Obamacare sucks

The Atlantic:

If Obamacare Is Overturned, Can Democrats Recover?

There’s a reason liberals are freaking out about the Supreme Court this week.

If part or all of the health care reform law is thrown out, a central goal of the progressive project will have been dealt a possibly fatal setback. The dream of universal health care — pursued for decades, frustrated again and again — that seemed finally to have come to fruition in 2010 will have been derailed before it could even be fully implemented. For liberals and their allies, it will be a crushing blow from which there is no easily foreseeable recovery.

“It would be a particularly bitter pill to swallow to get [health care reform] all the way through the legislative process and, because of the partisan leanings of five people who happen to be justices of the Supreme Court, not get universal health care,” said Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress and a former Obama administration adviser who helped see the bill through Congress.


Opponents of the law agree: This is universal health care’s Waterloo.

“This was their one big shot. They certainly thought so. They pulled out all the stops,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative economist and president of the American Action Forum, which has filed court briefs in opposition to the health care law. Already, he said, the law was on shaky ground. “The vast public rejection of the law, its broad unpopularity, the fact that so many Republicans were elected on it in 2010, the fact that so many states are rejecting it — really, it wasn’t looking strong,” he said.

Through all that, liberals took solace in the fact that at least the legislation was on the books, moving inexorably toward implementation; eventually, they were convinced, Americans would grow used to the new system, come to depend on it, and become unable to imagine life without it.

I really love the idea that Obamacare is the realization of liberal dreams. Liberals wanted single payer. But my favorite part is the idea that people would learn to love it. That was what my step-father said about broccoli.

Forget the legal arguments. Obamacare is the most unpopular legislation ever enacted, and it hasn’t even taken effect yet. Even its supporters wanted something better. If it is upheld it will be an albatross around Democratic necks for a generation. Democrats should be grateful if SCOTUS saves them from themselves.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Affordable Care Act, Obamacare and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Obamacare sucks

  1. cjwk says:

    Downticket Dems are already scurrying from the sinking Obamacare ship and from their Obamacrat ship’s commander. Witness the unanimous smackdown of BO’s budget in the house this past week. They will certainly be grateful if SCOTUS strikes down the law as unconstitutional. But, it will be up to voters to remember this Nov. the unconstitutional lengths to which the Dems were willing to go to ram this law through for their dear commander, in smoke-filled back rooms where porkbarrel deals were made and votes strongarmed in the dark of night on a holiday at the end of 2009. None of the Dems (or Rs) who supported this albatross should be re-elected, given their abject disregard for the Constitution and for the citizens whose individual liberties the Constitution was designed to preserve and protect.

  2. DM says:

    If it is upheld it will be an albatross around Democratic necks for a generation. Democrats should be grateful if SCOTUS saves them from themselves.

    Ha! Nothing can save the Democratic Party or the Republican Party because both parties are working furiously to make themselves irrelevant. Both parties are corrupt.

  3. WMCB says:

    Even its supporters wanted something better.

    This. And of course, the Obots now, and then, want to paint it that all who oppose the ACA want nothing done about healthcare. Bullshit.

    I particularly roll my eyes at Neena Tanden’s comments about a “partisan” court being the reason “UHC” (*cough-lie-cough*) fails. No, it will fail (if it does) because you tried to bully and shove a 2700 page monstrosity down the people’s throats against their vehement objections, while making sure to protect the lobbying groups that helped you write it.

    One of the main reasons that the bill is such an unholy mess is because it never went through the normal process. You had the original Senate bill (already passed), then the House bill (passed with much bribery and arm-twisting). Normal insanity for Congress is that all kinds of crap gets stuck onto and inserted in these two versions of the bill, and bad parts ignored, with the understanding that all of that is going to come out or get fixed when the time comes to reconcile the Senate and House versions. But then something happened. The people, so furious at how this was being foisted on them, gave Kennedy’s old seat in MA to Scott Brown in a clear effort to STOP or at least slow down this process. Instead of listening, the Dems panicked, and decided to not send the House bill back to the Senate, not to do ANY of the tweaking and refining and compromising that might have made the ACA less disastrous, and better received. They scooped up the whole reeking mess, warts and all, and in an unprecedented act of arrogance, skipped the normal legislative refining process, bypassing the Senate altogether, and rammed the original half-baked Senate version through on Christmas Eve without giving any legislator so much as time to even read the piece of shit.

    And THAT, Ms. Tanden – that whole sordid timeline of how the Democrats bullied and bent and bribed and defiled and sneered at the “legislative process”, is why any “look-at-the-purity-of-my-ideals” handwringing over the high moral responsibility of the court to honor the oh-so-sainted fucking “legislative process” that brought us this flawed, incomprehensible, abomination of a law rings very hollow indeed.

    I suggest signs and teeshirts with a new slogan making it clear where most of the country stands:

    Healthcare: START OVER.

    • cjwk says:

      Spot on! Love the t-shirt idea. ACA was, in fact, never about ‘healthcare’ or its reform, but rather was a BO giveaway to big insurers and big pharmaceuticals, in return for their putting gobs of money into BO’s pockets. Because ACA was based on studies by and input from the five big insurers, ACA gave those big insurers what they’ve always wanted: a captive market and the power via government bureaucrats to decide what care they will and will not pay for (e.g. rationing). Not only does that have absolutely nothing to do with reforming ‘healthcare’ or lowering its costs (which ACA will actually drive up), but it risks completely dismantling what so far has been the world’s most advanced healthcare system.

      • WMCB says:

        I know I’ve been ranting a lot today, but it just fucking BURNS ME UP all the sanctimony I’m hearing from the Left about “playing politics”, and the bloody sanctity of our system of govt as regards….something. And gee, in addition to something being legal, shouldn’t it also have a sense of respect for the unquantifiable “moral authority” one ought to have in contemplating such a huge change/step? Really, one should consider not taking such a grand step as striking down this law without considering that such a move, unless hallowed by a clear majority-plus and bipartisan spirit, would be perhaps legal, but nevertheless a betrayal of the sense of consensus and civility with which such sweeping undertakings ought to be clothed in our Republic.

        Really?? After the display you assholes put on as you stomped all over every shred of civility and bipartisanship left in our creaky halls of legislature to pass this turd in the most breathtakingly partisan manner in history, you now want to go all pious about fucking consensus and appearances of moral authority???!!!! REALLY???

        It’s gobsmackingly arrogant.

        • myiq2xu says:

          But it wasn’t playing politics to use the issue of SCOTUS appointments as an argument for voting for Obama.

        • cjwk says:

          Love the rants. No need to apologize, IMO. You’re absolutely correct. One can’t help but notice the blatant hypocrisy of the leftists speaking sanctimoniously on such lofty topics as ‘sense of consensus and civility,’ ‘appearance of moral authority’ only at times when they believe it furthers their partisan political interests to do so. At what other times does one recall the leftists even deigning to broach such quasi-moral topics? The hypocrisy is blatant re other issues as well. Only ‘some’ women in the public arena ‘deserve’ apologies for clearly sexist/misogynistic comments about them. Only ‘some’ people exercising their right to peaceably assemble ‘deserve’ protections under the First Amendment. Only ‘some’ people ‘deserve’ certain health procedures for terminal health conditions. Only ‘some’ people ‘deserve’ respect for families and loved ones during times of tragic loss. The consideration of the constitutionality of only some laws ‘deserves’ ‘the sense of consensus and civility’ and ‘appearance of moral authority.’ Clearly, the leftists believe those would be only those people and those laws happening to agree with the leftists viewpoints/agenda and with the leftists maintaining a grip on power. Not only is this hypocrisy of the highest order, but political opportunism at its most base, for it is political opportunism knowingly exercised at the very real potential risk of smashing the very foundations of our individual freedoms under our constitutional democratic republic. So, IMHO, ‘gobsmackingly arrogant’ is right on, and much more succinct.

  4. Lulu says:

    I mentioned the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/health/policy/a-health-law-at-risk-gives-insurers-pause.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all and Althouse “Consider the argument — featured in the NYT — that it’s too late to strike down Obamacare, because so much work and planning and money has already been sunk into implementing it.” to my non-political husband. His words, “That is too damn bad. You don’t build a house without permits, a highway without easements, or drill a well without a lease. These fools just started up without even knowing if this thing was legal or constitutional or whatever. Idiots. Make them eat the loss or fire them.” Hehe.

    • myiq2xu says:

      A lot of work and money has been spent fighting it too.

      • Lulu says:

        Most definitely which is why the Dems should have had a clue that it was not going to be rubber stamped, and it should have been gone over very carefully before it was even enacted. I was on a rinky-dink small city zoning commission almost twenty years ago and everything we did was gone over by the city attorney AND an outside independent counsel to make sure we did not deprive people of their property rights or violate any other laws. You would think the US Congress and the WH could exercise some care.

        • myiq2xu says:

          When I took Legal Research and Writing in law school we had to prepare legal memorandums presenting both sides of an issue. Law exams were a lot of the same thing.

          “If plaintiff wins it will be because . . .

          If Defendant wins it will be because . . .”

        • WMCB says:

          You mean your professors didn’t accept “I can’t lose because the opposition is a poopy head and his objections are silly! I mean, is he serious?”

        • myiq2xu says:

          Naw, they were real poopyheads too.

          Thanks to them I did pass the Bar Exam on the first try though.

  5. myiq2xu says:

    I just ran to the store. It was raining so I grabbed my grey hoodie sweat jacket.

    Luckily I didn’t get shot.

    • HELENK says:

      Here are five questions that could shape the court’s ruling:

      Is this about healthcare or health insurance?
      Where do the mandates stop?
      What constitutes an “activist” approach?
      What happened to the Necessary and Proper Clause?
      Why does the mandate exist?

  6. DM says:

    I predict that at least six justices will rule that the mandate is unconstitutional because Sotomayor will go with the conservative group.

Comments are closed.