Major Conservative Health Care victory

Really, I have no clue why Tea Party people are so angry over the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act.

I thought you guys were conservatives. Think this isn’t a conservative victory?

– Conservatives hate waste. When people don’t have health insurance they either force others to pay their bills, or go bankrupt paying them themselves and then force people to pickup the tab. Either way, one family is destroyed, which as a spreading effect on others. Medical costs are the leading cost of bankruptcy in this country, which means when someone gets sick and goes broke, they don’t pay their bills to you and you have to lay off folks.

– Conservatives hate freeloaders. TEA party people REALLY hate freeloaders. People who show up at hospitals and expect free medical care just because they happen to be bleeding to death or something like that are the worst kind of freeloaders because they haven’t, until then, had the foresight to join an insurance plan to help pay for their care, so they expect the rest of us to save their sorry butts.

 Sen. Orrin Hatch hated freeloaders so much that, during the Clinton Administration, he supported efforts to fix those freeloaders — and he used that term — by requiring them to buy insurance, to do their part, to make sure they had skin in the game of their own care.

The Affordable Care Act, by requiring people to join insurance plans or pay a penalty, upholds this conservative doctrine of personal responsibility.

– Conservatives hate inefficiency — sadly, the ACA doesn’t do a lot for this — by maintaining the massive bureaucracy of the multiple groups of insurance providors, it keeps the huge bureaucracy that our medical system requires doctors and hospitals to maintain just to deal with all the claims forms and so on.

– Conservatives hate cruelty. By doing away with pre-existing condition requirements, and by making it impossible for someone to be denied insurance they have paid for after they actually have the unbelievable gall to get sick, the ACA moves our health care system to a kinder and more caring model. People who say we are a Christian nation should be glad to see this change.

I could go on, but you get the point.

I understand the TEA party, and other conservatives, are furious today, but I really am not sure why. Anything that makes us less vulnerable to financial disaster from catastrophic illness makes us all better, and kinder. We have to recognize that all of us can be in that position tomorrow, or even today, with no warning at all and despite all our best efforts.

Yeah yeah, I know, this is big evil government forcing you to buy something. Guess what? You don’t have to buy it. You can continue along without any insurance, secure that you are solely responsible for your own future and bills.

And when you show up at the emergency room bleeding to death, please have your Visa card handy.

I’m a conservative, and I’m sick and tired of paying for you freeloaders. Fortunately, the bill does assess you guys a tax “penalty” to make you pay something, at least, and about time.



This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Major Conservative Health Care victory

  1. Dan S. says:

    Surely conservatives also like the way the ACA helps small businesses, by making it easier for their employees to get health insurance.

    • Charles Trentelman says:

      You would think, would you not? I covered a meeting on health care where several small business types in Utah said the inability to provide health care for their workers was destroying their ability to hire good workers.

      Sadly, I suspect we’ll hear more of the “job killing” talk.

      Interestingly, Mitt Romney’s response to the decision today was to talk about the 20 million people who will lose their coverage because of this bill. Why?

      Well, their employers will decide it is to their financial interest to stop covering their employees and let the government’s programs do it for them, thus cutting their own costs.

      This is fascinting on two respects because it shows how mean private corporations can be, which is something to keep in mind when we ponder how Romney says he will run government like a business …

      AND it also shows how corporations in America, which generally are all about the free market, are willing to let government subsidize their operations whenever they can.

  2. laytonian says:

    As all these fires blaze in Utah, I wonder how these conservatives would handle the problem if these lands had been privatized?

    The ONLY reason the conservatives are going after this, is because Obama did it. And we know that for sure.

    • Dovie says:

      How would they handle it if the land was privatized? I imagine the public would pay to fight the fires, what else?
      It would be one of those signature Utah arrangements that are so great for business: the public/private partnership. The public takes all the risk and fronts all the capital, while the private absconds with any profit.

  3. Myth Buster says:

    Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 1 allows Congress to collect taxes for general welfare and to regulate commerce, not force commerce between individuals and the Federal Government. John Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer Sotomayor and Kagan are Traitors.
    Kagan especially so because as Obama’s Solicitor General, she argued the Constitutionality and help draft the legislation. No better example of conflict of interest in history. Except perhaps having 33 degree Mason Earl Warren tells us how JFK died.

    • ctrentelman says:

      if it were new commerce you might have a point, but the reality that the court recognized is that the commerce is already existing — if you are living in the US of A you are using health care somehow, or benefitting from it somehow, and should pay in to support that infrastructure.

      Promise never to use it? Not even in an emergency? You may be able to argue that you shouldn’t have to chip in, but I doubt, when you are standing there bleeding to death, you will calmly say “That’s OK, I’m for personal responsibility so stopping this is my job.”

      • Brent Glines says:

        You should read the decision, Charles. The decision clearly states that the argument you are making is unconstitutional.

      • Myth Buster says:

        The ruling cites the taxing powers, not regulating commerce as the Constitutional basis. It’s a tax penalty assessed on individuals who do not purchase insurance ranging from 1 to 2.5% of income in 2014-2016. Taxing must be uniform, this is not. There are tax credits offered to low-moderate income ($11-44K) The bulk of the 40million uninsured will have their insurance financed by taxpayers.
        Un-constitutional by any standard
        Elena Kagan was Obama’s Solicitor General who argued this legislation was Constitutional became the deciding vote. How can this happen in the land of the free?

        • Brent Glines says:

          The constitution does not specify that taxes must be uniform. The Roberts opinion outlines clearly the applicable laws and precedents used to determine why the penalty that is now a tax is properly considered to be a tax under the law. If you want to argue with Roberts reasoning, I’d be happy to do so, but your current argument isn’t correct.

          • Myth Buster says:

            Hi Brent, The Uniformity Clause of the Commerce and Taxation Article says “All duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
            ObamaCare forces Commerce between individuals and the Federal Government and with the States, as well as provides Tax penalties for non-compliance, and tax credits for low income.
            Pretty much violates the Uniformity Clause from where I sit.
            And I accept your debate invitation.

  4. Brent Glines says:

    In a way, it is a conservative victory, in that CJ Roberts clearly limited the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which he found that ObamaCare mandate violated. It was a surprise to have him support the penalty for not complying with the insurance mandate as a tax, but after reading the decision, I can see why he did. If Congress doesn’t like that interpretation, this decision provides a template for how NOT to structure legislation.

    In the meantime, conservatives still have Plan A, which is elect Romney, elect conservative Republicans to Congress, and repeal the damn thing. That has ALWAYS been Plan A.

  5. Pingback: ‘A huge (conservative) victory for the long haul’ – | Conservatives for America

  6. Pingback: How a US Chief Justice bucked conservative tradition to back Obama – Globe and Mail | Conservatives for America

  7. larryM says:

    Golly. Justice Roberts was the swing vote. Proves Georgie wasn’t very bright. He nominated a liberal “legislating judge” and the country will suffer for 30 years. Mark my wotd. Gay marriage and gun control will be next.

    • Myth Buster says:

      Larry, George nominated John Roberts because his legal work was mostly on behalf of the LBGT community. Roberts is Sodomite as is Sotomayor, Kagan and Bush Jr. Johnny Gosch aka Jeff Gannon was George’s semi-live in partner at the White House. You are absolutely correct, LBGT and Gun Rights legislation is next. The UN Small Arms Treaty meets this week and Obama and Hillary Clinton support total disarmament of citizens.

      • Brent Glines says:

        Well, now you’ve just discredited yourself, which is neither unexpected nor surprising.

        • Myth Buster says:

          Hi Brent, An article on John Roberts LBGT litigation
          Aug 4, 2005 – Supreme Court nominee John Roberts donated his legal services, when he was a corporate attorney, to gay rights activists challenging a .

          an article on George Bush Jr’s “Gay Gate”; Victor Ashe and Jeff Gannon have a lot of material on them

          31 posts – 7 authors – May 13
          Bush JR had several Gay Affairs, Most famously with Jeff Gannon. Read a book- Dumbass … The gates of hell have been opened. Anonymous …

          An article on Elena Kagan being Lesbian; frankly I couldn’t care less
 › News › World News › North America › USA
          May 13, 2010 – An American newspaper has been accused of attempting to “out” Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a lesbian by publishing a front page .

          An article on Sonia Sotomayor, a member of Belizian Grove, a women’s only verson of Bohemian Grove; Groves are where Evil is done in sight of the LORD; about 2/3 of the Grove is Same Sex; all of it is Sodomite.

          An article on Sotomayor cross dressing similar to Rudy Guiliani does.

  8. Brent Glines says:

    No, LarryM, as I read the decision, it shows that Roberts ruled according to the way the law and precedents dictated. As other folks might tell you, I’m about as conservative as they come around here, but in this case, I could not find anything wrong with the reasoning nor the precedents Roberts used.

    I may not like the outcome, but I can’t argue with the process used, and as a conservative, I think that is more important than the ideological outcome. Roberts did what I want him to do, which is render a decision according to the way the law is written, not the outcome I would prefer.

  9. Pingback: Neal Katyal: parts of SCOTUS opinion could evolve into ‘fairly radical … – (blog) | Conservatives for America

  10. Erick Kuhni says:

    “– Conservatives hate cruelty. By doing away with pre-existing condition requirements, and by making it impossible for someone to be denied insurance they have paid for after they actually have the unbelievable gall to get sick, the ACA moves our health care system to a kinder and more caring model. People who say we are a Christian nation should be glad to see this change”

    I’m not sure it is wise to try and make a “Christian” argument out of the issue of Pre-existing conditions limitations. It has nothing to do with “unkindness” or any other Christian principle, but has everything to do with risk management.

    There are a few fundamental flaws in your reasoning on this issue (your whole post, but I’m going to be selective). You suggest that Pre-existing conditions limitations deny coverage to people who have paid for that coverage. That is plainly false. Insurance is a transfer of risk/uncertainty. Risk and uncertainty in principle are not retroactive. Once a person has incurred medical losses it is financial suicide to insure those losses in a risk pooling model. What equation are you privy to that say’s society can trade fixed financial losses for a lesser sum of money, and maintain overall viability???? Risk pooling is about probabilities of uncertainty, and can only function solvently under those conditions.

    The individual mandate does some to alleviate this concern, however their are still some problems with it. Still, the only way it is possible to eliminate the pre-existing conditions limitations is to have a system that does not allow people to by insurance when it is time to file a claim.

    Lastly, the pre-existing conditions limitations does not deny coverage to individuals who purchase insurance and then get sick. It denies coverage to individuals who were sick, who then choose to buy coverage. Additionally, there is a time limit of 12-18 months on these limitations in the first place. It simply protects the insurance pool against the irresponsibility of those who would take advantage of the overall system at everyone elses expense.

    We could digress into other issues, and while I have issues with the Obama reforms, I am also of the opinion that something does need to be done.

    • ctrentelman says:

      you need to read more newspapers — california is dealing with a major hoo-ha over people being denied coverage because they were accepted to an insurance plan,their premium payments taken and cashed, and then when they got sick their insurers dug through their medical records, found some inocuous little medical issue that wasn’t listed on their application, and booted them.

      This is sort of what a death panel would do, by the way, but since it’s a private corporation i assume it’s all wonderful capitalism in action.

      • Brent Glines says:

        Do you have any links for this, Charles? I did a Google search for California insurance companies dropping customers, booting customers, eliminating customers, and so forth, and failed to turn anything up.

        I’m not sure reading more newspapers will help if this if this is as obscure as my Google search would seem to indicate.

  11. Dovie says:

    It’s a conservative victory because “Obamacare/Romneycare” is the conservative plan. Obama caved. Single payor, or at least a public option, was preferred by the democrats. Although, single payor was a conservative idea until the democrats liked it, and then repubs had to distance themselves on the principle of the thing.

    The SC decision reflects a certain degree of pragmatism – I think they know something is better than nothing and that sending it back to
    Congress is utterly fruitless right now. “Constitutional” is what the SC says it is.

  12. Brent Glines says:

    So now you’ve demonstrated that you’re a homophobe. Does this in any way help you reestablish any credibility? I think you’ve forgotten the first rule of holes.

    Everyone is entitled to legal representation, even gay people. I’m pretty sure that is the law. Google it.

    • Brent Glines says:

      This is in response to MythBuster’s post above.

      • Myth Buster says:

        What about the debate Brent? Pretty cowardly of you Brent. The word used in Scripture is Sodomite, not Homosexual. John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena kagan are known Sodomites.
        Care to put your money where your mouth is let me know. I post my material at and If there are any errors please let me know.

        • Brent Glines says:

          Buddy, based on what I see here, there is nothing you have to say that I want to know. I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to read your nonsense. I read the Nothing Standard Blogs in spite of you, not because of you.

          Have a nice hate.

          • Tom says:


            I often disagree with your posts, and am often put off with the occasional condescending arrogance with which you put them forth.

            However, I like and agree with your reasoning on the Roberts finding and his method in reaching them.
            Also got a kick out of how you responded to Howard’s endless and pitiful attempts to debate someone – anyone – on any subject! You sure got the dudes number, that’s for sure.

            PS – if you dropped that mean spirited and offensive condescending stuff you would clearly be one of the leading intellects on this comment board.

          • Brent Glines says:

            Tom, one person’s condecension is another person’s presentation of facts organized in such a way so as to present a logical coherent argument. Some people don’t like logical coherent arguments because it may leave them without a return argument. I frequently see this on Doug Gibson’s facebook page, when people start sputtering ad hominems.

            The tone of my responses vary directly with the tone I receive. If someone engages me in a reasonable manner, I will respond in a reasonable manner. If someone wants to pick a fight, I’ll get out hammer, red hot tongs, and a straight razor.

            But I do not suffer fools gladly, hence my response to Myth Buster.

          • Decider says:

            Glines’ “hammer, red hot tongs and straight razor” are weapons he only IMAGINES wielding as he sits at his computer wearing his Captain America Halloween costume.

            Actually, when things resolve into reality, he does his grizzly best holding a dunce cap, his Red Ryder Sheriff’s badge from third grade, and a collection of ‘Best of Looney Tunes’ VCR’s.

            Shhhhhhh — Act intimidated !

  13. Stephen M. Cook says:

    I just think it is funny when citizens decide for themselves what is “Constitutional”, and what is not.
    Its like a fast food worker telling me, in an authoritative tone of voice, what is wrong with my liver.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>