Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Waiting for Sanity

We're not going to lie - there are plenty of big, hugely important news stories worth covering today, but Hope n' Change can't focus on anything other than waiting for the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare tomorrow.

Because, like a child who's been good all year and is hoping to get a pony on Christmas morning, we're hoping that the Supreme Court is going to give us the best gift we can imagine: a good ass-kicking for Barack Obama, and a reaffirmation that the Constitution still trumps Marxism.

A good, solid rejection of the Constitutionality of Obamacare could be a deathblow to Obama's hopes for reelection. After all, he sneeringly ignored the needs of jobless American people and a crippled economy during the first two years of his Democrat-supermajority term in order to concentrate exclusively on his healthcare power grab.

And if it turns out that the "Constitutional Law Professor" (who, in fact, was
never a professor...who no longer holds a law license...and who recently quoted words from the Declaration of Independence which he thought came from the Constitution) squandered over two years of American's lives and prosperity on an illegal scheme, voters will have every right to be angry.

Of course, the Supreme Court could uphold Obamacare. They shouldn't, but let's face it - we get bad news and jaw-dropping stupidity on an hourly basis these days... and this could be another one of those times.

One thing is for sure: the healthcare and insurance industries will be (in the short term, at least) in worse shape after any announcement than they are now - thanks to Obama. If Obamacare is fully upheld, then private insurance and private practice doctors are on the way out. Period.

If Obamacare is thrown out in its entirety (which it should be, as there is no "severability" language written into the law), then there will be chaos caused by all of the changes which have already been made to the system, and the costs and problems associated with restoring things to the way they'd been previously.

If only the individual mandate is thrown out, then the insurance companies are still required by law to give out more benefits and accept higher risk patients... but without a matching increase in revenue to cover the bills. Which means that insurance premiums will skyrocket for those stupid enough to have insurance... while the uninsured (who allegedly got us into this mess) will continue to get a free ride in hospital emergency rooms.

Hope n' Change is willing to take it as a given that Barack Obama and the Democrats have badly damaged the healthcare and insurance industries...and that damage may be irreparable. So why do we care so much about hearing the Supreme Court verdict?

Because, as we've said so many times in the past several years, Obamacare has never been about healthcare. Period. It's sole purpose was and is to give government ultimate control over the individual by telling us what we must or must not buy, what we must or must not do, and having final decision making power over whether we live or die based on our "value" to the state.

So when the Supreme Court announces their verdict on Thursday, they won't simply be telling us if Obamacare is Constitutional.

They'll be telling us whether the Constitution itself still stands...and with it, the freedom of our nation.



Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I have little confidence in SCOTUS to do right by the Constitution. It has been a long time since most of them considered what the Constitution says. They only care about what they think it should say and how they can twist the meaning to get there. I still believe that lifetime appointments are a mistake. It is a form of absolute power and we all know what that does.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Considering the piss poor presentation of the Gummint's case their lawyer made, they should rule against it just on the basis of respect. (hell, even Elana Kagan was not buying it, and she was responsible for the 'Kelo vs Connecticut'obscenity) I mean hell, you come up here, all in the face, and totally waste time w/ a clown show like that?!?!

Emmentaler Limburger said...

To further Angry Hoosier Dad's sentiments above, I see SCOTUS far too interested in how they're seen outside their chambers. This, of course takes us away from the rule of law, into the territory of the rule of public opinion - and who is the typical harbinger of public opinion, but the MSM? Scarier thoughts don't tiptoe through the mind. Also, there is quite a bit of political maneuvering afoot within sessions of SCOTUS. This may not necessarily be partisan politics, but justices are known to side with one opinion or the other, based on nothing more than gaining the favor of the "opposing side" on some upcoming opinion. Heartens one to know that interpretation of the constitution is oft based on nothing more than gamesmanship, hey? Finally, and very, very obvious with the ideological dived in SCOTUS today: too often, decisions hinge on one man only. To that end, they could eliminate all justices, save Kennedy, and achieve pretty much the same level of balance and a"objectivity" apparent in the SCOTUS today...

Colby said...

You have summed the situation up extremely well! I firmly believe that any mess left if the SCOTUS throws this legislation in the circular file is far preferrable to the alternative. Businesses and government agencies will find ways to work through the muck to find a way back to sanity.

AHD and Emmantaler,
I would argue that Clarence Thomas is the one guy that actually considers the Constitution when making his decisions. If only we had 8 more like that....

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Angry Hoosier Dad- I hope I didn't inadvertently write anything which makes you think that I have confidence that SCOTUS will do the right thing - because I don't. There is no magic conferred on these men and women when they're given their jobs - they're the same fallable ideologues as anyone else.

And I agree that lifetime appointments are a bad idea. Seriously, do we need ANY position in which we can expect 30-40 years of consistently wretched opinions?

@Pete(Detroit)- The government's case was a bad joke, and should have been gaveled out of the courtroom the same day. Unfortunately, I doubt that many - if any - votes will be based on the actual presentation.

@Emmentaler- Obama has already made it clear that he's willing to attack the Supreme Court and its members if he's displeased. And as you say, the Justices apparently make their decisions NOT based solely on the Constitution, but also on the politics and perceptions. They essentially trade votes among their ranks, bartering like a hooker and a john.

@Colby- In my mind, there are only two basic outcomes whatever the court decides. Both leave our health and insurance industries screwed and busted. But rejection of the dictatorial "individual mandate" would at least leave our freedoms intact so that we could have the hope of making things better in the future, instead of the inevitability that Socialism and government control destroy the American dream.

Chuck said...

My prediction: the decision will be both partisan and specifically narrow. I believe they will (and rightly should) declare the individual mandate, but they will leave the rest alone. Without the individual mandate, the rest will either crumble on its own or push taxes ever higher to pay for it … or both. Looking at the way they piecemealed the Arizona decision, I do not expect a sweeping “throw it out” decision.

It’s all moot, anyway. Our economy (and the global economy) is teetering on a precipice and I have yet to see or hear of any plan that can stabilize it. I’m afraid we’ve passed the tipping point and the only question is how fast and far we will fall. That we will fall is, I think, unavoidable. The measures need to fix the system would lead to mass riots (think Greece) and anarchy. Not fixing it will lead to mass riots and anarchy and crumbled economies. Either way, health care will be a luxury no one will be able to afford (assuming it even exists in any structured way). Finding and keeping water, food and shelter will be the primary goal of whoever survives the anarchy.

The Constitution is already gravely damaged by the fact that the left routinely ignores it and the right meekly allows it. It is already established that the Constitution, like the Bible, can be misquoted, misinterpreted and misrepresented by evil people pushing toward evil ends. That nine people sworn to defend the constitution can interpret that same document in diametrically opposing ways shows that they are not, as a group, concerned with the Constitution so much as they are with their own belief, desires and ideologies.

Or everything will be fine. I’m probably way off base … and possibly off my meds. Remember, it’s not paranoia if everyone really is out to get you!

Chuck said...

Should have been "...declare the individual mandate unconstitutional " in the first paragraph. Doesn't make much sense without the "unconstitutional" in there

Earl Allison said...

I'm going to be honest, after Predident Obama's temper tantrum behavior over the Arizona ruling – basically taking his ball and going home (and not JUST no enforcing actual law, but outright impeding it!) – I see no reason he won’t do the same if the Supreme Court overturns any portion of the ACA. He’ll just go ahead anyway, I fear.

I pray that I am wrong, but after his naked, blatant display in regards to immigration (and the incredible silence over it from the media and both parties), I don’t know that the Supreme Court striking down any or all of Obamacare will be a victory.

I’m sorry for being an Eeyore over this, but the more and more Obama makes these naked power grabs and doesn’t get smacked down over them, I worry.

Here’s hoping I am completely wrong.

Thanks for posting!

Suzy said...

Basically, the middle class's health care is messed up regardless. The poor has theirs...the rich has theirs...its the hard-working middle class, as always, that gets trampled on. They already pay more than ANYONE for health care, and that is only going to get worse.

Gotta love it.

Earl said...

Even if SCOTUS leaves nothing but a lump of coal in our stockings, Obama's EPA will declare it toxic and illegal to use in the U.S. I'm with the other Earl. I feel very Eeyore about all this.

Goldenrod said...

I've always felt the term 'obamacare' should be replaced with; Obamacontrol.

Mike Porter said...

Chuck: There is something telling about the piecemeal ruling on the Arizona situation in that it contained the very presumption that states shouldn't need laws to cover what the feds should already be doing. Needless to say, upholding it all would have been a wonderfully gratifying slap in the face to the current administration, but it seems to me that this would have been to concede that a lawless executive branch is just peaches. Perhaps I'm a bit delusional here, but it appears to leave open the possibility of the criminal prosecution of those who are currently ignoring the law.

As to that power grab in health care clothing, I'm all for the entire bag-o-crap getting flushed. My hope here is that we can depend upon the SCOTUS to factor in some less than altruistic considerations, such as: "Think you can bully the Supreme Court? Burn in hell you pompus commie rat bastard A-hole... and when you do, we'll still be here, jackass."

Earl: If you thought that you despised this out of control EPA now, wait until you check out this little tale:

Gang of One said...

Something else to ponder ...

"The highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare could leave overzealous state governments holding the bag on expensive Medicaid and health insurance programs."

Gang of One said...

This gives me some hope for a change back to sanity:

"In 2008, 43 percent of white voters cast their presidential ballots for Sen. Barack Obama. That was more than he needed to win. Today, according to the most recent FOX News poll, 35 percent of white voters say that they support President Obama’s re-election. This is what makes the 2012 presidential election too close to call.

The overriding fear of Team Obama is that the president’s support among white voters will collapse. The math is simple. If Romney gets 65 percent of the white vote (which will likely comprise -- at least -- 72 percent of the electorate) then he gets 48 percent of the total vote. From there, Romney need only get 20 percent of all non-white voters to win by a comfortable margin."

CenTexTim said...

@Earl Allison: "the more and more Obama makes these naked power grabs and doesn’t get smacked down over them, I worry"

That's what I don't understand. He keeps getting away with it. Why? Why doesn't someone - anyone - stand up to him?

Look at the healthcare challenge. It took AGs from the states to step up and do the right thing. Where's the organized opposition to his blatant disregard of other existing laws?

If we don't boot him out this Nov. what's to stop him from running amok over the next four years?

Nothing ... absolutely nothing...

Gang of One said...

@Centex -- I think it is a combination of a fear of being called 'racist' and willful stupidity.

Stan da Man said...

Gang, that *is* comforting. I'm not thrilled w/ Romney, but he's who there is that isn't Obama..

Earl Allison said...


I concur with Gang of One. Between the horrifically partisan media and an emboldened (and shameless) Democratic Party, anyone who dares point out the Emperor's lack of clothes (and skill, and empathy, and experience) gets labeled a racist -- and then it goes downhill from there.

Unless a sizable portion of either the Republicans, the Democrats, or the general public smacks President Obama down (figuratively), hard, it won't change.

Anytime a few voices speak out, they get belittled, attacked, and outright lied about.

Look at what this Administration has done already;

AttackWatch (recently rebranded as "TruthTeam," as if this Adminstration doesn't already shy from truth as a vampire does with sunlight!)

A call-in line to in essence rat out police in AZ with the audacity to do their jobs in regards to illegal aliens

Decrying Romney as a tool of the rich as Obama flutters from one fundraiser to another (when he isn't on the golf course, naturally)

Either proven deliberately ignorant of or outright lied about the role of the US Supreme Court (and, classy as always, attacked them during his SOTU address)

Nevermind F&F -- where is the media with "Holder Lied, Mexicans, Terry, Zapata Died"?

I do hope the entire bill is overturned. As pointed out, the Dems couldn't ram it through with a Severability Clause due to Kennedy's death, so it really should be an all or nothing shot.

Thanks again,

CenTexTim said...

Earl A and Gang of One - It was a rhetorical question, but you've nailed the answer.

Here's another question: Earl A. said "Unless a sizable portion of either the Republicans, the Democrats, or the general public smacks President Obama down (figuratively), hard, it won't change."

Question: Why just "figuratively"?

(For all you Secret Service types out there, I'm just kidding. I am in no way advocating violence against our beloved prez.)

Earl Allison said...


I wrote "figuratively" because I didn't want some drive-by Lib to see the quote, appropriate it, and decide online types were planning for or hoping for violence to befall the President.

Sorry, probably overly cautious.

Gang of One said...

@Stilton, Earl and CenTex -- Mega dittos on the rhetorical flourish. I want NO harm whatsoever to befall Obama, I just want to see him and his toadies voted out of office and for the illiberal Left, socialist Democrat label to leave a bitter, rancid and long-lasting taste in the mouths of the electorate. A man can dream, can he not?

Gang of One said...

More gloat-worthy tidbits ... news that I pray is driving Team Obama to madness:

NRA to Score Holder Contempt Vote

News Bulletin: Obama Isn’t Perfect

Democrats Afraid to Be Seen with Obama?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Chuck- Your depressing assessment of the situation is pretty close to my own. My best guess is that the mandate falls and the rest (inappropriately) stands - guaranteeing a system which can't pay its own bills and leads to higher taxes, higher premiums, worse medical treatment, and less access to ever-declining doctors. Which is a too-wordy way of saying "fall down, go boom."

I really don't try to go to the "survivalist" place in my brain, but if the SCOTUS upholds Obamacare in its entirety, I may take time off from Hope n' Change to find a parcel of land with running water, clear sightlines, and enough room to store a helluva lot of whiskey and beans.

@Earl Allison- Before I say anything else, let me commend you on your reference to Eeyore (whom I frequently identify with...if only because my tail is held on with a thumbtack). And I agree: WHATEVER the ruling is tomorrow, Obama is going to go full speed ahead. The more damage he can do (and he's already done a lot) to our existing systems, the more likely that people will actually demand government control of healthcare because private healthcare will have been put out of business.

@Suzy- I pay for 100% of my family's health insurance, and my premiums will surely go up (WAY up) after tomorrow no matter what happens. This has always been Obama's plan: to make private insurance unaffordable, so that we'll be willing to trade our freedoms for medical care.

@Earl- I'm with you, I'm afraid. Still, if the SCOTUS gives Obama a good, solid kick in the pills with their decision, I'm darn well going to enjoy that.

@Goldenrod- Short, to the point, and exactly right!

@Mike Porter- Make no mistake, I want the WHOLE bill struck down. The individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional, and there is no "severability" language written into the law which would/should allow pieces of it to remain law if any part of it fails to pass Constitutional muster.

@Gang of One- This has ALWAYS been part of the plan for Obamacare. So many destructive changes have already been made to our systems that the way back will be painful and brutally expensive if it's even possible. From the moment Obamacare passed into law, it was unavoidable that there would be anything but a nightmare scenario coming out of it. There IS no complete escape.

Regarding the president's declining popularity among white voters, I hope it's due to "white guilt" voters starting to use their heads and judge Obama as a man and not just a racial mascot intended to balm their own insecurities.

@CenTexTim- I'd like to think that no huge fuss is being made because, pragmatically, an election defeat is the fastest way to deal with Obama's abuses of power. But I don't believe that; I think it comes down to political cowardice. And as much as I'm looking forward to voting against Obama, I'd be a lot happier voting for candidates and a party that stand up to this nonsense.

@Readers- Wow, the comments keep going, but there's nothing in there that I need to add to. Great stuff, folks!

John the Econ said...

As I've said many times before, the damage is done. ObamaCare was nothing more than a Trojan horse designed to destroy what was left of the private care marketplace in America, and speed us towards the ultimate Progressive goal: Single Payer.

As Stilton has pointed out, the industry is in more turmoil today than before ObamaCare; billions more have been wasted. Millions have lost their coverage. The only new people to get coverage are those who didn't want it in the first place. (mainly very young, healthy people) It's not possible for the industry to return to where it was before the Democrats "fixed" everything. We're just closer to the black hole.

I wonder what the GOP has in response, other than a ball-spike.

Jess said...

After they pissy comments at the State of the Union speech, I'm hoping enough of the justices are sufficiently irritated to make an example of the Obamaspock. I know I would. Being a Supreme Court Justice means you can screw with the President and make him pay attention.

PRY said...

If you believe in the power and value of prayer to God Almighty, throw a few out for Romney. I was pondering what that very nice guy is up against. Maybe he should spend a coupla weeks with some Navy Seals to toughen up, OR...bring in some Chicago community organizers to spar with, because Obama's bunch is going to make this look like Rocky Balboa fighting that Russian! But if Romney has the heart like Rocky, he will prevail!

ZZMike said...

What's depressing is that we really don't know how the vote will go.

Somebody forgot to put in the boilerplate non-severablity clause - so if one part gets thrown out, the whole thing should.

If the Justices have been following the news, they just might be inclined to vote 8-1 to throw it out.

The President hasn't exactly been coddling the Court (remember the speech (State of the Union?) where one of the Justices in attendance very politely called Obama a liar?).

Then Obama tried to "instruct" the Court on whether or not they should be allowed to overturn his wonderful law (passed, without anybody reading it, late at night).

I wonder if the Arizona law decision can tell us anything about the Obamacare law.

JustaJeepGuy said...

Does anyone remember that Barack Hussein has claimed you have a "right" to health care? Why hasn't anyone pointed out that if you have a "right" to health care that someone then is REQUIRED to supply it? That then makes someone a SLAVE, because he/she MUST provide the care whether he/she wants to or not. This will lead to doctors being punished for not providing care, and doctors won't even be able to quit. Once doctors find out they won't be able to quit the field, all of a sudden there won't be any more doctors. Is that what Barack Hussein wants?

graylady said...

From Wikipedia:
The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Obama has violated his oath of office repeatedly. Why hasn't the Congress gotten off their collective asses and kicked the b@st@rd out of office?

John the Econ said...

@JustaJeepGuy nails the problem with the Progressive notion of "rights". In order for a tangible product or service to be provided as a "right" by definition requires someone else to toil to provide it. That is "slavery", which is where collectivism ultimately leads.

Emmentaler Limburger said...

People, people, people! It's only slavery if you demand the slothful liberals earn their supposed rights! Not if you make a greedy rich conservative bastard pay for it! Really! What color is the sky in your world?!

It's funny how we fall back on that severability bit. It has already proven to be irrelevant as, one by one, the financial unicorns the assholes across the aisle dreamed up to fund Øbamanationcare have fallen to the poison darts of reality. Even as more slugs of debt are discovered as the rocks in the Øbamacare garden are being turned over. Their collective response? "Oh, well! I guess we'll just have to raise taxes to fund it. Many of these pixie-dust-and-dollar-bill concoctions were written into the "law", and have been invalidated. Yet the "law" lives on.

Interesting article on Marxism in the US the other day on I agree with the premise of the article: most people would not recognize a marxist if one was hanging from their ass like a piranha - and not just because they keep playing the name-change and platform morph thingy, either. Most are of the ilk who cheer on marxist invasions of freedom that align with their views and desires. Can't stand cigarette smoke? Ban it in public places. Yay! Yay! Don't like seeing exhibitions of homosexuality? Ban it! Yay! Yay! Don't like religion? Ban it! What?! Hey! That's my sacred cow! But, hey: they banned those other two thing, so I guess I'm ok.... Øbama is merely the pinnacle of what they've been doing to us for the last 120 years. Creeping up on you. Whacking your freedoms, one by one... As opposed to the majority of his predecessor, at least Øbama makes it obvious.

(OK. This is a "crawl home" beer I'm drinking. If that all seems disjointed and incoherent, blame the economy...)

Pete(Detroit) said...

Emmentaller - Actually, it made a disturbing quantity of sense

Gang of One said...

A COMMENTARY guide to Obamacare

Gang of One said...

Individual Mandate has been struck down!

Stilton Jarlsberg said...


Gang of One said...

Wait. What?! It's a "tax"???!!

Earl Allison said...

Roberts saved the ACA, basically.

Wow, that's pretty much going to ruin my entire day/week/year ... so, when DOES President Obama determine what I eat? Or when? Or how much?

It's coming, how can it not, now?

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ- The damage HAS been done, but thanks to the godawful fothermucking decision of the Supreme Court, it's going to get worse. So I'm guessing no GOP ball-spike...

@Jess- Sadly, they didn't. Chief Justice John Roberts sold his soul - and sold us out.

@PRY- This godawful decision only strengthens my support for Romney, and my enthusiasm for collecting torches and pitchforks.

@ZZMike- I'm still reeling from the shock of the decision, but between Obamacare and Arizona, I think it's safe to say that we're living in a new world without laws as they've been practiced in the past.

@JustaJeepGuy- Obamacare DOES make us into slaves. And Obama (like his Kenyan forebears) has never been against slavery...he just wants to pick the slaves.

@graylady- At this point, November's election looks to be the only way to kick the sumbitch out of office.

@Emmentaler- Your comments don't seem disjointed in the least. You want to see something out of joint? You should check out my nose right now...

@Gang of One- You wrote that the mandate got struck down when reacting to the news (which I heard to) that it WAS struck down as written. But later in the opinion, the SCOTUS said that the mandate was approved as a tax, which Obama and his team argued it wasn't.

John the Econ said...

Nope. No sanity.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I told you, never count on SCOTUS.
They do what they want for their reasons. The Constitution means nothing.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Earl Allison- I don't know what the freaking hell was in John Roberts mind.

So now the requirement to buy insurance is a TAX - but as we already know, THE UNINISURED AREN'T PAYING ANY TAXES. Which means that all of the costs go to the same overtaxed bastards who are already picking up all the freight. Redistribution of wealth anyone?

graylady said...

June 28, 2012, the day individual liberty was legally ended in the United States.

Chuck said...

Well, that’s it then. The Constitution is dead. There is nothing the government cannot do.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Considering that O'care is even LESS popular than Obama, I'm hoping that the Dems in general (and the President in particular) get beat like a drum in Nov...

Earl Allison said...

The only silver lining should be anyone and everyone hitting Obama over the head with his "I won't raise taxes on anyone making under $250k" claim. If the mandate is a tax (which they argued it wasn't), and he wants to keep the ACA, hold his figurative feet to the damn fire. Make him pay as much as Bush the Elder did with "Read my lips, no new taxes."

It's a thin reed to hang hope on, but it's all I can see, here.


My Dog Brewski said...

I thought this cloud over my head was just my natural pessimism. Seems I was psychic, or psychotic, not sure which. On the plus side, Obama can't play the part of victim of a mostly-white Supreme Court. Romney needs to grab this issue like a starving dog on a steak bone. Do whatever it takes to show people how this is the death of freedom and the US economy.

Chuck said...

Next up:
- You will buy a Chevy Volt … or pay a special tax.
- You will have a specific, healthy, body-mass index … or pay a special tax.
- You will have a cholesterol level below 190 … or pay a special tax.
- You will vote democrat … or pay a special tax.
- You will renounce your religious beliefs and worship the government … or pay a special tax.
- You will work at the job we give you for the salary we dictate … or pay a special tax.

Okay, maybe some of it is extreme, but I can sure see some of it actually happening, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. No, the government can force us to do anything they want us to do … or pay a special tax.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@graylady- I prefer to think of this as the day individual liberty was legally suspended rather than ended. We can still make that essential difference.

@Chuck- I wish there was some other interpretation. The government can now tell us to do/buy ANYthing, or tax us for noncompliance.

@Pete(Detroit)- I'm reeling from this decision, but am only going to double down on my efforts to get this president pried out of the Oval Office in November.

@Earl Allison- Sadly, I don't think the "raising taxes" issue will cost Obama any votes, because many (most?) of his voters aren't paying tax anyway, and won't pay a dime for this either. Socialized medicine, redistribution of wealth, and the end of personal liberty all tied up in a neat little bow.

@My Dog Brewski- Good point. The issue has been clarified now: this election is about whether or not Americans will continue to have individual liberty, or if we are all just wards of the state. Romney needs to make that argument loudly and aggressively. AND NOW.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Chuck- You're not being extreme in the least. There is now NOTHING that the government can't use to "fill in the blank" in the sentence "You will incur a special tax unless you ______."

Pete(Detroit) said...

Chuck -
- You will have a specific, healthy, body-mass index … or pay a special tax.

This is already the case in Japan, iirc.

Chuck said...

@Pete)Detroit - You may well recall correctly. My hope was that we weren't going to become Japan ... or any other country where the government exerts ever-increasing controls over personal aspects of your life.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Chuck, I like to hope I'll win the biggie ball lotto, too...

Beat the drum

Chuck said...

@Pete(detroit) - yep ...

John the Econ said...

There is an upside: Since the "mandate" is, in fact, now a "tax", Senate Democrats will not be able to filibuster it's repeal next year.

In the meantime, you folks out there without insurance and cannot afford it, get ready for the biggest personal tax increase in history, compliments of the Democrats.