How Obamacare can be overturned by a Republican President

This link is a discussion as to whether a Republican President - specifically Romney, if he is the nominee - can get rid of Obamacare. And how Romney plans to do so.

I think it's a waste of time to sit on the edge of one's seat waiting for the Supremes' decision this year. The majority of American citizens are unalterably AGAINST Obamacare -- and the individual mandate, in particular. BO's devoted followers view this, not as a Constitutional issue, but as an affront to their dear leader. The Supremes KNOW how much anger is "out there" regardless of what they decide. The safe decision (a possibility) will be to have them postpone a real decision until 2014 (January 1, 2014 when the individual mandate would kick in) - and then decide.

This 3-day "show", which we are not allowed to see via tv, by the way - is for public consumption, in my opinion. I think it is to deflect anger, as this Court knows the respect for the institution is at an all-time low nationwide.

Conservatives are hoping that the issues are decided strictly according to the Constitution. Liberals are making wild predictions that in July (when the decision is expected), only Clarence Thomas will vote to strike down Obamacare (i.e., 8-1 for Obamacare). The Detroit Free Press says the American Bar Association asked "an undisclosed number of Supreme Corut experts to predict how each of the nine justices might vote..." The liberal ABA wishfully hopes that Roberts and Kennedy will vote to uphold. I think these secret, un-named "experts" are nuts.

This is so emotional an issue, that I believe the decision will be to defer a decision on the individual mandate. Because the Kennedy and Roberts may actually be afraid to be "disliked". If this unaffordable boondoggle is NOT overturned this year by the Court, I think it WILL affect the presidential AND congressional elections this year. The anger level over this would then be incredibly high, and I think it would then pave the way for a Republican (whoever it turns out to be) President. The minority of citizens who want this goofball law upheld .... should be careful what they wish for.

No votes yet

No, it is an affront to common sense. But you wouldn't support our President if he came up with the cure for the common cold.
You are such a typical "christian." To hell with the poor - that's what your savior preached, right?
We have universal health care already don't we. People without insurance just have to sit in emergency rooms and wait for it while I sit at home and wait for the bill. Its the most expensive form of universal healthcare; but you don't care, because the facts don't matter to you.
Ok Jesus freak, I'll think of you the next time I'm purchasing a ticket to a spaghetti dinner for jimmy who needs a new kidney or dropping my change in a jar for some poor bastard who lost his job and his home but still needs money to pay for his cancer treatment.
You simply can't be a Republican, and certainly not a Libertarian, and claim to follow Jesus Christ.


So you think it's the federal governments job to dictate religious morality on the citizens of this nation? I thought libtards were all about the seperation of church and state.

The fruits of MY labor are not a social commodity.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

"You simply can't be a Republican, and certainly not a Libertarian, and claim to follow Jesus Christ."

Jesus said give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and give unto God that which is God.

I think Jesus would say that taking care of your fellow man would be the responsiblity of each individual because he also taught "Do unto others has you would have done unto you." So I fail to see how that makes a Libertarian or a Republican a hypocrite.

I do see giving up the individual responsibility of taking care of our fellow man as a way of shirking individual responsibility and saying "That's the government's job not mine." which would go against the teachings of Jesus.

" Its the most expensive form of universal healthcare; but you don't care, because the facts don't matter to you." Arguing price control is different than saying "To hell with the poor..." in fact the GOP during the Obamacare debate offered several solutions to deal with rising healthcare costs and the Dems ignored it and rammed through a bill that actually has aided rising costs.

Follow up question. What do you think Jesus would think of a bill that pays for abortion as Obamacare does? Being that he was born to a family where the husband was not his father, and paternity-issue pregnancies are the largest form of abortion, I think he would have an opinion on it. That and using deceit to get it passed and now invoking Jesus is hypocritical.


I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE... He is the only answer, find HIM now and be saved.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Government funded abortion on demand and forcing the insurance companies to insure a preexisting condition are the only two aspects of ObamaCare I can agree with. Since my hard earned wealth (subsistence?) is confiscated by the government, I'd much rather pay $500 for an abortion than pay $50,000 for a criminal.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Why is AARP supporting Obamacare? Among other things, the Medicare Part D that covers prescriptions has the infamous "doughnut hole" where the senior must pay 100% of the drug's cost. Obamacare does away with this, lessening the out-of-pocket expense over time, until it is ZERO!!

The truth is: Republicans almost 80 years ago opposed Social Security. Republicans 50 years ago opposed Medicare. Republicans, under Bush #43 tried to end Social Security by changing it to individual accounts which future pensioners could gamble in the stock market. Even Medicare Part D has things like the "doughnut hole" which rob middle class seniors because Republicans would not pass more comprehensive coverage. Naturally, Republicans oppose Obamacare. Does Obamacare do a lot for the top 2%, or does it help millions of common folks?

Democrats and Obama for common folks. Republicans and Mitt for the top 2%! It's really simple!

Funny you bring up Social Security.

Remember it was Democrats who wanted it in a lockbox. Well what happened during the debt crisis when Congress stalled raising the debt limit? Secy Geithner said the first thing that would go was SS checks, that were supposed to be in a lockbox. That means there is no lockbox and the Dems would rather pay other debts first. That's what happens when you get government involved in these types of sociological experiments, people begin to rely on them and then it's the first place people look to get money. They're still debating raising the SS age to 70!

Retirement and health planning is best left to the individual and not the government. In the end only I know what's best for me. There are ways to reform the health care industry without a huge government bureaucracy telling us what we do/do not need.


You state what most conservatives will never state, that you feel Social Security is bad! Good for you!

You put it in perspective. You articulate the conservative message well. You believe in a "me" society. I believe in a "we" society.

I don't feel it's bad. I feel it's ineffective.

If they allowed us to privatize a portion of it we'd have less problems. Yet it's not supposed to be going bankrupt and the gov't has no problem taking it away when it fits their needs. I have no problem with many federal programs as long as they are limited in scope. Every expansion of it's scope needs to come with heavy scrutiny and with the expressed will of the electorate, Obamacare had neither.


5,500 out there ,that is efficient, effective, or without massive intrusions on our Freedom.
And, the above Christian hater, buys the absolute 100% lies that this totalitarianism power grab , truly is ?!
P.T.Barnum, knew human behavior better than any Liberal ever will !

Hey,anyone wanna buy a medical device banned by Obamacare , that will prolong your life ?!

Obamacare is dead for two reasons.

I personally think the Individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional because of it's affront on personal liberty and hugely expands the powers of the federal gov't and takes many away from the state gov't.

I also believe they will find the rest of the law constitutional and severable from the Indiv. Mandate. However this will bring up a large problem of enforcement without the IM to penalize/tax (however you view the IM).

If the above happens it will die.

But the other reason I think it's dead is it requires funding. The GOP will most likely take the Senate. Additionally they will probably keep the House. So even if the Dems keep the Presidency the program will be gutted through the passing of a budget that does not fund it. By the time Dems get another shot at the House and Senate there most likely will be a separate compromise to replace Obamacare with a more promising alternative.

I do not see any scenario where the GOP keeps a portion of Congress that allows the program to be funded. So for as long as the GOP retains a portion of Congress the legislation is neutered and ineffective and a compromise will be forced.


Good analysis. I'm hoping the SCOTUS will see sense and understand that the federal government has no enumerated power to force people to purchase anything. The feds DO have the power to tax and provide services themselves. But that's not the 'individual mandate' of Obamacare.

Will someone explain to me how medical mandates (Obamacare) and the requirement to buy auto insurance are not the same? How can Ohio and other states require me to buy auto insurance? Isn't that much the same thing? I may not want it, but I have to buy it by law. All of it is BS.

Are you saying that auto insurance is BS? I hope that's not what you're saying. Imagine if I slam into your car with mine. I don't have insurance (which some nut jobs think should be optional). Your car is totaled. You go to the hospital for emergency surgery and a one night stay. Do you want me to pay for that? The accident was my fault, but guess what? I don't have $35,000 laying around (well, not to give to you anyway).
That is why we have car insurance.
Oh, and another fundamental difference is that having auto insurance is a State law. That's one fundamental difference.

It all comes down to choice. If you choose not to drive, you are not required to purchase auto insurance. With the individual mandate, there is no choice. You either obtain coverage or you pay a penalty.

The difference between Obamacare and Auto Insurance is right there in your post.

The state of Ohio requires you to carry auto insurance, not the federal government.

All other rights not outlined in the constitution are reserved to the states. That is why I don't have a problem with Romneycare. If people in MA want to pay for it, let them. If Ohio wanted to pass a similar law, I'd think about it. I have publicly advocated for something similar in Lucas County similar to what Ronald Reagan and the Heritage Foundation wanted, a tax cut to small business owners who provide health insurance. Such is handled much more effectively because it's a smaller bureaucracy and thus easier to change and solve problems as they arise.

If 50 states had an Obamacare law I'd have no problem with it.

Additionally, the problem with your metaphor is having auto insurance is not a requirement to everyone. Only those who choose to drive. If you choose not to drive you do not need auto insurance and walkers/bicyclers are not penalized.

Your constitution is an amazing thing, you should try reading it sometime.


Actually, my question was rhetorical. Obviously, auto insurance is state mandated and Obamacare is Federal. But, really, isn't there a kind of equivalency between them, regardless of which government authority demands it? Yeah, driving a car is supposed to be a privilege, but government mandated purchases are government mandated purchases, no matter how you cut it, rationalize or justify it. It's still the government telling us what we have to buy. That is distasteful to me. Free people should not have government telling them what they have to do with their money.

"But, really, isn't there a kind of equivalency between them, regardless of which government authority demands it?" No. The Federal govt trumps state govt which is why the constitution is a limit to the federal govt's reach to the states and the bill of rights is a limit on all of govt's reach to an individual's rights. Making someone do something that some wouldn't do, in this case buy insurance, is a violation of your right to privacy.

And buying auto insurance is not really a gov't mandated purchase because it doesn't apply to everyone. My father-in-law didn't drive and thus he never needed auto insurance for 40+ years. If buying auto insurance was a mandated purchase he would have needed it and it has nothing to do with driving being a privilege, it has to do with deciding to take part in an industry.

Also the individual mandate is also an infringement on the religious rights of Christian Scientists who do not use anything above herbal medicine and prayer. They get penalized on something that they would not have used, they accept death in lieu of modern medicine because they believe health is granted from God and to receive modern medicine is an affront to God. I'm don't agree with it but they have the right to worship what they want just as I do and I don't want government penalizing them.


I think you missed the point. I don't care whether it's federal, state, county or city, no government entity should be telling us how or what to spend money on. That includes car insurance, in my opinion. I remember when it wasn't a requirement to have any car insurance. Don't lecture me about "the Federal govt trumps state govt". Tell me something I didn't already know long before you were born.

The requirement for states to mandate that is authorized by the constitution.

So while you may not think they should be able to, they definitely have the authority.


I see his point. He's quite right in that there is no practical difference between the federal government forcing an individual to buy health insurance and the state government forcing the individual to buy auto insurance. The individual is being forced to purchase a service (in this case) and the effect is the same - buy it or else.

For those high minded individuals who are erudite enough to have read the U.S. Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and actually comprehend it, there is a world of very meaningful difference - which I predict the USSC will ignore along party lines.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

The states and the federal government have different powers.

The U.S. Constitution lists the powers the fedgov has. Forcing people to buy a product or service, is not listed there. Then the USCon says that anything not noted there, falls as a right "to the States or to the people". That's largely how the states can tell you to do it.

I see this mis-understanding all the time. I blame our public school system. The Liberals who largely run our pubschools certainly don't want students to understand their full civil rights, nor how the structure of government is limited by design. The idea that the government is monolith that can do anything it wants, is a Liberal idea.

Health care in America is rationed by ability to pay. If you're rich enough, you can get any medical procedure done no matter what the circumstances. Remember when Mickey Mantle, after a life of alcohol abuse, and suffering from an aggressive form of liver cancer, received a liver transplant? And how long did Mantle live after that? Several weeks! And he received the liver after being on the transplant list for 48 hours. Yes, Virginia, the United States health care system rations care!!

Insurance companies also rationed health care by only insuring the healthiest Americans. If one lost her/his health care coverage and a family member had a "pre-existing condition", it was often impossible to get health care coverage for that family member. Of course if your family is rich enough, that doesn't really matter. Think that any of Mitt's children worry about paying medical bills? Or W's? or Cheney's?

In addition, we have unelected bureaucrats making health care decisions, often against the express best medical advice of health care professionals. These are unelected insurance company bureaucrats over whom we have absolutely no control!

Obamacare is far from perfect, but it takes many steps in the right direction. Health care is a basic human right. Every other industrialized nation in the world has a form of national health care. And the citizens in almost every one of those nations has a longer life expectancy than do Americans.

Truly patriotic Americans are more interested in leading the race to have a healthier, longer-lived population, than to have a nation whose elite athletes win the most Olympic medals. Every time an American health care professional saves a life, some should be waving American flags and shouting loudly..."USA...USA!!"

"Truly patriotic Americans are more interested in leading the race to have a healthier, longer-lived population, than to have a nation whose elite athletes win the most Olympic medals."

Glad to know that THIS is the measure of patriotism. And here I was thinking it was a belief in the goodness and specialty of the American Spirit.

This does differ from wolfman's definition which was dependent upon what type of car one drove.


"In addition, we have unelected bureaucrats making health care decisions, often against the express best medical advice of health care professionals. These are unelected insurance company bureaucrats over whom we have absolutely no control!"

Apparently we are now electing the bureaucrats of the Health and Human Services department now. Funny I missed that vote in the last election. Trading one bureaucracy for another is I guess qualifies as a "WIN".


Check with Kaptur, or Latta, or Jordan. They will all give you case after case where their office has intervened on the behalf of a constituent having a problem with the federal bureaucracy. Just where does one go to get help when denied health care by an insurance bureaucrat, Mikey?

So people who answer to elected officials are not elected and they are the ones who handle the bureaucracy.

That's the problem with every bureaucracy, they require getting around the red tape from time to time. If you put your trust in a Health insurance company you're as big of a moron who puts their trust into the government. Trading one for the other and acting like you won is dumb.

"Just where does one go to get help when denied health care by an insurance bureaucrat, Mikey?" I never said I was against reforming the health care industry. What I am against is one party ignoring the will of the people, passing a poorly written law with backdoor shenanigans, using deceit to get it passed, and massively expanding federal powers in the process.

In fact, many states do a great job regulating the health care industry. Because some states fail is no reason to usurp the power of the states.


Obamacare is far from perfect, but if you had a family member with a "pre-existing condition" and you couldn't get health insurance for that family member before Obamacare, you'd be very glad to have Obamacare. No one likes any form of insurance when the premiums need to be paid. But when the bills come, and insurance pays the bulk of those bills, insurance seems like the best idea EVER!!

According to several sources, between 50% and 60% of all bankruptcies in America today are caused by outstanding medical bills! How many of your relatives, friends, and neighbors, have to go broke before you are ready to do something about it? Obamacare is a step in the right direction. We can and should do more!

"According to several sources, between 50% and 60% of all bankruptcies in America today are caused by outstanding medical bills!"

Your use of partial statistics is disturbing. What you omitted is that the majority of those who bankrupted from medical bills, were already health-insured at the time of the medical events which caused the bills in question.

Being stuck into the insurance system when the system has a thousand tools to bankrupt us, is not the answer. Obamacare was not the answer, therefore. It was just a money grab since all those Boomers (like you) are looking for a lot of care that you won't pay for, and there are all those perfectly healthy twentysomethings that see no point in paying (your) insurance premiums. You are just victimizing the twentysomethings.

The only real answer was one of two options totally rejected by the Congress, Democrat or Republican:

1. Socialized medicine, like most other industrialized nations have.

2. Nearly total retreat by government from the health insurance industry.

has a longer life expectancy for its citizens than does the United States. Health care is a basic human right. Just because the majority in Congress reject something doesn't mean the idea is wrong!

Dale far from perfect in no way justifies a massive and unprecedented expansion of the Federal government. Especially into an area where the States have a clear jurisdiction.

I like the preexisting conditions portion of Obamacare but that in no way justifies the rest of it nor the tactics that were used to get it passed.

One step forward and two steps back is not a step in the right direction and that is exactly what Obamacare is. If the liberals were really concerned with expanding Healthcare to the uninsured and not concerned with massively expanding federal control they would be instead arguing for 49 other Romneycare's throughout the nation.


Obamacare is far from perfect, but it takes many steps in the right direction. Health care is a basic human right. Every other industrialized nation in the world has a form of national health care.

Where is it written that health care is a basic human right? I've never seen it.

In typical moonbat fashion, you and people like you are saying that you somehow know how to spend my money better than I do - and that just isn't so. If you want healthcare for everyone, cut your standard of living by 30% or more and give the money to your favorite charity (the federal government). As for me, I'm keeping mine. I may need it to take care of myself when I get old and decrepit.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Today in court did not bode well for the individual mandate. It looks as if it will be struck down and possibly in more than a 5-4 vote. The rest of the law though will be debated tomorrow.


If they can get away with forcing people to buy health insurance, where does it end?
"You can't ride a motorcycle because it's too dangerous" "Cars will have to have a governor on them to ensure that you can't exceed the speed limit"
"the government will decide what you must eat because they know more about nutrition and your health"
The 0bama regime is already extending it's tentacles beyond what the federal government was intended for. It has to stop.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

After he is re-elected, we are coming for your guns!

Come and get 'em, Progress22! Don't be afraid - after you've finished collecting my firearms and ammo, you can try out the new ObamaCare and see how well it works. Hope you don't have to wait too long in the ER.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.