January 27, 2022

Get On The Obamacare Wagon Train

Photo – I was laughing my AstroTurf off this morning as I saw a report on the telelie telling of one media outlet reporting that Obamacare was such a huge success and that is why the Internet website where subjects are forced to go to to register is so busy. Can you believe that? The Government FORCES their slaves to buy government approved health insurance and these idiots can’t understand that most people decided to sign up for it rather than pay a fine and/or eventually end up in jail.

obamacarewagon

Share

ObamaCare Exchanges Doomed To Fail, Says Health Care Policy Analyst

ObamaCare Exchanges Doomed To Fail, Says Health Care Policy Analyst With the National Center For Public Policy Research

“The exchanges will result in a death spiral. They’ll attract the older and sicker while discouraging the younger and healthier, resulting in constantly rising insurance prices,” says Dr. David Hogberg

Glitches in the Exchanges’ Websites Will Only Exacerbate the Death Spiral

Washington, DC – “Today begins the unfolding of another ObamaCare failure,” says Dr. David Hogberg of the opening day of the ObamaCare exchanges.

Dr. Hogberg, senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center For Public Policy Research, is available today and the rest of the week to offer comments for reporters and radio hosts covering the opening of the exchanges.

Hogberg has written two recent policy studies about the exchanges.

The first, entitled “Why The ‘Young Invincibles’ Won’t Participate In The ObamaCare Exchanges And Why It Matters,” examines the financial incentives those ages 18-34 have to avoid buying insurance on the exchanges. Hogberg calculates that over 3.7 million single 18-to-34-year olds would save at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the individual mandate fine.

The second, co-written with Sean Parnell, entitled “ObamaCare Exchanges: Just Because You Are Eligible For a Subsidy Doesn’t Mean You Will Qualify For One,” examines whether those age 18-34 will be eligible for exchange subsidies. Although people making under 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($45,960) are eligible for a subsidy on the exchange, Hogberg and Parnell found that in most exchanges the subsidies disappear before those age 18-34 even reach 300 percent FPL ($34,500).

Dr. Hogberg’s studies have recently been cited in USA Today, Investor’s Business Daily, The Daily Caller, the Des Moines Register, The Washington Free Beacon, The Weekly Standard , The Colorado Springs Gazette, and The Motley Fool, among many others.

He was interviewed on FoxNews Channel’s “Special Report” on September 30 and has been a guest on countless radio programs about his work on the exchanges.

“The exchanges are going to end up in a ‘death spiral,'” explains Hogberg. “Not enough young and healthy will sign up, leaving the insurance pool older and sicker. That will cause prices to rise, more young and healthy will drop out, and pool become older and sicker still, causing prices to rise. This process repeats itself until you have an insurance pool that is very expensive to cover and prices that largely appeal to those who are older and sicker.”

Today the American Spectator is scheduled to publish an article by Hogberg examining what impact the “glitches” in the ObamaCare exchanges’ websites may have. According to Hogberg:

“Among those eligible for the exchange, those ages 18-34 are probably the most web savvy. Thus, they are the most likely to be accustomed the convenience of websites like Amazon.com. Their patience for the exchanges will quickly run thin should they log on to the exchange websites and find it difficult to learn the price of their insurance, to find out how much in subsidies they qualify for (if any), and to enroll. Such frustration will make it less likely they will sign up.

“On the flip side, who is most likely to endure the difficulties of exchange websites? If the exchange website initially prove unworkable, who is most likely to return weeks or months later when the websites may be functional? They will be the people who see the most benefit in having insurance — namely, those with health problems. The technology glitches add to the exchanges’ system of incentives that discourage young and health people and make buying insurance appealing largely to those with high health care costs.”

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How The U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients And Impairs Physicians.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Black Conservatives Speak Out on Beginning of ObamaCare Enrollment

Washington, DC – With Congress at an impasse and President Obama threatening to shut down the government rather than make concessions regarding his very unpopular federal takeover of private health care, black conservatives with the Project 21 black leadership network remain highly critical of ObamaCare and President Obama’s unwillingness to compromise.

“ObamaCare will invariably lead to a centralized, rigid health care system that will insert the government as the decision maker and destroy the traditional doctor-patient relationship. Cost control will become the driving force. There will be a transfer of wealth — not from rich to poor, but away from the middle class. They will become dependent on the government,” said Project 21’s Dr. Elaina George , an award-winning, board-certified practicing otolaryngologist. “People will find themselves in the unenviable position of not being able to afford medications, tests or procedures because they cannot afford to pay their portion. Even though no one can be turned away for preexisting conditions, they can still effectively be priced out of care because the premiums and the out-of-pocket expenses are too high.”

On October 1, except in places where implementation has already failed, such as Colorado and the District of Columbia, people can begin to comply with ObamaCare’s individual mandate. President Obama pushed back the mandate for employers past the 2014 federal elections by. Conservatives have suggested a similar postponement of the individual mandate, but President Obama is willing to shut down the government to prevent this.

“It’s laughable that ObamaCare proponents are now arguing that the fact that it is a law means that it is sacred and cannot be repealed. Really? I’m sure glad my ancestors and others fought and died to repeal bad laws so that I can live free today,” said Project 21’s Christopher Arps. “There’s at least one liberal senator willing to say that ObamaCare is a looming disaster, so there’s likely others who have been waiting for someone to go first. For instance, a huge divide exists between organized labor and the White House right now. How can principled liberal senators — especially those who are also in more conservative states — sit idly by while ObamaCare destroys the 40-hour workweek?”

A recent USA Today/Pew poll found that 53 percent of those Americans surveyed disapproved of ObamaCare. A similar 53 percent also said they disapproved of the way the Obama Administration is handling health care policy.

“Promise after promise was made by President Obama and this administration in order to get the monstrosity that is ObamaCare passed. Now that it is the law, we see that Nancy Pelosi was absolutely correct when she said we’d really get to see what was in the bill once we passed it,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper , a former leadership staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives. “This law will lower the quality of care for many Americans who already have health insurance, and it will lead to significant increases in the cost of the care they get in the future. It is likely to continue exacerbating the elevated unemployment among 18 – 30 year olds and place a further drag on the economy. Government-run health care has always been a bad idea. The execrable version that progressives imposed on America in 2010 is beyond awful.”

Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative, free-market, non-profit think-tank established in 1982. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated .

Share

More Bad News for Rural America

Guest post by Jim Beers

With all of the winds currently buffeting rural America from government wolves and state governments becoming federal contractors for federal intrusions to federal land and water controls; a new wrinkle has been added. When federal politicians talk about “redistributing wealth”, who knew one of the “redistribution” vehicles for rural wealth would be federal health legislation? Not me.

Minnesota is a state that apparently seldom questions government growth of any sort, so it is not surprising that we formed one of the first state health care exchanges called MNsure as the federal Obamacare legislation rolls forward. A recent newspaper article explains the expected differences in cost for Minnesotans divided into 9 “regions”.

Under the MNsure rules and charges, the Twin Cities to St. Cloud corridor (our most urban and most populous region) will be charged a monthly premium of $634 for a family of four. All other (rural Minnesota) regions will be charged $668, $704, $742, $816, $854, and $1,200 respectively. These very significant differences are mysteriously credited to nonsense like “people might be sicker in some regions”, “doctors in some regions might opt for treatments that are more or less expensive” and “differences in the prices that different health care providers get paid for performing the same service”.

Dismissing all the associated smoke and mirrors; rural Minnesotans, and most likely all rural Americans as Obamacare becomes the only game in town, are embarking on a massive transfer of wealth to urban precincts in their state. This is yet another result of this Red/Blue – Rural/Urban voting shift in our country. Federal schemes from wolves to healthcare are at base thinly veiled political pandering for votes in concentrated urban precincts. Giving them more and more government services and the granting of their imaginary environmental dreams in rural precincts (despite the harms to farmers, ranchers, hunters, dog owners, parents, and rural economies) are what keep federal politicians and their parties in power.

Recognizing what is happening and why it is happening is the first step. The second step is seeing what must be done. The third step is doing it despite the names they call you and the accusations they hurl at you. Freedom is never cheap and rights must always be protected. Rural Americans have been in the crosshairs long enough. Transferring wealth for health is right up there with destroying a village to save it.

Jim Beers
20 Sep. 2013

Share

Montana Gun Owners’ Health Care Privacy Effective October 1

NEWS RELEASE
09/26/2013

Gun Owners Health Care Privacy Becomes Effective October 1st
Providers May Not Ask About Guns

Missoula, MONT. – The Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) reminds Montana gun owners and health care providers that House Bill 459, enacted by the 2013 legislative session, becomes effective on October 1st. HB 459, now Montana law at 50-16-108, M.C.A., prohibits health care providers from asking patients questions about firearm ownership, possession or use. This new law does allow health care providers to inquire about patient possession of a firearm on the person of the patient at the time of treatment.

HB 459, carried by Rep. Krayton Kerns (R-Laurel), was passed by the Legislature and signed by Governor Bullock to address concerns by gun owners that medical interviews and computerized medical records might be used as a tool to collect and centralize information about individuals’ firearm ownership. Gun owners were also concerned that anti-gun bias by a health care practitioner might cause information about patient firearms to skew a practitioner’s patient assessment or treatment.

According to Montana law, health care providers and facilities affected by this new law includes both medical and psychological practitioners.

MSSA President Gary Marbut commented, “When originally introduced, HB 459 only specified that health care practitioners could not refuse treatment because a patient declined to answer questions about firearms. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee expanded the measure to also forbid providers from even asking patients questions about firearms. The House approved that change and the Governor signed the bill.” “Because firearms are so ubiquitous in Montana and so unrelated to health care,” Marbut continued, “we think this is very positive public policy by the Legislature. This new law is very suitable for Montana people and for Montana culture.”

MSSA is the primary political advocate for gun owners in Montana and has gotten 63 pro-gun and pro-hunting bills passed since being founded in 1989. See:
http://www.mtssa.org/success

– 30 –

Information:

50-16-108. Privacy in health care — ownership of firearms. (1) No health care provider or health care facility may:
(a) refuse to provide health care to a person because the person declines to answer any questions concerning the person’s ownership, possession, or use of firearms; or
(b) inquire about a person’s ownership, possession, or use of firearms as a condition of receiving health care.
(2) For the purposes of this section:
(a) the terms “health care”, “health care facility”, and “health care provider” have the meanings provided in 50-16-504; and
(b) the term “possession” does not apply to the presence of a firearm on the person of a patient at the time of treatment.

50-16-504. Definitions. As used in this part, unless the context indicates otherwise, the following definitions apply:
(4) “Health care” means any care, service, or procedure provided by a health care provider, including medical or psychological diagnosis, treatment, evaluation, advice, or other services that affect the structure or any function of the human body.
(5) “Health care facility” means a hospital, clinic, nursing home, laboratory, office, or similar place where a health care provider provides health care to patients.
(6) “Health care information” means any information, whether oral or recorded in any form or medium, that identifies or can readily be associated with the identity of a patient and relates to the patient’s health care. The term includes any record of disclosures of health care information.
(7) “Health care provider” means a person who is licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized by the laws of this state to provide health care in the ordinary course of business or practice of a profession.

Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association

Share

Over 2.1 Million Young Adults May Not Qualify for ObamaCare Exchange Subsidies

Number Includes 1.3 Million Young Adults Making 400 Percent of Federal Poverty Level or Less

Young People Less Likely to Receive a Subsidy than Older People

Newly-Released Federal Data Confirms National Center for Public Policy Research Study Showing the Subsidy Structure Will Likely Create an ObamaCare “Death Spiral”

Washington, DC – Data on premiums in the federal exchange released by the Department of Health and Human Service shows that younger, healthier people will be less likely to receive subsidies says a new article for the National Center for Public Policy Research’s blog entitled, “‘Young Invincibles’ Still Won’t Get Subsidies On ObamaCare Exchange.”

The article was written for the National Center for Public Policy Research by David Hogberg, Ph.D., senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center.

The federal data confirms finding in a recent National Center study, “ObamaCare Exchanges: Just Because You Are Eligible For a Subsidy Doesn’t Mean You Will Qualify for One.”

Officially, the ObamaCare exchanges are supposed to give a subsidy to everyone making 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) or below, but that study found that in 11 of 15 exchanges, the subsidies disappeared for people age 18-34 even before 300 percent FPL or $34,470 annually.

The data released today shows that same pattern,” said Dr. Hogberg, “HHS released data on 36 federal exchanges, and in 23 of them the subsidies disappear before 300 percent FPL for the Young Invincibles. That’s going to be a problem because young people are being told they’ll be getting subsidies up to the 400 percent level. When some find out they won’t get one, they will be less likely to sign up for the exchanges.”

The study examined the premium data of the exchange of 14 states and Washington, D.C. In ten of the exchanges, subsidies disappeared for everyone age 18-34 before they reached the 300 percent federal poverty level (FPL), about $34,470 annually for a single person.

“This is critical information because it tells us that a population that is crucial to the proper functioning of the ObamaCare exchanges, those 18-34, will be paying full price for their premiums,” said Dr. Hogberg. “This will give them considerable incentive to forego insurance and just pay the individual mandate fine.”

This will likely lead to a “death spiral” on the exchange, which occurs when younger and healthier people needed to stabilize the risk pool don’t sign up for insurance. Premiums for those who do purchase insurance will climb. The higher premiums encourage even more young and healthy people to drop insurance as premiums become less affordable. This eventually leads to a rising number of uninsured while those who remain insured are only the sickest, with the highest healthcare costs.

However, just like the previous study, the federal data reveals a much better subsidy picture for older people. The study found that in 12 of the 15 exchanges, subsidies extended to 400 percent FPL for every person age 52 and older.

“The federal data shows that subsidies will reach that 400 percent level for people 52 and older in 27 exchanges,” said Hogberg. “In four other exchanges, that age is 53. In short, the subsidies will make the exchanges look much more attractive to people with higher medical claims, the older and sicker.”

Hogberg continued, “An health insurance system like the ObamaCare exchanges that discourages the younger and healthier but attracts the older and sicker is headed for disaster.”

Finally, the article extended the analysis of the 36 exchanges to the nation as a whole and found that about 1,304,817 18-34-year-olds who are single, childless and under 400 percent FPL will not qualify for an exchange subsidy. When those 18-34-year-olds whose incomes exceed 400 percent FPL are included in the analysis, about 2,132,299 will not receive subsidies.

The article is available online here.

Suggested Discussion Topics:

1. Why does it matter that exchange subsides favor the older and sicker over the younger and healthier? What effect will that have?
2. When you talk of this leading to a “death spiral,” what do you mean and what are the likely consequences?
3. How does the formula for subsidies on the exchanges work, and why does it lead to many younger people under 400 percent of the federal poverty level not receiving subsidies?
4. In your last study you noted that about 6 million of those 18-34 who are single and childless would be eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges. If at most 1.9 million opt out because they have to pay full price for insurance because they get no subsidy, doesn’t that still leave enough to make the ObamaCare exchanges work?

In Dr. Hogberg’s most recent prior study, August 2013’s “Why The ‘Young Invincibles’ Won’t Participate In The ObamaCare Exchanges and Why It Matters,” he found that, despite both the subsidies and individual mandate, about 3.7 million 18-34-year-olds would save at least $500 by forgoing insurance and paying the fine. Of that group, about 3 million would save at least $1,000.

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How The U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients And Impairs Physicians.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Just How Popular is Obamacare?

Jay Leno says it’s so popular, it’s been renamed.

lenoobamacare

Share

ObamaCare Subsidy Structure Pits Young v. Old, New Study Says

Younger, Healthier People Less Likely To Receive Subsidies Than Older, Sicker People on ObamaCare Exchanges

Subsidy Structure Makes Health Insurance Far More Attractive to ages 51-64 than 18-34, Likely Creating ObamaCare “Death Spiral”

Over 1 Million Young Adults Making 400 Percent of Federal Poverty Level or Less May Not Qualify for Exchange Subsidies

Washington, DC – Subsidies on the ObamaCare exchanges will favor older, sicker people over the young and healthy, likely leading to an insurance “death spiral,” says a just released study, “ObamaCare Exchanges: Just Because You Are Eligible for a Subsidy Doesn’t Mean You Will Qualify for One.

The study was written for the National Center for Public Policy Research by David Hogberg, Ph.D., senior fellow for health care policy at the National Center, and Sean Parnell, president of Impact Policy Management, a public policy consulting firm.

“Officially, the ObamaCare Exchanges are supposed to give a subsidy to everyone making 400 percent of the federal poverty level or below,” said Dr. Hogberg, “and that’s what the public is being told. Yet we’ve found that for most people age 18-34, the subsidies disappear well before that 400 percent level.”

The study examined the premium data of the exchange of 14 states and Washington, D.C. In ten of the exchanges, subsidies disappeared for everyone age 18-34 before they reached the 300 percent federal poverty level (FPL), about $34,470 annually for a single person.

“This is critical information because it tells us that a population that is crucial to the proper functioning of the ObamaCare exchanges, those 18-34, will be paying full price for their premiums,” said Dr. Hogberg. “This will give them considerable incentive to forego insurance and just pay the individual mandate fine.”

But, Dr. Hogberg says, the picture that emerges for those in their 50s and 60s is quite different. The study found that in most exchanges, the subsidies extend up to the 400 percent FPL ($45,960) level beginning at age 52.

“This means that, on balance, insurance on the exchanges is a much better deal for older and sicker people,” said Parnell. “An insurance system that discourages young people from buying coverage but encourages older people is likely headed for a death spiral.

“A death spiral occurs when younger and healthier people needed to stabilize the risk pool don’t sign up for insurance,” continued Parnell. “Premiums for those who do purchase insurance will climb. The higher premiums encourage even more young and healthy people to drop insurance as premiums become less affordable. This eventually leads to a rising number of uninsured while those who remain insured are only the sickest, with the highest healthcare costs.”

Finally, the study extended the analysis of the 15 exchanges to the nation as a whole and found that about 1,185,881 18-34-year-olds who are single, childless and under 400 percent FPL will not qualify for an exchange subsidy. Including in the analysis those 18-34-year-olds whose incomes exceed 400 percent FPL show about 1,961,990 will not receive subsidies.

The paper is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA653.html

Suggested Discussion Topics:

1. Why does it matter that exchange subsides favor the older and sicker over the younger and healthier? What effect will that have?

2. When you talk of this leading to a “death spiral,” what do mean and what are the likely consequences?

3. How does the formula for subsidies on the exchanges work, and why does it lead to many younger people under 400 percent of the federal poverty level not receive subsidies?

4. In your last study you noted that about 6 million of those 18-34 who are single and childless would be eligible for the ObamaCare exchanges. If at most 1.9 million opt out because they have to pay full price for insurance because they get no subsidy, doesn’t that still leave enough to make the ObamaCare exchanges work?

In Dr. Hogberg’s most recent prior study, August 2013’s “Why The ‘Young Invincibles’ Won’t Participate In The ObamaCare Exchanges and Why It Matters,” he found that, despite both the subsidies and individual mandate, about 3.7 million 18-34-year-olds would save at least $500 by forging insurance and paying the fine. Of that group, about 3 million would save at least $1,000.

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How The U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients And Impairs Physicians.”

Sean Parnell is a public policy consultant in Alexandria, Virginia, who conducts original research and analysis as well as providing government relations and strategic consulting services. He serves as adjunct scholar in health care policy for the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity and is working on a book entitled The Self-Pay Patient, a resource for uninsured patients as well as those with high-deductible health plans. He also runs a blog called The Self-Pay Patient and previously served as president of the Center for Competitive Politics and as vice president at the Heartland Institute.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than 4 percent from foundations, and less than 2 percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Obama Video Contest to Promote Obamacare Results in Video Not Expected

President Obama offered a video production contest aimed at young Americans in an effort to convince them Obamacare is cool. I don’t think the president expected the following entry.

Share

Day 30 – No Executive Orders

ARTIFICE!

One month, 30 days, and no executive orders appear on the White House web page.

This president lies so much nobody cares or pays attention anymore. Shame!

beararms

The other day a reader sent me a link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman. The basic premise of the article was based on what I think is a fallacy that our Courts would never allow most of the gun control measures being proposed to stand. The authors write:

While the courts are still sorting out Heller’s implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.

The general framework is straightforward and certainly well-known to those who have studied (let alone taught) constitutional law. The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done. Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important. At the same time, any regulation must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

And just who are they trying to convince here? Spoken as real lawyers, practicing in real Washington, D.C. and honestly believing what they write, I think. I suppose once there existed a real confidence in this nation that the separation of powers would do the job it was crafted to do. Not so anymore. Our government is run by a tyrant, who has exclaimed many times that he thinks the constitution is all wrong, that the framers got it all wrong and that he, the dictator, should have more power. He has also demonstrated his disdain for law and order, i.e the separation of powers by exerting use of legislative fiat, known as executive orders.

I’m not sure what the actual reasoning behind Rivkin and Grossman to have faith that the Courts wouldn’t stand for Obama and his cronies’ destruction of the Second Amendment. Yes, they cited Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago, to claim the Supreme Court loudly proclaimed the Second Amendment was written to protect the individual’s right to self defense and from a tyrannical government, as in the one we currently have. But that’s only a part of what actually took place.

Justice Scalia, in Heller v. District of Columbia, as majority opinion, stated that the Second Amendment was an individual guarantee but also made no bones about the fact that this decision had absolutely nothing to do with what limits can be placed on this right and by whom.

I also recall that shortly after President Obama laid out his plans for health care reform (Obamacare) many “experts” in law and the constitution swore up and down that there wasn’t a court in the nation that would uphold such an unconstitutional piece of legislation as Obamacare and for certain the Supreme Court would never tolerate this. Then magically on d-day, the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare when Justice Roberts jumped from one boat into the other.

And why would anybody have faith that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing – the right thing being to follow the constitution and the laws written, when every decision almost always falls along party lines? The courts are non partisan? Want to buy a New York bridge?

There are many points in this Wall Street Journal article that are accurate and well written. However, having that kind of faith in our corrupt court system, is just a bit too boy scoutish to me.

Share