Sorry, Associated Press, There Was No “Misunderstanding” By The Supreme Court On ObamaCare


The defense of ObamaCare is getting ever more desperate. Now they’re even turning to obvious logical fallacies (and even borderline falsehoods), trying to argue that the Justices might have “misunderstood” the oral arguments.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.

During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.

In fact, the law provides for a cheaper “bronze” plan that is broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals, several insurance experts said.

The central argument, however, is not the cost of whatever policy the government wants to force you to buy, it’s that the federal government does not have the authority to compel you to purchase anything simply by virtue of being alive and a citizen of the United States. The whole cost argument they’re dragging out now is nothing but a gigantic and very smelly red herring.

Hey, Associated Press… it does not matter how much it costs; no matter whether it costs $1 a month or $10,000 a month, it’s just as unconstitutional, and we the people know that, so you can quit trying to peddle your fish stories here.

However, the desperation of their defense does make me cautiously optimistic that they think the Supreme Court is likely to overturn this monstrosity of a law.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

About Conservative Wanderer

Conservative Wanderer is currently Editor-in-Chief of That's Freedom You Hear! That means anything that goes wrong can be blamed on him. Previously he was a contributor to the PJ Tatler.

2 responses to “Sorry, Associated Press, There Was No “Misunderstanding” By The Supreme Court On ObamaCare”

  1. Dana Marshall says :

    Isn’t this just a broader interpretation of Medicare? The elderly and the disabled are ‘required’ to purchase Medicare when they go on Social Security, or lose the opportunity to get on Medicare. And no one has complained about that. There is a waiting period, and many seniors and disabled wait anxiously for this waiting period to be over so they CAN purchase this insurance, because it cuts down on medical bills. I see ObamaCare to be actually a good thing. It will cut the cost of health care for the person buying insurance – if something happens, they are covered and I see this as a good thing. I should not have to pay for the uninsured through higher medical bills, because the hospital just passes expenses from uninsured care to those that do have insurance. And the insurance companies then pass it onto their customers by raising premiums.

    I admit I am a special case, though. Because I am physically disabled, and use a wheelchair, I need medical insurance to pay for medications and for doctor’s appointments at the minimum. I have twelve doctors that I see at least once a year, and one that I see monthly. I am on twelve different medications because of Cerebral Palsy, Sleep Apnea and Lymphedema (diagnosed last year). However, lymphedema isn’t covered by Medicare so I have to pay those costs out of pocket. And that can get expensive. If I had to pay for ALL my care without insurance, I would not be able to survive.

    I also have an implanted medical device that needs to be filled with a medication every 45 days. This costs approximately $6K per visit due to the medication. All paid for by Medicare, minus 20%. And yes, I worked for a few years before going on Social Security Disability, although my benefits are mostly from my deceased mother.

    I use a motorized wheelchair and paid insurance premiums of $350 a month for 2 years before I got the wheelchair, which costs as much as a car. Insurance paid for all of it. This is my second motorized wheelchair, and although the rules state I can get a new wheelchair every five years, I managed to get twelve years of use out of my first wheelchair before buying my current one. Now that the wheelchair is paid for, I dropped to a cheaper insurance until I had to switch AGAIN because my Primary Care Physcian didn’t take it, and I ended up on basic Medicare, due to rules on when you could switch insurance plans, making my health care costs this year 20% of total costs. Which will be expensive.

    • Conservative Wanderer says :

      You CAN opt out of Medicare. You lose some important benefits, but you do have the legal right to tell the government you don’t want to be part of Medicare.

      You will not be able to opt out of ObamaCare without a fine. That makes it the equivalent of a criminal offense to opt out of ObamaCare.

      Personally, I’d like to see the loss of benefits removed from opting out of Medicare too… because that’s just another form of penalty. People shouldn’t be forced into anything by any sort of penalty.

%d bloggers like this: