In today’s American Spectator I speculate on the possibility that ObamaCare might suffer the fate of McCain-Feingold, dying a slow death of a thousand legal cuts:

Last June, upon learning that the Supreme Court had ruled ObamaCare’s individual mandate constitutional, many observers were forced to concur with the Dickens character who opined, “If the law supposes that … the law is an ass.” Yet, the increasing number of anti-PPACA lawsuits that have been receiving serious attention from the courts suggests that the legal system may not be as irrational as it seemed when Chief Justice John Roberts began braying from the bench on June 28.

If this seems Pollyannaish, consider the fate of McCain-Feingold:

In December of 2003, many were just as shocked and dismayed when the Supreme Court upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) as they were by the bizarre ObamaCare decision. BCRA was an outrageous assault on the First Amendment, and yet the Court allowed most of its provisions to stand. Nonetheless, the opponents of McCain-Feingold launched a series of legal attacks. Finally, in early 2010, the Court delivered the coup de gras with its landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

Could ObamaCare go the Way of McCain Feingold? Can ObamaCare die a death of a thousand legal cuts? To read the rest of the column, click here.

Comments 2

  1. mulp wrote:

    While I find your implication Justice Roberts is an ass, the real question for you as a health care payment expert, how much money is saved by not providing birth control pills but instead pay for pre-natal care, child birth, child wellness care, and all the other costs of children, especially when covering children who are disabled at birth or born prematurely?

    Is the Catholic church desperate to have the health benefit they provide employees cost a lot more to cover larger numbers of children?

    The birth rates for all groups in the US are falling, and the need to work, low income jobs, the burden of high student debt, and other factors are certainly increasing the use of birth control to prevent the economic hardship of children. If Catholic institutions increased the wages and benefits of its employees, they would be more likely to start families, but in health care, most workers other than doctors and managers are seeing their incomes squeezed. That downward pressure on employee compensation began long before Obama even began his run for president.

    Posted 01 Dec 2012 at 8:26 pm
  2. Diogenes wrote:

    If you’re going to cut-and-paste pre-approved comments on a blog, mulp, I recommend that you keep them to the point and avoid really wacky stuff (like Catholic wages).

    Otherwise, it becomes all too obvious that you won’t (or simply can’t) apply basic critical thinking to the serious issues under discussion.

    Posted 01 Dec 2012 at 9:56 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *