The hashtag #ILikeObamaCare tweeted by reelection staffers announced abruptly Friday that the name was adopted by the Obama reelection campaign as the approved shorthand name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Democrats jubilantly tweeted messages with the hashtag, adding "because" as a challenge to complete the sentence. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Act on Monday.
The GOP began using the term as a derisive pejorative before the Affordable Care Act was even passed. Democrats objected strenuously, and were careful to always use, at least when microphones were open, at least the "Affordable Care Act" part of the name. "Patient Care and Affordable Care Act" was too big a mouthful even for them. But it was awkward, and ObamaCare was an easy and popular shorthand for the public to use. Democrats insisted the press use the full name of the Act, and mostly they did.
But Friday, March 23, on the eve of the Supreme Court's Monday hearing on the lawsuits brought by 26 State Attorneys General against the Act, the Democrats suddenly embraced the name. The Supreme Court Justices won't use the term, but reporters and pundits will, and it will make the inevitable explosion of interview on news programs easier to deal with. More to the point... the sting is gone. By making it their own, the Democrats have stripped the GOP's pejorative term of its ability to invoke derision by its very use. Now it's just a name.
The Obama Administration made no effort to insist on all possible lower court reviews before the Act reached the Supreme Court. That means it comes to the Supreme Court earlier than perhaps it should. And that may give the Court its easiest option... to simply declare the law not ready for review at their level and send it back. They may say that since it is not fully implemented, it cannot all be reviewed because the effects are not clear. This would not be a surprise, since the Court often looks for reasons to avoid actually addressing the merits of the case.
The Court could also declare the purchase mandate unconstitutional, leaving the rest of the law intact. But that would still need some substantial rework of the Act by Congress, since other provisions of the Act are tied to that provision.
The Court might just declare the whole Act so flawed as to be unconstitutional as it presently stands. There are mandates for businesses, churches and governmental units that have all been challenged in one State suit or another. If they do, it will cause major upheavals in those provisions already implemented.
Finally, the Court may select several provisions as "going too far" and therefore unconstitutional leaving an Act full of gaps and holes, some of which will have to be addressed by a dysfunctional Congress if the rest of the Act is to be useable at all. From a GOP point of view, this may be the best of all possible outcomes short of full unconstitutionality. They could use the continuation of the rest of the Act to force changes the Democrats don't want to make. But they want the death of the entire act even less.
Assuming the Justices can reach agreement on something other than remanding the law to lower courts, the ruling will likely be a four-to-four vote. If it's more complicated than simply negating the purchase mandate, the single remaining swing vote on the Court will be the person who decides the fate of health care insurance for millions of Americans. Unfortunately, that Justice is Justice Thomas, who can hardly be considered a bastion of liberalism. Unless the four Justices commonly considered liberal can find some new and strong arguments to sway Justice Thomas, things look iffy for those millions of otherwise uninsured Americans.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 49
Oh yeah... nobody's gonna jab an RFID chip in anybody.
eschew anything to do with it.. No lies, now!
You are asking for the impossible.
I always thought it should be called "Reed/Pelosi care" since they were in control of the bodies that wrote and passed the law, Obama just quickly signed what was thrown in front of him.
And what about the lack of "severablity" and the fact that if any portion of this law is deemed unconstitutional the whole thing is out the window?
1) That would be Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid not "Reed" and House Minority Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi to whom you are referring.
2) The bill was drafted over an 18 months span of time and debated in both houses of Congress for 6 additional months before it was voted upon and became law.
3) Are you now attempting to instruct the USSCJ as to how they should rule by demanding that if any part is found Un-Constitutional, then entire bill must be found to be Un-Constitutional. { I'm sure that the Justices will appreciate your expert impute on Constitutional Law}
Heh-heh-heh... Prob'ly not.
If the individual mandate is unconstitutional and is also not severable from the function of the entire law then the entire law will be struck down with one decision.
2nd sentence - please explain 1) Why? and 2) Why you thought that had to be included.
Now it's also possible the US government could keep the private system by using the tax dollars to purchase for each individual from private companies. I think this type of plan has been floated before. Maybe this is sort of what Obamacare does for the uninsured not really sure.
* 180 million Americans are now protected against the worst insurance abuses, like denying health care to the sick, excessive premium increases, lifetime caps on the amount of care a patient can receive, and soon will be protected against gender discrimination.
* 86 million Americans received free preventive care. That means they get live-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies, and soon women can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. They're living healthier lives while saving money at the same time.
* An additional 2.5 million young adults now have insurance. That's because President Obama's health reform made sure they could stay on parents' plans as they enter the workforce, until they turn 26.
* 47 million Americans now benefit from a stronger Medicare program. The solvency of the program has been extended by eight years, and new prescription drug discounts have saved 3.6 million people with Medicare an average of $600.
BUT.......
Over 55 with minimal savings for retirement and no pension for this working-poor lifelong class member doing the (((cough)))) "jobs Americans will not do."
Will have Social Security alone to live on... less than 600 bucks monthly.
My saved pittance will have disappeared since several physical maladies prevent me from working. And with the job market what it is and search the Web for what the over-50 crowd is facing.
So, Obama's plan will fine me for not having health insurance.
And the cost of that insurance will take ALL my savings years before I retire.
I will be homeless!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No kinfolk or friends to let me live in their house.
I will be forced into homelessness as will, assuredly millions of others in situations akin to mine.
Of course, no consideration or media coverage for the dregs of society.
And for this I did two overseas tours in SE Asia back in the 70s and worked for decades at HARD physical labor that fed the USA but tore up my body to the point I can no longer work but NO!!!! No disability for folks such as I.
I guess my patriotic duty is now to crawl off and die.
Screw the lusted-for "health care" plan. Screw the USA.
The American Dream is a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If indeed you are serious, which is extremly doubtful, remember this, you reap that which you sow.
Free advise; It would behoove you to prepare for your future in your next life, don't blame government for your short sightedness and failure to plan for unforeseen debilitating events and/or your senior retirement.
Better still, begin today to support "The Patient Affordable Health Care Act" which will be to your present day advantage, since you claim to be indigent and stop crying on strangers shoulders.
It's not a lack of work ethic. It's not a lack of character. It's not a lack of whatever the opposite of degenerate is. And it's surely not a lack of sanctimony, self-righteousness and smug certainty in one's own rectitude (all of which you seem to be ready to provide in abundance). It's simply and only a lack of health insurance. Just that. Nuthin' more.
Your sanctimony won't help. Your self-righteousness won't help. Your smug self-assurance won't help. The only thing that'll help is... health insurance... and ObamaCare is all that's out there for them. I, for one, hope they get to keep it. And if I wind up having the same, in whole or in part... so be it.
Health care plans it already offers to ppl that qualify like Medicare and a
Medicade to every body that wants it. Now there would be a graduated fee depending on income. Or maybe just raise taxes so it could cover everybody.