Pretty much says it all…

This cartoon pretty much symbolizes what I was thinking when listening to the Supreme Court discuss the future of Obamacare and scrapping it or salvaging it.

Perhaps I’m optimistic, but I would love to see the whole law go.

This is all coming on the heels of Obama saying that if the supreme court were to strike down his health care law that it would be “judicial activism.” Is he serious?

He may also be guilty of revisionist history.

?I?m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,? Obama said.

Does anyone else remember the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act being passed by a strong majority even with Democrats holding large majorities?

I seem to remember a “cornhusker kickback” and a “Louisiana purchase” that were important to the bill’s passage. Maybe President Obama doesn’t remember that part of history.

57 Replies to “Pretty much says it all…”

  1. Stan Gibilisco

    “‘I?m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,’ Obama said.”

    The President let his temper get the best of him that time. I doubt he won any hearts on the Supreme Court with that statement.

    I have no clue as to what the final decision will be.

    1. 73*

      Stan, I agree with you.

      I do not support this legislation. I remember a poll in ND that said 24 or 28% of people in ND supported this law. I imagine SD was somewhere in the same ball park.

      Still feel bad for SHS that she went down because TJ voted for this bill. He’s the one who should be paying the price not her.

      1. Oldguy

        Do you think TJ will run again? I find myself one day saying he will and the next day he won’t. I don’t think there is any doubt that if he does run he will have to campaign which won’t be easy defending his votes against a good candidate.

        1. Arrowhead

          TJ could win again if he ran against Joel Dykstra…

          But I don’t think that will happen.

          There is no way TJ can defeat Mike Rounds or Kristi Noem. They are both very well known and capable of raising money.

          My hunch is that Rounds is the strongest general candidate of the two. I dread seeing another rematch of Noem and SHS.

          1. Arrowhead

            I’m honestly surprised we haven’t seen Joel Dykstra run for a constitutional office or PUC. That would have been a lock for him.

  2. Troy Jones

    Obama statement is good politics but bad Presidential leadership.

    I think the SCOTUS will write a narrow opinion (mandate is unconstitutional ) and leave dealing with the rest to Congress. The other points might be bad policy but that is not Court’s job. It is to protect Constitution.

    This said I did read there is precedent in throwing entire law out when the “anchor” is thrown out.

    1. Jammer

      Obama?s comment flies in the face of our Constitution. What he was saying is that he should be able to enact any law even if it is unconstitutional and that the Supreme Court should not be able to review it in respect to its Constitutionality. Obama swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and his recent comment reveals that he doesn?t feel that he is bound by that oath.

      Obama also offered complete contempt for our form of government that has three equal but separate branches. His attack on the Supreme Court prior to their decision in this case was not only contemptuous but also intended to intimidate members of the Court to rule in his favor. Obama is simply unworthy to be the President of the United States and he should be retired in November with a crushing defeat at the polls along with every progressive liberal that supports him.

      1. jammerism

        The Catholic Justices on the Court should have recused themselves from this decision in the first place as the Holy Roman Kiddie Diddlers control such a monstrous portion of health care in the US, especially in light of more Vatican wrongdoing.

        Right to life, indeed.

        1. PlanningStudent

          Brilliant idea, there’s a reason why the anti-catholic party was known as the Know-Nothings..!

          1. Les

            Thanks PS.

            Our country would be in a world of hurt without Catholic Social Services and their health care systems.

      2. Stan Gibilisco

        “His attack on the Supreme Court prior to their decision in this case was … intended to intimidate members of the Court to rule in his favor.”

        Yes, my point above. If the President thinks that he can intimidate the Supreme Court, he is naive indeed. In any case he came a bit unglued.

  3. Clay Bill

    “This is all coming on the heels of Obama saying that if the supreme court were to strike down his health care law that it would be ?judicial activism.? Is he serious?” — (Bill Clay)

    ?Judicial nominations should be treated the same regardless of which party controls the White House or the U.S. Senate. I look forward to reviewing the backgrounds and qualifications of all of the judicial nominees sent to the U.S. Senate for consideration. I believe that these nominees should abide by and apply the rule of law, instead of becoming activist judges who try and create law. I take very seriously the role that the U.S. Senate has when it comes to the Constitutional responsibility of “advise and consent” concerning judicial nominees.? (from Sen. John Thune?s web page, as he states his judicial nominating philosophy)

    Should the Supreme Court eventually strike down all or parts of Obamacare, Thune and Noem may likely celebrate.

    But for such a joyful reaction to occur, Kristi and John will have to be hoping with all of their might in the coming weeks that justices do something that they both absolutely abhor.

    The justices will have to ?legislate from the bench.?

    What?s truly absurd about the current situation is that the conservative movement in this country, who made Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing seem like some crazy woman who was only interested in practicing judicial activism from the high court bench, is now wishing with all of its heart (their hearts, whatever) that she will.

    While awaiting the eventual court decision on Obamacare, conservatives will be cheering for their justices to violate what they tell the rest of us is their most fundamental and inviolate jurisprudential principle.

    If Obamacare is thrown out by the Supreme Court, it means what would have just occurred is five conservative justices legislating from the bench ? a violation of a central conservative legal tenet of recent American history.

    1. duggersd

      There is a difference between the judicial branch writing law and deciding whether the government has the authority to impose a certain law according to our Constitution. This is not judicial activism. President Obama wanted it before SCOTUS as well as 26 states.

      1. toga

        Maybe they should have read the bill before they voted for it if they wanted it to be constitutional?

        1. anon

          Why is it judicial activism if they say this new law is not constitutional but if the SC decide to make a law such as oh I don’t know making abortion legal across the country that is not?”

          Big difference between striking down a bad law and writing new law. Give me a break!

  4. Bill Fleming

    It’s possible to read Obama’s remarks as his expression of confidence in the system, but of course, that’s not going to happen. Not around here anyway. I don’t see how Obama loses in this deal. Either way the court decides works for him politically (as Mr. Jones is astute to note.)

  5. Anonymous

    Well, from everything said in campaigns and the press, South Dakota’s elected Republican officials are all united in stopping this illegal monstrosity and have taken every step possible to insulate and protect South Dakota from it.

    1. Anonymous

      Except implementing it and employing mangers to run it. See: 2011 SB 38 and SB 43. Then, look at the 2012 votes on HB 1190, 1168, 1169. Don’t listen to the rhetoric, look at the votes/actions.

      1. Troy Jones

        I do look at the legislation and disagree this “buying into Obamacare” and consider the characterization not factual or an opinion supported by the facts. And I say this from a perspective of likely opposing most of the bills you reference.

        Instead of shilling “Obamacare” a better solutionwould have been to improve the bills. While it might be better politics to yell “fire” and then watch your bonfire spread, the more responsible thing is to turn on the hose and wet down the grass. Just because fire can do damage , bonfires can be good.

        1. Anonymous

          Saying something is false, doesn’t make it so. Read the bills, look at the votes and make an informed opinion. Don’t listen to the ever shilling Troy Jones. He is nothing more than an uncoordinated cheerleader–painful to watch.

          1. Troy Jones

            I put my name on my views and interpretation. You, on the other hand, don’t have the guts.

            1. Anonymous

              Yes, you’ve got guts, but the question is: do you have the courage to make an honest assessment of the state GOP leadership’s shilling for the Obama administration on Obamacare, all while cloaking their aiding and abetting?

              1. Troy Jones

                YES. I did read the bills and I disagree with your characterization as being factually inaccurate and your opinion of the characterization as not supported by the facts (effectively asserting you are misleading the public, whether intentionally or unintentionally).

                Providing solutions to lower health insurance (including exchanges) is not Obamacare. Just because it is included in the bill doesn’t mean exchanges are unconstitutional or bad policy. I applaud the Legislature for discerning this significant difference.

                I want to make it clear: I would have opposed at least half the bills in their current form you mention. However, I would have tried to improve them with amendments, something the opponents failed to do.

                1. Anonymous

                  Thank you for your honest assessment. Right on!

                  The state exchange in the legislation is a mandate of Obamacare.

                  The approval and appeal of monetary charges to the SD bureaucracy is a mandate of Obamacare.

                  The requirements that if you pruchase insurance, you must insure your child by a policy that provides insurance until she is 29 is a mandate of Obamacare.

                  Troy, thank you for having the guts to admit you like the idea of Obamacare state exchanges–just like Daugaard and GOP “leadership” in Pierre!

  6. Clay Bill

    Detractors to Obama care (such as Dakota War College) argue that it unconstitutionally infringes on personal liberty by forcing Americans to purchase health insurance. But compare it to Paul Ryan’s budget plan.

    Under his plan, the tax code is changed to give families a tax credit for purchasing private health insurance. Families that chose to go without insurance, or simply can?t afford it, would not receive the tax credit.

    The tax credit is essentially indistinguishable from the mandate. Ryan?s plan offers a $2,300 refundable tax credit to individuals and a $5,700 credit to families who purchase private health insurance. Of course, tax credits aren?t free. In effect, what Ryan?s plan does is raises taxes and/or cut services by the cost of his credit and then rebate the difference to everyone who signs up for health insurance. It?s essentially a roundabout version of the individual mandate, which directly taxes people who don?t buy health insurance in the first place.

    Ryan?s plan imposes, if anything, a harsher penalty than Obamacare on those who don?t purchase health insurance. Ryan?s tax credit is far larger than the individual mandate?s penalty, and much easier to enforce. Under Ryan?s plan, if you don?t purchase insurance, you don?t get the credit. End of story. Conversely, the Affordable Care Act doesn?t include an actual enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate. If you refuse to pay it, the IRS can?t throw you in jail, dock your wages or really do anything at all.

    Yet Ryan’s plan is clearly, indisputably, constitutional. Congress could pass that turkey and citizens and states would have no recourse.

    1. inomniac

      Does Rep. Ryan “fine” people for not having insurance? NO!!!!!!!!!

      That is the problem. If I don’t want insurance I shouldn’t have to have it! Sure I would prefer my idiot cousins buy insurance rather than a new pickup or a flat screen tv. But it is up to them to buy what they want.

  7. Troy Jones

    It is significantly different:

    Obama’s way: I either buy insurance or must pay a fine.

    Ryan’s plan: I either buy insurance or not. Forgoing a refund on my taxes is a choice.

    1. Clay Bill

      Troy (and inomniac): That’s what makes Ryan’s plan so inferior to the Affordable Care Act. Make the “choice” to forgo the purchase of insurance in the name of “choice” only works to screw the rest of us that are responsible and for years have not had to be compelled by tax refunds or fines or anything else to do the right thing and purchase insurance.

      Under Obamacare, starting in 2016, Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater. The plan includes a hardship exemption for poorer Americans.

      Without that, things would continue as they are presently, and all we can do is sit by and watch the irresponsible, in the name of “liberty,” and “choice,” contribute to the skyrocketing costs of health care by remaining uninsured and forcing the responsible among us to pick up their health care tab. There are people out there, for purely ideological reasons, who likely will never purchase insurance, claiming such a requirement is some sort of extreme infringement. That’s why Ryan’s plan is a highly ineffectual way of hoping to compel people to purchase insurance by dangling a carrot. As you observed, Troy, it will do nothing, really, to encourage people to “not” make the choice to forgo the purchase of insurance.

      Ryan’s plan, then, while putting significant pressure on the federal budget to provide funding for tax credits with the hope of compelling people to purchase, does nothing, really, to lower the skyrocketing cost of health care, or guarantee choice of doctors and plans, or assure quality affordable health care for every American. A public option would achieve those goals and give the American people more choices. It would foster greater competition; lower costs; and give consumers a greater variety of affordable choices.

      All of this is needed because the responsible among us have the brains to realize that becoming seriously ill or injured is not a “choice.” Stuff happens. The responsible among us are trying our best to remain insured while those who stubbornly refuse to be responsible only make it more difficult for us to maintain that financial protection.

      I guess providing some financial freedom from fear of out-of-control health care costs for the responsible or the very ill is too much to ask. It may take away some bum’s ability to choose to not, as usual, purchase insurance

      1. Boy Genius

        Clay Bill,

        You should have to buy a steer from Charlie Hoffman. Beef is good for you and you’ve been eating too much Chinese food these days.

        I mandate you buy steers from Charlie Hoffman.

        1. Boy Genius

          I like this Obama cronyism stuff. It is really fun. Now I demand that you drive a hybrid. It’s better for the environment.

  8. Troy Jones

    I don’t like how a reply can get lost up above so this is in response to this post above:

    Anonymous

    April 3, 2012 at 11:44 am | Permalink

    Thank you for your honest assessment. Right on! (did not include the rest for brevity.)

    The conservative think tank Heritage Foundation supports exchanges: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/03/a-state-lawmakers-guide-to-health-insurance-exchanges

    Some of the most conservative, free market oriented members of the US Senate endorse exchanges as a part a GOP solution to the health insurance cost challenge like Senators Coburn and DeMint. I will concede the Obamacare exchanges are less robust than the GOP proposals but even with repeal/SCOTUS overturning, exchanges will be part of the GOP ultimate solution. Setting them up now just gets us ahead of the curve.

    This Anonymous poster (why won’t they post their name? Hmmmm) is allowing his paranoia about Obamacare to cloud finding a solution.

    1. cheese

      Do you have any cheese to go with all your whining?

      If you don’t like the anonymous posters here, stop reading and stop posting! Start your own jack-booted thug blog, I am sure you will have lots of people who are interested in your watered-down conservative ideas.

      So the people that voted for bills to enact Obamacare were against Obamacare before they were FOR enacting it? Do you even believe the horse pucky you put out?

      1. Troy Jones

        If you expect credibility for your ideas, put facts and names behind it. The fact is the exchanges are endorsed by conservative thinkers (elected and think tanks). The characterization of it being Obamacare is only paranoia.

        But for your ilk, it isn’t as much fun. You enjoy dishonest character assassination too much and are too cowardly to take it yourself. I get that.

        1. Anonymous

          Troy, Sibby doen’t use his name on this blog because he is afraid Pat Powers will track him down and identify him.

          We all know Sibby is a nice guy who has a nice supply of tinfoil.

          1. Stace Nelson

            First, on the issue of anonymous posters: As one who has gotten roasted by more than a few, I support 100% for them to continue doing so! You don’t want to post your name for whatever reason? I don’t have a problem with that. Heck, I prefer it in some cases. Imagine if I actually meet Troy Jones in the future. Now I have to keep an eye on the little guy just in case he follows through on his confirmed DWC stated fantasy of trying to kick my equipment! 😀

            In regards to Steve Sibson, honest as the day is long, passionate, God fearing, intelligent, dedicated, fearless, and one of the nicest people you will ever meet. Just what the taxpayers need in Pierre is someone who will demand answers and who is unafraid to state their position or take a stand.

            Consider all the folks in office or running for office, now ask yourselves… which ones could you see having the guts to stand up to England and sign the Declaration of Independence? Scary thought…

            1. Bill Fleming

              Yes Sibby is nice, passionate, and fearless, but his intelligence and honesty are compromised by the fact that he’s nuttier than a pet coon. (Probably that God fearing part?) I believe he believes what he believes and is being honest when he says he believes it. How’s that?

              p.s. Why are you and Sibby, and Ellis afraid of God? I don’t get it. Were you afraid of your dads?

              1. Bill Fleming

                p.s. Stace don’t you think it’s interesting that you put “fearless” and “God fearing” in the same sentence and thought nothing of it? That, my friend is the “crazy” part. The key to unlocking the neurosis.

    2. Anonymous

      I must admit I am a little paranoid about Obamacare and all who are complicit in it, no matter if they claim to be republicans/conservatives. The democrats also accuse Obamacare detractors as not having a solution. The solution is a deregulated market, a prohibition on cost-shifting and expanded medical programs driven by economics and not the AMA union of over-paid doctors. If the government wants to pay for health care, the government should pay the full frieght. Then, it would be a matter of priorities and the government would finally have to determine those priorities.

      Inject the market back into health care = solution.

      1. Anonymous

        Is it me, or does that equation seem erriely similar to the underpants gnomes idea for getting rich on “South Park”?

        Inject the market back into health care = solution

        Take underwear + ?= PROFIT!

      1. Jammer

        That is what happens when you work for a liberal.

        That is probably just bad luck on your part. After all, what are the odds of a liberal actually working? I heard that you would be luckier to win a $640 Million lottery than finding a liberal that works at a ?real? job.

        1. Anonymous

          He no more liberal than Scalia the judge. Just does not want to hear the truth about who he really is. If it were not for the 6 top jocks in the org it would go to hell in 1 yr. We do make good $$ so just keep him happy and he remains just as stupid.

  9. Anonymous

    fun words

    While the US Supreme Court is considering ObamaCare, the American Medical Association has finally weighed in on Obama’s two-year-old health care package.

    The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

    The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

    Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

    Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, grow up!”

    The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

    Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow.

    The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would “put a whole new face on the matter”.

    The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

    Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.

    In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington .

  10. Anonymous

    does anyone have a solution that will be average to all? Lots of bitchin but no solution. Some want to do the private thing, what happens if it fails? Does it have a backup plan. What is the solution to contain costs and still keep healthcare within realm of average JOE BLOW……. It seems most everything deals with protection of the party. Who is first citizen or party???

  11. Charlie Hoffman

    This has been interesting to read, challenging to grasp how some can even turn on a computer with their obvious intellect, but nevertheless quite amusing. Now don’t go and tell Cory H this but the whole problem of cost escalations of health care started when we insured it. Before that supply and demand was in control (CH it really is just that easy). Then along comes medicare, medicaid, federal employee care, free care, congress care, emergency free care, etc. and we now try fixing the problem with the problem. This problem will never be fixed.

  12. Troy Jones

    There are numerous different non-Obamacare solutions:

    On the Dem side there is essentially one alternative: Medicare for all or the single payer system. This is essentially the Canadian/British model.

    On the GOP side they focus on these “problems” which generate multiple alternative solutions:

    1) Portability and its closely related cousin, pre-existing conditions: A healthy person who changes jobs has no problem. The challenge is how do you “insure” the pre-existing condition. Obamacare “handles” this by being the insurer of last resort. The GOP solution I like best is to have “portability riders” where when one leaves one plan, any pre-existing condition is transferred to a secondary insurance provider using principals of re-insurance common in the property and casualty industry and the new plan/employer is only responsibe for new conditions. This has the side benefit of giving primary insurers an option to “re-insure” catastrophic exposure creating a two-tier health insurance industry (those who specialize in common insurance needs, e.g. routine surgies and family practice items and those who specialize in big items like cancer). We see this specialization between short-term and long-term disability providers who by concentrating this expertise (and actuarial analysis) reduce comprehensive costs.

    2) Cost-containment and freedom of choice (doctor choice, medical solution choice, etc.): The challenge here is there is two approaches.

    a) Obamacare’s approach is to measure statistically both the efficacy of certain procedures and the utility of the solution for those who opt into (or forced because of pre-existing conditions) the federal program. For instance, statistics might show that non-surgical solutions overall are less costly with grave consequences for some. Additionally, a younger productive worker’s “utility” is greater than a retired old person.

    b) The GOP approach centers more on giving freedom of the insured to assess what kind of coverage they want via across state-line insurance exchanges (risk mitigation) or risks they are willing to bear. Additionally, through the use of higher deductibles, Health Savings Accounts, etc. they make the insured a “customer” spending his own money and thus focused on cost containment.

    3) The uninsured. The uninsured is basically two groups: the poor who can’t afford insurance and those who choose to forego it. There is only marginal differnce between the parties on the poor via the use of Medicaid. The significant difference is those who choose to not get insurance even if they can afford it. Obamacare wants to use the individual mandate and fine to get all to be responsible for the cost of their health care. Paul Ryan’s plan wants to provide tax credits for making the “responsible” choice. Personally, I like neither. My idea is to use Health Savings Accounts more prevalently for those who choose to not buy insurance. I haven’t sorted out all the challenges in my mind yet. One idea I’m thinking about is to change the current requirements of hospitals to take all people regardless of coverage to give them some flexibility in non-emergency situations to not see people who do not have:

    a) Insurance whether it be private, Medicare or Medicaid.
    b) A Health Savings Account. Then to the extent the balance in the HSA is insufficient to cover the costs (using an average of private insurance and Medicare rates) the deficiency is a non-dischargable debt in bankruptcy. What I am struggling on is the remedies appropriate for pursuing the deficiency as I don’t want the burden to be onerous for a lifetime yet allows recovery over time. I have some ideas but they are too undeveloped for me to ramble about.

    My point is we know what the challenges are. There are solutions that don’t rely on what I believe is the unconsitutional individual mandate, puts the people in the cost containment risk, and encourages individual responsibility vs. thinking health care is an entitlement to be paid for by someone else. More importantly, in our opposition to Obamacare, we as Republicans quit exploring better solutions and proudly supporting components included in Obamacare that fit our philosophy (namely exchanges).

    1. Bill Fleming

      Troy, my friend Don Frankenfeld has roughed out a plan similar to what you are outlining here. Maybe the two of you should compare notes sometime. Do you know each other?

          1. Anonymous

            Epictetus (55-135 AD) Greek Philosopher
            Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him.

  13. Anonymous

    Lots of words but not results. Does that mean the D and R people have a idea or a solution. I see a idea but no solution as the problem is not young but very very old. Why is it so hard to introduce the solution and get it under way. Sounds like a leadership problem within both the D and R people. Both have controlled the place to start it yet it is not started. Looks like it is more important to protect the party with word and ideas and not providing a solution. It might be fair to say we are loosing control of ourselves by wanting to protect the party be it D or R.

  14. Charlie Hoffman

    Troy you always bring maddeningly correct intellect to the easy argument encouraging discussion.

    I will stand by my statement that once we brought insurance into the fray of living longer by any means or cost; the ship started taking on excessive ballast.

    I could argue every conceivable product purchased by any American as intrinsic upon a happy long life; and then put forth an insurance contract making so true. Would we not be fighting for the right of ownership of said reward? And then turn it into a political battle; as we are now doing with health care mandates?

    What is guaranteed Biblically?

  15. Troy Jones

    Charlie,

    I don’t disagree with you the system is out of whack with insufficient cost containment. But health care is an easy thing to apply risk analysis to, ala property and casualty insurance, auto insurance, and life insurance.

    Without the ability and means to insure catastrophe (fire, accidents, or sickness), the quality of life for all would be greatly diminished in very real ways. Who could borrow money for a house or storefront if they couldn’t insure against a fire? I need life insurance to borrow for my business.

    The problem is the govt. too often introduces perverse unintended consequences into the market “requiring” counter measures. The ideas I advocate has the govt. doing what it does well (provide Lubricant and not gas).

    We need exchanges but more robust than in Obamacare. It will add competition and options for consumer patients.

    We need portability and pre existing condition solutions. Our economy depends on fluid capital AND labor. No portability talent will stay where they are least efficient and motivated. Plus, it can have financial repercussions when businesses fail to employees. Why can’t workers insure for loss too?

    Right now archaic government regs are making the problem worse. There are real solutions out there. Obamacare is more of what made the situation inefficient And unsustainable.

    We need portability and preexisting solutions