Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

A “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare

Sad Obama is Sad

A federal appeals court dealt a potentially major blow to President Obama’s health care law Tuesday, ruling that participants in health exchanges run by the federal government in 34 states are not eligible for tax subsidies.

Judge Harry Edwards dissented, calling the challenge “a not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” and warning that the panel’s ruling “portends disastrous consequences.

US court deals setback to Obamacare

Good.

While having some sympathy for those caught up in the ever widening unravelling of Obamacare, folks who just want to make sure that their families can get the coverage they need at a price they can afford, the more nails in the coffin, the better.

Every time we’ve had a court case challenging the validity of Obamacare provisions, libertarians such as myself have hoped and prayed “Let this be it, let it end here…”, but so far it never has.

Why is this important? because it is the last gap in the gobbling up of healthcare provision by the US Government. They’ve taken the usual slow-pace slice-and-dice approach as recommended by Gramsci and other Marxists and are just waiting for the payoff, because when all healthcare coverage is mandated by the state, then it matters little who the actual providers are, it is socialised medicine with all the consequences that come with socialised medicine, postcode prescription, drug panels and ultimately death panels.

Anyone who tells you it ain’t so is lying.

So where do we go from here? Well as sure as eggs is eggs, there will be a lot of lying from the Democrats that this is just a transitory ruling and given the failure of the Supreme Court to actually overturn Obamacare on previous occasions (even with  Chief Justice John Roberts nominally in charge), I am dubious they will do so now, with any decision affecting the healthcare of millions of Americans.

What I expect is another fudged decision – and the inane, stupid and crippling progression of Obamacare across America – destroying freedom, jobs and household budgets along the way…

9 Comments

  1. You think “Obamacare” is what Obama and Co wanted?
    It was a horrible mess of compromise which one hopes was accepted as a foot in the door….which like it or not, it is. It is full of stuff he certainly didn’t want.
    To call it Obamacare is therefore a derogatory soundbite.
    If one starts at that disingenuous starting gate bodes not well.

    So you wanna actually do something useful and do it the easy way.
    Ie compare the US with other Western nations?

    And then, you want anecdote?
    I’ve sure got some good ones mostly about Britisn’s NHS,…but who’s interested in statistical irrelevance?
    If you come up with one about the one in 20,000 patients in the NHS who suffered a mistake I’ll do the same for your overpaid lot.
    You tell me about America’s the best at this or that and I’ll tell you about the amazing inventiveness of France’s world beating ambulance service

    So let’s be intelligent and only talk in large studies

    Any idea where the US comes in the league tables?

    You like to live in by country where working to pay healthcare costs kills people as surely as disease.
    Who on earth can think the % of GDP the American’s pay is tenable and will produce happy healthy lives?

    Cheeryble
    Chiangmai
    Thailand

  2. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG, there’s no doubt in my mind at all that you understand the program perfectly.

    I hope your ultimate prediction turns out to be wrong, but my expectation is that it’s right.

  3. John Galt says:

    You like to live in by country where working to pay healthcare costs kills people as surely as disease. Who on earth can think the % of GDP the American’s pay is tenable and will produce happy healthy lives?

    I’m not denying that the costs of healthcare in the US are disproportionately expensive, especially if you end up in with critical illness / injury and without coverage.

    What I take issue with is that Obamacare has destroyed the healthcare plans of millions of middle-class Americans who were happy with their provision, because it mandated a variety of costs that people don’t want, can’t afford and can’t opt out of and STILL hasn’t solved the problem of the millions who can’t get or can’t afford healthcare.

    Remember Obama’s line of “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan”? That was a lie when he uttered it and Obama knew damn well it was a lie.

    Obamacare mandates additional costs on employers whose employees meet certain eligibility criteria and quelle surprise, those employers change the terms and conditions of those same employees (mostly cutting their hours) to make them no longer liable for those costs.

    The only people that didn’t think that would happen were the idiots in Congress.

  4. Julie near Chicago says:

    Meanwhile, people just can’t accept the obvious, which is that businesses have to cut back each employee’s hours so as not to have to pay for their insurance coverage under the new rules.

    (Not ALL people, obviously. But it’s amazing how many people who are not particularly dumb still seem to think a business has a money tree. GRRRRRRR!)

    Heh…I guess I just disagreed with your last sentence, JG. By the time I’d read most of your comment, which I can only say understates the case!, I was too mad to register the rest of it.

  5. Paul Marks says:

    The first comment was ignorant on two levels.

    Firstly because it assumes that the “Affordable Healthcare Act” was not what Obama wanted – it was (it helps increases health costs and messes up further the United States – as Mr Obama, who has always HATED the United States of America wants).

    The idea that Mr Obama cares about the poor is utterly absurd – after all (before he started to ran for President) he gave virtually none of his large income to charity. Mr Obama sees the poor as cannon fodder for his political work (he has always seen the poor that way). As Lenin put it “if, for the purposes of Communism, nine tenths of the population have to die – we should not recoil from these sacrifices”. Whatever motivates collectivists (such as Frank Marshall Davis and his young apprentice Barack Obama) – compassion is not it.

    Also it assumes that America had a free market in health care before Obamacare – on the contrary the great cost of American health cover is caused by the previous government interventions (which is why anyone should know that increasing interventions will increase the costs still further).

    The Supreme Court (under Chief Justice Coward) has already ducked one chance to rule the Affordable Healthcare Act unconstitutional – it now has another chance.

    Under the words of the Act (even if we exclude the “little” matter of the Constitution of the United States and the basic idea that the Federal government are LIMITED) .

    Under the words of the Act subsidies are to be paid via the State exchanges (not a Federal exchange) – therefore subsidies may not be paid in the 36 States that do not have exchanges.

    However, perhaps Chief Justice Coward will find some excuse not to do his duty.

    Just a previous Chief Justice did in 1935 – over the confiscation of privately owned gold by the government and the ripping up of private contracts. Blatantly unconstitutional – but somehow……..

  6. John Galt says:

    Heh…I guess I just disagreed with your last sentence, JG. By the time I’d read most of your comment, which I can only say understates the case!, I was too mad to register the rest of it.

    Well you are entitled to Julie as you are affected by this far more than I am. I’m just on the outside of the tent pissing in.

    :-)

  7. John wickenden says:

    I’m afraid, Paul Marks, that your first paragraph is so full of venom that I was ill disposed to read on.
    Doubt that you care but there you go.

  8. John Galt says:

    Mr. Wickenden – Although you may not like the facts that Paul Marks lays out, it is a reasonable interpretation of the history of Obamacare, albeit taking a viewpoint that supporters of the POTUS may find inconvenient.

    Of venom there is none, at worst there is Mr. Marks opinion, which I personally value, even if you and others do not. As is said often around these parts, everyone is free to comment, but play the ball, not the man.

  9. Cheeryble says:

    You ask me to play the ball not the man.
    Yet you permit Mr Marks:
    …..”as Mr Obama, who has always HATED the United States of America wants).”

    I’m afraid if you also use that as a premise I’m in the wrong place for rational discussion.

    BTW as to the first bit of his first paragraph (I really did not read further) saying costs are up that’s a pretty easy fling.
    1. Costs in the US have risen horribly every year, why should this year be different?
    2. If I heard a podcast right whilst driving Medicare costs are down $1000 per head (unconfirmed may be nonsense as it comes from the arch enemy of counting cats Paul Krugman…..though he does tend to get individual facts right …… we’ll see the facts when Mr Marks responds.)

    Meanwhile you can estimate for us what the value to society of removing worry about health care which I’m sure both you and Mr Marks agree is a major factor if not THE major factor.
    IMO universal health care is the sign of a civilised society.
    Again, if you look at where USA comes in the most seriously compiled ratings (18th?) it may give you a clue which direction to head.
    I’m sure you realise that America’s new pet hate and whipping boy France comes top.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: