Although nothing about the law is working as advertised, open enrollment for Obamacare will kickoff tomorrow. Starting October 1, Americans will be able to sign up for private health coverage through exchanges, the majority operated all or in part by federal government bureaucrats.
The health insurance plans sold through the exchanges will take effect January 1, 2014. Americans who fail to obtain health care insurance next year will be forced to pay a tax (penalty) to the Internal Revenue Service, those lovable, cuddly folks who routinely bully taxpayers.
Experts expect major problems as the roll out begins. Software glitches have already been identified, insurance pricing quirks threaten to spook consumers, the government website designed to help Americans navigate the plans is replete with errors, according to health care industry leaders.
In recognition of the impending train wreck, the Obama Administration months ago delayed the employer mandate, which required businesses to provide workers with health insurance this year. The requirement was shoved to 2015, after the 2014 mid-term elections.
In another concession, the Obama Administration decided on its own to reduce the tax for those who opt to remain uninsured. They have to cough up $95 per adult in the household, plus $47.50 per child. That is a far cry from the $2,000 penalty the administration originally included in the law.
Despite these stumbles, President Obama continues to flog his healthcare reform, holding campaign-style, carefully staged events with hand-picked crowds. However, the president is hedging his bet, admitting there may be some hitches in the introduction.
Obama and his Democrat disciples have reason to be wary. If Americans encounter delays, errors and sticker-shock, it will hand Republicans a red-hot issue to hammer the party of donkeys during the upcoming elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It is not inconceivable that a poorly executed start could spell doom for Obamacare. The roll out comes 11 days after the House of Representatives voted along party lines to de-fund Obamacare. As expected, the Senate reversed the decision, but the final outcome seems far from settled.
Against this backdrop, Americans are struggling to make sense of the new law. Polls show many do not have the foggiest notion about the enrollment process, coverage or costs. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found nearly 70 percent of the uninsured don't understand the new law.
More than 40 percent of the uninsured do not even realize they have to buy insurance, according to a recent USA Today/Pew Research poll. This people are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the law which extends health coverage to every American.
Worse for Democrats, their reliable dupes in the unions have recently broken ranks. The powerful Teamsters, AFL-CIO, United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and others have demanded Democrats make changes in the law that negatively impact unions.
Already unpopular with a majority (54%) of Americans, a false start for Obamacare would impact the implementation of the remainder of the law. Enough pressure could force Democrats to gut major portions of the reform to save face with their uniformed, lemming-like base.
The first major hurdle for Obamacare is to enroll seven million Americans by March 31. For the system to work, nearly half of those enrollees (2.7 million) need to be healthy young adults between the ages of 18 and 35 to make it feasible for private insurers to assume the additional risks.
If the governments fails to reach that goal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that insurance costs could spike. There is no gloomier scenario for President Obama, who repeatedly has assured Americans their insurance rates would fall with his health law.
Meanwhile, there has been no delay in unfurling new taxes. The majority of the taxes won't take affect until next year, including a hefty new levy on the purchase of health insurance, aimed at raising $8 billion in 2014 and mushrooming to $14.3 billion in 2018.
The more Americans experience Obamacare, the more likely the uproar will grow. As word-of-mouth spreads, many of the uninsured may simply choose to pay the tax (penalty) rather than endure the aggravation. That may lead well intentioned Americans to wonder why the law was enacted.
The president and Democrats have bet the farm on Obamacare. They may find out they are left with the barnyard stench of a failed program that will cling to them for not just one election, but for decades.
Showing posts with label Health Care Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care Law. Show all posts
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, July 8, 2013
Time to Pull the Plug on Obamacare
As costs ballooned and public opinion soured, the Obama Administration has delayed the roll out of a major component of its health care plan to avert a political disaster in the mid-term elections. The decision was revealed by the Treasury Department with little fanfare to minimize news coverage.
President Obama, whose name has become synonymous with the legislation, was safely out of the country in Africa when the announcement was made. He obviously wanted to avoid the political backlash after his repeated promises to implement the health reforms on schedule.
The delay affects the law's provision mandating employers with 50 or more employees to offer health coverage or pay hefty fines of at least $2,000 per employee. It was scheduled to become effective in 2014, but has now been pushed back to January 2015 in light of withering criticism from businesses.
President Obama had insisted on the employer mandate, arguing that without it businesses would scrap health care plans, thus making a mockery of his oft repeated claim that Americans could keep their current coverage if they liked it.
In its low-key news release, the Treasury Department left intact the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase health care insurance beginning in October or face steep fines to be levied by those "non-partisan" folks at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
A few Washington insiders are predicting the employer mandate may be ultimately repealed by Congress. This likely would prompt most companies to abolish their health plans and force individuals to purchase private insurance through government run exchanges.
The problem is the exchanges are a train wreck that threatens to derail the entire plan. Out of 50 states, only 17 and Washington, D.C. have been certified to create exchanges by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS). Open enrollment is less than four months away.
The exchanges are supposed to function as a single point of contact for consumers to shop and compare private insurance plans. Mushrooming cost overruns are plaguing the exchanges. HHS budgeted $2.2 billion this year for the plans. Costs are now expected to top $4.4 billion, according to the HHS.
Those bloated figures were not included in last year's revised price tag for Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the health plan will cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years, nearly double the original forecast of $940 billion when the law was approved in 2010.
Meanwhile, the White House quietly mentioned in April that it planned to reverse $500 million in cuts to the Medicaid program scheduled to start in 2013. These reductions were to be followed by more sharp decreases in 2022, effecting millions of seniors.
All these course corrections by the administration are nothing more than political recalculations. With the mid-term elections looming next year, Democrats fear a poorly implemented health care law could become an albatross around their collective necks.
People are beginning to notice Obamacare's obvious flaws. In a recent poll, 45 percent of Americans hold a negative view of the health care package. Only 29 percent support it. This does not bode well for Democrats, especially if there are further delays and missteps.
Virginian Republican Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, offered the best remedy for Obamacare.
Reacting to the Treasury Department's announcement, Cantor remarked: "The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one."
He's right. Now it is up to Congress to fulfill Cantor's prescription for the health care law.
President Obama, whose name has become synonymous with the legislation, was safely out of the country in Africa when the announcement was made. He obviously wanted to avoid the political backlash after his repeated promises to implement the health reforms on schedule.
The delay affects the law's provision mandating employers with 50 or more employees to offer health coverage or pay hefty fines of at least $2,000 per employee. It was scheduled to become effective in 2014, but has now been pushed back to January 2015 in light of withering criticism from businesses.
President Obama had insisted on the employer mandate, arguing that without it businesses would scrap health care plans, thus making a mockery of his oft repeated claim that Americans could keep their current coverage if they liked it.
In its low-key news release, the Treasury Department left intact the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to purchase health care insurance beginning in October or face steep fines to be levied by those "non-partisan" folks at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
A few Washington insiders are predicting the employer mandate may be ultimately repealed by Congress. This likely would prompt most companies to abolish their health plans and force individuals to purchase private insurance through government run exchanges.
The problem is the exchanges are a train wreck that threatens to derail the entire plan. Out of 50 states, only 17 and Washington, D.C. have been certified to create exchanges by the Health and Human Services Department (HHS). Open enrollment is less than four months away.
The exchanges are supposed to function as a single point of contact for consumers to shop and compare private insurance plans. Mushrooming cost overruns are plaguing the exchanges. HHS budgeted $2.2 billion this year for the plans. Costs are now expected to top $4.4 billion, according to the HHS.
Those bloated figures were not included in last year's revised price tag for Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the health plan will cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years, nearly double the original forecast of $940 billion when the law was approved in 2010.
Meanwhile, the White House quietly mentioned in April that it planned to reverse $500 million in cuts to the Medicaid program scheduled to start in 2013. These reductions were to be followed by more sharp decreases in 2022, effecting millions of seniors.
All these course corrections by the administration are nothing more than political recalculations. With the mid-term elections looming next year, Democrats fear a poorly implemented health care law could become an albatross around their collective necks.
People are beginning to notice Obamacare's obvious flaws. In a recent poll, 45 percent of Americans hold a negative view of the health care package. Only 29 percent support it. This does not bode well for Democrats, especially if there are further delays and missteps.
Virginian Republican Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, offered the best remedy for Obamacare.
Reacting to the Treasury Department's announcement, Cantor remarked: "The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one."
He's right. Now it is up to Congress to fulfill Cantor's prescription for the health care law.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Why Obama Care Is Here To Stay
While the mainstream media was dissecting the Supreme Court decision, the government labyrinth inside the Beltway was quietly doling out millions of dollars to hire bureaucrats to implement Obama Care and drafting thousands of pages of new health care regulations.
Those Americans who still hold out hope for repeal of the law must come to grips with the new reality. The high court's ruling makes repeal an unachievable dream. If that sounds fatalistic, consider that in the long history of the United States not a single entitlement has been eliminated by Congress.
Once the bureaucrats are in place, there is no turning back. The Health and Human Services (HHS) has hired computer programmers, technicians and managers. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has bulked up its payroll to enforce the new tax (penalty) on individuals and companies as part of the health care mandate.
There are 13,000 pages of regulations governing how doctors and hospitals are supposed to practice medicine under the new law. And HHS is spinning out more rules every week. More than 180 boards and commissions have been been created to oversee the new law's provisions.
Even a new Congress and administration will be hard pressed to undo it all. Millions of Americans are already receiving benefits. They would attain victim status if any attempt is made to alter Obama Care. The mainstream media salivates at the notion that Republicans would tamper with health care benefits.
Imagine television cameras capturing weeping mothers with pre-existing medical conditions. Newspaper headlines about young people dropped from the parents' insurance. Radio interviews with uninsured migrant workers struggling with catastrophic illnesses. It won't be pretty.
The GOP has shown it cannot withstand media pressure. Republican leaders have blinked too often in the past two years when the media amped up its attacks. Battles over the budget are a prime example. Every time Obama threatens to shut down the government, Republicans crayfish under the media glare.
GOP leadership lacks the spine to weather a withering media offensive. Perhaps, a President Romney would make a difference. But history suggests otherwise. The former Massachusetts governor was known more for comprising than confrontation during his tenure.
That's why the Supreme Court decision stings. It was the last best hope for those who believe the law will fundamentally change health care for the worse.
For that reason, apologists who defend Chief Justice John Roberts are dead wrong. By siding with the liberal minority, the jurist enshrined Obama Care as the law of the land. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo he sprinkled throughout his opinion. It doesn't matter. The law stands.
No matter how contorted the decision, it emboldened Obama Care proponents and the federal bureaucracy to move full speed ahead.
Americans are stuck with health care reform that most oppose.
It may not be popular to say so, but it is the sad reality.
Those Americans who still hold out hope for repeal of the law must come to grips with the new reality. The high court's ruling makes repeal an unachievable dream. If that sounds fatalistic, consider that in the long history of the United States not a single entitlement has been eliminated by Congress.
Once the bureaucrats are in place, there is no turning back. The Health and Human Services (HHS) has hired computer programmers, technicians and managers. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has bulked up its payroll to enforce the new tax (penalty) on individuals and companies as part of the health care mandate.
There are 13,000 pages of regulations governing how doctors and hospitals are supposed to practice medicine under the new law. And HHS is spinning out more rules every week. More than 180 boards and commissions have been been created to oversee the new law's provisions.
Even a new Congress and administration will be hard pressed to undo it all. Millions of Americans are already receiving benefits. They would attain victim status if any attempt is made to alter Obama Care. The mainstream media salivates at the notion that Republicans would tamper with health care benefits.
Imagine television cameras capturing weeping mothers with pre-existing medical conditions. Newspaper headlines about young people dropped from the parents' insurance. Radio interviews with uninsured migrant workers struggling with catastrophic illnesses. It won't be pretty.
The GOP has shown it cannot withstand media pressure. Republican leaders have blinked too often in the past two years when the media amped up its attacks. Battles over the budget are a prime example. Every time Obama threatens to shut down the government, Republicans crayfish under the media glare.
GOP leadership lacks the spine to weather a withering media offensive. Perhaps, a President Romney would make a difference. But history suggests otherwise. The former Massachusetts governor was known more for comprising than confrontation during his tenure.
That's why the Supreme Court decision stings. It was the last best hope for those who believe the law will fundamentally change health care for the worse.
For that reason, apologists who defend Chief Justice John Roberts are dead wrong. By siding with the liberal minority, the jurist enshrined Obama Care as the law of the land. Forget all the legal mumbo-jumbo he sprinkled throughout his opinion. It doesn't matter. The law stands.
No matter how contorted the decision, it emboldened Obama Care proponents and the federal bureaucracy to move full speed ahead.
Americans are stuck with health care reform that most oppose.
It may not be popular to say so, but it is the sad reality.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
ObamaCare: Job Destroyer and Innovation Killer
While President Obama was lecturing the Supreme Court on constitutional law, his drones in the federal bureaucracy were sharpening rules aimed at collecting billions of dollars in new taxes on lifesaving medical devices used by millions of Americans.
In what appears to be a deliberate attempt to skirt public scrutiny, the Internal Revenue Service quietly issued cumbersome procedures for implementing the taxes, estimated to haul in $20 billion to help pay for Obama Care. The tariffs are slated to go into effect next year.
As a result, taxes will be slapped on everything from stents to artificial hips and knees to defibrillators. Although the assessment will be levied on the medical device industry, ultimately consumers will end up paying the tab through higher medical and insurance costs.
Ahead of the tax implementation, medical companies are laying off employees, slicing investment in research and development, and reigning in plans for new manufacturing facilities. The result will be fewer jobs, less innovation and more government paperwork, according to industry sources.
"In a nutshell, it (the tax) would raise costs and lead to significant job losses," reported Boston Scientific, one of the nation's premier medical device manufacturers. "It does not address the quality of care but the political scoreboard of savings."
The tax, a 2.3 percent levy, may look small, but when coupled with other fees paid by the medical device industry, the impact will be huge on a business segment with wafer-thin profit margins.
"This creates tremendous pressure for us to move manufacturing to Europe and other parts of the world," warned Stephen Ferguson, chairman of Cook Medical, a large manufacturer of a whole range of diagnostic and surgical devices.
Stryker, a Kalamazoo, Michigan-based company which manufactures artificial hips and knees, is one of the firms that already has announced plans to slash its global workforce by 1,000. Other companies, like Massachusetts' Zoll Medical Corporation, envision a bleak future for the industry.
"Running our company close to break even would not be a sustainable position for us," Zoll said in a statement. "So we will be forced to look at alternatives." Those alternatives include outsourcing manufacturing to other countries.
In addition, the tax will undermine the incentive for entrepreneurs to create new lifesaving devices. Their start-up expenses are bound to be higher to reflect the added cost of doing business, thus discouraging many from manufacturing and marketing their inventions.
None of the gloom and doom talk has fazed the tax-happy Obama Administration. The president's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shooed industry concerns like a cow swatting flies with its tail. He argued the taxes and the law's expanded coverage will create more demand for the devices.
Really? What planet does Geithner live on? Higher prices for devices will stifle demand from hospitals and medical professionals. Obama Care's onerous provisions also will make certain that happens because health care coverage for procedures using the devices will be reduced.
That leaves the medical device industry in a classic Catch-22 situation. Their costs will rise, but government provided health care will pay less for procedures involving the devices.
If you are the beneficiary of a medical device, let your voice be heard. Write and call your congressman or congresswoman. Even if you don't currently have a pacemaker or other medical appliance, when you need one, you better pray it will be available to save your life.
The best outcome is that the president's tongue-lashing will harden the Supreme Court's resolve to do the right thing and throw Obama Care in the trash bin where it belongs.
In what appears to be a deliberate attempt to skirt public scrutiny, the Internal Revenue Service quietly issued cumbersome procedures for implementing the taxes, estimated to haul in $20 billion to help pay for Obama Care. The tariffs are slated to go into effect next year.
As a result, taxes will be slapped on everything from stents to artificial hips and knees to defibrillators. Although the assessment will be levied on the medical device industry, ultimately consumers will end up paying the tab through higher medical and insurance costs.
Ahead of the tax implementation, medical companies are laying off employees, slicing investment in research and development, and reigning in plans for new manufacturing facilities. The result will be fewer jobs, less innovation and more government paperwork, according to industry sources.
"In a nutshell, it (the tax) would raise costs and lead to significant job losses," reported Boston Scientific, one of the nation's premier medical device manufacturers. "It does not address the quality of care but the political scoreboard of savings."
The tax, a 2.3 percent levy, may look small, but when coupled with other fees paid by the medical device industry, the impact will be huge on a business segment with wafer-thin profit margins.
"This creates tremendous pressure for us to move manufacturing to Europe and other parts of the world," warned Stephen Ferguson, chairman of Cook Medical, a large manufacturer of a whole range of diagnostic and surgical devices.
Stryker, a Kalamazoo, Michigan-based company which manufactures artificial hips and knees, is one of the firms that already has announced plans to slash its global workforce by 1,000. Other companies, like Massachusetts' Zoll Medical Corporation, envision a bleak future for the industry.
"Running our company close to break even would not be a sustainable position for us," Zoll said in a statement. "So we will be forced to look at alternatives." Those alternatives include outsourcing manufacturing to other countries.
In addition, the tax will undermine the incentive for entrepreneurs to create new lifesaving devices. Their start-up expenses are bound to be higher to reflect the added cost of doing business, thus discouraging many from manufacturing and marketing their inventions.
None of the gloom and doom talk has fazed the tax-happy Obama Administration. The president's Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shooed industry concerns like a cow swatting flies with its tail. He argued the taxes and the law's expanded coverage will create more demand for the devices.
Really? What planet does Geithner live on? Higher prices for devices will stifle demand from hospitals and medical professionals. Obama Care's onerous provisions also will make certain that happens because health care coverage for procedures using the devices will be reduced.
That leaves the medical device industry in a classic Catch-22 situation. Their costs will rise, but government provided health care will pay less for procedures involving the devices.
If you are the beneficiary of a medical device, let your voice be heard. Write and call your congressman or congresswoman. Even if you don't currently have a pacemaker or other medical appliance, when you need one, you better pray it will be available to save your life.
The best outcome is that the president's tongue-lashing will harden the Supreme Court's resolve to do the right thing and throw Obama Care in the trash bin where it belongs.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Why An Ohio Farmer's Case Could Save Obama Care
Legal briefs trickling into the Supreme Court signal the launch of an epic battle over President Obama's brazen health care overhaul. Unless there are unforeseen delays, the court will hand down its decision in June, right smack in the middle of the presidential campaign.
In its coverage, the mainstream media has cast the legal contest as an ideological war pitting opposing views of providing health care coverage. However, the case has much broader meaning for the country and its citizens.
At stake is the future of government's power to regulate most aspects of American life. The decision in the case will frame for generations how much authority Congress will have to unleash its regulatory bullies on businesses and individuals.
Twenty-six states have joined forces to oppose the new health care law. In their court filings, the states argue Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it mandated that Americans must purchase health insurance under threat of financial penalties.
In addition, the plaintiffs are challenging the health care law's unlawful expansion of the Medicare program. They contend the statute will force states to add more poor and disabled people to the program or face loss of federal funds.
The president's lawyers counter that Congress is entitled to regulate health care under the Commerce Clause enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. For decades, courts have confirmed Congress' authority to pass laws to regulate economic activity within the nation.
However, it wasn't until 1942 that the precedent was established. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had struck down statutes that imposed regulations on economic activities within a state because the Commerce Clause expressly limits the federal government's authority to interstate matters.
But the case of Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn changed everything. In 1941, Filburn planted more wheat than his federal allotment permitted. He used the excess wheat production to feed his chickens. He neither sold the wheat nor did he transport the grain off his farm.
Then Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was outraged. He ordered Filburn to destroy his crops and pay a steep fine. Filburn refused and took the matter to court, where a three-judge panel enjoined the secretary from enforcing penalties against the farmer.
The ruling ignited a flurry of legal and political activity. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worried the court decision could torpedo his New Deal programs, ordered his lawyers to file a motion to overturn the ruling at the Supreme Court.
Roosevelt knew he would find a receptive audience. Earlier in his term, the high court had rebuffed his efforts to expand government intervention into every element of the economy. Roosevelt publicly chastised the justices for thwarting economic recovery.
When the justices refused to bow to pressure, the president warned that he was prepared to expand the number of Supreme Court members from nine to 15 by appointing six additional justices who would be sympathetic to his agenda.
After the presidential browbeating, the "supremes" began taking a decidedly more friendly view of Roosevelt's expressed interests. Therefore, it came as no surprise when the high court ruled against the Ohio farmer on November 9, 1942.
The unanimous decision written by Justice Robert Jackson became the legal tenant for future courts to follow in upholding Congress' right to regulate not only matters that cross state lines, but practically every activity within a state as well.
Now comes Obama Care, the quintessential Congressional power grab. When it renders its decision, the Supreme Court justices will have to either overturn or reaffirm the judicial paradigm established by the Wickard vs. Filburn case.
If history is a guide, high court justices have been reluctant in the past to scrap established legal precedent. That's why those who believe the case against Obama Care is a slam dunk should heed what happened to an Ohio farmer nearly 70 years ago.
If the Supreme Court upholds the precedent, Congress and the federal government will be handed carte blanche power for unbridled regulatory intrusion, imperiling individual freedoms for future generations.
That prospect should frighten the daylights out of every American.
In its coverage, the mainstream media has cast the legal contest as an ideological war pitting opposing views of providing health care coverage. However, the case has much broader meaning for the country and its citizens.
At stake is the future of government's power to regulate most aspects of American life. The decision in the case will frame for generations how much authority Congress will have to unleash its regulatory bullies on businesses and individuals.
Twenty-six states have joined forces to oppose the new health care law. In their court filings, the states argue Congress overstepped its constitutional authority when it mandated that Americans must purchase health insurance under threat of financial penalties.
In addition, the plaintiffs are challenging the health care law's unlawful expansion of the Medicare program. They contend the statute will force states to add more poor and disabled people to the program or face loss of federal funds.
The president's lawyers counter that Congress is entitled to regulate health care under the Commerce Clause enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. For decades, courts have confirmed Congress' authority to pass laws to regulate economic activity within the nation.
However, it wasn't until 1942 that the precedent was established. Prior to that, the Supreme Court had struck down statutes that imposed regulations on economic activities within a state because the Commerce Clause expressly limits the federal government's authority to interstate matters.
But the case of Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn changed everything. In 1941, Filburn planted more wheat than his federal allotment permitted. He used the excess wheat production to feed his chickens. He neither sold the wheat nor did he transport the grain off his farm.
Then Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was outraged. He ordered Filburn to destroy his crops and pay a steep fine. Filburn refused and took the matter to court, where a three-judge panel enjoined the secretary from enforcing penalties against the farmer.
The ruling ignited a flurry of legal and political activity. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, worried the court decision could torpedo his New Deal programs, ordered his lawyers to file a motion to overturn the ruling at the Supreme Court.
Roosevelt knew he would find a receptive audience. Earlier in his term, the high court had rebuffed his efforts to expand government intervention into every element of the economy. Roosevelt publicly chastised the justices for thwarting economic recovery.
When the justices refused to bow to pressure, the president warned that he was prepared to expand the number of Supreme Court members from nine to 15 by appointing six additional justices who would be sympathetic to his agenda.
After the presidential browbeating, the "supremes" began taking a decidedly more friendly view of Roosevelt's expressed interests. Therefore, it came as no surprise when the high court ruled against the Ohio farmer on November 9, 1942.
The unanimous decision written by Justice Robert Jackson became the legal tenant for future courts to follow in upholding Congress' right to regulate not only matters that cross state lines, but practically every activity within a state as well.
Now comes Obama Care, the quintessential Congressional power grab. When it renders its decision, the Supreme Court justices will have to either overturn or reaffirm the judicial paradigm established by the Wickard vs. Filburn case.
If history is a guide, high court justices have been reluctant in the past to scrap established legal precedent. That's why those who believe the case against Obama Care is a slam dunk should heed what happened to an Ohio farmer nearly 70 years ago.
If the Supreme Court upholds the precedent, Congress and the federal government will be handed carte blanche power for unbridled regulatory intrusion, imperiling individual freedoms for future generations.
That prospect should frighten the daylights out of every American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)