◼ Audio - supremecourt.gov
◼ Transcript - Politico
◼ HERE‘S YOUR GUIDE TO TODAY’S SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS OVER OBAMACARE - The Blaze
Monday, March 26, 2012
43% of doctors are considering retiring because of Obamacare.
◼ 60 percent of them believe that Obamacare will have a negative impact on overall patient care.
Not only do doctors believe that Obamacare will not improve the health care system, they also anticipate that it will worsen the current condition. According to the survey, nine out of 10 physicians are unwilling to recommend health care as a profession to a family member, and one primary care physician even commented, “I would not recommend becoming an M.D. to anyone.”
Obamacare doesn’t just discourage entrance into the medical profession; it encourages those who are already practicing to leave it. The survey states that “health care reform is motivating doctors to change their retirement timeline.” In fact, 43 percent of respondents said they are considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the law. A surgeon from Michigan wrote that under Obamacare, “We will be moving further away from humanity-based health care and more towards the patient as a commodity. This was not the way my father practiced—nor will I. Winding down to retire early.”
◼ Poll: 47% disapprove of Obama health care law - CBS
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows 47 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's Affordable Care Act, including 30 percent who strongly disapprove. In the poll, conducted March 21-25, only 36 percent of those questioned said they support the law either somewhat or strongly.
Not only do doctors believe that Obamacare will not improve the health care system, they also anticipate that it will worsen the current condition. According to the survey, nine out of 10 physicians are unwilling to recommend health care as a profession to a family member, and one primary care physician even commented, “I would not recommend becoming an M.D. to anyone.”
Obamacare doesn’t just discourage entrance into the medical profession; it encourages those who are already practicing to leave it. The survey states that “health care reform is motivating doctors to change their retirement timeline.” In fact, 43 percent of respondents said they are considering retiring within the next five years as a result of the law. A surgeon from Michigan wrote that under Obamacare, “We will be moving further away from humanity-based health care and more towards the patient as a commodity. This was not the way my father practiced—nor will I. Winding down to retire early.”
◼ Poll: 47% disapprove of Obama health care law - CBS
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows 47 percent of Americans disapprove of the president's Affordable Care Act, including 30 percent who strongly disapprove. In the poll, conducted March 21-25, only 36 percent of those questioned said they support the law either somewhat or strongly.
In SCOTUS case, Obamacare has industry allies
◼ Lawyers from the health insurance and hospital industries have petitioned the Supreme Court to save President Obama's health-care law from a constitutional challenge by 26 states and a small-business group, while other big-business lobbies have stayed neutral. - Timothy P. Carney/Washington Examiner @tpcarney
The health-care law provides new taxpayer subsidies to hospitals, and the individual mandate could reduce the "uncompensated care" hospitals now provide for the uninsured. Plus, more universal and subsidized health coverage could allow hospitals to raise prices.
It makes perfect sense that a health insurer like Blue Cross would defend a law requiring people to buy health insurance. It makes perfect sense that a hospital lobby would support a law that brings more money into hospitals.
It makes no sense, however, that given industry's stance, Obama still gets away with pretending the law's opponents are shills for industry.
The health-care law provides new taxpayer subsidies to hospitals, and the individual mandate could reduce the "uncompensated care" hospitals now provide for the uninsured. Plus, more universal and subsidized health coverage could allow hospitals to raise prices.
It makes perfect sense that a health insurer like Blue Cross would defend a law requiring people to buy health insurance. It makes perfect sense that a hospital lobby would support a law that brings more money into hospitals.
It makes no sense, however, that given industry's stance, Obama still gets away with pretending the law's opponents are shills for industry.
Imagine Obama with no electoral restraints
◼ link - Jennifer Rubin/Washington Post
...is there anyone who thinks Obama, should he get a second term, wouldn’t run wild with policies and positions that the majority of the electorate oppose? Otherwise, he’d roll them out now, of course.
It’s remarkable, actually, that Obama could be any more flexible with Russia after the election than he’s already been under the “reset” that is indistinguishable from appeasement. He praised the rigged Russian elections, helped get Russia into the World Trade Organization, has tried to slow down human rights legislation aimed at Russian perpetrators and yanked missile defense sites out of Eastern Europe. One can only imagine how much worse things would get if he no longer had to worry about public opinion and all those troublesome human rights groups nagging him.
The same is, of course, true on everything from gay marriage to Israel policy to taxes. Obama took off the mask of moderation in an effort to woo back his base, but in doing so he gave the rest of the electorate real reason to worry about a second term. And conservatives shouldn’t bank on Republicans in Congress to stand up to a reelected president (especially if they lose seats in the House and fail to get the Senate). Elections are taken as mandates by elected officials and the media (even if the message is less clear than the winner would have us believe).
In sum, the election is not simply a referendum on President Obama’s actions to date; it’s essentially a blank check for the president’s second term.
...is there anyone who thinks Obama, should he get a second term, wouldn’t run wild with policies and positions that the majority of the electorate oppose? Otherwise, he’d roll them out now, of course.
It’s remarkable, actually, that Obama could be any more flexible with Russia after the election than he’s already been under the “reset” that is indistinguishable from appeasement. He praised the rigged Russian elections, helped get Russia into the World Trade Organization, has tried to slow down human rights legislation aimed at Russian perpetrators and yanked missile defense sites out of Eastern Europe. One can only imagine how much worse things would get if he no longer had to worry about public opinion and all those troublesome human rights groups nagging him.
The same is, of course, true on everything from gay marriage to Israel policy to taxes. Obama took off the mask of moderation in an effort to woo back his base, but in doing so he gave the rest of the electorate real reason to worry about a second term. And conservatives shouldn’t bank on Republicans in Congress to stand up to a reelected president (especially if they lose seats in the House and fail to get the Senate). Elections are taken as mandates by elected officials and the media (even if the message is less clear than the winner would have us believe).
In sum, the election is not simply a referendum on President Obama’s actions to date; it’s essentially a blank check for the president’s second term.
Obamacare Versus the U.S. Constitution
◼ Day One: High court takes up fight over Obama health law - AP via Drudge
President Barack Obama's health care overhaul is front and center at the Supreme Court for three days of hearings to determine the fate of a law aimed at extending health insurance to more than 30 million Americans.◼ Rejecting 'Obamacare' would be 'grave and profound' - AFP
Q:) Why is there such visceral opposition to this law among Americans?◼ Supreme Court begins review of health-care law - Will High Court punt, call case premature? - Washington Post
A:) Whenever you have landmark legislation, people are afraid of change. That's not surprising. And this is something that is going to dramatically change insurance markets, health care markets, and you know, there's a lot of people who can be worried about that and who, if they don't like the law, should vote against those who voted for it. Vote against President Obama, or vote against the members of Congress. What I think is not appropriate is to take that policy debate and put it in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. If they don't like the law, there's an easy vote and that's in November.
◼ Court’s open-minded GOP appointees may give health care a chance - Democratic appointees on board with Obama
A curious thing about this week’s Supreme Court hearings on President Obama’s health care law is that while nobody doubts how the four Democrat-appointed justices will decide, there is no such certainty on how the Republican appointees will rule in the case, which will go a long way toward defining the scope and limits of government power in the 21st century.◼ Obamacare Versus the U.S. Constitution - CNS
Virtually everyone agrees that the four Democrat-appointed justices will move to uphold the law. Few doubt that Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by Mr. Obama, will join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, in upholding as constitutional the mandate that individuals obtain medical insurance and the massive Medicaid expansion.
But among the five other justices, conservative stalwart Clarence Thomas is the only one viewed as a sure vote against the mandate and possibly other parts of the law.
So court watchers are left scratching their heads over Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. While these four are generally regarded as conservatives, conservative jurisprudence isn’t as ideologically predictable on the issues the case raises.
“There’s two types of conservatives,” said Russell Wheeler, a court scholar at the Brookings Institution. “There’s the judicial restraint school that says unless the bill is outlandish, we’re not going to second-guess Congress. And there’s this other view that says the court should be an active examiner of what Congress did because Congress will overstep its boundaries.”
Labels:
Federal Legislation,
Obamacare,
SCOTUS
'AFTER MY ELECTION I HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY'
◼ President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense — ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’ - ABC News
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders. VIDEO at the link
The exchange:
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 (Putin).
◼ The United States and its allies remain unprotected from a threat of ballistic missiles while North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile. By conceding to Russian demands on missile defense, the Administration has made the situation even worse. Yet this is exactly what President is planning on doing if he gets re-elected. - Michaela Bendikova/Heritage.org
◼ Caught On Tape: Obama Tells Russians He May Sell Out on Missile Defense After Election - Guy Benson/TownHall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)