Wow, the past day has been a wild ride, hasn't it? We were all prepared for a win, while steeled for a loss.
Then the Chief Justice threw a curve ball, stating ObamaCare was indeed constitutional, but only if funding is a tax!
One of the first reactions, within minutes, was a rather erudite, heavily linked, article here entitled "DID THE SCOTUS CREATE A NEW TAXING AUTHORITY NOT IN THE CURRENT CONSTITUTION?" Go here if you are interested.
Poor Judson Phillips has been hanging out at the Supreme Court for a couple of weeks in anticipation. Wasted money on an unused Football yesterday. Hope it was Chinese, so it didn't cost too much! See The football that was not spiked if you are interested.
I'll not list all the articles published here yesterday. Or the hundreds of emails I received.
Me? I said very little yesterday. I was too flabbergasted to say much.
Now, I've had a bit of time for introspection. Read bunches of articles. A good place to start is the Full text of US Supreme Court decision on health care law (193 pages)... you can find it right here. At a minimum, I'd suggest reading the Syllabus, and the Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J., (pages 50 through 65) He comes across as an irate blogger, IMHO! Attacks Ginsburg successfully, and much more. Entertaining, to say the least.
Nuclear waste(p.40) is on point too, I think.
So, back to Roberts' options, which were either:
What would the first option have precipitated?
Roberts chose the second option, allowing ObamaCare to stand for the moment. What does this do?
So, what was Chief Justice Roberts' best choice? Only history will tell us. He made his choice.
One of the highest stakes poker games ever played!
Was Roberts correct? On balance perhaps so. I hope all here agree with me!
Addendum: when you're done with this one, take a look at
"You can call it what you want" Carney said, "but it is affecting 1 percent of the population. Because most people either have health insurance or people do the responsible thing and if they can afford health insurance they will purchase it."
This entire mess, the entire DEBACLE - for one percent of the population? Are you kidding me? I say we hang 'em.
I agree. But it affects more than 1%.
I thought the SCOTUS was supposed to interpret law, not make political decisions.
Not certain that Mr. Einstein has the SCOTUS in mind when he made this statement, but it does (IMO) apply to Justice Roberts:
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
That they are. One has to wonder, I believe, if they made the decision based on the law and the Constitution or if they made the decision based on the threats made by the Obama administration.
Obamacare was passed to ostensibly reduce the number of uninsured.
At the same time we have laws on the book, that force our most expensive treatment centers to provide treatment to uninsured walk in traffic, without regard to insurance.
Does anyone see, like me, a conflict between these two laws??
A far better way would be to make treatment of walk in traffic to emergency centers voluntary, if that person can not demonstrate possession of any insurance.
This legislation would need to be combined with some low cost catastrophic insurance policy availability, with or without a personal medical savings insurance account that allows payment of routine medical visits outside of the much hated insurance payment for essentially co-payment expenses.
Elimination of the incentive for not getting insurance by exploiting legislation that encourages this abuse of emergency centers, would go a long way to eliminate uninsured problem in America.
I'm not a gambler nor a chess player. If indeed Roberts is calling Obama's bluff, there must be room left for this move to be a total failure.
Conservatives have great difficulty counteracting the progressive corruption and wickedness.
Politics is always gambling! We cannot ever assign exact values to anything here.
My gainful life has always been involved in the sciences and engineering, with precise predictions of the results. Not here! Make your bet. Want to buy more chips, Agi?
Lousy at gambling Vern. Think it might be the German in me.
Jeder ist Deutsch, haben Sie nicht gewusst?