What once was known as Obamacare is now indisputably Robertscare. John Roberts has twice saved the ACA by rewriting the law. The first time Roberts suggested to Donald Verrilli that Verrilli argue that instead of arguing for a personal mandate that Verrilli instead label the personal mandate a tax- despite Obama swearing repeatedly that it wasn’t a tax.
[youtube]https://youtu.be/5_-qh9XDbgE[/youtube]
Thus Roberts effectively rewrote the law. Now Roberts has again rewritten the law. Roberts bought into the argument that the phrase “established by the state” was “inartful drafting” despite the phrase appearing nine times within the law. The dim witted lawmakers who voted for the bill tried to distance themselves from the language. That is the price for voting for something you haven’t bothered to read. Roberts’ decision flies in the face of the unsolicited testimony of Jonathan Gruber, who is on record as affirming on numerous occasions that the language in the ACA was absolutely intentional. Roberts brushed all the obvious evidence aside, finding it “implausible.” John Roberts has taken ownership of the ACA.
Over at Instapundit Ann Althouse opines that Republicans might be better off with SCOTUS rewriting Obamacare than if they had ruled against the strict interpretation of the law.
I haven’t read the opinion yet (of course), but I’d just like to console Republicans with the observation that they are better off. If it had gone the other way, they’d have to scramble and do something legislatively — probably save the subsidies themselves. This way, they can stand on whatever principle they like. Also, in the run up to the 2016 presidential election, they’ll fare much better on the old question of who do you want appointing the next Supreme Court justice.
At Politico, Sarah Wheaton essentially wet herself proclaiming the birth of the Messiah Obama’s the sealing of Obama’s health care legacy. Not so fast. I would argue that however disappointing this decision is, the fat lady hasn’t yet sung. There are challenges ahead for Robertscare.
Many state exchanges are in trouble. Half of them are failing.
Five years and $5 billion later, half of the 17 state insurance exchanges are in financial trouble – so much so that many of them are considering folding and forcing their citizens to use the federal exchange healthcare.gov.
It’s so bad that states are considering merging their exchanges to prop them up:
But the real problem – the imminent lack of that sweet, sweet federal subsidy money – is not quite so hard to assess. Basically, when Obamacare was imposed on us back in Obama’s first term the understanding was that states that set up their own exchanges were expected to be self sufficient by… January of this year. This did not happen. This did not even come close to happening: the state exchanges have largely been awful in their ability to function properly, and that’s with government largess to cover up a multitude of fiscal sins. Imagine how they’ll be doing when the deadline for self-sufficiency is finally observed – and there’s a real limit to how long this can may be kicked down the road.
Hence the sudden interest in multi-state exchanges. Combine the infrastructure, cut the overhead – that translates to ‘fire some people,’ by the way – and maybe the new mega-exchanges can survive for a while longer. Especially if they raise fees in the process, which is already happening in at least some of the state exchanges. The combination won’t really do anything to fix the situation, but at least it would do something. To bureaucrats, that’s often enough.
Robertscare premiums are rising this year and are expected to rise even faster next year.
Next up? The big business mandate. The big business mandate has been delayed several times by Obama already but it is to soon take effect. Businesses have cut hours to avoid the impact of the cost of Robertscare. They’re cutting jobs as well. Robertscare will impose serious overall costs to business.
Then there’s the big kahuna- the expiration of the risk corridors. Risk corridors are Obama’s slush fund– they are designed to cover the losses insurance companies suffer under Robertscare. The risk corridors expire in 2017- they were constructed to expire after Obama is out of office, of course. Once the slush fund runs dry, it is expected that Robertscare premiums will skyrocket:
But 2017 will be the real test. The law contains two programs that will expire at the end of that year: “risk corridors” and “re-insurance.” Both programs conceal health insurance’s true costs – costs that truly have skyrocketed thanks to the ACA’s mandates and regulations.
Risk corridors and re-insurance operate in similar fashions: They subsidize insurance companies with taxpayer money. Risk corridors give insurance companies money if their customers spend more on health care than the insurer estimated; reinsurance allows insurance companies to bill the federal government for particularly expensive patients.
Both programs ultimately allow insurance companies to list artificially low premiums for their health care plans.
The Affordable Care Act’s authors created these two programs for a specific reason: They would ease the transition from the pre- to the post-ACA health care system. In the post-ACA world, health care is more expensive – a fact borne out by 2014’s average 41 percent spike in base premiums. Reinsurance and risk corridors have largely hidden these price increases from consumers for the past year; they will continue to do so until Jan. 1, 2017.
Premiums likely will skyrocket come that date. The Medical Industry Leadership Institute’s study estimates that once the two subsidies expire, premiums for a cheap bronze plan in Wisconsin could increase by a staggering 96% for individuals and by 46% for families.
It is a vexing fact that now all three branches of the government feel free to write and rewrite law. Roberts’ put his own bald hypocrisy on display:
Perhaps the least credible part of the Chief’s opinion is the false judicial modesty in his closing. “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—‘to say what the law is,’” he writes, citing Marbury v. Madison. “That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done.” By that, Chief Justice John Marshall meant interpret the law, not rewrite it.
Now Roberts has twice rewritten law. Yual Levin (via Instapundit)
In effect, this is a version of the president’s argument: Obamacare is not so much a particular law as an overarching desire “to improve health insurance markets” and so if at all possible it should be taken to mean whatever one believes would be involved in doing so. From the beginning of its implementation of this statute, that Obama administration has treated the words of the statute as far less relevant than the general aim of doing what it thinks would improve health insurance markets, and today the Supreme Court essentially endorsed this way of understanding the law and suggested it is how judges should think about laws more generally too.
This understanding of the role of the judge threatens to undermine the rule of law in the American system of government, because it undermines the central place assigned to written law, and to the legislator, in that system. Ironically, I think the Chief Justice intends his decision to be deferential to the Congress—to keep the Court’s footprint small in this arena by not reading laws in ways that require large transformations in the forms of their administration. But in effect, this is more contempt than deference. While it would seem to suggest that the will of the legislator should guide the system, in fact it means that the word of the legislator does not govern the other branches. It implies that Congress should have just passed a law that said “health insurance markets shall be improved,” and then left it to the executive agencies to decide how they wish to do that while judges nod in approval.
Chiseled into the marble ensconcing the Supreme Court is the phrase: “Equal justice under law.” In King v. Burwell, this bedrock principle was abandoned. As Justice Antonin Scalia laments in his dissent, the normal rule of law now yields to the “overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”
There are a sufficient number of things that can yet cause the collapse of Robertscare- chief among them dissatisfaction with rising premiums and deductibles. People still don’t get it. They still do not understand the difference between care and coverage but they will learn- the hard way. The problem is that since John Roberts is now Obama’s boy he may jump in and continue to rewrite and invent law to continue to prop up what is now his baby. The SCOTUS shark has been jumped.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 40 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 45 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter who is in the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Perhaps bringing in an illegal family, his illegal family may have something to do with it. Roberts is being blackmailed and it must be juicy
The biggest winners in all of this are Obama and the Republicans. Obama because his signature legislative achievement was saved. He can now take comfort in knowing that he greatly expanded the size, scope, power, and control of the people by the federal government which is the goal all leftists aspire to.
The Republicans won because this gives them a key political issue going into 2016, the same one that enabled them to recapture Congress. This greatly increases their chances of keeping Congress and winning the WH. Obamacare is the gift that keeps on giving.
The biggest losers are the Democrats, the Supreme Court, and our Constitution/Republic. The Dems, including Hillary who publicly applauded the decision meaning she no longer has any cover from it, lose because they will once again be forced to defend a very unpopular law. The coming big rate hikes, the stagnant economy caused by its passage, and the expiring EO’s which postponed other unattractive elements of this law will make it even harder to defend.
The Court loses because by rewriting the law twice, they are really no longer a separate but equal branch of government. Their status has been reduced to an elite legislative body. It throws them back to the days before Mulberry where they were insignificant. If the President doesn’t like their decision, he can tell them to go pound sand like Jackson did with Wohlford and that was after Mulberry.. The Court has no means to enforce their decisions.
The Constitution and the Republic lose because we no longer have a system of checks and balances and no longer are a nation of laws.
Health care costs are going up??? well is that supposed to be a surprise? Is the rate of healthcare costs now at an historic LOW? Yes it is
Will the “death panels” now make a sudden appearance? I don’t think so but Dr J may disagree.
Even if Roberts had voted with the dissenters it still would have been 5-4
Roberts is looking at the future, he knows that the next justices are all going to be nominated by the Dems.
A superbad week for the conservatives now the Supremes are going to be thrusting that gay agenda right down everyone’s throats by making gay marriage the law of the land. Shoudn’t some things be left to the sytes like slavery and other local issues?
Great article; thanks for a succinct analysis.
@john:
I knew I heard an echo.
@another vet:
there is now a cry to end the whole idea of a supreme court. one protest is by a presidential candidate (jindal).
they twisted themselves into irrelevency…
Death panels? Try fighting in a war, and watching people die in line at the VA. I have never gone there, they do not give a fuck.
Been paying out of pocket. Now I have to pay a penalty so I can be left alone, and die in peace.
I guess living life as a free man, behaving, and minding one’s own damned business will be erased by the State.
To Serve Man, my ass. Bodies are piled up everywhere, with opinions.
Statistics show moral improves when the beatings continue.
All on board for discussion. Someone should burn and bury the bodies. Ruins the view of this Brave New World.
@Artfldgr: Too bad it had to come to that but this is what they have wrought. Six of them anyway. We no longer have a Supreme Court with nine justices who apply our Constitution to the cases they hear. Instead, we have a special legislative team of nine clerks who rewrite the unconstitutional laws that are brought before them. They are led by the self serving Chief Clerk John Roberts.
@john:
What happened to the 2500 dollar savings promised by Obama? Care to comment on that?
Going up at a slower rate? http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062515-759070-obamacare-in-trouble-despite-scotus.htm
I’d hate to see faster if this is your idea of slower.
One way to prevent courts from ruling the way THEY WANT TO, instead of ruling by the law, is to require each judge to reference what part of the Constitution, or other federal laws they used to make their decisions. I wrote my state and federal politicians with the suggestion, but NONE of them said they would introduce such a bill. If you think it would be a good idea to make judges reference existing laws, please ask your federal and state politicians to introduce such a law.
I do believe it’s time for term limits, not only on Congress but on the SCOTUS. 10 years is plenty. Just for giggles how about real judges, suggested by peers not political hacks like the ‘unwise’ Latina and the what the hell ever she is. And Roberts…Bush hosed that one in the worst possible way.
Well, we gave the GOP the majorities we did, so they could stop Obama’s mad rush to destroy this country, and so far the only accomplishment I can see is Boehner getting a ride in AF1 as Obama’s best bud.
There is a distinct possibility that a lot of conservatives are finished supporting the GOP traitors.
@john:
Well, no, not really. See, since Obama lied about everything else, who would have really thought costs would not only continue to increase, but the RATE of increase would accelerate.
Have you ever bothered to notice that when things go good for liberals, it’s bad for the country? That should tell you something.
@another vet: Really? So those who no longer will die becasue insurance companies can’t drop their coverage are losers? Think for a change.
@JisterJ: How about those who lost the doctors and treatments they NEEDED to stay ALIVE due to Obama’s lies about “you can keep your insurance… PERIOD”?
Oh, that’s right… people that can pay their own way don’t vote Democrat, so the Democrats don’t care if they lose their insurance and die.
You moniker would more appropriately be “Jester” than Jister, since you play the administration fool so convincingly.
@JisterJ: I lost my health insurance because of this socialist scheme as have millions of others. What do you “think” about that?
@another vet: #17
As I probably know, it was intended for people to lose their private insurance. The obamacare bill says that if a company changes their policy, the policy will be cancelled. It also says that all insurance companies MUST accept people who have pre-existing conditions. That means THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR POLICIES.
@Smorgasbord: When they cancelled mine, they just said it didn’t meet the “new requirements”. I had a pre-existing condition so that wasn’t it. Perhaps it was because my policy didn’t cover Sandra Fluke’s birth control.
@another vet: #19
What obamacare meant was that if your insurance company didn’t accept NEW people with preexisting conditions, then the policy was cancelled. Most, if not all, insurance companies do not accept NEW people with preexisting conditions. An exception MIGHT BE if a company gets a contract with a company to insure their employees, and agrees to take people who have preexisting conditions to get the contract.
In other words, obamacare said that insurance companies will have to change their policies to fit obama-roberts-care, but if they change their policies, then the policy is voided. The idea from the beginning is to have a one payer system, and that will be the government.
SOME OF THE STEPS USED TO TAKE OVER A COUNTRY
Do any of these sound familiar?
(1) Take away the citizen’s guns so they can’t defend themselves.
(2) Take over healthcare so the government decides who gets treated and who doesn’t.
(3) Increase the poverty level.
(4) Spend the country into so much debt it can’t pay it off.
(5) Get as many people as possible on welfare to drain the Treasury.
(6) Take over the schools to brainwash the kids into doing what they are told.
(7) Get the people away from the Christian and Jewish religions.
(8) Take daddy out of the family. Without a daddy in the family, the kids are more likely to do drugs, quit school, get pregnant, be more violent.
(9) Lower the moral value of people through the entertainment industries.
(10) Give the people something to fight each other about (religion, race, nationality, inequality, money) so they are distracted with what is actually going on in their country until it is too late.
(11) Decrease the military as much as possible so it can’t stop an overthrow of the government.
(12) Let illegals in the country to help drain the treasury.
(13) Keep increasing taxes until the people have very little money.
@another vet: Do you really think millions of people have lost their health insurance?—I cxld mine long before Obamacare because they bumped me up when I was honest about a pre-existing condition –melanoma–which had been removed. Went strictly V.A. since then.