5 stages of Obamacare (Excellent)

Two years ago, liberals rammed an unconstitutional health insurance bill — Obamacare — through Congress without a Republican vote. They libeled opponents as racists and touted a new age in Washington. James Carville said Democrats would rule for 40 years. But the public hated the law and voted Democrats out of the House. Now the Supreme Court will vote 6-3 to nullify this unconstitutional attack on our liberty.

The spin from Democrats is hilarious. The liberals will go through them all: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

WASHINGTON — Vice President Joe Biden says he’s confident the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the health care law.

Biden says in an interview taped for CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “we think the mandate and the law are constitutional and we think the court will rule that way.”

Asked about the chances it would be overturned, he replies, “I don’t believe it will happen.” Biden says “I think we should focus on what is the law doing for people now and what would happen if Republicans should repeal it.”

Biden has started taking on a greater role in arguing President Barack Obama’s case for re-election, making an appearance on his behalf in the Midwest earlier this week. Excerpts of his Sunday interview were aired Friday on “CBS This Morning.”

I believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the individual mandate that is at the core of Obamacare by a vote of 6-3. Based on no legal theory whatsoever, I expect Chief Justice Roberts and perennial swing vote Justice Kennedy to vote with the liberal wing to uphold the act of Congress.

Denial takes many shapes. There is denial that striking down the centerpiece of the Obama presidency is toxic. It actually helps him.

The court’s conservative wing appears ready to engage in some despicable judicial activism on ObamaCare. Politically, at least, the justices are doing Obama a favor.

It is strategy like that which made Bob Shrum presidential poison. He’s been on the losing end of, what, 5 presidential candidates now?

Largely missing from the coverage of the health reform case are the most important consequences of nullifying the law: The tragedy of tens of millions who would again be left without insurance; the plight of young adults now on their parents’ policies who would be thrown off; the desperation of those with pre-existing conditions who would be left with no coverage and nowhere to turn; the agony of patients who, because of lifetime limits on their insurance, would see it canceled just before the next round of chemotherapy.

Tens of millions were covered by Obamacare? He’s nuts! There are 7 million more uninsured Americans than there were 2 years ago. Liberals now live on Fantasy Island. Joining him is Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman. He’s in denial that this is a liberal plan.

Indeed, conservatives used to like the idea of required purchases as an alternative to taxes, which is why the idea for the mandate originally came not from liberals but from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. (By the way, another pet conservative project — private accounts to replace Social Security — relies on, yes, mandatory contributions from individuals.)

Wait a second, doesn’t that mean liberals opposed the mandate at some point? Ah another diversion. Well-played, Krugman, well-played.

Virtually everybody agrees that a vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act would be five to four—a bare majority. And it would be a bare partisan majority, with the five Republican appointees overruling the four Democratic appointees. The decision would appear nakedly partisan and utterly devoid of principle. Appearances would not be deceiving.

Really? So he admits that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor are just political hacks…

Then there is bargaining. Then there is the smiley face that ridding us of Obamacare clears the way for the government taking over all of health care.

If Obamacare is struck down, the short-term implications are uncertain. Conservatives may be buoyed by an election-year victory; progressives may be energized by a ruling that looks more political than substantive. The long-term consequences, however, are obvious: Sooner or later, a much more far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system will be inevitable.

Never mind that the decision would strike Obamacare down because Congress is not empowered to run health care insurance. In liberal landthis passes for logic.

The immediate impact will be the human toll. More than 30 million uninsured Americans who would have obtained coverage under Obamacare will be bereft. Other provisions of the law, such as forbidding insurance companies to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions and allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ policies, presumably would also be invalidated; if not, they would have to be modified to keep insurance rates from climbing sharply. The United States would remain the only wealthy industrialized country where getting sick can mean going bankrupt.

Eventually, however, our health-care system will be restructured. It has to be. The current fee-for-service paradigm, with doctors and hospitals being paid through for-profit insurance companies, is needlessly inefficient and ruinously expensive.

Let us see, before Obamacare, we had 44 million uninsured Americans. Now we have 51 million. He says we will have 30 million uninsured if this goes down. Sounds like a deal.

As for “for profit,” isn’t that what his employer, the Washington Post, is supposed to be? A free press is a right. Using his logic, the Washington Post should eschew all profits and he should work for free.

With health-care reform either repealed or overturned, both Democrats and Republicans shy away from proposing any big changes to the health-care system for the next decade or so. But with continued increases in the cost of health insurance and a steady erosion in employer-based coverage, Democrats begin dipping their toes in the water with a strategy based around incremental expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. They move these policies through budget reconciliation, where they can be passed with 51 votes in the Senate, and, over time, this leads to more and more Americans being covered through public insurance. Eventually, we end up with something close to a single-payer system, as a majority of Americans — and particularly a majority of Americans who have significant health risks — are covered by the government.

The key word there is “eventually.” This is a long, ugly process that ensures a very large uninsured population for decades. It’s also a process that ensures there won’t be a coordinated effort to control costs for sometime. Yes, it might end up with a system that’s tilted further towards public insurance than what’s envisioned in the Affordable Care Act. But it’s not at all obvious it would be a good system, and, in the decades between here and there, there will be a lot of unnecessary suffering and deaths among the uninsured. That’s the real cost of losing this opportunity to insure 30 million people. And it’s a cost that too often gets swept under the rug in Washington’s handicapping of the political fallout.

Next will come depression. Probably beginning on November 7, 2012. But acceptance? Never. Liberals will spend the next century laying the blame for every medical problem on the justices who struck down Obamacare. They’re still angry at Ronald Reagan for his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee 60 years ago.

“There will be legislation ready to go and some of the things it will contain are tort reform, allowing interstate purchase of insurance, uniform tax credits that are to be applied to insurance premiums, and enhanced health savings accounts.”

The Republicans should have done this YEARS ago, while they had the majority with Bush. Using these reforms and health savings accounts (where people realize that they are spending their own money thus are more careful instead of thinking that an insurance company or someone else is paying the bill), and also encouraging people to use urgent care/well care facilities instead of emergency rooms would make a HUGE impact on the money spent on health care.

“EXCEPT at that time the employers offered Major Medical only and it kept people from going to the doctors for hangnails and colds. It should have stayed that way.”

I’m old enough to remember when my employer only offered major medical (l980’s) (then along came HBO’s and that seemed to pave the way for health care expenses to skyrocket). Of course, during the time of major medical insurance the doctor visit was like $35, not $150 as it is today. The government can be held directly responsible for that hike... their “negotiating” (manipulation) of provider compensation for Medicare/Medicaid caused the upward skewing of rates for everyone else.

I don't know if the place still exists. but Bill Hasst had a anti-venom producing thing going on in FL on A1A. There was also a book out about him called 'Cobras In His Garden' SF

I don’t want them to “craft” anything to do with healthcare.I want them to leave my healthcare completely alone.

Meanwhile, the drumbeat of Dictator Baby-Doc Barack continues to grow louder: -— regulate -— control -— destroy -— Regulate -— control -— destroy -— REgulate -— control -— destroy -— REGulate -— control -— destroy -— REGU

The last stage would be for the GOP to be stupid enough to nominate a liberal whose blue print was used to construct socialist healthcare. But followed by an election where few see any compelling reason to elect him, when there is already a fool at the helm.

My son says the same thing about Federal Taxes. President Lincoln was the first to do it and it’s pretty much been the norm ever sense. Prior to Lincoln, the Fed would requet money from each state for ‘this or that’ but, it’s obviously evolved. Fair enough.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.