Response to White House Response to Health Care Decision

Yesterday, the White House responded via blog post to the court decision to allow the health care lawsuit continue forward. The White House’s Stephanie Cutter, who wrote the post, is either an idiot or a comedian. I’m not sure which. She apparently doesn’t even pretend to understand what the hell is going on in regard to the health care law, and doesn’t seem to understand much else.

Here’s some highlights.

Since the enactment of health reform legislation in March, several state Attorneys General have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government. This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act – constitutional challenges were brought to all three of these monumental pieces of legislation, and all of those challenges failed. So too will the challenge to health reform.

Yes, because two of those three trample on the rights of Americans in a very clear manner. The third, the Civil Rights Act, only partially hit the rights of the people and then only arguably did it hit anyone’s rights. The fact that the courts ruled in favor of the government in those days doesn’t make it a fact that they’ll do the same this time.

Today’s decision merely said that the Virginia Attorney General has standing to challenge the lawsuit – which means that the court has jurisdiction to hear further arguments. The federal government believes this procedural ruling is in error and conflicts with long-standing and well-established legal precedents – the types of precedents that, in the words of Chief Justice Roberts, are designed to preserve the “judiciary’s proper role in our system of government” and to ensure that our courts do not become forums for political debates.

The “judiciary’s proper role”? You mean something like seeing if the government has grossly overstepped it’s bounds by requiring every person in the United States to purchase a product regardless of our needs, desire, or ability? Is Cutter talking about that proper role in our system of government?

Or is she just making stuff up now?

After all, over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act. In order to make health care affordable and available for all, the Act regulates how to pay for medical services – services that account for more than 17.5% of the national economy. This law came into being precisely because of the interconnectedness of our health care costs. People who make an economic decision to forego health insurance do not opt out of the health care market, but instead shift their costs to others when they become ill or are involved in an accident and cannot pay.

Yes, but only because government makes it impossible for these providers to actually collect from these people. They have to see them, regardless of how much they owe a hospital or doctor’s office, and it’s not like they can repossess health care after the fact. However, Cutter leaves out the little tidbit about how providers are hamstrung to get money from the deadbeats, so government has forced them to spread the costs around.

Can’t possibly let government look bad, can you Stephanie?

And many reforms provided by the law – such as the requirement that insurers cover individuals with pre-existing conditions – can only be effective if everyone is part of the system, which is why the minimum coverage, or shared responsibility, requirement is part of the law.

On this, Cutter is 100% correct. This is why Republicans talking of partial repeal need to think long and hard. Repealing the individual mandate is easy, but it’s also the surest way to a single payer system. The insurance companies need the larger pool of insured - healthy insured at that - in order to handle the folks with pre-existing conditions that would otherwise collapse the entire system.

Even a blind squirrel can find a nut occasionally.

The problem here is that this should never have passed in the first place. Should the courts uphold the law, then the idea of freedom in the United States is effectively dead. It’s already on life support as it is, but the idea that the government can dictate what we spend our money on is a tyranny that even some of the most despicable dictators in history refused to engage in. Now, we’re going down that road in the “Land of the Free”?

This, coupled with things like Cap & Trade that is actually designed to cut productivity and raise costs (remember that a cut in productivity means fewer jobs available), and you have to wonder if the current Administration has any desire to actually help the American people have a better quality of life.

It certainly doesn’t look like it.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.