Much like one of his predecessors, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Barack Obama has all but declared war on the United States Supreme Court.
It will be remembered that in 1937 FDR was angry over the high court's refusal to put a stamp of approval on much of his New Deal agenda, and sought to bend the court to his will by adding new members to the existing court membership.
Contemptuously calling the court's members a collection of "nine old men," FDR sought to "pack" the high court with up to six additional members more likely to do his bidding. The proposal lost steam and, thankfully, failed.
Mr. Obama has not gone quite that far - yet. But he's getting close. Like most U.S. presidents who chafe under the high court's authority to rule on the constitutionality of aspects of their agendas, Obama is unhappy with the court's failure to recognize the divinity of his proposals, if not that of his personhood.
Too bad. As we are often reminded, "Into each life some rain must fall."
Thanks to the high court, Mr. Obama has been much in need of an umbrella of late. The president's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was correctly overruled in a case involving religious freedom. The court clearly stated that the First Amendment protects churches in their decisions regarding workers with religious duties, a "ministerial exception" to employment-discrimination laws. This exception had already been supported by lower courts and many states.
Tragically for Mr. Obama and his vastly elevated ego, choirs of angels singing of the glories of his agenda cannot be heard. Despite the frantic efforts of his captive media to tune them in, the president remains a mere mortal, subject to all the slings and arrows that always target any holder of high office.
Soon the issue before the court will be Mr. Obama's health care program, rammed through Congress despite the widespread opinion that it was, and remains, nothing short of an opening to national socialized medicine. A ruling is expected by early July.
The question is whether the Constitution's Commerce Clause can be stretched beyond recognition to reach into everyone's pocketbook with the Obamacare mandate. We pray that the Supreme Court will put the question to rest with an emphatic rejection.
The notorious failings of Britain's socialized medicine have not failed to diminish the hopes and plans of our own fans of socialized everything - of a government so big and so powerful that nothing can resist its meddlesome reach.
That is a lesson Barack Hussein Obama has yet to learn. If he doesn't learn his lesson by July, he will certainly learn it in November.
Michael Reagan, the son of President Ronald Reagan, is a political consultant and the author of "The New Reagan Revolution" (St. Martin's Press, 2011). Visit his website at www.reagan.com, or e-mail comments to Reagan@caglecartoons.com.
dustbowl11 posted at 4:24 pm on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
If Britains health care system is so bad, why do their citizens fear an American style replacement? Why do their citizens enjoy longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality and fewer deaths to surgical mistakes? All the while spending less per citizen than we do. Maybe Reagan fears he won't be able to buy his way to the front of the line for his health needs.
onerebel posted at 7:38 pm on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.
If Britain's health care is so good, then why does my sister in laws mother,(who is a British citizen) come here for her health care ? The same reason many Canadian's do, they are tired of waiting several months to see a doctor. As for President Obama, he has tried to ram his Socialist agenda down our throats using any way possible since he got in office. And for those that say he is not a Socialist, why are some of his czars Socialists ? Fact check it if you don't believe me. Also the definition for Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Sound Familiar ?
Dale Whiting posted at 4:28 am on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
onerebel,
"A definition of socialism" you say. Like Mr. Reagan, who is unlike his father, you misstate the facts. Socialism is "any of a variety of economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods."
How is mandating that all purchase private healthcare insurance either collective or governmental ownership AND administration? It ain't, my friend. In fact, Obamacare, like Romney care, was first suggested by conservatives who did not care for a government sponsored "government option" which was an alternative designed to compete [competition in a free market being a characteristic of capitalism, and a necessity where Big Business has taken control - read squeezed out competition - from smaller competitors. But if you insist on your definition, recall that you are mandated to carry private insurance for you vehicle. How is that any different that healthcare insurance? Or would you have us rise up with a case in the Supreme Court to permit us all to drive around without coverage?
And "redistribution of wealth" is a neo-con scare tactic, one designed by the likes of Karl Rove to scare the life out of those who cannot think for themselves.
And for those of you who still think this news service is leftist, understand that the headlines are picked by the editors and the word "emperor" is not to be found anywhere in the article except for the headline!
No, mandated healthcare coverage does have a potential for constitutional challenge, but it's not what you think. When the decision comes down, try reading it. Then perhaps you'll begin to understand things a bit.
gilbertgrandma posted at 10:49 am on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
Dale, you ask how requiring vehicle insurance is different from requiring health insurance. The difference is this - vehicle insurance is required by the state to pay for damage you might do to another's property or injuries to another person (liability insurance); health insurance is for your own benefit, and it is your own choice whether to have coverage or not.
IceCat posted at 5:10 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
He lost me at Emperor. Nice touch insulting the President of the United States from a son of one.
mnjcpa posted at 7:45 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.
Typically I would agree IceCat but Obama doesn't deserve respect. Reagan understood leadership & the importance of bridging differences. Obama's arrogance doesn't allow him to see a point of view different than his own even in the face of opposition.
And Dale redistribution of wealth is NOT a neo-con scare tactic - it's more than real.
Whether it's government healthcare, minimum wage requirements, Dodd Frank......the list is too exhaustive to list in this column. One way or another the government takes from the producers to give to the non-producers.
An investment banker friend in San Francisco was telling me today that his business has evaporated. From semi-conductor, tool & die shops, to electronic manufacturers ALL are fleeing America to overseas because the cost to do business in America today is so excessive from state & federal regulations that they can't afford not to. BIG business has NOTHING to do with it. Liberal politics absolutely do.
I have an ophthalmologist client that just shut down his practice because of what Obamacare will do to his practice. His new job? The TSA. Years of education given up & destroyed by liberal politics to take a mindless job because the benefits are exceptional. Disgusting.
When the healthcare decision comes down I will read it. Maybe there will be a few small businesses to apply it to.
sdjtaz posted at 8:54 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Gee, a far right wing tool doesn't like the President's programs. Big surprise. Presidents and Supreme Courts have always been at odds over some program. This is the purpose of the seperation of powers, so for Michael Reagan to try to use this argument to belittle the President is pointless.
@gilbertgrandma, requiring health insurance isn't simply for the insured. I recently was in the hospital and saw the charges for basics, such as aspirin. These prices were extremely high and a significant part of the reason that hospitals charge these rates is to cover overhead such as providing assistance to uninsured patients that can't afford their bill. So in essence, this law is much like car insurance, in that it is designed to insure everyone from having to incur the costs of the uninsured.
@mnjcpa, I tend to think of the old military axiom, if you can't respect the man, then respect the rank. As for your opthamologist client, if he went out of business, it probably had more to do with his (and as his cpa) your incompetence. Maybe you can explain to me how having more people with private insurance would run him out of business. Additionally, your investment banker friend is not telling you the truth. The fact is that these businesses are moving overseas due to cheap labor, and using regulation as an excuse. Most of these regulations have been in place for a very long time and have we have always managed to deal with them.
gilbertgrandma posted at 9:36 am on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
@sdjtaz - It's naive to think that anything the government becomes involved in will lower costs. The fact is that insurance premiums for many are already increasing just on the anticipation of Obamacare.
sdjtaz posted at 12:41 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
@Gilbertgrandma, Gee, I guess that's why for every dollar spent on Medicare, approximately 95 cents goes directly into patient care, whereas with private insurers that number drops down to 85 cents. I guess that's also why VA hospitals also scored significantly higher than private sector hospitals in over 294 quality measures (Rand Corporation study, 2004).
By the way, since "Obamacare" incorporates the use of private HMO's, the price should decrease, since we have greater coverage and HMO's won't have to cover the costs for the uninsured. Ever think that the insurance companies are like the oil companies, which use any convenience to drive up prices to increase their profit.
By the way, I work for a large city in Arizona, and I see how much health care providers want to charge and how the City is able to negotiate that down. The US government has that same power. This is why Medicare has scheduled rates that they will pay for set procedures.
gilbertgrandma posted at 8:37 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
@sdjtaz - I disagree that VA hospitals have better quality care than private sector hospitals, and many of my friends tell me so. But then the study you cite is 8 yrs old, not recent. As for Medicare, do you know that many doctors will no longer take Medicare patients due to low reimbursement rates? They require you to pay them up front then submit your paperwork because they do not want to deal with the government red tape. Doctors often wait months to be reimbursed by Medicare - I suppose this will all magically improve? Also, requiring insurance companies to insure dependents up to age 26 and doing away with pre-existing conditions is bound to drive many companies who cannot afford that out of business, but maybe that's the point - we'll arrive at a single-payer system with the government controlling it all. A better solution would be to allow competition across state lines and enact some kind of tort reform - those two items alone would begin to drive costs down.
mnjcpa posted at 9:11 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
Sdjtaz – You’ve made some very large assumptions without basis about my role with the doctor client or depth in field or colleague’s position in the investment banking marketplace. It could be a division of Goldman Sachs for all you know. Rather than defending those mischaracterizations assume I know what I’m talking about.
You’re entitled to disagree with me. Everyone brings their own experiences to this column to share and debate. But a city employee couldn’t possibly understand the impact of regulations and taxes on small businesses. You and I obviously have a very different perspective on money and finance, and that’s okay.
onerebel posted at 10:03 pm on Sat, Jan 21, 2012.
I find it very interesting that anyone believes that the government can do things more efficiently. I too have a government job and know how they need 1 supervisor for every 4 workers, and how any unspent moneys at the end of the fiscal year will be spent on something so they don't loose it. My brother as a Veteran was in the Veterans hospital and received great care with what they had. The hospital was not as modern and the wait times were longer, but not terrible. Don't get me wrong the government is very important for some things, but not others, as the founding Fathers knew.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson
sdjtaz posted at 3:57 pm on Tue, Jan 24, 2012.
@Gilbert Grandma... So let's see, I can either believe you because a few of your friends complain about the VA, or I can believe the Rand Corporation, whose study found that the VA outperformed private hospitals in 294 performances sectors. Sorry, but I think that I'll go with the professionals on this one.
@mnjcpa, Yes, I do make alot of assumptions, simply because all you have given me is stories, no facts. What specifically about "Obamacare" forced your client to go out of business. Since I haven't seen a rash of eye doctors going out of business suddenly, I have to assume that he must not have had a very good business model. As for the complaint about government regulations, which ones are forcing these businesses to leave the US? Are they the ones forcing these companies to be environmentally sound, the ones that force them to pay their workers a decent wage? I hear this excuse alot, but when it comes under the microscope, the claims actually turn out to be alot of "Bull Hockey".
mnjcpa posted at 10:04 am on Sat, Jan 28, 2012.
You just can’t leave it rest can you sdjtaz? If I felt that facts would sway your opinion, I would outline in a three inch column the depth of this newspaper how liberal policies have crippled America but I’m pretty confident that would be a waste of my time. You can’t possibly understand the impact of liberal policies to small businesses while working for a city government.
Ophthalmologist client - again you've made some broad assumptions. Over 20 years his revenues have plummeted through regulations. Fewer and fewer charges are collected from Medicare in terms of receivables or procedures. In the last five years he’s seen his payroll costs TRIPLE due to medicare filing requirements. His malpractice insurance has risen ten-fold without any claims against him due to run away legal/tort costs. Obamacare will TRIPLE these costs again with the regulatory paperwork requirement so it’s become cost prohibitive for him to continue to take the risk of owning a business.
Various trade journals I read discuss this trend of doctors shutting down their practices because it doesn’t make sense to take risk when their profits are declining due to regulations. But to a liberal, these are stories and lies.
A city employee never has risk on the line like the business owners described. But you’re like an angry raccoon holding on to your unrealistic benefits when the rhetoric focuses on those. Folks like you think it’s right and proper to pay people – no matter what it costs others – wages and pensions that make it impossible for businesses to compete and profitable long run. It’s largely the problem we have in America today with public and labor union pensions crippling business’ ability to compete and prosper.
Here’s a story for you to apply. Ask your neighbor how he feels about paying your pension for life and see how he feels about it. Or actually start a business and put your family’s livelihood on the line and let us know if you still feel the same way. Facts and statistics won’t change your mind – reality will.