ObamaCare Survives

The Supreme Court declared ObamaCare constitutional, in virtually its entirety, today in a 5-4 decision.  Conservatives had big hopes for a reversal to this horrible monstrosity, but the newest conservative on the Bench, Chief Justice Roberts, threw in his lot with the liberals on the court to form the majority.  Interestingly, the justice viewed as the perpetual swing vote on the Court, Justice Kennedy, voted with the conservatives on this decision and said the law is "invalid in its entirety".

But how the majority arrived at their decision is very interesting: basically, they rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Individual Mandate (requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance) was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and took it upon themselves to declare it was constitutional if it is considered a tax, which they (the majority on the Supreme Court) decided it was.  From Scotus Blog via Instapundit:

In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. . . . Yes, to answer a common question, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well.

And here's the catch: when arguing for ObamaCare, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress who pushed this act swore up and down that it was not a tax.  In fact, they knew that if it were called a tax, there was no chance at all that it would be approved in Congress.  So, now we find out more about Nancy Pelosi's famous statement that "we've got to pass this bill to find out what's in it". 

Again via Instapundit and Reason, here is new conservative hero, Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA):

“In selling Obamacare, Congressional Democrats and President Obama assured the American people that it was not a tax. Today, the Supreme Court ruled it was, in fact, a tax. This tax was imposed on the American people amidst an extended recession and is one of the many reasons our economy remains stagnant under President Obama’s leadership."

But, my friends, all is not lost.  As Ace says regarding this case,

...but remember, it was only Plan B, and we had little confidence in it until this past March.

Plan A was always to win the Senate and the White House and flush this piece of shit down the toilet through reconciliation.

Let's do it.

Obamacare To Cost Twice As Much As Originally Forecasted

Looks like Obamacare is going to cost twice as much as forecasted:

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

This is not surprising since there were all kinds of budget gimmicks behind the original forecast. The sad thing is that the likely Republican candidate for president implemented and steadfastly stands by the precursor to Obamacare. Romney does say that he will repeal Obamacare, but his actions and past comments make it appear that he might not do what he says. Obamacare will help to compound the looming debt crisis.

Looks like February was the highest monthly increase in the national debt:

The federal government's budget deficit grew by $222.5 billion in February, the largest one-month increase in history. Economists are forecasting the deficit for the year will be the biggest imbalance on record.

Keep this figure in mind when you hear politicians claiming that reducing the deficit by a couple hundred million or billion over ten years or even in a year is some big accomplishment. How will the government repay all of this debt? If you know history then it is not to guess.

Inflation won't be a major concern in the near future according to the Federal Reserve:

A little is all right. That’s the message Federal Reserve Chairman

Ben S. Bernanke has been giving out recently when asked about the evidence of inflation in the U.S. recovery. Sometimes Bernanke doesn’t even go that far. He simply says he doesn’t see inflation. The Fed chairman recently described the prospects for price increases across the board as “subdued.”

The laws of nature and more specifically the laws economics, human nature, and mathematics don't apply to people living today. We are special.

Obamneycare And The Future Of America

It looks as if the Republican party is not offering an alternative to the current president when it comes to transformative issues such as health care. (While this post isn't about Newt Gingrich, it should be noted that he is no conservative and has called himself a progressive and stated his admiration for Franklin Roosevelt.) It looks like the Republican party is flirting with nominating a candidate that is very hard to distinguish from Obama. The current front runner in the Republican presidential primary Mitt Romney's health care plan the he implemented and steadfastly defends is basically the same thing as Obama's health care plan. This issue was brought to light in one of the recent presidential debate where Rick Santorum challenged Romney on this issue and was told that this is nothing to get angry about. If the fundamental transformation of our society's culture and our country is nothing to get angry about then I don't know what is. Hot Air notes that having a republican candidate that supports government will run health care will be a big public relations win for the left:

Via the lefties at Think Progress, a video salute to Mitt’s cavalier assurance at last night’s debate that there’s nothing to get angry about when it comes to health-care mandates. Get ready for a long, long line of liberal attack ads in this vein once it’s clear that he’s the nominee: Even if they end up losing the election, the PR value to the left of having the Republican standard-bearer mimicking O’s rhetoric on ObamaCare is incalculable for the repeal battle ahead. That was always one of the greatest pitfalls in choosing Mitt — at a minimum, the right will have to temper its criticism of mandates during the general election — but darned if we’re not poised to go ahead and choose him anyway. And as Peter Suderman at Reason notes, this clip doesn’t even exhaust the similarities between RomneyCare and its much larger younger brother:

Via the lefties at Think Progress, a video salute to Mitt’s cavalier assurance at last night’s debate that there’s nothing to get angry about when it comes to health-care mandates. Get ready for a long, long line of liberal attack ads in this vein once it’s clear that he’s the nominee: Even if they end up losing the election, the PR value to the left of having the Republican standard-bearer mimicking O’s rhetoric on ObamaCare is incalculable for the repeal battle ahead. That was always one of the greatest pitfalls in choosing Mitt — at a minimum, the right will have to temper its criticism of mandates during the general election — but darned if we’re not poised to go ahead and choose him anyway. And as Peter Suderman at Reason notes, this clip doesn’t even exhaust the similarities between RomneyCare and its much larger younger brother:

During last night’s debate, Romney also defended his plan from charges that it resembled ObamaCare by arguing that in Massachusetts, “there’s no government plan.” He’s used this line before, but it’s never helped distinguish Romney’s health overhaul from Obama’s: There’s no “government plan” in ObamaCare either, or at least no more of one than there is in RomneyCare. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare rely on a regulated market and an expansion of Medicaid. Nor is Romney the only one to point this out in order to defend the structure both plans share: In his State of the Union address earlier this week, President Obama touted the fact that “our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”

In the end, Romney only ended up reinforcing the similarities between his plan and President Obama’s. It’s hard to make a convincing case that the RomneyCare is somehow dramatically different from ObamaCare while relying on virtually the same arguments employed by ObamaCare’s most prominent defender.

Michael Tomasky agrees with Rick Santorum that nominating Romney will be giving up the issue of Obamacare in this years election:

The moment was, of course, the exchange between Rick Santorum and Romney when Santorum was aggressively challenging Romney about health care. Romney was going through his standard defense of his health-care plan, saying it was right for Massachusetts but not for other states. Santorum wasn’t buying it: “Think about what that means going up against Barack Obama ... You are going to claim [about the Affordable Care Act], ‘Well, it doesn’t work and we should repeal.’ And he’s going to say, ‘Wait a minute, governor. You said it works well in Massachusetts.’ Folks—we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom ... It’s going to be on your ballot as to whether there should be a government mandate here in Florida. According to Governor Romney, that’s OK.”[...]

On the substance, there is virtually no difference between the bills. Well, OK, there are two differences. No. 1 is that Romney did not vastly expand Medicaid in constructing his bill. No. 2 is that Romney did not raise taxes to pay for his bill. Now, both of those differences sound like they reflect very well on Romney—he didn’t expand a big-government program that most people associate with poor folks and therefore do not like, and he didn’t raise taxes.

But why didn’t his bill do either of those things? It didn’t expand Medicaid, because governors have no right to expand Medicaid. And he didn’t raise taxes because—ready?—the federal government paid for about half of it ($385 million, largely in Medicaid money). And the federal government paid for about half of it largely because of the efforts of ... Teddy Kennedy, Romney’s great ally in putting the bill through. Jon Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who worked on Romney’s bill, has said, with only slight exaggeration: “They’re the same fucking bill. He [Romney] just can’t have his cake and eat it too. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”[...]

So Santorum was right Thursday night. Nominating Romney is giving up the issue, especially if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate. Obama probably can’t win the argument, but if his campaign handles the issue artfully, he can plant doubts in conservative and swing voters’ minds about Romney’s actual beliefs on the matter, which will play strongly into what presumably will be a key Obama theme of Romney as the say-anything candidate. Obama should even use Pawlenty’s little portmanteau. After all, it’ll be no loss to him if voters think of the plans as similar; making conservatives gnash their teeth is the point. [emphasis mine on the bold part]

Socialized medicine in the crown jewel of socialism and the welfare state. Health care is one sixth of the U.S economy, and with the passage of Obamacare the government is on track to slowly gain control of the vast swath of the economy and people's lives. Having this new entitlement will have a corrupting effect on the character of the American people by turning the society into an entitlement society. All one has to do is to look at the riots in Greece to see what a society that looks to the government to provide all of their needs leads to. If one agrees, like Romney, with the premise that government should be providing people with health care, then the government is justified in telling people what they can or can not eat and a whole list of other lifestyle choices. Nominating a candidate who supports government run health care would be a disaster for staving the tied of socialism in America and the end of the Republican party standing for personal liberty, limited government, and free markets. I believe the Republican party has already stopped a long time ago being the party that stands for these principles. Americans no longer have a choice in the direction the country is headed. This years election is shaping up to only offer Americans only with the choice of the speed that we are headed towards the socialist-welfare-state. I can not vote for Romney.

MELKOR SPEAKS: Obamacare vs Invasive TSA Searches

Melkor sent me the following to post:

Non-Security related analogy:  although it's being litigated, Obamacare is stating that it is in the people's interest that everyone should have healthcare.  The gov't is implicitly saying this by fining (whether through taxes or otherwise) those who don't get it, thus encouraging us to get it.  We say healthcare is in our interest both from an overt, people should be taken care of, but more importantly, because it's in the general interest for everyone to have healthcare:  It is the uninsured that pose a significant externality upon the majority of people with healthcare since they lack preventative care that would treat most maladies in a more efficient manner.  We are removing this externality by paying for it through Obamacare.  Lets take this one step further, we are saying that it is in society's interest for people to be given regular physicals and check ups, pap smears and prostate examinations, because it makes it net-cheaper for the rest of society but also because we say people should just see a doctor.  Thus, your precious liberals have already stated that they want people to see us naked because it's "whats best for us" and moderates have partially signed on because they think it's whats cheaper.

Security Analogy:  If, by now, you understand what I'm hinting at (that is, the gov't is saying we should have doctors grab us and say cough because we think it's good and also because it might be cheaper for society at large) you are probably yelling, "I can choose not to get the healthcare" (and suffer the fine) or, "I don't have to get the physical or pap smear even if I'm paying for Obama care."  Well, you can not only opt in to whatever search you want by the TSA, but can opt out of the search entirely by seeking an alternative mode of transportation.  The searches that are protected by the constitution are not those that people can opt out of.  You are free from the police taking you and forcibly searching you.  On the other hand, the gov't has already created non negotiable searches in areas that are in the national interest:  Can you opt out of a search when you enter a Court?  What about the National Archives, US Customs & Commerce building, the National Gallery of Art, Military installations?  Can you opt out of being searched when you enter Wall Street or any of the Federal Reserve Banks?  What about when you enter the country?  What about when the gov't forces sensitive industries (Power, telecom, Defense, Urban sanitation/water servicesm, etc) to incur increased costs (mind you, with no compensation) by mandating them to implace security procedures against terrorist and cyber attacks, should the gov't be allowed to hurt these firms this way?  We/not rights extremists/society/America say yes, because we need to internalize the externality of security.  This isn't a new thing and this isn't a pathway to dictatorship.  If Russia does a denial of service attack, if China obtains industrial technology and produces same good without spending on R&D for it, or a plane explodes at a massive international financial installation, we all pay for it even if we aren't hurt/killed by it.  It is better for gov't to intervene in this case and force either a limitation on our rights, a policy mandate, or a tax, in order for the majority to be benefited.  The bill of rights was not intended for externalities of someone's use of their civil rights to infringe on others, it's not a blank check and never was meant to be.