Obamacare: Where We Stand, March 31st Edition

Health Overhaul Uninsured

The March 31st deadline for enrolling in Obamacare has come and gone. How fast time flies.

It was only late last year that the March 31st hard deadline was created. Oh, you don’t recall? The March 31 deadline for signing up was created in the end of October. Initially, you needed to have active insurance by March 31st, not just successful ‘enrollment’.  Under the law, to successfully meet the rules of the individual mandate, you needed to enroll by March 1st, in order to have active insurance by the deadline of March 31st.  And furthermore, this new deadline had been held as the final date; until, of course, the Administration allowed another waiver for anyone ‘enrolled’ to complete the enrollment process well into the month of April.

In any case, this is now, technically, the day by which most have pointed to as the first real target date by which the government should be making solid progress in insuring the uninsured, and providing an adequate pool of payers into the insurance exchanges.

What we know, and maybe more importantly, what we don’t know, is critical to understanding the debate that will revolve around health care for the next few months.

So what do we know, for certain?

We know that around 7 million enrollments have gone through the exchanges by the end of March. That is admittedly a relative success in and of itself for the administration, which had such a disastrous start to the enrollment period. In my piece in the end of December, I did believe they would get the exchanges fixed, but I still thought they would be hard pressed to reach the 7 million mark.

The problem now becomes what the definition of enrollments are.  Enrollments are NOT people who have actually successfully been insured.  They ARE people who have successfully chosen an insurance policy on the exchange, and placed it in their ‘shopping cart’ on the website.

I am sure many can already see the problems with this.  First, the system has no way of telling if you are a repeat customer.  I for one have two accounts that have insurance policies in my cart, neither which I ever plan to purchase.  I was simply testing the exchange website.  Am I being counted?  I am unsure, but I do know I am receiving emails regularly to remind me to complete my purchase.

Second, until you complete the payment process, you are not insured.  HHS has clearly stated this on many occasions. Health experts such as Bob Laszweski have stated that in his discussions with insurers, he puts the ‘unpaid policy’ number at somewhere in the range of 15-20%.  My own personal discussions with insurers backs this up; and on March 30th, HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius stated the rate was around 10-20%.  So there is general agreement on this issue.

The rate of people insured really is the crux of the issue for the overall cause of health care reform.  The other metrics are far less important in the long run.  Several surveys, including the Gallup survey, have shown a short-term decreases in the rate of uninsured, but it is uncertain whether this is statistical noise or a true permanent trend. A new RAND corporation survey that was leaked to the LA Times has also shown a trend in decreasing the uninsured.

My own opinion is that the rate of uninsured must be dropping.  The real question is, by how much, and by what method?

Let us remember that initially, the CBO predicted that the vast majority of those purchasing health care insurance on the Obamacare exchanges would be uninsured persons, looking for access to the health insurance.  If this had been the case, then we should see a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured.

However, it is difficult to believe this is the case. The same RAND study referred to above also shows that only about 1/3 of those on the exchanges were previously uninsured. Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic uses specific state numbers, like the enrollments in Kentucky and New York, to show that the number of uninsured is outpacing CBO predictions.  However, that doesn’t seem to be the case nationwide; I am willing to stipulate there are probably a few states that are doing well, but overall, it appears they will miss their target.   Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner points out the counter case, that is that it appears the exchanges are underperforming when it comes to insuring the previously uninsured.

Even using Cohn’s arguments, even he accepts it is highly unlikely that even a simple majority of those on the exchanges nationwide were uninsured previously.  Thus, the majority of those purchasing on the exchanges were persons who were buying insurance already, but simply were looking for government subsidies so they could get a better deal.

What does this mean in the grand scheme?  It means that the decrease in the rate of uninsured will be less than expected by many.  That doesn’t mean the rate will not decrease; Medicaid enrollments alone should decrease the rate of uninsured by a couple of millon, at least. It just means those actually purchasing insurance on the exchanges, by and large, were not the uninsured at all.

The next issue that will arise is how all of these factors affect premiums for the coming year.  I have talked about the demographics affecting the exchanges; primarily that young people have not signed up at a rate as great as expected initially.  The CBO and HHS had initially predicted that about 39% of those in the exchanges would be composed of those ages 18-35.  The average, across the nation, appears to currently be less than 30%, a number that Kathleen Sebelius now has basically accepted publicly.

This is important because, to subsidize those that are older or in poor health, the insurance pools require more healthy (and generally younger) payors into the system. Without those payors, the general cost of premiums will increase.  Liberals argue that age is a poor metric to calculate whether people are healthy or not.  This is true.  However, do they really believe that the people rushing to buy health insurance are the healthy among us, and not the ill?  There is a selection bias obviously involved here, and it is far more likely that those with poor health are the first to arrive in line for health insurance under Obamacare.

Almost everyone now stipulates that insurance premiums will rise more than the baseline expectations for 2015.  In fact, overall costs are already increasingUSA Today reported that health costs are increasing at the fastest rate in a decade…and that is before these cost pressures arise to affect premiums.

The biggest question left this year regarding Obamacare really is, how much will premiums increase?  If they increase at the same rate as the past 5 years (less than 4% a year on average) that will be a major success for the administration.  However, if they increase at a rate above 6% a year (and there are rumors the rates could increase by double digits), that could be catastrophic for the popularity of the program.

These are the core issues, though many other issues do remain.  Will people continue to be resentful to President Obama and Democrats for lying to them about being able to keep their insurance plans, and being able to keep seeing their same doctor?  Will the changes in their insurance policies make them more or less content?  Will increases in deductibles raise the ire of many Americans, who may or may not have understood those costs when they purchased their health policies?  These and many more questions remain, all of which ultimately will be more significant than the enrollment numbers of March 31st, 2014.

The only advice I can give is, be patient; only time will tell.

 

This was cross posted at Neoavatara

The Band-Aid Presidency

bandaid

 

Last night, in the most classic way imaginable, the Obama administration dumped a 800 lb lump of coal into the stockings of liberal America on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

The Administration announced that any person who had their health insurance cancelled late this year are no longer obligated to legally abide by the individual mandate, the central taxation component of the Affordable Care Act.  Additionally, these same people could satisfy the mandate requirement by purchasing catastrophic insurance alone, which previously was not considered sufficient to satisfy the mandate requirements.

The argument that the administration is making is ironic in so many ways.  They argue that the individual mandate, arguably the most important cog to the workings of Obamacare, is a ‘hardship’ to millions of Americans.  Furthermore, they are arguing that because of this hardship, they will simply delay that part of the law.

Think about the legality for a second:  President Obama is issuing a hardship exemption for something the Supreme Court has defined…as a tax.

Can you imagine the fun a Republican President can have with that power?

Let us also remember that this invalidates virtually every Democrat and liberal argument against a deal to avert October’s congressional shutdown.  Let us not forget that Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee put a proposal on the table to avert the shutdown if the administration simply agreed to a 1 year delay to the individual mandate.  Yesterday, Barack Obama did just that…proving that much of his stance on the shutdown was political theater, nothing more.

In the larger picture, this type of policy change largely defines the entire Obama Presidency. The pattern is as follows:  Obama and liberals propose a policy that, any common sense would tell you, cannot function in the real world. They pass this policy, often distorting the facts to the American public to get their support.  Once passed, they all of a sudden realize the idiocies contained in their plan, and rush to distance themselves from the plan they were recently advocating.  Once the policy becomes active, they realize that reality is more powerful than ideology, and thus, look for any and all ways to get themselves out of the mess they created.   And they use every ‘Band-Aid’ measure possible to cover-up the mess they have created.

The Band-Aids are piling up, and it does not only refer to health care.  Look no further than foreign policy this.  Obama’s Syria ‘Red line’ policy is a perfect example.  Obama talked a good game, but then realize that there was no way to enforce his red-line in the real world.  He quickly ran away from that policy, only to end up with a policy that, ironically, strengthened the power of a man Obama said was ‘evil’, Bashar Assad.

If you want to go further back, the Obama stimulus often had many of these characteristics as well. They passed statutes for ‘shovel-ready’ projects, and later realized there was no such thing.  They then pumped out the money, regardless of effect, to lackluster consequences.

Think of the fallacy of this latest Band-Aid on Obamacare.  The administration is arguing that they have imposed a hardship on at least 5 million Americans who lost their health insurance because of Obamacare.  So, to help these people, they are going to exempt them from the individual mandate.  However, these same people argued during the shutdown that any delay of the individual mandate would be catastrophic to the functionality of the entire ACA system.

Furthermore, the hardship claim is dubious.  Is Obama actually saying that it is more a hardship for people to lose their insurance and have to purchase it on his own exchange, than the hardship of forcing the previously uninsured to dig deep in their pocketbooks to purchase that very same insurance on the exchanges?  He is saying the previously uninsured have no burden of hardship as well?

Another liberal fallacy also dies: the argument that these were ‘substandard’ insurance policies.  Obama has now stated it is o.k. for people to move to catastrophic insurance, when the majority of this cohort had comprehensive insurance prior to Obamacare coming into effect.  In other words, Obamacare diminished  the quality of health insurance plans in America, and Obama is not legitimizing that change.

Each of the policy changes are chinks in the armor of Obamacare; that armor is now thin and rusting. This is a virtual universal delay of the individual mandate for 2014, no matter how liberals spin it.  They will never politically be able to argue that those that lost their insurance because of Obamacare bear more hardship than the uninsured do, and thus, they will be forced to exempt all Americans.  Ted Cruz wins the policy debate.

Even worse, this fixes nothing long-term.  This is a classic Obama ‘Band-Aid’.  Sure, it theoretically stops millions of people from being required to pay approximately $95 in tax penalty this April. But the real issue is not the tax, but the health care exchange.  By exempting all of these people, the administration makes the entire insurance system much less financially stable.

Insurers who were already dubious of the administration’s competence on this are now outright furious at being lied to, time and again.  They fear this will further push the risk portfolios of their insurance plans to the extreme, and thus, will increase their costs. That further increases cost pressures on health insurance premiums across the board, increasing costs for everyone. The Obamacare upward bending of the cost curve continues.

The ‘Band-Aids’ are all for show.  Ultimately, the problem is that the law itself was inherently broken.  These temporary measures actually fix nothing in the system. They are a political attempt at cover.  But nobody can protect Democrats from the onslaught of public anger that is going to arise when they realize what the ACA does, when the Band-Aids finally come off.

Democrats To America: We Lied, But You Should Apologize

democratic-party-convention-simpsons - Copy

What a hilarious dynamic you now have in the Democrat Party.

The civil war I described earlier is between two, diametrically opposed views.  One is the Obama Progressive Idealistic wing: they will push Obamacare, no matter what.  If there is absolute, positive evidence that the program doesn’t work, it wouldn’t alter their belief that their plan must be enacted fully.  Reality matters little to this wing of the party; they simply are fanatical idealogues.

The other cohort is the Pragmatic ‘Do and Say Anything to win elections’ wing of the party.  This was most famously led by Bill Clinton, but now numerous Democrats that are (SURPRISE!) up for re-election next year have joined as well. Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Mark Begich, and moderates such as Joe Manchin belong in this group.  They believe they must placate the angry American electorate first and foremost. What is ironic is this group doesn’t care about the success or failure of the ACA either; they simply want to do enough to get 50.1% of the vote next year.

And in the middle is the rest of America.

Americans feel betrayed.  They never truly supported the Affordable Care Act, but a majority of them trusted Barack Obama enough that they gave him the benefit of the doubt; that, more than anything explains Obama’s re-election.  The benefit of the doubt on the economy, on foreign affairs, and yes…on Obamacare.

That trust is now broken.

Look no further than the recent polling from numerous agencies.  Trust in Obama has collapsed entirely.  On most issues, Republicans are more trusted; remember, this was the party who a few weeks ago was less liked than many venereal diseases.  Obama is doing worse than that.

And what has Obama and Democrats done to respond to Americans discovering they have been lied to?  Basically, they blamed…everyone but themselves.  The list is long.

It was Republicans fault for not working with Democrats; even though the GOP correctly and appropriately predicted the problems that have now occurred.

It was the fault of the media, for not spinning more.

It was the fault of contractors, who failed to do their job, as if government oversight wasn’t the administration’s responsibility.

My favorite? It was the fault of average Americans. Why?  Because they were foolish or stupid to believe the lie in the first place.

If you think I am exaggerating, simply go read some of the ‘elite’ liberal columnists out there. This last excuse actually has become common place among the liberal intelligentsia.

The quandary that liberals are in leaves them between a rock and hard place.  Either they can follow their fanatical ideology, and fight for the Affordable Care Act, even though more and more evidence is coming to light that the plan cannot achieve the major goals set for by Obama himself.  The alternative is to pass something like Landrieu’s Senate plan, allowing people to keep their current health plans; that would blast a hole in the central tenet of Obamacare, which is to redistribute health care dollars from the healthy to the sick.

I actually agree with many liberals:  no amount of running away from Obamacare is going to save Democrats this time. They own this, in totality.  Ultimately, the only thing that would save them would be a competent rollout of the remainder of the system, which at this point seems highly unlikely.

Which means, when the 2014 election rolls around, we can truly see who deserves to be delivering, and receiving, apologies.

The Early Stages Of A Democrat Civil War

fighting_donkeys2

An interesting dynamic is brewing in Congress among Democrats, and with the White House in the middle, as their circular firing squad on Obamacare continues.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post as well as other liberals have pointed out that Sen. Mary Landrieu’s Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act , which is a various of Republican Rep. Fred Upton’s Keep Your Health Plan Act, is forcing the hand of Democrats in the House of Representative.

Landrieu’s plan is going to be hard for Red State Democrats to ignore.  Poll numbers on Obamacare are plummeting as the Administration’s incompetence becomes more apparent.  Sen. Kay Hagan’s vanishing lead in North Carolina will only hasten to increase the pressure on these vulnerable Senators.  Furtherm0re, even relatively safe liberals like Jeff Merkley of Oregon have signed on to Landrieu’s plan, showing the political pressure Democrats are under.

For the House, who has always been more steadfast in their support of President Obama, this puts them between a rock and a hard place. Most House Democrats are in safer districts than their Senate counterparts, and thus can afford to hold the line. But how much pressure is too much?

This builds an interesting dynamic of triangulation for the White House.  They need to balance the needs of their liberal allies in the Senate, while still making the political choices palatable to their friends in the House.

But this becomes more difficult by the day.  Again, from Sargent:

A senior Democratic aide tells me opposition to the Upton plan will be increasingly difficult to maintain among House Dems if the administration doesn’t offer a workable fix of its own. The aide adds the need to maintain House Dem opposition has been made more urgent by another problem: Senate Dems (the latest being Dianne Feinstein) supporting their own politically expedient “fixes” that could also undermine the law.

“Now that Feinstein has broken off, that makes it even more important that House Democrats stay together as much as possible — to keep Senate Ds from caving,” the senior Dem aide says. But the aide adds, in a reference to this week’s House action: ”We need an administrative fix that works before the vote.”

This puts all the pressure on Obama; but his choices are slim.  Delaying the individual mandate is actually very bad policy now (I personally oppose the Upton plan for a myriad of reasons). Obama cannot do that and not make the systemic problems worse.  There is no Presidential order that will give people their insurance back to them.  And the other legislative fixes are nonstarters either in the House or Senate.

So one of two dynamics shape up: one, the Senate passes Landrieu’s bill, and House Democrats are left fighting a losing fight against the Upton bill, in which case they will have to defend voting against this bill to the public.

The second option is that House Democrats fold, and Obama is forced to veto this bill, in which case all the blame falls upon him, after he just promised he would do ‘everything imaginable’ to fix the problem.

Either way, there isn’t any safe harbor for Democrats on this issue.  They are fooling themselves that any of this will  protect them from the wrath of the American voter if the ACA fails as incredibly as events so far have shown. From a political standpoint, I think at this point they would be better served to circle the wagons and defend their progressive policies.  But the panic instinct among politicians is so profound, they must appear like they are doing something productive, even when the target of their attacks are members of their own party, or their own President.

So the Democrat circular firing squad continues.

Obamacare’s Frightening Reality

072413_al_obamacare2_640

Here is a personal story.  My wife has a friend in New York who is in her early 40s and was found to have breast cancer last year.  The woman had metastatic disease, and her condition was considered grim.

This woman then was recommended by both my wife and I to go to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer.  I trained there, and know it is one of the premier cancer centers in the world.

Luckily, this woman had health insurance, which her husband pays for out-of-pocket, because he runs a personal business.

Now, here is where it gets interesting. First, this woman is a huge Obama supporter. So much so, she campaigned for Obama in 2008 (she went to New Hampshire during the primaries, and stayed in a hotel there for several weeks on her own dime campaigning for the Obama effort).

I spoke to her last night, by coincidence.  And her opinion was shocking.  And it changed because of an Op/Ed from a cancer patient that was published in the Wall Street Journal last week.

The article was written by Edie Littlefield Sundby.  Ms.  Sundby is the victim of stage IV gallbladder cancer, a horrible disease that has a very poor 5 year survival rate.  She had been lucky to have excellent insurance, and had been treated at premier cancer centers at the University of California; Stanford University’s Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.  All three are consider top-tier cancer institutions.

However, she just found that her insurance has been cancelled because of regulations placed upon it by the Affordable Care Act.  She can still get insurance, but none of the choices available to her would allow her to continue to see all of her physicians, as  her old plan did.

People who have never dealt with cancer treatment would wonder, “Why not change your doctor?”  However, cancer is unlike most things in medicine.  A detailed therapy plan often is only available with certain institutions and doctors, and not everyone provides every therapy.  Moreover, after myself working at Sloan-Kettering, I have seen how these elite institutions provide far better results with stage IV and advanced cancers than many other institutions.

Now, this brings us back to my friend, the Obama supporter.  She is truly worried now.  She is still going to Memorial Sloan-Kettering for treatments, and likely will have to for the rest of her life.  But now, she is unsure if her insurance will be there when she needs it.  She and her husband have expected to get the cancellation letter in the mail, and right now, her search of New York’s health exchange has not given her a solution that would allow her to not only see her local doctor, but to see her physicians at the Cancer Center as well.

This is the reality of the ripple effects of the Affordable Care Act.  And you will continue to hear stories like this, over and over again.  And Democrats will have to defend their choices, now that they have real world consequences.  If the Obama Administration can convince people that they will maintain their same high level of care for a reasonable price, then all these worries go away.

Right now, Americans like my friend are not convinced.

Obamacare’s Debacle Denialists: The Sebelius Hearing Version

BX1TF_tCIAAaRFn

I have, both here and on social media, talked a lot about the denial the left is suffering from when confronting the realities of the train wreck that the Obamacare implementation has become.

Today’s hearing with Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was a perfect example.

As the person in charge of this implementation, you would presume that she would have the most up-to-date information on the program.  That she would be able to quickly and promptly answer where in the process the repair of the exchange website we are.  And, that she could tell us what the legal standard for the law is.

You would be wrong on all counts.

To put it succinctly, Sebelius’s testimony also turned into a train wreck.

But let us give her credit.  Sebelius started the day by taking full responsibility for the website’s failures.  Good, right?  The only problem is, she spent the rest of the day trying to convince the hearing members that it wasn’t her fault, but everyone else’s.  She primarily blamed the contractors for not telling her the truth that there were problems with the site; that is, of course, now documented to be false.  They have documented that they were not provided the access or authority to test the site fully, and that authority only resides at HHS.

But it gets worse.  When questioned about the websites security measures, she could not confirm that it was ever tested for security leaks.  Again, to the contractors credit, they documented that they sent a memo to Sec. Sebelius in the end of September stating this fact…and yet HHS did little or nothing to insure the security of millions of Americans’ data.

Sebelius then made what I thought was going to be the most remarkably stupid comment of the day (but wasn’t) when she claimed…wait for it…that the website has never crashed.   She claimed,  “It is functional, but at a very slow speed and very low reliability.”  But as the graphic at the top of this post shows, the site was not functional during her testimony.  You would think she would have checked before going out there and made this ludicrous statement.

As if things couldn’t get worse, Sebelius was then asked why she didn’t go to the Washington, D.C. exchange to get her own insurance.  She claimed that because she is a Federal employee it would be illegal for her to do so.  The problem?  That is completely and factually incorrect, as the graphic from the HHS site shows:

eli

In other words, the HHS Secretary doesn’t know that the law she is trying to implement would allow her to join the D.C. exchange, as her own HHS website clearly shows. You cannot make this level of incompetence up.

After all that, you wouldn’t think that Ms. Sebelius could worsen this debacle; you would, of course, be wrong. During the exchange asking her about the legality of her joining the D.C. exchange, her hot mic caught this little tidbit:

Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) asked her to answer, “yes or no,” whether she’d be willing to drop her federal employee health coverage and buy insurance in the exchanges if she could.

“If you can, will you?” he said.

Sebelius claimed that she thought it would be illegal for her to use the exchanges — but that’s not actually true.

Then Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) made a unanimous consent request so he could ask a question out of turn. Sebelius turned to a colleague and said, “Don’t do this to me.” Those words were caught on her microphone.

Well, frankly, who could blame her?  I don’t want Obamacare to do this to any of us.

But the line of the hearing still hasn’t been mentioned.

Rep. Greg Harper (R-Miss.) asked Sebelius repeatedly whether President Barack Obama was responsible for the troubled rollout of the health-care law that has left HealthCare.gov, the website where consumers are supposed to purchase insurance, largely dysfunctional.

Sebelius repeated that she and the Department of Health and Human Services were ultimately responsible. This led to a back-and-forth between the two, in which Harper tried to pry the answer he wanted out of her before his time for questioning expired.

“While I think it’s great that you’re a team player and you’re taking responsibility, it is the President’s ultimate responsibility, correct?” he said.

“Well, you’re clearly, uh, whatever,” Sebelius said. “Yes. He is the President. He is responsible for government programs.”

Let me give you a little hint folks: if you are testifying in front of Congress, the body representing the American people, don’t ever respond to a question with the term “Whatever”.

The entire hearing was a debacle, and did nothing to support the claim of the left that the Obamacare implementation is in competent hands.  If anything, it gave more support to the argument that the Obamacare debacle denialist brigade is still in charge.

tumblr_mvho2iHujQ1s6znabo1_r1_400

Healthcare.gov…Most Expensive Website Ever?

404-care-obamacare-glitch

I was rambling over on Twitter this morning, and stumbled upon a question that needs to be answered.

Is the debacle that is the website Healthcare.gov possibly the most expensive website creation of all time?

The question is a complicated one.

First, you have to eliminate all ‘intranet’ systems; in other words, platforms that were built only for internal use.  Systems such as those built at the NSA and CIA probably cost more, but we would never know because such information is top-secret.  Additionally, they have security requirements that nobody else would ever have.

Second, how much did Healthcare.gov actually cost to create?  Originally the website had $93 million budgeted.  That number has clearly ballooned, and the most common number used today is $634 million.  That number may be overstating the reality.  Based on this website accounting government spending, the actual number may be closer to $463 million that was actually spent after the ACA became law.  Still, that is an astronomical amount.

It is very difficult to compare this to the private sector, but let us try.  From Digital Trends:

Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $600 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.

If you want to compare to other government health care sites around the world, the United Kingdom’s National Healthcare Service site cost around  £21m….still a fraction of the Obamacare site.

Of course, like most things in the Federal Government, we will never really know what it costs.  Once you build a black hole in government, it sucks up material and costs without any discretion.  But to claim that Healthcare.gov, a site that in some respects cannot even create user passwords and has barely been able to complete even a small percentage of its total tasks so far, is among the most expensive web portals in internet history is probably not unreasonable.

 

 

On the Government Shutdown vs the Supreme Court

So in the fury of the Government Shutdown, the left has become apoplectic about the “Affordable Care Act”.  You’ll more likely recognize it as “Obamacare”. They consider it to be Constitutionally tested by the Supreme Court, therefore it’s the “law of the land”.

This logic is fundamentally unsound, let’s debunk it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

1) The Constitution does not grant “kingly” powers to the Supreme Court.  Their job is to rule on the law brought before them, and to clear up controversies between states.

2) Nowhere in article III of the Constitution or in the Federalist papers, Thomas Jefferson’s letters, etc do you see that the Supreme Court was supposed to be the “final say”.  Jefferson in fact believed their power should be limited even further, than the Constitution did already.

3) We know for a fact the left doesn’t actually believe their own words. Let’s go through their history of fighting against the Constitution itself :

3.A) The Progressive Income tax was tried several times before the amendment was brought up and each time it was found unconstitutional.  Did that stop the Progressives from trying to trash the Constitution and implement their marxist utopian tax?  NOPE.  They kept fighting and eventually (and illegally) amended the Constitution to add the Progressive Income tax.

3.B) The recent rulings declaring corporations have free speech and that every citizen has a right to defend themselves with a firearm.  Has the left stopped fighting against Corporate speech?  Have they stopped fighting for gun control?  HELL NO.  They never give up on those things, even though, in their own words, “The Supreme Court is the law of the land.”

4) The Supreme Court only ruled on one part of the law, the individual mandate.  But as this site states;

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution.

“Well,” you might say, “someone has to review laws for constitutionality. Why not the Supreme Court?” Some possible answers:

  • First and foremost, it is not a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. When the Supreme Court exercises Judicial Review, it is acting unconstitutionally.
  • It is a huge conflict of interest. The Federal Government is judging the constitutionality of its own laws. It is a classic case of “the fox guarding the hen house.”
  • The Constitution’s “checks and balances” were designed to prevent any one branch of government (legislative, executive or judicial) from becoming too powerful and running roughshod over the other branches. There is no such system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.
  • Even if the Supreme Court could be counted on to keep the Executive and Legislative branches from violating the Constitution, who is watching the Supreme Court and will prevent the Judicial branch from acting unconstitutionally? Unless you believe that the Supreme Court is infallible (and, demonstrably, it is not), then allowing the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of Constitutionality issues is obviously flawed.
  • Justices are appointed, not elected and may only be removed for bad behavior (which has happened in the distant past but these days, appointment to the Supreme Court is like a lifetime appointment). If the court upholds unconstitutional laws, there is no recourse available. We the People cannot simply vote them out to correct the situation. Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:”At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter if the individual mandate was ruled constitutional by the Government.  They are exercising an authority that doesn’t belong to them.  It certainly was never meant to be the *final* verdict on constitutionality.  As http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html – so poignantly points out;

“It is the Constitution, not the Supreme Court, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. Even the Supreme Court should be accountable for overstepping Constitutional limits on federal power.

Conclusion:

Obamacare is bad and unconstitutional law, just like the Alcohol Prohibition, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, and Slavery, which was also upheld in the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is not the final say in our Country, we are not a country ruled by Justices.  The Constitution is the final say, and it’s up to EACH body and Representative to uphold and fight for that document.  The Government Shutdown MUST continue until we defund/delay the implementation of this HORRIBLE law, that none of the proponents bothered to read before voting YES.

ObamaCare-Totally-Safe

Obamacare is killing jobs, Obamacare is killing privacy, Obamacare will kill people.

The goal of Obamacare, is not to increase Health Care access.

It’s goal is to decrease the amount of money we’re spending on Health Care.  That’s all the left talks about.  How much more we spend on Healthcare than countries with “wonderful” universal Healthcare.

I hate to burst their bubble, but life is not all sunshine and lollipops with Universal Healthcare.  ObamaCare AKA the Affordable Care Act, is a step towards Universal Healthcare and will destroy the wonderful Health Care this nation enjoys.

It is completely appropriate to compare it to Slavery, as the Government will judge your worth, and determine if you are worthy of being helped.  You belong to the state. 

That is why Republicans need to keep the Government Shutdown! We CANNOT stop fighting hard enough against this bill, it is bondage.

Shackled to ObamaCare