Conservatives have a dilemma. Much of the hated Affordable Care Act has been well received by Americans not on the Kochwhore payroll. Even Scott Walker almost flubbed up on this.
Conservatives face two conflicts. The first is they don’t have anything to really replace popular provisions like not being able to deny preexisting conditions or kids being able to stay on their parents insurance until age 26. The ACA was based on conservative solutions cooked up by wingnut think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and put into practice by Mitt Romney, there’s nothing substantial to the right of it. The other is the one component they have bet the farm on striking down, the individual mandate, is the part that gives CEOs that dreamy eyed-look normally reserved for steep tax cuts and a well endowed mistress.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, it also closes the door on a bunch of other things Wall Street loves and millions of people have already begun to depend on. Watching Romney bots scramble to keep all those flaming swords in the air will be almost as funny as hearing them explain at length why states are allowed to violate the Constitution of the United States.
Republicans really painted themselves into a corner when they made “repeal and replace” their mantra with respect to Obamacare. Repeal is the easy part, but when you press them for details about what they’d replace the ACA with, they’ll eventually describe something that looks a lot like Obamacare (formally known as Romneycare).
Just once I want a republican who, when asked what he really hates about the ACA, blurts out “Obama has cooties!” At least that would be honest.
I believe that “states allowed to violate the constitution” is a straw man.
No one, not even Romney, has said that the MA law is unconstitutional. I believe that they would say that this is one of the powers that is relegated to the states, and that the Federal Govt has no right to impose a mandate on its citizens.
Assuming they just don’t sputter.
I find that quite a slippery slope. Seems to me if states can de facto violate the constitution, no matter what sophistry is used to rationalize it, they can do a lot of really nasty things to their citizens … didn’t we fight a war over that at one time?
We fought a war that said that the *Rights* given to citizens in the Constitution could not be ignored by the states.
At this time, healthcare is not a “right”.
However, I think that we still agree that certain powers are given to the states, the problems are which ones.
“Obama is a ni….” would be even more honest.
I’m still confused on that … so the state can give you rights the fed can’t or do things to its residents the fed is not allowed to do, or what exactly?
Paging Ed Brayton!
I think we need to distinguish between rights and powers.
The feds cannot establish zoning laws, because that is a power given to local communities. Likewise, the Fed’s can no longer prohibit selling alcohol, but states or counties can. The repeal of prohibition did not establish a federal “right” to drink alcohol.
I sorta get it. Thank you … I have to reaqquaint myself with states’ rights everytime there’s a democrat in the WH.