Obamacare: It’s Not Over

[Draggingtree]

National Review:

 

 

July 3, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Obamacare: It’s Not Over

The law has never been popular with the American public.

By Rich Lowry

 

Plans haven’t yet begun for the monument to John Roberts on the National Mall. These things take time. A location will have to be found, somewhere between the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials. Cutting-edge architect Frank Gehry will have to be diverted from his work on the Eisenhower Memorial to create an appropriately convoluted design to mark the chief justice’s twisted reasoning.

Until the groundbreaking, liberals must content themselves with bestowing national sainthood on Roberts and with declaring the health-care debate definitively over. It’s time for everyone to accept a new $1 trillion entitlement profoundly affecting the direction of American health care and focus on issues of concern to every civic-minded American, such as: Did Mitt Romney outsource a call center as Massachusetts governor?

The question of Obamacare has been declared final repeatedly and consistently. During the debate over its passage, it was always one more Obama speech from being settled once and for all. Afterward, Democrats predicted there was no way to repeal it, and its popularity was just around the corner. The court challenge was pooh-poohed as another instance of futile resistance. Now that the law has barely hung on thanks to the Roberts triple lutz, the state of the debate is said to be — as ever — over.

If so, supporters have lost it in the arena of public opinion. Upon its passage, the New York Times/CBS poll found that it had 32 percent support. Before the Supreme Court decision, the New York Times/CBS poll found its support essentially unchanged at 34 percent. A different poll — from Reuters/Ipsos — detected a bump in support for the law after the decision from 43 percent to 48 percent. But a majority, 52 percent, still disapproved of it in the immediate wake of headlines about the Supreme Court’s blessing.

The law has lacked popular legitimacy from the beginning, and Read More

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/304649/obamacare-it-s-not-over-rich-lowry

[Draggingtree]

July 2, 2012, 7:46 p.m. ET

McGurn: Chief Justice Roberts Taxes Credibility

 

Did the umpire change his call because of the crowd?

 

Not once in the 59 pages that constitute Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts's lead opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius does he use the word "integrity." Even so, in the days since the individual mandate was upheld as a tax, concern for the "integrity" or "legitimacy" or "reputation" of the Roberts Court has become the most accepted explanation for why the chief justice ruled as he did.

Thus Reuters, which tells us that Justice Roberts was "trying to preserve the integrity of the judiciary in polarized Washington." Or the New York Times, where Tom Friedman lauds the chief justice for "a simple noble leadership impulse at a critical juncture in our history—to preserve the legitimacy of the Supreme Court." The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer agrees with this motivation, speculating that had Justice Roberts "been just an associate justice, and not the chief" he might well have voted otherwise.

If Mr. Krauthammer is correct, it raises a disquieting question. During Justice Roberts's confirmation hearings back in 2005, he described judges as umpires whose job it is to call balls and strikes as he sees them. The idea that he might have voted otherwise if he were not chief justice suggests that a "strike" was changed to a "ball" because of concerns for how the straight call would be perceived.

Let us stipulate that there's nothing wrong with a justice who starts out with one opinion but changes his mind as Read More http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304708604577502933866909916.html?mod=WSJ_article_MoreIn_Opinion

[Draggingtree]

This is your life under ObamaCare

 

By Dr. Marc Siegel

Published July 03, 2012

FoxNews.com

Like all practicing physicians (and medical correspondents), I was glued to the news last Thursday morning at 10 am ET when the US Supreme Court via some questionable fancy legal footwork allowed ObamaCare to survive. Like many of my medical brethren, I was deeply disappointed by the outcome.

But ultimately I am not concerned about America’s doctors; we will survive even if our paperwork continues to pile up, our income continues to decline, and our waiting rooms overflow well beyond capacity. We may feel like quitting but most of us will soldier on, continuing to work even as the new Affordable Care Act committees regulate and restrict us to the point of impotence.

Most of us have no choice; we are super-specialized and we don’t know how to do much of anything else.

We will survive, but what about you, America’s patients?

I am worried that the more than 250 million of you who already have health insurance will see the quality of care you receive diminish greatly. Doctors will weather the storm of ObamaCare even if we have to see a patient every five minutes and spend most of our time seeking test and treatment approvals, but what about you? How will you feel when you hear about a brand new cure only to find out that your insurance won’t cover it?

You, the patient, will have to get used to less access to real health care solutions, fewer approvals for the very latest, personalized, genetic-based cancer treatment or surgical technology that could save your life.

One of the reasons your doctor isn’t happy is because under ObamaCare he or she will bear the brunt of explaining how come your ever rising premiums are buying you less than they did before.

 

Gone will be the ability to pay out of pocket and receive a tax break for higher quality care. Flexible Spending Accounts will shrink to a maximum of $2,500 and Read More http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/03/this-is-your-life-under-obamacare/#ixzz1zgM63pwx