Posted on 03/23/2010 5:31:34 PM PDT by jay1949
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/9/3/75.pdf
1) Keep up intense pressure through 2010 and replace the leadership of the Congress
2) Keep up intense pressure to repeal after 2010
3) Lobby intensely the remaining Democrats who didn’t want to vote for this pig in the first place
4) Override Soetero’s veto, leaving him neutered.
The operative word is ‘intense’. It got an entitlement repealed in 1989 (Don’t know to whom to give the h/t). It is the only thing that will wholesale get this albatross off our necks.
Repeal (at least in part) seems to be a realistic possibility, and the link you provide shows that there is precedent. Of course, repeal in the near term is only possible if the advocates of repeal have veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress; possible, but unlikely. It may become a more likely prospect after the 2012 elections.
Generally, I would agree with the author on the judicial prediction. At least until I see more.
I would say this, though. The Rats have substantially complicated their legal position by their own cowardice. The individual mandate would have been almost bullet-proof had they simply explicitly made it a tax. The taxing power of the federal government - what court has ever seen the end of it?
Even collecting the tax and then issuing vouchers with which citizens would be required to “purchase” health insurance would have been more aligned with the usual interpretations of the federal government’s powers than mandating an individual purchase.
So, it seems to me the feds are between a rock and a hard place here. It’s likely they can fairly easily win their case by arguing that the individual mandate actually is a tax with a cute name. But then they’ve got the political problem that they’d be admitting that this “free” healthcare actually is going to be funded, first, by a direct tax on individuals regardless of income.
But the burden is on the federal government. What are they going to argue is the basis for mandating an individual purchase of a commodity?
See my previous post on the power to tax.
Also, weren’t there other arguments floating around on the Cornhusker Kickback - the arbitrary and capricious exemption from taxation of one state, leaving the other states to pay more?
That's just not the way it is. The elections will take place regardless of how big an issue Obamacare is in 2010. Making Obamacare a major election issue or not won't change the cost or the time spent on the elections. And there will be people to meet the legal expenses of court challenges, including the various states and many others.
The two efforts are not completing for the same dollars for support, or the time of the same people.
Stop the whining! Right now! Everyone on the Right, just stop it!
This is Civil War II. We did nothing to bring it on ourselves, any more than we did the attacks on Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers. But it came anyway.
Let’s stop flagellating ourselves and put the blame where it belongs, on the traitorous and treacherous Left. I’m sick of hearing how the GOP Congress underperformed, how Dubya never fought back against slander, or how conservative purists boycotted the 2006 and 2008 elections.
There’s a difference between making a bad decision and being of bad character. Yes, I would have loved to hear George W. take it to the liars in the media. He probably made a big mistake by not doing so.
But Dubya’s bad political choices certainly can’t be called evil or corrupt. Everything about today’s Left is the essence of evil, above all the insatiable lust for power without constraint.
As we get ready to fight this war, we need to stop torturing ourselves over past mistakes, and focus on the fight ahead.
Conservatives are supposed to have practical minds. If that’s the case, why haven’t so many deep thinkers figured out that life is a struggle most of the time and massively unfair nearly all of the time.
Pushback is already starting. If you’re not inspired by the fact that Virginia, Florida and 12 other states are already suing, maybe you ought to just give up and light some incense at the throne of Emperor Bozo the Usurper.
Yes, we are in for the fight of our lives. Yes, we did nothing to deserve this. Yes, there’s evil afoot in the world.
We have a choice between fighting the evil every way we can or submitting like slaves.
Between the courts, the new media, and above all the ballot box, we are by no means without resources to fight this war.
Now, I don’t care if you’re paleocon, neocon, libertarian, evangelical, military, or even a moderate Republican. There are no enemies on the Right!
And as we say in my adoptive home state of Virginia, of which I am very proud tonight:
Sic Semper Tryannis!
The burden first is going to be on the challengers. They will have to establish that they have standing to sue and that there is a Constitutional basis for their positions. They may not get past those hurdles. The Feds don't have to provide a justification until they do, and they will fight like demons to put every procedural hurdle in the way of the challengers.
Agreed, my fellow Virginian. In the long run, we either win at the polls -- by winning the hearts and minds of the people -- or we lose.
Well, yes, I’m assuming standing and statement of a cognizable claim, etc. Not saying those aren’t big mountains to climb. But my real point is what is the basis of the feds’ substantive response? It’s just not very clear where they would go with this, assuming they want to avoid arguing that it - wink! - really is a tax.
Well, I think we’re about to find out pretty soon!
Though the bill will cover the cost of the benefits expansion, it will not cover the added administrative costs, which Heritage analyst Ed Haislmaier has highlighted. According to an article on Bloomberg.com, “States faced with unprecedented declines in tax collections are cutting benefits and payments to hospitals and doctors in Medicaid, the health program for the poor paid jointly by state and U.S. governments. The costs to hire staff and plan for the average 25 percent increase in Medicaid rolls may swamp budgets.”
Haislmaier projects the added administrative cost to the states would total $9.6 billion between 2014, when the provision is implemented, and 2019. This extra burden comes at a time when states are trying to tighten their budgets to account for decreasing revenues. Research by former Heritage analyst Dennis Smith and Ed Haislmaier shows that, as the fiscal burden of the Medicaid expansion grows, it would be in states’ interests to drop the program entirely: “The savings to state budgets are so enormous that failure to leave Medicaid might be viewed as irresponsible on the part of elected state officials. The federal government, however, would be left holding a trillion-dollar-plus tab.”
Clearly, this indicates that, whatever steps the federal government might take to "punish" a state (by withholding funds, for example), states do have the power to "leave Medicaid" and, therefore, leave the feds to pick up the tab.
If the feds cannot directly force the states to fund Medicaid, I'm interested to see on what basis the feds think they can force individuals to fund Medicaid through individual "purchases," not invoking the feds' power to tax.
Moreover, if states can opt out of Medicaid, maybe this gives them standing to opt out, essentially, on behalf of all citizens of the state.
Don’t you just love the “standing” concept...Tyranny cannot be opposed because nobody has standing. Legal concepts are things of beauty.
President Barack Obama faces a fight over the health-care overhaul from states that sued today because the legislation’s expansion of Medicaid imposes a fiscal strain on their cash-strapped budgets.
Since most states must have balanced budgets, and no state can print money, there is a point at which the federal government's unfunded mandates to the states also become problematic.
I think both paths can be taken.
The Judicial path can throw a monkey wrench into the implementation of the Bill.
And, like the McCain/Fiengold attack on free speech, it may have large portions of the Bill ruled unconstitutional.
It is NOT just states rights.
There is a case to be made that it “Established a Religion” since certain religions are exempt from the tax. (Amish and Muslims perhaps)
There is also a case that it violates the anti slavery/indentured servitude laws.
There is also a case to be made against being required to maintain health insurance on another adult - up to 26 year olds.
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.