From: hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu
On 2012-03-29, Neal Boortz wrote:
> The ObamaCare hearings in the Supreme Court are officially in the
> history books. Now we twiddle our thumbs for three months and
> pontificate as to how the Justices are going about their deliberations,
> and what we believe the outcome will be. As I said yesterday, I’m not
> as optimistic that the Obama administration “blew it” enough to overturn
> the individual mandate. We have four liberal Justices who won’t give
> one ounce of consideration to the Constitution here. All it takes is
> one of the other five Justices to believe that congress is acting within
> its authority … and the game is over.
> What, though, if the Court does rule the individual mandate to be
> unconstitutional, but allows the rest of the law to stand? I don’t
> believe Democrats will be all that upset with this outcome. If the rest
> of the bill is allowed to stand there are plenty of weapons the
> Democrats and Kathleen Sibelius can use to run the private insurance
> companies out of business. That, after all, is and has been a primary
> goal of the left. Once the health insurance companies are destroyed it
> will be time for their coveted “single payer.” That single payer is, of
> course, the government. out on top.
Many years ago, the Supreme Court overturned a law, with
the statement that the power to tax was the power to
destroy. It is not clear how much destruction the Court
will allow.
As I have said many times before, what we have is not
insurance, but prepaid care. Insurance covers rare events,
not common ones. My "insurance" coverage covers much of
my medical and prescription costs; I would not have it, but
would have better major medical coverage, if it was not
provided by my employer, with a "use it or lose it" situation.
But because of it over the years, I am now "high risk".
> How do you run a private health insurance out of business? One way is
> to simply run them out of the market. If they want to keep insuring
> stuff … let them insure cars. Example? Go out there and try to find a
> health insurance company writing policies for children. Obama and the
> Democrats, you see, mandated through ObamaCare that a health insurance
> company could not discriminate in writing a health insurance policy on a
> child because of any preexisting condition that child might have. This
> meant that young parents – who are having a tough enough time making
> ends meet anyway – could simply cruise along until their child became
> ill. When a disease struck that couldn’t be handled with regular visits
> to the pediatrician, the parents would simply apply for health insurance
> and the company would have to write the policy. That’s like buying a
> homeowner’s insurance policy after the house burned down. So what do
> the insurance companies do? There is no way an insurance company can
> remain in business if it has to write policies to cover diseases that
> already exists or accidents that have already occurred. So … the health
> insurance companies simply stopped writing policies on children! If
> you’re not writing children’s health insurance policies you can’t be
> accused of discrimination for not writing a child’s health insurance
> policy.
> That same tactic will be used to drive insurance companies completely
> out of the market. Then the Democrats will tell the dumb masses that
> since they can’t get health insurance any more the government is simply
> going to have to take over.
> That’s one of the issues the Supreme Court was dealing with on its last
> day … whether or not the law can stand if the individual mandate is
> ruled unconstitutional. Jamie Dupree was in the court room yesterday.
> Here are his impressions of what happened on Day Three.
> Now we have three months for the Democrat spin. Let the games begin …
> Harry Reid says that striking down ObamaCare would actually be a good
> thing for Democrats because it “puts them in a better position for the
> election” in November. We haven’t heard from Princess Pelosi yet … but
> in the event the court finds the mandate unconstitutional her “Are you
> serious? Are you serious?” response to the reporter who asked her about
> the Constitutionality of the mandate will become a classic.
> They’re busy at the White House as well. The individual mandate seems
> to be in trouble. When some favored Obama initiative is in trouble you
> don’t withdraw it or modify it … you rebrand it. You go to the focus
> groups and test some new wording to see what will work with the dumb
> masses. The focus groups have made it clear that they can’t really
> cuddle up to the world “mandate.” Another word is needed. So now, at
> least according to ObamaLand, the “individual mandate” has become the
> “personal responsibility clause.” Here’s a quote from an Obama
> propagandist: “The administration remains confident that the Affordable
> Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the
> original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea.” Now I
> have to admit .. this is brilliant. If .. and it’s a big “IF” .. the
> Court invalidates the mandate our Dear Ruler can tell the world that the
> Supreme Court has ruled against the “personal responsibility clause” of
> ObamaCare. And … well … since personal responsibility has not been
> ruled unconstitutional, the government is simply going to have to step
> in!
> But wait! There’s more! The administration is now calling ObamaCare
> a “bi-partisan” bill! Now let’s see .. how many Republicans actually
> voted for the bill? Uh … none. But now it’s bi-partisan. Why?
> Because Obama says it is, that’s why.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
