Jun
28
2012

RNC: People v. Obamacare. [UPDATED]

Commendably fast of the RNC:

Also, Mitt Romney just finished his press conference.  He understands the basics: this is a 500 billion dollar tax hike* on the American people, it will not stand, and so if elected President Mitt Romney will KILL IT WITH FIRE on day one.  And that’s pretty much how it has to go.  If you want Obama’s health tax gone, well, you won’t get that scenario from the Democratic party.  They’re just too invested in Obamacare to stand up to the President.

[UPDATE: Here’s the video of Romney’s presser. Text after the fold.]

MITT ROMNEY: “What the Court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected President of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

“Let’s make clear that we understand what the Court did and did not do. What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy.

“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today. Let me tell you why I say that. Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare, cuts Medicare, by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts, and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep. Obamacare is a job killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people. And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

“For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare. What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place, and must be in place, in a reform, a real reform, of our healthcare system? One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people, up to that number of people, lose the insurance they want, is simply unacceptable. Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance. We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable healthcare. And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of healthcare and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

“And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life—separating you and your doctor—whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass onto the coming generations. Whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in healthcare. Where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

“This is the time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that. That we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate. Where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost. If we want good jobs and a bright economic future, for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare. That is my mission. That is our work. And I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the Founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country.”

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Believe it or not, but the White House is STILL trying to pretend that the health tax is a tax cut:

  • First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 – in fact it is a substantial net tax cut for American families. The bill being considered represents a substantial net tax cut for middle income families. According to the independent Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill will provide nearly $450 billion in individual income tax cuts over the next 10 years.

Via @edhenrytv.  How long before the White House memory holes that lie?

22 Comments

  • BJ54 says:

    I think Jethro Bodine understands English better than too many of these politicians.

  • Spegen says:

    Why do I not feel hopeful that a candidate cut from the GHW Bush cloth with be that hard core to kill it day 1.

  • Rob Crawford says:

    Can we set aside the “tax” and focus on just how much power the government is supposed to have over us?

  • Aruges says:

    I’m less worried about Romney’s desires than some of the R Senators. Murky has already said she doesn’t want to throw it out and I’m sure she’s not alone. We need as many new stalwarts as we can send. I fear we won’t be able to send enough.

    Not happy right now. Trying hard not to blog angry.

  • […] Moe Lane (crosspost) […]

  • HeartbreakRidge says:

    my question about today, since I cannot bear to actually read the opinions – if there are limits on the Commerce clause, but this is a tax, did the court state that there are *any* limits on tax (one way or the other) or is that the next line of attack?

  • qixlqatl says:

    Seems to me this decision is tantamount to saying that the U.S. Government owns all of us.. There is no longer any pretending that this is a free country.

  • Catseye says:

    HBR yes there are limits to the Commerce Clause-Hot Air has links to Jay Costs take on it and to Slate’s whiny “Roberts gutted the Commerce Clause”. And yes tax limitation does seem to be the next line of attack. No one wants a broccoli tax.

  • Jbird says:

    HR: my guess is that the limit on the taxing power is the will of the people to allow their representatives to remain in office.

  • Spegen says:

    commerce clause issues feel like thin gruel right now, almost like hoping this is a trojan horse decision. It comes down to the question of: Is Robert crazy or crazy like a fox?

  • Wombat-socho says:

    I’m thinking Roberts is crazy like a fox. It’s a lot easier to get people riled up over taxes than it is to get them excited about Wickard v. Filburn.

  • Catseye says:

    More like a badger or bobcat he’s a whole lot meaner. He truned O’Bamacare into a grenade pulled the pin and tossed it in O’Bamas lap. “The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Not our job.”

  • Jbird says:

    This type of legislation never goes away. the candy is doled out 1st, the piper won’t be paid for a few decades. I am starting to think that spending & entitlement reform won’t happen until we run out of other people’s money.

  • Aruges says:

    No, it is not the SC’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. But it IS their job to protect the constitution. I think Roberts confused the the first with the second.

    Con Law shouldn’t be the place for 3D chess moves (if that is what this was). Law is best when it is simple and predictable. This was as simple a case as could be hoped for and he decided to make it hard and unpredictable.

    Bad anyway you look at it.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    As I understand it — and I may be wrong — the Supreme Court did not rule on the severability issue. So if someone can find anything else unconstitutional about this Obamacare carp sandwich, there still might be a way to kill it dead. In 2300+ pages of legal obfuscation about insurance, taxes, and student loans (!) there must be something else that’s too shifty to stand …

  • Lee says:

    Don’t look for ways to sweeten this turd. There aren’t any.

    Roberts is looking to establish his legacy, and this was it. If we fail to get rid of Obama in November, most of the middle class will be beggared, and the government will own us.

    I don’t know if Romney will be a champion of the people, but the guy in office right now certainly isn’t. I think Romney genuinely wants to do a decent job, and that is better than what we have by a million miles.

    If you aren’t registered to vote, register today. If you were thinking about not voting or voting for a third candidate, scrap that notion immediately. There is no more time left to save the country. This is the last chance we will have.

  • DaveP. says:

    Murg: With respect, the Chief Justice has just proved that he will actually and with his bare face hanging out REWRITE THE LAW IN QUESTION to avoid having to rule against it. What makes you think that he won’t simply do so again?
    If the court even grants cert, that is.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    Don’t mind me, Dave, I’m just grasping at straws here …

    What I want to know is why did Chief Justice Roberts switch, apparently only within the past few days? Was he personally threatened (it’s the the Chicago way!), or did President Obama threaten to trash the legitimacy of the court, or does Chief Justice Roberts think he’s playing a deeper game? Why did he do it, when originally he led the majority to not only strike down the “penalty” and to throw out the whole thing on account of non-severability?

    There’s strong evidence that Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito are NOT AMUSED. Chief Justice Roberts’ switch could have interesting repercussions.

  • DaveP. says:

    I have a comment a alittle previous that I’ll repeat here:
    Now that he has rewarded President Obama’s pressure and intimidation of the Court, does Roberts think he’s going to get less of it in the future? Does he think that, now it’s been shown to work, the intimidation and villification is going to stop even if Obama leaves office?

    Whyever he did what he did, the one thing to be sure of is that he will spend the rest of his life trying to justify it.

  • Murgatroyd says:

    This could get interesting:
    Forty-three Catholic dioceses and institutions — including the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., St. Louis and New York, the University of Notre Dame and Catholic University — have filed lawsuits against the sterilization-contraception-abortifacient mandate, arguing that it violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/next-battle-catholic-bishops-unanimous-our-vigorous-opposition-unjust-and-illegal

    So, will this make it to the Supreme Court?
    What of severability now?
    Can’t you just see the Obama administration and the media (but I repeat myself) demanding that the six Catholic Justices recuse themselves?
    Things could get dirty …

  • Liber Ex Machina says:

    The big problem with hopping for the Catholic anti-infanticide case to result in repeal is that they are, in essence, challenging an administrative rule, not a portion of the law. The law says that Sec-HHS gets to determine what is necessary and proper for health insurance to cover (which the Catholics were, in general, cool with); the Sec-HHS in question (who, by the way, was excommunicated 4 or so years ago for [expletive] like this) just made a rule that says sterilizations, contraception, and abortofacients are necessary and proper.
    If Roberts (may his camel get dysentery while he uses it as shelter in a sandstorm) can make stuff up to keep that “I deserve to go to jail” clause in it, why do you think that case, at best, will result in the Court saying to HHS that they need to change that one administrative rule?
    And the Obama administration would only be asking the justices who are Catholic over being liberal partisan hacks to recuse themselves…

  • EastBayLarry says:

    The thing about Romney’s statements that concern me is the ‘pre-existing conditions’ issue. Buying car insurance *after* the accident?
    As ‘appealing; as this issue may be it is still about Big Government imposing itself on free enterprise.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com