Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare (Mostly)

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but it ruled that a mandate using the commerce clause is unconstitutional. Instead the mandate was upheld as a tax, something that President Obama repeatedly denied it was until it went to the Supreme Court, then his Solicitor General argued that it was a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee sided with liberals giving them the votes they needed to uphold the mandate.
The court also ruled that the Federal government could not take away current medicaid funding from states that choose not to participate in The Affordable Care Act's (Obamacare) new requirements.

I applaud the latter ruling while strongly disagreeing with the former. The Supreme Court have now ruled that there is no limit to the coercion that the government can use by it's taxing power to control the lives of individuals. It is now more important than ever to defeat President Obama and elect a Republican Senate as well as hold a solid majority in the House.

Real Healthcare Reform is Needed, Not a Left-Wing Monstrosity

The Democrats could have had an easy win last year by passing a simple set of reforms to improve the healthcare system. Instead chose to go down the road of the worst mix of ideological obstinacy and special interest capitulation. They even openly and blatantly bribed senators on the fence to try to pass their bill. They ignored public will and paid the price in Massachusetts, with the cost of their filibuster-proof senate, and, the seat of one of the left's most beloved icons Ted Kennedy going to Republicans.

What kind of bill could they have passed for an easy win? Just a few easy reforms would have gone a long way with the public's good will:
1. Interstate Competition
2. Portability when employees change jobs
3. Don't allow companies to drop customers when they get sick
4. Tort reform
5. Pre-existing conditions

The first three would have been easy, with no real opposition to block it, tort reform would have had opposition by the trial lawyers but could have been done. Pre-existing conditions may have been difficult. What reason would an insurance company have for taking someone with a condition that they know for a fact will cost them much more then the customer could possibly put in? However, even this could have been done with smart and delicate legislation.

America would have been better off with a bill with the provisions stated, but the Democrats chose to go the ideological and special interest routes. If Republicans know what is good for them, and they manage to regain the majority in the midterm elections, they would be wise to pass smart, simple, and effective healthcare reform if they want to help the country and themselves at the same time.