Supremes Hear Obamacare Arguments Monday – Wednesday

©Bridgette@WTPOTUS 2012

Will We Die at the Hands of God or the Government? 

Here’s Hoping that Obamacare Kicks the Bucket!



The determination for whether our country remains on track to become another country with failed socialized medicine lies in the hands of the Supreme Court.  Our healthcare fate  especially lays  with those attorneys who are arguing the constitutional case and want our exemplary healthcare system to remain in tact,  and want Obamacare  declared unconstitutional.

Today, Monday, March 26, 2012,   a historic three-day series of arguments begins.   Justice Eleana Kagan did not recuse herself from hearing the arguments, although Judicial Watch uncovered emails showing her involvement in promoting and supporting Obamacare’s legal defense  during her tenure as Solicitor General was more than she originally stated.  They sent a letter to her on March 22, asking that she “ address the facts surrounding her tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), as well as to provide an articulation of her reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.”

Excerpts from Judical Watch’s letter to Justice Kagan:

Judicial Watch also understands that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has repeatedly requested the production or records about your tenure as Solicitor General and the PPACA, [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] only to be rebuffed by the U.S. Department of Justice.  Requests by several U.S. Senators for similar records and information also have been ignored by the Justice Department.
However the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Court’s decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter.  It would leave a cloud hanging over the Court’s decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution.

Our healthcare is now in the hands of  very competent attorneys who are leading the charge for 26 States who are challenging Obamacare and believe it  is unconstitutional.

USA Today published the following Glossary of healthcare and insurance terms and their definitions that might be used in oral arguments.

A Glossary of Terms:

Adverse selection:  A situation in which a health insurer is unable to recover in premiums enough money to cover the risk posed by the insured people.

Community rating:  A rule that limits how much health insurers can vary premiums within a community based on age, gender, health status and other factors, in order to protect those with greater health needs from exorbitant costs.

Cost shifting:   Transferring the cost of treatment in hospitals or doctors’ offices from patients without insurance to those with insurance, through higher premiums.

Guaranteed issue:   A requirement that health plans accept people regardless of pre-existing conditions or other factors that could make them more expensive to insure.

Individual mandate:  A requirement that people buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

Insurance exchange:  An insurance marketplace for individuals and small businesses to shop for health plans that compete against each other for their business.

Limiting principle:   A precedent that would prevent a court ruling from affecting other situations. Opponents of the law argue that mandating health coverage could lead to other purchasing mandates.

Pre-existing condition:    A condition, disability or illness that precedes enrollment in a health plan.

Risk adjustment:    A statistical calculation used to pay health plans based on the risk they have assumed. This removes their incentive to target healthier people and avoid those with greater medical needs.

Severability:  The ability for a part of the law — in this case, the individual mandate — to be separated from the rest of it without rendering other provisions unworkable.

Personally, I pray for the death knell for Obamacare.  This monstrosity  was pushed through the democratically ruled Congress utilizing lies to citizens,  back door deals,  and corrupt methods such as the Corn Husker’s Kickback, and the Louisiana Purchase.   No one knows who wrote it, but it was ready and waiting for the Democratic Congress.  The bill remained  unread in its entirety by members of Congress.  Indeed, many admitted they didn’t read the bill, yet voted to pass it!

Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, arrogantly told U. S. Citizens that we’d have to read it to know what was in it.  Sarah Palin warned of the existence of  death panels that would determine whether people lived or died.  The Left denied her allegations and ridiculed her for suggesting that death panels were included in Obamacare.    We did find out because we read the bill.   Obama and the Left lied,  and Sarah Palin told the truth.   Within the 2,471 +/-  pages, it details the  committee of  bureaucrats  who will decide if you or your family members “deserve” or  get the necessary healthcare to prolong  life or cure your illness, or whether you will be given a placebo or an aspirin instead of a life saving operation or drug.  These unknown people, not God, will be able to kill you with their decision.   Your age,  fitness, illness, and cost to the government of prolonging your life will be factored into their decision.  This is one of many consequences  if Obamacare is not quashed by the Supreme Court.

How quickly were the DemocRats  installing portions of  Obamacare?  As of January 25, 2011, over 6,000 Pages  of ObamaCare Requirements were added to Federal Register!   It passed the Senate on December 24, 2009,  and a year later they had 6,000 pages of requirements readied!   Contrast this with 3 years of no United States budget being passed by the Senate.

The country’s citizens responded with outrage in 2010 and got rid of many of the perpetrators who signed on to pass this boondoggle called Obamacare.   They got the “shellacking they deserved.  We plan to rid the White House  of the man that signed Obamacare into law along with the rest of its Congressional  signers in 2012!  Citizens have their own death panels and we call it votes!

This post will keep track of news emanating from the Supreme Court as it determines the destiny of our nation’s healthcare system, and ultimately you and me.  If the Supremes rule in favor of Obamacare, we can only imagine the enormous and disastrous  impact it will have for many years to come on both federal and state relations as well as for all of us.

Medical Care is Between a Patient and their Doctor and our Fate is Up to God. 

May the Supreme Court Take the Power of Life Out of the Hands of  Government and rule Obamacare Unconstitutional!


Defeat Obamacare!


H/T Photo

21 responses to “Supremes Hear Obamacare Arguments Monday – Wednesday

  1. Excellent summary, Bridgette. How well we remember the lies about the death panels. That’s an important point: All the decisions were deliberately taken away from our elected representatives. The decisions about your LIFE OR DEATH will be made by unnamed bureaucrats who don’t have your BEST INTERESTS at heart. In fact, many of them come from the anti-life, pro-euthanasia, progressive left who invent innocent-sounding euphemisms for “rationing” your “care,” when THEY decide that your life isn’t worth living anymore. Even when they decide that you’re dead (even if still alive) so they can harvest your organs to give to someone more “worthy” of life.

    More important is that this bill will be the camel’s nose under the tent, IF the mandate is allowed to stand. THEN, they will have the green light to force you to engage in “commerce” in any number of other areas. What a slippery slope. A dictator’s dream.

    CSPAN has audio coverage but apparently not live:

    First they have call-in discussions. Later they will cover the outside demonstrations. This afternoon, they will replay the audio from the arguments. I had thought there would be live audio, but I can’t find it anywhere.

  2. I wrote about the death panels and then find this at American Thinker.

    House repeals key Obamacare Board [It will sit in the Senate!]
    March 25, 2012

    The Independent Payment Advisory Board is either the way to save Medicare or a means by which the government will ration health care, depending on which side of the aisle you belong.
    Whatever it is, the House voted on Saturday to repeal it.

    USA Today: The GOP has branded the Independent Payment Advisory Board a rationing panel, and Republicans hope the symbolic 223-181 vote to repeal it will persuade seniors that they, and not the Democrats, are the best stewards of Medicare. IPAB would have the power to force cuts to service providers like drug companies if Medicare costs rise beyond predetermined levels. A Republican Medicare plan announced this week would also limit Medicare cost increases, but rely more on market competition.

    If it sounds like a debate among Washington insiders, Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said he would have no trouble explaining to constituents why he voted to repeal the board. “Do you remember death panels?” said Kingston, referring to the debunked accusation by former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin that Obama’s health care law would allow bureaucrats to withhold life-saving care from the elderly.

    “It’s not necessarily a death panel, but it is a rationing panel and rationing does lead to scarcity for some,” he added. “Who’s going to get the needed treatment, an 85-year-old or the 40-year-old with children?”

    The health care law explicitly bars the board from rationing care, shifting costs to Medicare recipients or cutting their benefits. But critics say squeezing service providers will stifle medical innovation, achieving a similar result.

    Of course, there is zero chance the senate will also vote to repeal so we await the arguments this coming week before the Supreme Court on the constitutional merits of the entire bill. Win or lose with SCOTUS – and even many conservative legal experts believe the court will uphold the individual mandate — the legislative challenges to Obamacare will continue since it is extremely unlikely that the court will strike down the entire law.

    • They’re already saying that Cheney shouldn’t have got a new heart on account of his age.

      • The slime of the Left just doesn’t quit. They just can’t put themselves into another’s shoes, can they? It is going to be a long, hot summer.

        I consider heart transplant a medical miracle and revel at what medical science is able to do. They found a match after an 18 month wait, and God said, It wasn’t his time! More power to him. He will hopefully feel better than he has in years. He’s dealt with a bad ticker for a long, long time.

        • There is no end to their hatred. I accidentally saw one comment on a news story about his heart transplant. It was the first comment and the jerk said something like, “Was it a Christian heart this time?”

          He was on the waiting list for almost two years. He waited his turn when likely he didn’t HAVE TO. If he makes it through, he will be much better than he’s been. Best of luck to him and his family.

  3. The Killer accidentally tips his hand
    and I mean it, the killer:

    American Thinker:

    « Turkey closes Syria embassy | Blog Home Page
    Email | Print | Comments | Facebook | Twitter | Share Share
    March 26, 2012
    Obama’s ‘Flexible’ Second Term?
    Cindy Simpson

    Many of us, back in 2008, instead of being inspired, were uncomfortable with the prospects of a self-admitted “blank screen” as President. One with a rather murky, largely unknown past, who voted “present” much of the time as senator. Also one who, a few years earlier, had referred to the Constitution as a “flawed” document. Then, when Obama was inaugurated, he told us he wanted to “fundamentally transform” America.

    Nearing the end of Obama’s term, we can prepare a massive list of the questionable and unconstitutional actions, bills, regulations, appointments and orders this administration has produced, and wonder if the damage can ever be undone.

    The prospect of an Obama second term is cause for even greater concern. Thomas Sowell recently remarked:

    I cannot imagine what this country will be like after a second term for Obama, after he has had a chance to pack the Supreme Court with his own nominees who will rubber-stamp anything he does regardless of how much it may violate the Constitution.

    Many conservative pundits argue that a poor economy will hamper Obama’s reelection, while Sowell disagrees:

    [Obama] knows that one of the ways to get votes is to simply create dependencies. And he’s doing it all over the place and no one seems to be calling him on it.

    The Heritage Foundation’s recently released “dependency index” reveals a 23% increase in numbers of Americans receiving some type of government assistance during Obama’s first two years in office.

    While we can speculate on the economic consequences attached to an Obama reelection, what he might do on the international front in a “lame duck” second term should worry us even more.

    Apparently yesterday, Russian leaders were reassured by Obama himself, in an exchange caught on microphone, unintended:

    President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

    President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

    President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

    President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

    Unless the actions Obama hinted at were favorable for the Russians and detrimental to his campaign, why would he have made such a remark?

    Or was this simply another instance of Obama being so focused on his campaign schedule, he arrogantly implied that the Russians would have to wait until he had more time to talk?

    Either way, a revealing moment

  4. My proposal to fight this, based on “Give me Liberty or give me Death” is for everyone that is against this and has insurance (even company paid) just drop it. Millions dropping insurance in one day. Big risk but the outcome of “Give me Liberty or give me Death” isn’t always death by a bullet.

  5. Supreme Court Signals Obamacare Decision by Early Summer
    Monday, 26 Mar 2012 Snips

    The Supreme Court plunged into debate Monday on the fate of the Obama administration’s overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system, starting with pointed questions about a legal issue that could derail the case.

    A decision is expected by late June, in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which all of President Barack Obama’s Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal if the high court hasn’t struck it down in the meantime.

    With demonstrators chanting outside, eight of the nine justices fired two dozen questions in less than half hour Monday morning at Washington attorney Robert Long. He had been appointed by the justices to argue that the case has been brought prematurely because a law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

    Under the new law, taxpayers who don’t buy health insurance will have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and will pay a penalty along with federal income tax. At issue is whether that penalty is a tax. Some of the justices reacted skeptically to the idea that the penalties encapsulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were actually a tax. “What is the parade of horribles?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court.
    The first arguments Monday concern whether the challenge is premature under a 19th century tax law because the insurance requirement doesn’t kick in until 2014 and people who remain uninsured wouldn’t have to pay a penalty until they file their 2014 income taxes in early 2015. Taking this way out of the case would relieve the justices of rendering a decision in political high season, just months before the presidential election.
    The biggest issue before the court is Tuesday’s argument over the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement.The states and the National Federation of Independent Business say Congress lacked authority under the Constitution for its unprecedented step of forcing Americans to buy insurance whether they want it or not.

  6. Elena Kagan Breaks Federal Law By Hearing ObamaCare Case, Republicans Silent
    March 26, 2012 Snips

    Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will be in clear violation of federal law by virtue of her decision to hear the Affordable Care Act case coming before the Supreme Court today.

    Upon joining the other justices to hear oral arguments she will fracture the federal statute which demands that judges recuse themselves from participation in a case “where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as council, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

    And according to emails obtained by the Media Research Center as the result of a 2010 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DOJ, not only did she advise DOJ attorneys and express opinions concerning the merits of ObamaCare, she lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings by answering “No” when asked specifically if she had any involvement in preparing the government’s defense for ObamaCare.

  7. Justice signals deep trouble for health care law
    by mark sherman ap on google

    “Obama Care is Putting the US Tax Payers in Debtors Prison”

      • “The fate of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul was cast into peril Tuesday as the Supreme Court’s conservative justices sharply and repeatedly questioned its core requirement that virtually every American carry insurance. The court will now take up whether any remnant of the historic law can survive if that linchpin fails.

        The justices’ questions in Tuesday’s hearing carried deeply serious implications but were sometimes flavored with fanciful suggestions. If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to by burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli? …The biggest issue, to which the justices returned repeatedly during two hours of arguments in a packed courtroom, was whether the government can force people to buy insurance.

        “Purchase insurance in this case, something else in the next case,” Roberts said.

        “If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” Justice Antonin Scalia asked. He and Justice Samuel Alito appeared likely to join with Justice Clarence Thomas, the only justice to ask no questions, to vote to strike down the key provision of the overhaul. The four Democratic appointees seemed ready to vote to uphold it.

        Kennedy at one point said that allowing the government mandate would “change the relationship” between the government and U.S. citizens.

        “Do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution” for the individual mandate? asked Kennedy.”

        Do read the entire thing. I’m not comfortable with some things Roberts, especially said. And Kennedy. They’re the deciders in this instance. God help us.

  8. top of page of justice link above… hit the arrows ( # 10)
    show all the worms lined up in pretty row… YUK!

    delete my mistakes… please miri … sorry

  9. SCOTUS is a sham. I have no faith in their theatrics.

    Under federal law Kagen is participating in a conflict of interest to begin with and it’s illegal for her to hear and rule on the issue **.
    Sotomayor is on the record as stating policy will be made from the bench.
    Ginsberg believes the Constitution is as moldy as she is and we should look to foreign countries modern day Constitutions.
    Roberts met with barky and biden a week before the inauguration whilst barky was defendant in court cases before him.
    Roberts installed barky in public despite hidden bona fides and held another Oath in private for secret reasons,
    Thomas admitted in public that eligibility is an issue being evaded and scoffed in our faces.
    what a charade. Show me don’t tell me.

    the debate doesn’t even belong in front of SCOTUS. We are Americans and we have the right to choose our destiny. The case should have been determined the day it was presented. FAIL. its unconstitutional and its making many, many Americans unhappy, burdened and threatened.

    Its dictatorship. its slavery. its unAmerican by nature. its steals our right to privacy. it forces us to pay for freeloaders. our information is being loaded electronically for sharing by any agency that wants it and the law is not even in effect. the damage done to individuals already is massive.

    they are playing with us. pretending they are giving it a fair shake. they are all saying its going to depend on Kennedy, I think its Roberts who is the one we need to worry about.

    I agree that Health Insurance needs to be reformed and as a party to a contract, the premium paying people should have a say in that.

    We shall see. I think Congress should be held accountable for passing a turd that was unconstitutional to begin with as it is criminal on its face.

    ** maybe this is more game playing. future theatrics.

    LIBERTY what does that mean, exactly. Do tell and give 3 examples.

    • I hope you’re wrong but I tend to believe and I very much fear you are right. It’s unconstitutional and always was. It should never have got to the SCOTUS, but already 2 out of 3 appeals courts have ruled it’s constitutional, despite that anyone with common sense understands that it’s not. Just as everyone with common sense understands that Barry has NEVER proved his eligibility. But common sense does not matter anymore in the face of this (so far) bloodless coup.

      One of the scariest parts of this bill is the potential for Big Brother to know and to be able to USE AGAINST YOU every most personal fact about you. They can’t even keep the national archives safe from hackers, but they want us to believe that our personal health information will be safe in DC.

      EVEN IF they rule Obamacare constitutional and we go on to elect a Congress that overturns it, anyway, they still would have done massive damage to the country, forever, because it will give a green light to Barry to continue interfering in every aspect of our lives by executive fiat, no matter what Congress says.

      It must be ruled unconstitutional NOW. They do NOT have the power to force individuals to buy anything. The government lawyer was such a useful idiot–arguing that the problem of the uninsured is such an enormous problem that it must be solved by government. However, the obvious answer is that the solution to the problem MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. There are constitutional remedies, like giving tax breaks to individuals so they can buy their own insurance.

      As they argue that it’s not fair and so everyone MUST pay a penalty for not buying insurance, they IGNORE that it’s similarly unfair for half the population to pay no income taxes and for all the people on welfare to do nothing to get their benefits.

      If college students will, in the future, have to pay at least $695 PER YEAR if they don’t buy health insurance, then why don’t ALL CITIZENS have to pay at least $695 per year in INCOME TAXES?

      Or how about those who live off the taxpayers but who have never worked to contribute–how about the government MANDATE that they must show up somewhere every day, 8 a.m. sharp, and sit there, if they do nothing else? That could be their “fair share” of payment for all the benefits they receive as a result of other people’s labor.

      Do the progressives who support the mandate like the sound of that last suggestion? It’s FAIR, isn’t it? By their own “logic”?

      What really gets me is the number of clueless individuals, mostly those young who think they need no health insurance, who support this. I can nearly guarantee you that they missed the fine print that says they will have to pay nearly $700 (if not more, it’s actually a percentage of income) as a FINE for not buying insurance. WHEN THE MONEY IS TAKE FROM THEIR TAX RETURNS, ONLY THEN WILL THEY COMPLAIN.

  10. WHITE HOUSE INSIDER: Obama Election Team Preparing For “Healthcare Warfare” Campaign

  11. Did James Carville Just Reveal The “Back-Up Plan” In Case Obamacare Is Overturned?
    March 28, 2012

    Last night on CNN, the Democratic consultant made an interesting prediction about what might happen if the Supreme Court rules against the administration.

    From the professional Louisiana Democrat, Carville if Obamacare is overturned – This will be the best thing to happen to the Democratic Party! Because healthcare costs will escalate. Then the Republicans will own the healthcare system for the foreseable future.

  12. Predictions from Obamacare’s Week in Court: Goodbye, Mandate?
    March 29, 2012

    After a three-day marathon of oral arguments, during which the Supreme Court considered various facets of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, final impressions everywhere are mixed.

    Liberal supporters of the law have melted into hysterics on live television over the “train wreck” that was Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s defense. Smeared in red atop the Huffington Post were, “Obamacare on the Brink” and “Disaster.” James Carville now claims that Democrats will “win” if the Court overturns the mandate.

    Conservatives, meanwhile, are practically dancing in the street at the prospect of an unconstitutional ruling, which once seemed a remote possibility. It seems like there’s a bit of a cautious tone in the celebrating – after all, don’t want to raise hopes too much – but the Right is certainly optimistic.

    And all this goes to show that we counted a fair number of unhatched chickens.

    General Verrilli, for his part, didn’t do his case many favors. At several points, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg stepped in to essentially state his case for him. Commentators on both the right and left joked and/or despaired that the government’s case would have fared better if Justice Kagan had been arguing it.

    But if nothing else, this week proved that the Court isn’t some bastion of activism, existing solely for the purpose of wielding unchecked power. The Justices listened, and now they’ll decide. And no matter the ruling, come June, Congress will have a new understanding of the limits – or lack thereof – to its power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s