How can Obamacare be unconstitutional when it gets us all this nice stuff?
Ten things you would miss if Obamacare were to be overruled by SCOTUS. So why would anyone but a meanie want to take away all that nice free coverage?
Take a look at the comments section. A significant number of the commenters don’t even seem to begin to understand that there are constitutional issues involved rather than mere spite. And the ones that do appear to get that basic fact don’t seem to understand that the constitution differentiates very clearly between the powers delegated to the federal government and the powers reserved to states.
And I don’t think that’s pretense, although I believe most of the pundits and politicians themselves understand that principle quite well and yet ignore it for strategic and demagogic reasons.
Sample illustrative comments at the article:
Why be against Obamacare? Most of what the right wants to do is wrong and only benefits the 1%.
The ONLY reason people are against this is because Obama created it. Romney already enacted forced health care in his state.
Seems pretty strange that so many people oppose this. But if you explain what the law actually does, they are for it.
I’m waiting for them to read me the part of the Constitution that says that you cannot mandate anything. Where were these people when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law? Where were these people when President George W. Bush started a war without Congress’ concent?
Riddle me this! How can Americans approve of the provisions within a bill, and still be against the bill? We just can’t have nice things.
Because Fox tells them that the bill is bad, since they don’t think for themselves, it makes them think the bill is bad
People will die if the affortable care act is shot down and the SCOTUS will have blood on thier hands!
[ADDENDUM: From Ross Douthat:
Partisan about-faces are inevitable, but they’re arguably easier on constitutional matters. Change your mind on immigration, and your constituents may well revolt. Change your mind on whether a president has the power to do things on immigration policy that your constituents already support, though, and only your partisan critics and the occasional law professor will care.
This is why it’s so remarkable that our constitutional order has lasted so long, given the perpetual incentive ”” common to both parties, and all three branches of government ”” to abandon its safeguards in order to push a particular agenda.
Today those incentives are strongest for Democrats ”” visible in their support for Obama’s more dubiously constitutional forays, and also in the widespread liberal attempt to explain his struggles by casting him as a Gulliver tied down by an antiquated system of government.
Conservative pundits have noted that similar explanations were proferred to explain the failures of Jimmy Carter. That in and of itself isn’t proof that they’re wrong. But it suggests the possibility that some of the ways this president has been baffled, legislatively and perhaps soon in the courts, reflect the genius of our constitutional system rather than its failings. It’s a system that often lacks principled defenders, but that’s designed to defend itself.
Unlike Douthat, I do not think the tendency to reverse or abandon constitutional principles is equally prevalent in both parties. I think the right is more consistent in sticking to its principles even if it makes it hard to achieve the desired outcome on a particular issue. But only somewhat more consistent, and only a certain portion of the right.]
Pelosi’s unbelievably arrogant comment: “We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”, had to significantly contribute to the strong voter opposition to Obamacare. Also, its being an obscene 2,700 pages didn’t help. By contrast it is worth noting that Romney’s MA healthcare law totaled a mere 70 pages. O-care should be junked in its entirety.
neo, I assume your friends and family are more thoughtful than the reactionaries you quote above. Do they support Obamacare? One argument might be that if Congress had passed the mandate as a tax, there would be no question about constitutionality. Also some states already have similar laws (e.g., MA and NY). Somehow I doubt they would have trouble finding reasons to support this power grab.
In Farenhype 911, which features Ann Coulter and Dick Morris explaining the lies of Micheal Moore’s Farenheit 911, the black teacher who taught the class Bush was attending, states (and I paraphrase) what catastrophe or series of catastrophes will be neccessary to make America the great country it is meant to be. What standards, she asks, is America now embracing.
Obama is a parasite who has appealed to other parasites. No shame adheres to the human parasite. It should. This is the result of that pride and anger which resulted in the UN declarations of the dignity of all humans and inherent human rights. They saw we had it and concluded we had kept it from them. We, according to them, had not shared.
We should let the announcer of human rights fund themselves. We can do much better providing help to others without those who demand it as if it were their birthright.
51% of Americans cannot name the three branches of our government.
In 2007 a test of civics basics was given to collegians by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The college seniors’ average grade was 54%. The average score for professors was 55%.
Ignorance is afoot in the land, no surprise there, but the numbers are amazingly close to Hussein’s popular vote!
Data is courtesy the National Association of Scholars (www.nas.org) which I urge you all to consider joining. You do not need to be a titled academic to join!
Makes it easy to understand how self righteous progressives murdered 100 million people last century and yet their heirs remain convinced of their own superior virtue and intellect. I tend to view these sorts as potential mass murdering scuzzballs. That may seem harsh, but history argues that a significant fraction of the human race falls into that category.
Yeah, Chuck.
Yale Univ. Press just published two-2!-paeans to the late lamented Karl. One is titled “Why Marx Was Right”, by one Terry Eagleton, who holds the Distinguished Professorship of English (!) Literature at Lancaster University, which must be one of the “red brick” British institutions of mass indoctrination. He excuses with a shrug the 100 million deaths by Mao and Stalin as no wprse than the racist genocidal deaths “caused” by centuries of capitalism.
See the current issue of Claremont Review of Books.
Too many people pay attention only to headlines and sound bites. The devil is usually in the details. The regulations that would need to implement the health care bill will fill volumes. I try to remember that the government cannot give you anything that it hasn’t taken away first.
efess,
We can solve the problem of 2700 pp. bills quite easily. Just insist that any bill presented to congress be written by hand, and that by a single congressman (no staff, please). It’ll if it can’t stop the stupidity instantly, it can at least instantly stop it from running on for 2700pp.
Steve: I tend to steer clear of political arguments with friends and family these days. It almost never ends well.
I prefer to have fact-based discussions; arguments never end well. And progress is very slow, but they have been stuck on stupid for decades.
And if not to discuss with friends and fanily, then with whom? If we take that tack as a general rule, we might just as well shut up altogether. Preaching to the converted yields what? Nada, except self-inflation.
Don Carlos: Oh, I did talk, for years and years after my “change.” And it was extremely counterproductive. Now I only talk politics with a few people—not just those who agree with me, but those with whom talks are productive in the sense that it doesn’t descend into sputtering anger, and the discussion is reasonable. Other than that I save my energy and theirs.
The sputtering angries have, as I said, been stuck on stupid for decades, and we cannot even faintly hope to undo their idee-fixes quickly; and, failing that, quit. Our Prgressive friends have kept at us for Lo! these many years, and never quit; not once, not ever. We on the Right have the guilt of quitting, of self-doubt in the face of obdurate resistance, and have not learned from our multi-decade failures though that is why we are where we are today.
Re-sculpting Leftism in an individual is done one small stone chip at a time.
“Don Carlos: Oh, I did talk, for years and years after my “change.” And it was extremely counterproductive. Now I only talk politics with a few people–not just those who agree with me, but those with whom talks are productive in the sense that it doesn’t descend into sputtering anger, and the discussion is reasonable. Other than that I save my energy and theirs.”
There’s a reason why there’s a tradition in officers’ wardrooms aboard U.S. Navy ships to never discuss women, religion, or politics.
Pingback:How can Obamacare be unconstitutional when it gets – Neo-Neocon | Political Blogs Watch
All the great things that people want in Obamacare are not free. You would not know it from the reactions of those who favor the law. The law is titled the Afforable Care Act. That, in itself, is an abject falsehood. The bill does nothing to address the affordability of any medical care except coverage of medical procedures for Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs feature IPADs to ration care to patients under the rubric of “affordability.”
Much of the problem stems from the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which was passed in 1986. That piece of legislation created the cost shifting nightmare that is extent in American health care. That and the prevailing custom (dating from WWII) of most citizens getting health care insurance (which was not portable) from their employers. As a result of all this we have a mish mash of financial obscurity and game playing when it comes to people/insurers paying for procedures and the providers getting paid. As a simple example with which I am acquainted, our daughter, who is a psycho therapist, receives a wide range of payments for her services by different insurance companies and our Medicare, Medicaid systems. These range from a low of $23/session to $100/session. Quite a range! Especially when the going rate for a one hour session with a private pay patient is $125 -$175. None of this makes sense if you examine it under a free enterprise model. Doctors, therapists, chiropractors, dentists, etc. are mostly small business people who have to cover their overhead and make enough to pay their personal bills. Most cannot do that if too many of their patients are Medicare/Medicaid. Many cannot operate in the black with some of the insurance company’s pay schedules. With the Afforable Care Act all this becomes even more difficult with the governmment pressing its meaty thumb on the scales.
I just had my annual physical. My doctor, who is in a two doctor practice, had a new wrinkle. A computer in the examining room with all my records on it. This is a new government requirement that he had to pay for. The problem with it? He’s having trouble communicating with the hospital computers (four in our area) that all use different systems. My doctor is getting up there in age and I sense he may be about ready to hang up his stethoscope. But the government plows ahead, heedless of the damage that they sow; caring little that they are actually creating more problems.
Pundits keep asking what are the alternatives to the ACA? What will the Republicans offer. Have they not looked at Paul Ryan’s plan? Have they not heard the plans for medical tort reform? Have they not heard the calls to put all purchasers of health insurance on a level playing field? Have they not heard the call to open up insurance exchanges where all companies can compete in all states? Have they not understood the concept of a pre-existing conditions pool to cover those with pre-existing conditions? There are many good ideas out there, but they involve less government and more personal resonsibility. The democrats don’t want to hear of anything that decreases government power.
Don Carlos: I don’t think you understand me.
The people I have given up on talking about politics to were not amendable to listening. Talking about politics to them (which I did for years) made matters much, much worse. And they know about my blog and know where to find it; they are certainly welcome to read it if they are interested.
BHOcare is the proverbial foot in the door of totalitarianism, pure & simple. Supposedly dimwit Palin had it right from the get go: death panels and outrageous costs with few, if any, benefits.
Curtis…AMEN!! Excellent comments.
In my talks with people from the other side of the aisle (i.e. my wife and her family, and a goodly number of both of our friends), I’ve found about the only viable way to make any headway, is to stipulate, at the outset, that you’re not trying to change minds or convince people of anything. Rather, you simply are asking people to discuss long enough that they understand your position well enough that they actually disagree with what you think, rather than disagreeing with a strawman. And, over the course of years and years, sometimes it brings folks at least more towards the center.
BRD-
Good tactic, especially if one is able to base it on fact, not opinion. Folks do better when they feel the conclusions they’ve reached are the result of their own data-processing, rather than having conclusions (opinions) thrust upon them.