Roberts Redux? Supreme Court Takes Obamacare Appeal

The Supreme Court decided Monday to hear the appeal of various states seeking to reverse a lower court ruling that the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. As with the abortion case to be heard this week, the case will put Chief Justice John Roberts at a critical crossroads as the new swing vote on the Court. However, the Obamacare decision (as I discussed earlier in a column) is a bill coming due for Roberts on his reasoning in the first Obamacare decision.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court ruling on the individual mandate but sent the rest back down with instructions on whether and how it can be struck down.

As I noted earlier, the seeds for this decision were planted long before the challenge was filed by Texas and 19 other states. From the outset, the constitutionality of the ACA was questioned by some of us due to the inclusion of the “individual mandate” which required all Americans to purchase health insurance. That provision immediately raised objections under federalism principles. Congress was penalizing individuals and states for the failure to buy a product and then regulating that failure under the claim of Interstate Commerce.

A majority of justices viewed that scheme as a violation of states rights. However, the Obama administration and the Democrats argued that the individual mandate was the thumping heart of the ACA and it could not live without it. This argument was repeated before the Supreme Court, which voted 5-4 to preserve the individual mandate as both constitutional and essential to the ACA.

The individual mandate, and the ACA as a whole, were only saved by Roberts effectively switching sides mid-opinion. After agreeing with the majority on violation of federalism guarantees, Roberts declared the individual mandate was still constitutional as an exercise of Congress’ taxing authority. The reason is that the penalty could be viewed as a type of tax.

Roberts’ tax rationale came as a surprise to many of us, since none of the original parties were arguing that the mandate was a tax. Indeed, one of the drafters, Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, admitted later that “this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes.” Roberts’ rationale would prove too clever by half when the penalty was eliminated in 2017 in a tax cut bill.

181 thoughts on “Roberts Redux? Supreme Court Takes Obamacare Appeal”

  1. As a self employed person who was one of the 5.5 million that had their plans cancelled by Obamacare I can only hope Roberts gets it right this time. I now pay much more for my family in premiums and copays with no better coverage.
    Since I can’t get a waiver, someone please remove this tumor called Obamacare and heal this patient.
    Limit government to helping only those in need and fix Medicaid and butt out of my life.

    1. Tell your congress people!

      Whatever is done is not supposed to make health care more expensive.

    2. That was my experience, as well. They should have focused their efforts on the poor, rather than taking away access to quality, affordable health care from the middle class.

  2. Trump’s Solution To Healthcare:

    Let Insurers Peddle Junk Policies 

    Last week, with little fanfare, the Trump administration released an ­even-more-damaging new policy: an ­expansion of “short-term” insurance plans.

    Short-term insurance is supposed to provide just that — short-term coverage. Maybe you need a stopgap plan before school starts, for instance. These niche plans are exempted from Obamacare’s basic consumer protections.

    They don’t, for example, have to be issued to people with preexisting conditions. There also are no federal requirements for what kinds of care they have to cover, or how much of it. If these plans want to take your premium money and then never pay out a dime on prescription drugs or cancer treatments, under federal law, they don’t have to.

    And the data show they often don’t, which is why this is such a lucrative business to be in.

    In 2016, the top seller of short-term plans, Tokio Marine Holdings, paid out only 47 cents of every dollar it received from premiums on medical claims, ­ according to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. ­Obama­care-compliant plans, for context, generally have to spend at least 80 percent of their premiums on claims and quality improvement.

    These lightly regulated, short-term plans are typically much cheaper than Obamacare-compliant ones. But the reason they’re so cheap — the fact that they cover so little — is not always apparent when they’re being sold. Predictably, many ­consumers have gotten scammed. In some particularly egregious cases, insurers pulled coverage immediately after a cancer diagnosis or heart attack. State insurance regulators have issued warnings to residents about widespread fraud.

    Edited From: “Trump’s Sneaky Backdoor Obamacare Repeal Is Working”

    The Washington Post, 2/26/18

    1. Paint Chips, you keep posting from the Washington Post and use that to slime other people like James O’Keefe. He got another retraction from the Washington Post. Veritas is engaged in a lot of litigation where so far they have won I think 8 times in court and lost 0 though one time did have a bit of trouble. However, that trouble you talked about many times whenever his name is brought up has been based on Multilpe lies by the Washington Post which have now retracted the statement. I thought you might be interested. I think in total number of retractions is 309. You can hear for yourself the retraction made by the Washington Post. If lazy start at 30 seconds.

  3. Insurance companies love the ACA. This law forces people to buy insurance. Under the ACA your premiums are set as to how much money you make. This is where the IRS comes in.

  4. The judicial branch has NO authority to legislate or modify the Constitution.

    Supreme Court Justices may be intellectuals of the highest caliber, even the equivalent of theoretical physicists, but they may not

    legislate or modify the Constitution.

    Congress has the power to tax for “…general Welfare.”

    Congress does not have the power to tax for individual or specific welfare, aka redistribution of wealth, or charity, all of which were

    deliberately omitted and, thereby, excluded.

    Obamacare is individual welfare not general welfare.

    Obamacare is welfare medical care.

    Obamacare is a form of redistribution of wealth that circumvents direct cash payments.

    Obamacare is definitively and irrefutably unconstitutional.

  5. Uninsured Patients Cost Multi-Billions

    Further down this thread, Commenter Karen S. asserts ACA (Obamacare) has generally been a ‘failure’.  I responded by saying ACA is wholeheartedly embraced by hospitals and health insurance providers.  However conservatives replied by claiming their doctors don’t like Obamacare.

    Obamacare was created to address a long-simmering crisis.  The rate of uninsured patients had been rising steadily for about two decades.  Consequently hospitals were at the front lines of this crisis. Uninsured patients were becoming a major drain on hospitals.

    Below are statistics compiled by the Kaiser Foundation, a leading source of healthcare studies.  They pertain to the year 2013 when Obamacare was still in its infancy.  One can see, at a glance, how costly the uninsured can be.  The Federal Government, more than anyone, tends to pick up the bill.

    In 2013, the cost of “uncompensated care” provided to uninsured individuals was $84.9 billion. Uncompensated care includes health care services without a direct source of payment. In addition, people who are uninsured paid an additional $25.8 billion out-of-pocket for their care.The majority of uncompensated care (60%) is provided in hospitals. Community based providers (including clinics and health centers) and office-based physicians provide the rest, providing 26% and 14% of uncompensated care, respectively.In 2013, $53.3 billion was paid to help providers offset uncompensated care costs. Most of these funds ($32.8 billion) came from the federal government through a variety of programs including Medicaid and Medicare, the Veterans Health Administration, and other programs. States and localities provided $19.8 billion, and the private sector provided $0.7 billion.

    Edited from: “Uninsured In 2013: A Detailed Examination”

    Kaiser Family Foundation, 5/30/14


      Studying the effects of expanding Medicaid in Michigan – where more than 600,000 gained coverage – researchers at the University of Michigan have found no evidence that the expansion affected insurance premiums. They did, however, document that hospitals’ uncompensated care costs dropped dramatically – by nearly 50%.

      Conversely, when Tennessee and Missouri had large-scale Medicaid cuts in 2005, the amount of care hospitals provided for free suddenly increased. In a 2015 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Garthwaite and his co-authors estimated every uninsured person costs local hospitals $900 in uncompensated care costs each year.

      “This is not a trivial thing for a hospital to deal with,” Garthwaite said. While hospitals average 7% profit margins, uncompensated care costs can be more than 5% of revenue.

      The majority of hospitals are non-profits and are exempt from federal, state and local taxes if they provide a community benefit, such as charitable care. Hospitals also receive federal funding to offset some of the costs of treating the poor.

      Edited From: “Who Pays When Someone Without Insurance Shows Up In ER”

      USA Today, 7/13/17

      1. Let’s take one item from the article which was terrible. “uncompensated care costs dropped dramatically – by nearly 50%.”

        First one has to know what uncompensated costs are. A hospital might bill 20X what they expect to get from the insured. Therefore the uncompensated care costs might be listed in the millions when they should be listed in the hundreds of thousands. For all we know, based on that sentence and the lack of explanation of what all this actually means the costs may have risen by multiples and the conclusions should be the opposite of what is being reported.

        I had a chance to look at these numbers years ago and from what I recall it appears this article, if accurately reflecting the study, didn’t take into account average hospital payments for each type of admission.

  6. Number Of Uninsured Children Has Climbed Since Trump Took Office.  But Not In States That Expanded Medicaid 

    The Georgetown researchers found that the rate of children younger than 6 without health insurance climbed from 3.8 percent in 2016 to 4.3 percent in 2018. Thirteen states had statistically significant increases in either the rate or number of young kids without insurance. Eleven states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Washington and West Virginia — had significant increases in both.

    The report notes that children are more likely to be uninsured in states that did not expand Medicaid under Obamacare, which would have extended eligibility to all adults earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty line. Studies show that parents in Medicaid are more likely to enroll their children in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, public health plans for families with lower incomes

    Only Minnesota had a statistically significant decrease in the number of uninsured young children, the report said. Minnesota expanded Medicaid in 2014, as soon as the ACA allowed.

    The results dovetail with the ongoing trend of children younger than 19 losing their health insurance. The overall rate of children without coverage increased from 4.7 percent in 2016 to 5.2 percent in 2018.

    Edited From: “Many Young Children Are Now Going Without Health Insurance”

    The Washington Post, 3/2/20

    1. Please cite the Constitution where that is mandated or required. Perhaps you read the Bible.

  7. The courts have been busy:

    Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think that using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

    1. Yeah, whip out the Hillary card. used by Trumpers when they can’t defend him, so they make something up about Hillary to change the subject.

      1. so they make something up about Hillary to change the subject.

        LOL! Yeah, I made up a report that a federal judge ordered Clinton to appear for a deposition.

        Try again.

  8. I note a lot of people comparing costs to Canadian costs. Take note: 1 USD = 1.335 CAD Canadian healthcare is far from free and has a lot of faults just like every other western nation. When one does a comparison they should do a true comparison. The last time when we passed a healthcare law, the ACA, many of those that were socially responsible and had private insurance lost their insurance and had to pay into the ACA huge premiums to pay for those that didn’t reach a certain income level or fenagled the law so others could pay for them. I’ll bet we all know people that rely on other people’s work product. We might even have some on this blog.

  9. Public Now Supports Obamacare

    Rate Of Uninsured Down By 18 Million

    Although the public has remained deeply divided on the health law since it was passed, a decade ago this month, the law recently reached its highest favorability rating, with 55 percent of the public supporting it, since the Kaiser Family Foundation started measuring it shortly after the law’s passage. The latest Kaiser poll also found repealing the law was no longer the top health care issue for Republican voters, a sharp contrast from 2016.

    The number of uninsured Americans younger than 65 decreased by 18.6 million from 2010, when the health law was passed, to 2018. Most of them gained insurance through expanded Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poor; others got coverage through new private insurance options, often with subsidies to help cover the cost, or, for adults younger than 26, through their parents’ health plans.

    Edited From: “Supreme Court To Hear Obamacare Repeal”

    The New York Times, 3/2/20

    1. Seth, NOW you care about public opinion? Nobody cared when this was rammed down our throats.

      1. Young, if you go back and look at polls from 2016, healthcare ranked very high as an issue. And currently healthcare is #1 as an election year issue.

    2. Public support of communist programs is irrelevant when those programs are unconstitutional.

      Communists in America may want it but they can’t have it.

      Communist parasites cannot simply order up whatever “free stuff” they desire.

      Parasites in America can’t grasp the nature of American freedom – freedom and self-reliance.

      Government in America exists only to facilitate freedom – not to provide “free stuff” and bestow false status.

      Communist “free stuff” comes with the price of enslavement to the state.

      Parasites and dependents can do that in China, Cuba, North Korea, etc. but they can’t do it in the United States.

      The Constitution does not allow it.

      1. George, I dont think you realize how close you come to self-parody. Your comments play like dark comedy: a character from “Dr Strangelove”, for instance.

        1. Mr. Shill, thanks for reading; again.

          Have you noticed that every president before Obongo was a “natural born citizen” per the definition provided by Vattel in The Law of Nations and that there was no socially engineered redistributionist American welfare state before the communists (i.e. progressives-into-communism) commandeered America circa 1913?

          If George Washington won the Revolutionary War against the entire British Empire with a maximum of 48,000 troops in the field in order to establish an independent and free America, how many troops do you think it would take to win a revolutionary war against the communists to, as Ben Franklin said about the very conservative American republic, “…keep it?”

          I mean, Americans can’t get the Supreme Court to do its job and the Founders did provide Americans the 2nd Amendment, right?

    3. Seth:

      Most of the public has either an employer policy or Medicare.

      Then there are the subsidized people on Obamacare who don’t pay for it, and have no idea how limited and crappy the networks are.

      Would a reasonable person believe that any of the above cohorts would be pleased with Obamacare if they had to pay $1000 a month, $12,000 deductibles, and the good doctors didn’t take it.

      No. Of course they wouldn’t. But since “most people” don’t experience this pain, they don’t care. Plus there is the ever helpful media denying the problem.

      “Most people” don’t care if a policy, bill, or law is injurious to someone else. It has to actually harm them to care. But tell them Obamacare helps the poor and they’re great with it.

      Try living with it. Oh, wait, maybe you will. If Bernie wins, you’ll lose your access to healthcare, too. Then everyone will be in the same boat but, tragically, it will be too big to fail.

        1. Seth:

          What does the rate of the uninsured have to do with anything that I’ve been saying? What will it take for you to care?

          I was included in the stats of the uninsured, because Obamacare took away my health insurance. My insurance was cancelled and I went on Obamacare. I would not have been uninsured except for Obamacare.

          Do you care about insurance or health care?

          Thought Exercise:

          A middle class self employed woman had a PPO she could afford, that was accepted at all of her doctors. Obamacare canceled it, and replaced it with one that costs $1000 a month, with a $12,000 deductible. She gets diagnosed with breast cancer. Not a single doctor she goes to accepts it. None of the cancer treatment centers well known for her type of cancer accepts it.

          She has a shiny new insurance card that she cannot afford, and that cannot get her the treatment she needs.

          Did you “help” her? Is she better off?

          As I have explained to you many times:

          1. The poor don’t care about how much Obamacare costs because they don’t pay it.
          2. The poor who had no coverage don’t understand Obamacare has bad networks.
          3. Most people are on employer policies and are shielded by Obamacare, so they don’t care

          They should have targeted their efforts to help the poor. Expanded Medicaid and Medical. They should never have taken away affordable healthcare from middle class individual policy holders.

          Why can you not admit that it was wrong? When I tell you it is unaffordable to the middle class, and the networks are awful, you keep pointing me to the poor who don’t pay it, and don’t understand their coverage does not compare to an employer policy. That is avoiding the question.

          Is it right or wrong to take away access to health care, including cancer care, from people who used to have it?

          1. The ACA even hurt people on Medicaid. Much of the expansion was without a proportionate increase in resources which meant the poorest and most needy recipients of Medicaid would end up having their access reduced. Example: Those better able to afford simple care and pay for it displaced them.

  10. A Disengenous Wish:

    Republicans Hope This Case Is Decided ‘After’ Election

    If the Supreme Court were actually to find in Republicans’ favor, the ACA would be struck down — all of it. Around 20 million Americans would lose their health coverage. The subsidies that help millions afford coverage would disappear. The protections for preexisting conditions that Republicans pretend to care about? Gone.

    Just talking about such an outcome is a political nightmare for Republicans. Which is why I can predict that the Supreme Court argument in this case won’t take place in October, right after the new session begins. It’ll be scheduled for November, or maybe December, or maybe later. Just so it doesn’t happen before the election.

    Edited From: “The Supreme Court Just Reminded Us Why This Election Is An Emergency”

    Today’s Washington Post

  11. Since the Supreme Court decision will come down after the election, Them knowing which way the wind is blowing will be a huge factor. And I’m only talking about the five. Everybody already knows what the four will do, so Roberts will check the wind.

  12. the constitutionality of the ACA was questioned by some of us due to the inclusion of the “individual mandate” which required all Americans to purchase health insurance.

    Following the dictates of the socialist fascist edict control by any means and anything said or done to advance the party is the truth Comrade Obama sought to penalize an entire group of the country without being charged, tried or legally convicted

    Overturning that use of a the dictators tool kit was not the only time it was used. TSA is a very good example of fascism at work. Explain why the simple act of riding an airborne bus ends up penalizing without being charged, tried or convicted an entire nation. All for something that is near twenty years old but the system gave birth to that act on 9/11 gets a free pass on murdering women and children for the crime of learning how to read,

  13. The problems with the ACA are a good example of what happens with major legislation when:
    1. there is no meaningful bipartisan agreement
    2. Congress neither reads nor understands the bill it passes
    3. A bill is deliberately written in tortured language to make it difficult to understand
    4. A bill is so lengthy that it stacks up 6 feet tall
    5. Too big to fail (unless Democrats decide to pass single payer, and then all of a sudden it’s no problem to repeal and replace)

    A bill that affects a major industry must never be “too big to fail”. The message is that no matter how much it sucks, it would be too expensive and complicated to change. That’s a terrible way to legislate. Bills should be targeted, to the point, short enough to be read and understood thoroughly, and if they don’t work, they should be amended or replaced. Passing something so massive that its proponents claim that you have to be stuck with it forever is no way to govern.

    Democrats will never entertain the idea of repealing and replacing Obamacare until or unless they had both houses. They rammed through their dream bill, and got everything they ever wanted. The result, as per usual, was totally unaffordable to the American people who are unsubsidized, and the quality of care plummeted because doctors and cancer treatment centers often do not accept the 30% pay cut it represents. Being politicians, they also required onerous paperwork and billing systems that make patient care worse, not better. (

    They will not give up Obamacare at any time when they would be required to negotiate with Republicans. But if they ever get both houses back and the White House in a sweep, they will do exactly the same thing. They will ram through a partisan bill without reading it or understanding it. Since there would be no negotiation between parties, they would not be familiar enough with its consequences to defend it. “Here they come to wreck the day!!!”

    1. Karen, the hospital and health insurance industries wholeheartedly embraced ACA. So your suggestion that they were somehow ‘victims’ of ACA is a baseless argument.

        1. No, doctors did not support it and the AMA lost a lot of members because of their support.

          1. Young – I lost my personal physician because of myriad codes required by Obamacare and I know another doctor who also retired this year for the same reason.

            1. The House Energy and Commerce Committee recently wrote to Tommy Thompson, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, protesting at the administration’s complicated rules. It wrote: “Governed by an estimated 130000 pages of laws and regulations, many Medicare providers are spending as much time navigating their way through [the Health Care Financing Administration’s] complicated regulatory process as they are on patient care.”
              This is a tuly from the Bush 43 era, but it doesn’t appear that things have improved. The complexities within the Obamacare program. added a other layer of red tape.
              These negative features are not exclusive to government- funded programs. Private insurers and pharmacy benefit managers have their own “Byzantine Empire” when it comes to red tape.

              1. Mr. SNOWBARGER. Thank you. I might first point out to the crowd *… are lucky there are only three of us. … At its inception, Medicare was governed by 150 pages of regulations”.
                This is from 1998 Congressional testimony. Rep. Vincent Barger’s testimony.

      1. Seth:

        There is no disputing that there is a problem finding doctors, hospitals, and cancer treatment centers that take Obamacare individual polices. You can feel really bad about it. You can say that can’t be right.

        But the facts don’t change because of your feelings.

        Of course health insurance providers were convinced they should support the ACA. It forced people to buy their products. And yet, so many providers dropped out of the Exchanges when they lost money.

        It took a while, but even the most leftward leaning news organizations now admit there is a problem. They just won’t admit that Democrats created this problem.

        Insurers were leaving the Exchanges long before Trump took office. They lost too much money. With the loss of the federal mandate, there is nothing forcing healthy people to buy insurance. It speeds up the implosion. We who were on it have said for years it is neither affordable nor quality care. For years Democrats called us liars. Now they acknowledge the problem, but blame everyone but themselves – insurers, providers, Republicans…Now they want single payer. And they claim that people who point out the rationed care, long wait times of weeks or months, the HMO setup where you have to wait forever to see a GP, and then that GP sends you to a specialist…they call that lies. So familiar. We used to have more consumer power over health insurance. There was a policy that met consumers demands. Now it’s all the same policy, and it’s unaffordable. A $12,000 deductible and $1000 premium is outrageous. How could anyone promote that as affordable care with a straight face?

        Those who are subsidized, who had no coverage at all, are unaware of the astronomical cost the unsubsidized pay. When they had no insurance, then any network is better than nothing. That is why these efforts should have focused on improving care for the poor. Removing access to affordable, quality care from the middle class is immoral.

        If you Google insurers leaving exchanges, the mainstream media headlines blame Trump. They blame the loss of the mandate. They rely upon their readers to either have total amnesia, or not ever research the issue. Those of us who have been in the thick of it saw insurers leaving since its inception. The reasons given were financial losses. People were paying the fine rather than buying insurance, because if they were middle class, they could not afford it. That left the customer pool sicker and more expensive than Obama promised the insurers. At the time, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services said the insurers were charging too little. Got that? $12,000 deductible and $1000 premium, and that’s too low. The government does not care if it jacks costs up until it knocks the middle class into poverty. Government agencies are focused on their own longevity. Politicians are focused on election or re-election, and getting rich at taxpayer expense. They are not business people selling an honest product or service. They take from the people.

        From 2016:

        “Next year, three of the nation’s largest health insurers–Atena, UnitedHealthcare and Humana– plan to sell individual plans in fewer markets. Additionally several Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans will not be offered in as many markets. Aetna is pulling out of 11 of the 15 states where it offers Obamacare policies after losing upwards of $430 million. This followed a downsizing announcement by UnitedHealthcare, which will now only operate in three states in 2017, while Humana is withdrawing from nearly 1,200 counties in eight states.

        Three years after the exchanges opened, Obamacare is suffering a major setback. According to a recent CNN Money article, “Those who’ve signed up for coverage are sicker and costlier than expected, while too many healthier Americans are opting to pay a penalty rather than a premium.” This is causing many insurer to raise their rates by double-digit percentages in 2017 to compensate for minimizing their presence on the market…

        Simply put, all three major insurers said they are losing money on the plans, while the Department of Health and Human Services agues that insurers should blame themselves for setting premiums too low. While the DPHS claims that Aetna and other insurers’ decision to leave exchanges won’t affect the government’s ability to continue to bring quality coverage to millions of Americans next year, those who will see their premiums double would most likely beg to differ.”

        Democrats won’t repeal and replace as long as they have to negotiate with Republicans. They will wait until and unless they have a sweep, and then they will ram something else unaffordable which makes the care worse. It’s almost like politicians have absolutely no idea how to improve health care better than the market. Shocking.


        “Until September, my doctor (let’s call him Dr. A) was covered under my health insurance provided through the University of Texas. However, when I left the university and started working for myself, I had to begin buying health insurance on the individual market. The insurance options were limited so I bought a plan with Scott and White. This insurance, however, didn’t cover Dr. A. In fact, it only covered three ENTs in Austin.

        One of these three doctors—let’s call him Dr. B—was well reviewed and liked by Dr. A. Great, problem solved. I get surgery with Dr. B and I’ll be in good hands. When I called Dr. B’s office to make an appointment last week and told them I have Scott and White, they said that they do indeed take that insurance. Wonderful.

        Even Insurance Providers Have Had Enough
        But there’s a catch. My health insurance covers office visits with Dr. B, but doesn’t cover surgeries with him. Wait, what?

        That’s right, Scott and White only covers surgeries that are done in their hospital system, rather than in the far less expensive—and less dangerous— outpatient surgical centers. Dr. B, although a highly regarded ENT, doesn’t have admitting privileges in their hospitals.

        Alas, this doesn’t matter. My insurance is being cancelled at the end of the year because Scott and White is withdrawing from the individual market in Texas. And they’re not the only ones. It turns out that several big insurance providers are leaving the individual market at the end of 2016, including Cigna and Aetna, the third largest provider in the country. This is happening all over the country”

    2. As to the bipartisan aspect, when the Obama administration arrived at being forced to go with the individual mandate rather than single payer, they adopted ‘Romneycare’ as the model. Which was adopted from the healthcare plan Bob Dole was going with when he ran against Clinton.

      Actually a Heritage Foundation plan.

      I always felt sorry for Romney that in order to get the Repub nomination in ’12 he basically had to renounce his biggest political achievement as governor of Massachusetts…, that being the implementation of the health care plan that the Obama administration later modeled their healthcare plan on.

      1. Romneycare was quite different than Obamacare. Additionally Romneycare involves a state not the federal government. Unfortunately, you don’t understand what federalism is.

        1. Hence my saying it was modeled on it. I’d take out the “quite” since it was, literally, modeled on it.

          As far as federalism, you’re probably right.

              1. Time you learn that most ideas are modeled after ideas that exist and the newer ideas can be quite different than the old ones.

                I don’t think RomneyCare was a good plan and was quite different than the ACA. Our pennies today were modeled after coins made of gold. Want to trade in your gold coins for pennies?

  14. Obamacare is unconstitutional and Roberts has committed multiple counts of deliberate and willful jurisprudential corruption. The judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, has no power to modify the Constitution; its sole charge, to assure that actions comport with statute, law and fundamental law.

    Congress has the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” and Congress has no power to tax for individual or specific welfare. Obamacare does not serve the “…general Welfare…,” it serves merely individual welfare.

    People who speak English do not need an interpreter. The clear English of Article 1, Section 8, is easy for all to read.

    Article 1, Section 8

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  15. The US does not participate in the rule of law. The SC is a joke. We have no justice. It’s just might makes right. I’m not going to pretend we have a functioning judiciary. We don’t. Here is what happened at our bidding last week:

    “The extradition hearing had a Kafkaesque character. On February 24, Assange took his seat at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in a bulletproof glass box. He could barely hear his legal team outlining his defence against extradition. The bulk of the world’s press, stuck in a porta-cabin grandly described as a “media annexe,” could also barely hear or follow events.

    For the defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC made a powerful presentation insisting that the US extradition request was illegal because it was demonstrably politically motivated. He detailed the extraordinary level of criminality involved in the US vendetta against Assange, including the methods employed by Spanish security firm US Global on behalf of the CIA to monitor every movement of the award-winning journalist during his political asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

    Private and privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers and doctors were filmed, even in the toilet, so that he was forced to sleep in a tent in his bedroom to protect his privacy.

    More devastating still were the revelations of an unnamed Spanish whistle-blower, “witness 2,” that the US had plotted to kidnap and possibly kill Assange.

    “There were conversations” between the CIA and UC Global head David Morales “about whether there should be more extreme measures contemplated, such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy,” Fitzgerald told the court. This included suggesting that the embassy door could be left open to make a kidnapping look like it could have been “an accident.”

    Day two began with reports that Assange was handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice by prison guards on the opening day of proceedings, while his legal documents were confiscated. He was moved to five different cells. Despite this grotesque interference in the right to a fair trial, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser declared that she had “no jurisdiction” over Assange’s treatment in detention.” (Global Research)

    JT, I now understand why you will pretend there is a rule of law, a functioning Constitution in this “government”. I am sorry I ever learned that reason, although I had suspected it for a long time. I will say that there is no money, no power, no position that should allow any person to help bring down our nation.

    1. Jill, that is going on in England.

      Still, a shameful miscarriage of justice.

      1. What is your “civilization and progress” if its only outcome is hysteria and downgoing? What is “government and law” if their ripened harvests are men without sap? What are “religions and literatures” if their grandest productions are hordes of faithful slaves? What is “evolution and culture” if their noxious blossoms are sterilized women? What is “education and enlightenment” if their dead-sea-fruit is a caitiff race, with rottenness in its bones? –Ragnar Redbeard

      2. David, read up on this. The USG is advising QC. We have asked for an been given the full video/sound of Assange and his contact w/his lawyers. We had it set up and sent right back to the CIA. Our people have examined ways to kill Assange. The extradition is requested by the US. Go to wikileaks and start reading. You will be shocked. You can also look up Kevin Gostola. He covered the trial.

        That is why I’m saying this is at our bidding–all the way. Understand how deeply USGinc. is involved in this at every single state. We are the puppet masters and to their shame, the UK is our soulless puppet.

    2. Jill said, “JT, I now understand why you will pretend there is a rule of law, a functioning Constitution in this “government”. I am sorry I ever learned that reason, although I had suspected it for a long time.”

      Why? What is “that reason”?

    3. dont cry too much Jill, it was ever thus. Thrasymachus said:

      Ἄκουε δή, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. φημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον.

      Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger
      — Plato, Republic, 338c

      1. republic noun

        re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
        Definition of republic

        b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote

      2. Citizenship in Athens

        Only adult male Athenian citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote in Athens.

        The percentage of the population that actually participated in the government was 10% to 20% of the total number of inhabitants, but this varied from the fifth to the fourth century BC.[18]

        This excluded a majority of the population: slaves, freed slaves, children, women and metics (foreigners resident in Athens).[21]

        The women had limited rights and privileges, had restricted movement in public, and were very segregated from the men.[22]

        – Wiki

    4. Jill, Julian Assange relished his role as a JamesBond-like super villain disrupting our election from a diplomatic safehouse. But his days are done. Now Assange is being treated like the criminal he is; a thoroughly unsympathetic character.

      1. Seth Peter parrots the line of the Wapo and the journalistic establishment reliably

        they don’t like the idea that Assange might be covered by the Pentagon Papers precedent

        they big newspapers want people like Assange who fashion themselves journalists to be scolded and punished for daring to intrude on their turf!

        but at the same time, there is a line where journalism becomes espionage. that is a hard call. but for the big newspapers it’s an easy one: if THEY do it, then its OK! if Assange did it, NOT OK!

        I hope that assange will be humanely treated in his incarceration and have full due process trial and opportunity, if he is convicted, to bring forward the first amendment issues on appeal. we can’t let Pentagon Papers apply only to newspapers! If we did then we might as well get rid of that precedent altogether.

        the journalistic establishment already abuses NYT v Sullivan, on a daily basis, printing one malicious lie after another about famous people and getting away with it. that one might need another look, too.

        1. Kurtz, see if you can post an actual journalistic news story by Julian Assange. Show me his writing credits. Describe the highlights of his journalistic career. Where did Assange study journalism? Which editors has he worked under?

          1. none of the things you asked matters for being a journalist. the law is that anybody can call themselves a journalist. there is no government licensing allowed under the 1st amendment. of course your private opinion on who is one is your own private opinion and not law.

            the 1st amendment restricts government– but the big newspapers would use all this other stuff to restrict private people and protect their information oligopolies. sorry! no can do

            Assange’s wikileaks project is a historical gold mine that is even bigger than the Pentagon papers. if you don’t get it maybe you should check with the guy who leaked the pentagon papers himself, Lee Ellsberg


            I hope Assange survives his trial in good shape, and gets due process and a fair appeal once they throw the book at him.

          2. Seth,

            Sounds like you are proposing that only cerain people with specific credentials may be journalists. Stalin would love it. But when this country was formed none of the journalists protected by the newly framed first amendment would have met your criteria. A journalist is someone, anyone, who reports and publishes information. Liberals, the new type, truly are authoritarian and one need not probe deeply to find the scales and fangs.

      2. Funny that like some many defectives you hang your hat on the RUSSIA hat rack. Even funnier that you lack the curiosity to ask why Obama commuted the sentence of Wikileaks’ biggest contributor, Manning?

        1. Manning never fled to a safe haven as Snoden did. Manning also made a full apology to the court and served 7 years in Federal prison. It’s not like he/she got away with anything.

    5. Assange has been accused of specific violations of law, by title and code. You would do well to acknowledge those statutory and code violations with specificity. Assange, in his own defense, should have produced any and all “secrets” and “evidence” he possesses to mitigate or exculpate himself a long time ago. At one point in his history, Assange stated unequivocally that his information came from private, not state, actors – that his source was not Russia.

      Well, what — —- was his source?

      What is Assange’s game?

      If Assange has got it, it’s time for Assange to play it.

  16. Always curious to your practice of referring to the nebulous “us” off harumphing in the corner in disapproval of various decisions. The ACA insured a lot of people who were in tough straights previous and took the U.S. from being an extremely inefficiently insured nation to one that is less so. The argument about whether the individual tax or not is reasonable is just an insurance lobby talking point since if one is required to have car insurance to drive a car a person can certainly be required to have health insurance on their ride though life.

    Of course, I’m biased because I was in that group of people pre ACA who worked three jobs and still couldn’t afford health insurance because, back then, if you were self employed and used power tools at one of your jobs you got priced right out of the market. When one hip degenerated to the point I, at a minimum, dislocated it twice a day when putting my shoes on and off, i was truly grateful when the bridge program into the ACA enabled me to pay 7 grand for hip surgery out of pocket versus 30 plus.

    I have just about zero interest in your legal navel gazing around this subject I ,truly enjoy walking. Bottom line. Buck up, Jon. Start focusing on the areas where people truly get hurt by unreasonable financial reality.

    1. Thank you, Paulie. I doubt if Professor Turley ever gave any thought to the health needs of working folks like you. I think for Turley it was simply a ‘constitutional’ argument that turned a deaf ear on the working poor. Turley and his have fine health plans. So the issue never touched his life.

      1. .Thanks, Seth. i believe Turley means well but is sometimes hamstrung by his nebulous “some of us felt” ventures into abstraction. This issue seems like it might be one. And I’ll say this: intense pain will turn anyone into an animal and your bank account can’t shield you entirely from it (although it can shield the blow to the degree possible). A lot of people have no shield whatsoever when health dives into its inevitable decline. Sucks to be there. And anything that helps people avoid those repercussions are good IMO. i get the sense that a lot of discussions about health care talk sideways…, what’s really being discussed is the belief (or not) whether people across the board deserve having it rather than just the people financially well off enough to take the cost. Not that I feel our health care system is good at looking at causes of bad health rather than being more of an emergency stop gap. One controlled almost entirely by entities leaning heavily for limited measures of treatment. But as someone who degenerated quickly (although having significant arthritis dating back to my college days) it’s quite an eye opener to go from waking up and deciding what trails I was going to run in the morning to someone who within a year and a half after that went to someone asking themselves where they could go where there were no stairs….well, it’s a wild ride.

        The ACA is entirely responsible for me being able to break that cycle btw…, so I tend to recoil in a hurry from any discussion that threatens taking things back to the barbarian age health care was in pre ACA.

      2. ” I doubt if Professor Turley ever gave much thought to the health care need of working people like you”
        I doubt that most people are as presumptuous as Seth.

        1. “any thought” to the health care needs. I misquoted it and wrote “much thought” to the health care needs.

    2. Paulie J.,
      I don’t think there is.a federal law requiring drivers to purchase car insurance. The states require that.
      Policy premiums for car insurance are not taxes, nor are the fines one would pay for driving without insurance coverage.
      The ACA decision that Roberts supported redefined penalties and fines as “taxes”. This is more than an “insurance company talking point”, especially since the Obama Administration had previously argued that the penalties for not purchasing insurance werre NOT taxes.
      To then turn around and claim that the penalty was in fact a “tax” made it look like pretty shabby legal footwork.

        1. “So what”
          This is a legal blog, you moron. I replied to your comment when you tried to put forward a false analogy about requiring car insurance.
          Glad you got someone else to pay for most of the costs of your surgery, leech.

          1. Nameless: “Glad you got someone else to pay for most of the costs of your surgery, leech.”.

            Is that legal-ese? Ha. Love this place. Your ego far outshines your skill set. Put it all out there for the public to see.

            Just as a refresher, since you’re so genius and all, that’s how insurance works. Paying premiums to defer the cost of the full ticket. If I’m a leech so is everyone with health insurance of any sort.

            I reiterate: So what???

            1. “Paying premiums to defer the cost of the full ticket”.
              I think Paulie J. meant to say “having someone else pay his premiums to get health insurance”.

              1. Don’t lie…you typed this with one hand with the index finger on your other hand winding it out in your nostril right?

            2. you live, you have to live, you have a right to be alive and not be taxed on your life by an imposed health care tax on the living.

              you don’t actually have a right to operate a motor vehicle. it is important but not literally integral to life itself

              thus, there is a profound difference and the analogy, is not apt.

                1. no the autonomous nervous system breathes and the heart beats whether we choose or not

                  also some of us do not consider refraining from self-murder a “choice”

                  the obamacare penalty was essentially a tax and a tax on being alive.

                  requiring minimum auto insurance is a poor analogy but i sense you will stick to your point

                  i am not a big critic of obamacare but i can call a spade a spade

                  1. Just by virtue of the fact one can indeed to choose to consciously shut down their autonomic nervous system and heart beat means, yes, i will stick to my point.

                    Granted it takes a degree of yogic practice and discipline to do it, hence making it a rare skill, should probably figure in somewhere…

                    And maybe i even have a bit of that skill. Still couldn’t stop me from pulverizing my hips though…so>>>

                    Obamacare fan here. Ha.

                2. “Living is a choice as well…”

                  Anon, without dealing in semantics living is the choice of the individual not the state though the state might protect other citizens and provide a death penalty for the convicted. However even the death penalty by the state is heavily litigated and limited.

                    1. If you mean I sauy things the way they are that is true. It is better than saying things that aren’t true just to win an argument. You have a lot of experience with the latter.

                    2. Not arguing with you. You may be arguing with me, but that’s your deal.

              1. Fascinating discussion btw.

                Strays into the territory of what defines life. My take? Locomotion is essential. Hence the expression of ‘moving through life’. Essentially the impetus for the invention of the wheel.

            3. Anon, you are a leech because you said you worked multiple jobs and couldn’t afford insurance yet with the ACA you suddenly got insurance paid for by others. If you couldn’t afford insurance before the ACA and you had to pay the non-subsidized price you certainly couldn’t afford it afterwards. The price for those that pay premiums and aren’t subsidized for the most part climbed tremendously higher.

              You probably thought the insurance premium was overpriced and you could get away without paying, but I think you are on Medicare and not telling the truth.

              1. What’s with the Anon thing? Is it a nervous tic or stuttering thing?

                Actually what I said if you refer back was that I got into the bridge program to Obamacare…I paid four hundred and change a month in order to access surgery. Obama, before it fully kicked in, offered that option for people who’d gotten hung up in pre-existing conditions loop holes previous.

                I was able to schedule surgery three months out versus having to wait 18 months at over a grand a month previous to the layered implementation of the ACA.

                1. You keep switching names and I listened to what you said under each of those names. Don’t try and explain excuses and mistruths. I’m sure you will be using another name again.

                  1. Yeah, I’ve dropped an f bomb or two in my responses to you and gotten bounced out of here. Determined not to do it now. And I’ve never been one of the Anonymous’.

                    So is it a stuttering thing???

                    1. OK, so you are admitting to the name changes. That is a good first step.

                    2. Admitted before. Actually, only one was fictional. One is my name. The other a nickname.

                      Thank you. Thank you very much. Ha.

                    3. Anon, it almost sounded as if you wanted to be normal, but I guess not.

              2. And in the interest of accuracy it’s impossible speak about the ACA without grounding it in the state you’re from.

                Your ego far outshines your skill set. It really is quite the train wreck to witness. Entertaining, too.

                1. “it’s impossible speak about the ACA without grounding it in the state you’re from.”

                  No it’s not, however some of the states where health care insurance is the highest have certain similarities to ObamaCare and end up with some of the same problems.

                    1. Anon, if you understood community rating and you understood the ACA you would see a major problem with both.

                  1. And if you understood how ridiculous you are you’d realize you should probably never miss an opportunity to zip it.

            1. Have it your way. Pretend that a penalty or fine is actually a tax.
              If one is working three jobs to make ends meet, as you claim, then I don’t begrudge those in poverty getting food stamps or other welfare benefits.
              But you might want to consider retraining for another line of work.

              1. Already have. Hitting the wall physically dictated it. And as far as welfare…, I paid 7 grand in cash toward my hip surgery. Much more than anyone else would with a really decent policy.

                And I’ve got zero time to split hairs over whether the individual mandate is a fine or a tax because really, as I’m sure Roberts took into account in his decision, what the argument really is about at its core is whether people have the right to affordable health care or not. Some people believe the answer is no. Their choice on that one…, I truly hope they never find themselves in a serious injury or illness crisis because it will prove to be a great leveler.

                I happen to believe it’s not only a humanitarian goal of a society to provide health care to those who need it but also a goal of financial efficiency as well.

                1. Redefining a penalty as a “tax” is not “splitting hairs”.
                  When a program is implemented with penalties (fines) and the insistence that the fine is not tax, and then those who implemented it turn around and defend it as a tax, it’s “the Jonathan Gruber” strategy of relying on the stupidity of those who’ll buy that kind of “logic”.

                  1. Actually to be more accurate it seems it’s the John Roberts tact for reaching the spirit of a decision, no?

                    1. Mayer you should read the column, Paulie J.
                      Supreme Court Justices should logically interpret the constitutionality of laws, not “reach for spirits”.

                2. the proposition “a right to affordable x” is not a simple one because affordability is always relative to some sliding perspective.

                  in general i don’t assume i have a “Right” to “affordable” anything but that’s just how i was brought up

                  1. Take out the word ‘affordable’ then. It’s such a charged word.

                    Agreed on the take on assumption though. I share it.

                  2. “Maybe”…..I have no idea how that turned out as “Mayer”.

                3. “I’m sure Roberts took into account in his decision, what the argument really is about at its core is whether people have the right to affordable health care or not. Some people believe the answer is no. Their choice on that one…,”

                  Roberts went against what the legislators said they passed and stated what they didn’t want to happen. Roberts essentially legislated from the bench saying it was a tax when the legislators explicity said it wasn’t.

                  You are one of those that don’t care whether people have affordable health care or not because many families that previously had insurance now can’t afford the ACA premiums, deductibles, balance billing, etc. People on Medicaid have reduced access. A whole host of other problems but you don’t care as long as your ball team wins.

            1. It actually is a legal blog, but there’s room for reliable toadies like you to chime in.

              1. Looks to me to be a blog that ventures into the legal, but actually consists of more than that. Or less, depending on where one stands.

    3. “The ACA insured a lot of people who were in tough straights previous and took the U.S. from being an extremely inefficiently insured nation to one that is less so.”

      – Paulie J

      America is a nation of free individuals not a collective comprised of parasites and their host.

      The American Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.

      Communism is impossible:

      “You can [please] some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not [please] all of the people all of the time.”

      – John Lydgate

      Nowhere does the Constitution or Bill of Rights mandate or, otherwise, require feeding, financially supporting or coddling “…a lot of people who were in tough straights [sic]…” as a charitable endeavor. You may be conflating it with the Judeo/Christian Bible.

      You may; you are free to establish all the charitable organizations you like in the free markets of the private sector.

      Congress shall not tax for individual welfare, aka charity and communistic redistribution of wealth, merely “…general Welfare.”

      Have you ever read the Constitution? Try Article 1, Section 8, and the 5th Amendment right to private property which is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute.

  17. Medical Monopoly Capitalism. That is the issue Congress has to address. What does the pill for your heart disease cost you in America vs the price in Canada or France?
    Dumb chumps.

    1. Nobody understands how to arrange for medical care in the USA with the aging population. Two of my children are practicing MDs looking after failing old people. See
      “The Story Addict” by Kjell Benson MD.

    2. Liberty 2nd,
      Virtually everything in health care costs less in Canada or France or almost anywhere.
      One of Sanders proposals is to force the drug companies to cut their prices by 50%.
      If he can do that, why stop there? He can order hospitals to charge 50% less, doctors to charge 50% less, medical equipment services ( MRIs, CAT Scans, etc) charge 50% less.
      And if he can do all of this, there’s no need for his MediCare for All plan. Prices would magically be cut 50% acrossed the board, insurance would be much more affordable, and whatever is left of our health care system after these 50% haircuts would be in line with most other countries.

      1. Wake up. Health care is much more expensive in socialist countries like Canada and France because they tax citizens at extremely high rates to pay for sub standard healthcare. Move to Canada and find out why soooooo many come to the US for their health care

        1. Cribdawg. Well said. Thousands of Canadians rush to the US for healthcare. Essentially no Americans go to Canada for treatment.

          1. Actually the Canadiens did really well with Americans crossing the border for eye surgeries and such.

            1. A Canadian liberal MP, Belinda Stronach, came to the US for medical treatment that would be delayed too long in Canada. Apparently Canadian care is okay for regular people but not good enough for the elites.

              I don’t know about Americans getting eye surgery in Canada. There are waiting lists for everything.

            2. Just checked and Paulie is part right. Americans go to Canada for some eye surgery, Lasik, because it can be cheaper there. However, it is good old capatalistic, fee for service. Because it is cosmetic the ‘free’ Canadian health care system will NOT pay for it. In other words it is American-style medicine north of the border and, if anything, more of a recommendation for our style of medicine than government medical care.

              1. Thanks for checking, Young. Thing is, whether it’s nationalized health insurance, private insurance, whatever…, it all comes down to cost. Ideology aside, the best care for the least cost is an appealing and necessary goal.

                1. Adding layers of bureaucrats to any system tends to increase cost and lower output.

                  The NHS in the UK is the third largest employer in the world and yet they never have enough doctors or nurses or money. If only ‘admininistrators’ could treat people.

                  1. Solid rhetorical point. Not one that accurately assesses healthcare on the ground though. Systems take what they take to run: intake, triage, treatment. Same basic form no matter the ideology that sets it up.

                    1. systems run on resources. resource allocation is the question. what systems are more efficient at advancing public health and efficiently delivering it?

                      command government allocation is the answer to the question “what is socialism”

                      private allocation based on profit motive and other private intentions, is the answer to the question “what is freedom”

                      our system is a mixed economy system, it is not purely capitalistic, but resources are allocated principally through market pricing and not command production means

                    2. Agreed. But when entering said system, it looks strikingly familiar…you enter, you’re assessed and diagnosed, you’re treated. You live or you die.

                      Or as is often stated on the ground: Nature heals, doctors send the bills. Ha.

                    3. Paulie, what accurately assesses healthcare on the ground is survival rates which are significantly better in the US than in other countries. That is why Member of Parliament, Stronach, a fan of Canadian healthcare, got on a plane for LA when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She wanted to live and knew she probably would not in Canada. That was her assessment on the ground of the two healthcare systems.

                    4. “Paulie, what accurately assesses healthcare on the ground is survival rates which are significantly better in the US than in other countries.”

                      CONCORD would be an example.

                  2. not all bureaucrats are created equal. utilization committees for example are “bureaucratic” but they are used both in private and public health insurance systems to deliver more efficient results. i suppose the results vary.

                    1. Kurtz, results do vary. Survival rates for serious illnesses are significantly better in the US than in Canada or the UK.

          2. There are numerous sources on the per capita health care costs, nation by nation.
            Without posting them again, or checking them, I estimate that the per capita health care costs in the U.S. are c.$12,000 v.abkut $8,000 in Canada.
            I’m not arguing for a Canadian- style health care system in the U.S. ; I’m stating a fact that the per capita health care costs are lower in Canada and most other developed nation’s.
            Those lower costs are not because health care services are “more expensive” in Canada and other nations.

            1. The lower per capita cost in Canada is at the expense of treatment. The entire country has fewer MRI machines than Pittsburg. If you have cauda equina you need diagnosis and treatment within about 48 hours or risk being crippled and diagnosis is with an MRI. But, it is cheaper to have a medical system that does not treat. That is why more than 20,000 Canadians a year forsake their ‘free’ care to pay for it in the US. They want to be treated.

              1. Correction. The Fraser Institute reported 63,000 Canadians coming to the US for surgery in 2016.

                Free surgery is not effective when no surgeon actually operates, apparently.

                1. Young, I pretty much agree with you. The Fraser Institute has a lot to say about Candian costs, wait times and lack of equipment.

                  In the Quebec Supreme Court Case the Court decided against the province calling what they were doing inhumane.

                  1. Yes, the Court held that delays in treatment were so severe that they amounted to a denial of fundamental human rights. It’s a great system till you are truly ill; then you go to America.

        2. Cribdawg,
          Per capita health care costs are far lower in Canada; about 40% lower, the last time I checked.
          That per capita price discrepancy exists with most other developed countries.
          Most of the Canadians I’ve talk to are satisfied with their health care system, but most of them are healthy and never had a critical illness or injury.
          So I can’t claim to have a good representative sampling, a good cross section of opinions.
          I know one couple who each have dual U.S./ Canadian citizenship. One of them found a drug that finally improved declining health, but it’s very expensive and even the co-pays are high under their (American) insurance plan; they are covered under his employer’s policy.
          I asked them what the drug would cost in Canada under their province’s system, and they said it was not available, or covered, in any province under Canada’s system.
          That’s just one part of the pros/ cons of different health care systems when comparing U.S. health care to those of other countries.

  18. This time lets hope Roberts gets it right vs trying to be a social justice warrior. His tax idea was away not to deny Obama, it was a HUGE mistake. ObamaCare was a lot of lies, misstatements, BS, corruption – friends of the Admin profited while everyone else suffered. No more you can keep your doctor, plan, price reduction BS – Many people are suffering with Higher Prices, less coverage or no coverage for they can’t afford it.

    1. Roberts’ opinion was so strange one must wonder if he had undue and illegal pressure from our corrupt agencies. Not very happy with his vote on the citizenship census question either.

  19. Beyond the tortured and pusillanimous reasoning the Roberts applied to try to “save the reputation of the court” (remember the way the dictatorial President attacked the Court?).
    The true evil of Roberts’ decision is that it confers plenary powers on the federal government it direct opposition to the notion of federalism.

    1. Roberts has damaged the reputation of the Court. That is his legacy and I don’t see how he can escape it. The Democrats see him as tool and Republicans see him as a traitor.

    1. And all the premature deaths which that would have caused?

      Cruel of you …

          1. Where is your link to prove that ending the unaffordable ACA will cause premature deaths to increase. Keep looking, you will not find one but I am sure you will find lots of dumb, fact free leftist screeds that say we can afford the unaffordable.

            1. In statistics there are no proofs.

              You might care to learn just how statisticians come to conclusions.

        1. life expectancy is going down in America for years now due to a lot of complex factors

          Obamacare was a result of this complexity and difficulty, not a cause

          I am not a fan of Obamacare but it’s misunderstanding to make more of it than it was– and worse misunderstanding to fail to recognize the patterns that will continue to plague us in the meantime– perhaps plague us quite literally

          that said, the US health care system for its many faults, operates with admirable quality in spite of the deep social difficulties which produce the problems in the first place

          there were a lot of practical ideas in the Obamacare bundle that were laudable, it was not all bad. a very large and complex piece of legislation.

          but the overall thrust of greater socialization of medicine is a dangerous wish, among those who harbor it

          at the root is the reality that life itself always includes sickness and death, there is no cure, there is only mitigation and delay along the way.

          also, public health is a commons, and pathogens do not recognize property rights. so, we have to deal with public health, at times, with government lead, sponsored, and financed leadership. sometimes, but not all the time!

          1. My life expectancy was heavily elongated when I managed to dodge the plans the left had for me even though I was in some of the more dangerous places they had yet devised. Thus 25 became fifty years longer. Another way of saying it is what it is. There are only three truths. Birth, Life, Death. Pick any age target the odds are stil 50/50 You will or you won’t

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-three citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after sixty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – how about the premature deaths by Planned Parenthood. That pales in comparison.

          1. This legal forum has become a dumpster fire of the same 8 +/- morons expelling their excrement on this site

            Benson, Warner, Paulie, George, Allan and Kurtz

            Dont you folks have wives, families…lives?

            Flush it already you turds

Comments are closed.