that should be unacceptable to every patriotic American. Sometimes Republicans talk about the Constitution as an object of worship, an abstract idea they hold in reverence, without discussing its practical effect upon the real world. Well, Chief Justice Roberts just gave us a very powerful example of how the abandonment of Constitutional principle disrupts the everyday lives of ordinary people. Use it. Make that case properly to voters, let them know just how much power the Supreme Court and Big Government are seizing, and put the rule of law on the ballot. And for the sake of the Republic, Republicans, don’t mumble or stammer when you do it. 
One of the core problems with a decision like the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell ruling is that it does the opposite of what a Supreme Court presided over by justices-for-life is supposed to do.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
No, they don't. There are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. The Executive branch is controlled by the Democrats. That's 1/3. At the time of the passage of ObamaCare, the Democrats controlled the Legislature. But did they have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? If not, then the Democrats controlled only half the Legislature, because the Senate can pass nothing if filibustered. I have not gone back to see if the Democrats in fact had 60 seats in the Senate when they passed ObamaCare. If they did not, then the fact is that the Democratic House passed ObamaCare, and the Republicans in the Senate allowed it to be passed as well.] Which means that, if they had 60 Democrats, the Democrats had another third of the power, but if they didn't (and I don't think they did, they had only 1/6th of the power - the House - and it only got through the Senate because the Republicans did not enforce a filibuster. Which would assign 1/6 of the blame to the Republicans, because Obamacare passed the Senate. The Judiciary has been continuously controlled by the Republicans throughout the period. The Republican- controlled Supreme Court has twice ratified Obamacare. That's 1/3rd of the power. So no, the Democrats do not "100% own" Obamacare, that's a Republican political lie to divert blame. The Republicans own at least 33% of Obamacare, because the Republican Supreme Court ratified it. And depending on whether or not the Republicans had 41 Senators when Obamacare passed, the Republicans could own another 17% of it, for it could not have cleared the Senate without Republican help. So, the total Republican responsibility for Obamacare is IN FACT between 33% and 50%. Now I'm going to look up the composition of the Senate when Obamacare passed, to see if there were at least 41 Republicans. If there were, the Republicans are half responsible for ObamaCare. If there were not, then the Republicans are one third responsible for it. Republicans cannot escape responsibility for what a Republican Supreme Court does. Democrat judges are selected by Democrat Presidents to reliably reflect Democrat values, and they do. Republican judicial appointees are the responsibility of the Republican Party. What a Republican Supreme Court does is as attributable to Republicans as what Democrat judges do is attributable to Democrats. Republicans pretend that is not so, because were the magnitude of the reality is fully realized by conservatives, they would see that the Republican party does not, in fact, represent them and they would leave it. As they should.
The Republicans own at least 33% of Obamacare, because the Republican Supreme Court ratified it. And depending on whether or not the Republicans had 41 Senators when Obamacare passed, the Republicans could own another 17% of it, for it could not have cleared the Senate without Republican help. Obamacare (as it is nicknamed) is 100% The Republican plan. It was invented by Republicans based on their ideology and advocated by such right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and a GOP gov named Romney implamented it with much fanfare and success in Mass. See, the stupid Bush era Republicans had a freak out over Obama and Obama used that to his advantage. People forget - and by people I mostly mean the Republican base - that there were 2 plans being looked at for universal health care - 1 was Romney care and the other was the Medicare for all plan aka Single Payer. When all those "Republican" demonstrators were protesting outside of congress during the Obamacare debate they had signs up against socialism. Why? Because the GOP protesting organizers thought Obama would push for the Pelosi single payer "socialist" plan and not the Republican Romneycare plan. This went on long enough to where the Right Wing Radio and Right Wing Internet started to call BOTH plans socialist and lost the ability to differentiate. Obama triangulated and backed the Republican plan. Why? Because his people rightly guess Romney was going to be the next nominee. In fact the GOP actually were planning on having the Romney plan be what Romney would run against because they thought Obama would back the Single Payer option. This they thought would create a good contrast between the two. But by Obama picking the Romney version of health care he smartly disarmed the Republicans. The Republicans had become so emotionally invested in defeating Obama - especially on the talk show radio base level - that they could not support Obama supporting the GOP plan. The other reasons Obama picked the plan is as the president he is the actual head of his own party and can get them to vote yes against their own version. He also thought to steal some GOP votes and thus weaken the GOP by dividing them. Like I said though, by this time the GOP was having a (probably racially underlined) freakout and could not support their own idea if Obama was for it. They had to pretend they always were against what became known as Obamacare even though Obamacare was first proposed by Sen Dole when he ran for president and it was an idea that dated back to Republican president Teddy Roosevelt. So in reality, to sum up, Obamacare is 100% the GOP's "fault" since it was their plan to begin with. All Obama did was pass the Republican health plan.
There are no replies to Comment # 17. End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"which they [Democrats] own 100%"
#17. To: Vicomte13, cranky (#3)
(Edited)
o no, the Democrats do not "100% own" Obamacare, that's a Republican political lie to divert blame.
Replies to Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]