John Roberts didn’t “save” Obamacare — he gutted it

[xchrom]

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/john_roberts_didnt_save_obamacare_he_gutted_it/



Nearly two years ago, by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allegedly “upheld” Obamacare. More specifically, the thinking at the time went, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who, in a herculean act of statesmanship, cast the deciding vote to “uphold” Obamacare. Celebrations ensued among supporters of the law; President Obama himself delivered remarks saying, “the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.”

John Roberts certainly could have done much more damage to the law, had he chosen to. He could have joined the four other conservatives on the bench who were prepared to take down not just the individual mandate, but the entire law itself. What a peach.

Still, as early estimates of the newly ensured under Obamacare’s implementation are rolling in, it’s time to write a second draft of history — one that doesn’t include anything about John Roberts “upholding” or “saving” Obamacare. Because that’s an odd way to describe a decision that gutted the most effective part of the law.

While the White House was popping champagne over the survival of the law’s requirement for individuals to obtain health coverage or suffer a tax penalty, Republican-held state governments were more focused on that “other” part of the majority decision: the one that allowed states to opt out of the law’s Medicaid expansion and suffer no consequences to its pre-expansion Medicaid funding. The White House, at least publicly, blew this off. “Senior Obama administration officials downplayed the impact of the Medicaid portion of the court ruling, saying as a practical matter it is not particularly significant,” the Wall Street Journal reported at the time. After all, the thinking went, what state would be crazy enough to turn down all this money — an expansion that the federal government would fund 100 percent of in the beginning, and 90 percent of permanently?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Exactly.

Roberts is concerned with the 'appearance' of not being the complete partisan that he is, and wants the pretense of 'splitting the baby', when in reality, he votes to 'not kill the baby', but also to then turn around and 'starve it', and try to have it die as a result and then claim his hands were clean.

As we saw with the Voting Rights Act, the Roberts Court republican wing is strongly partisan, and their tactic of choice will be to gut needed laws, to make them unenforceable, to force a new generation to be harmed to 'prove' that they were needed before Roberts threw them out. The sheer fact that states, within hours, had created voter disenfranchisement laws, should have convinced the Court that it had made a horrible mistake. At this point, over 50% of the states requiring pre-clearance in the past have brought forward the very sorts of bills/laws that used to be blocked by pre-clearance.

Roberts should never have been confirmed, and the 20+ Dems Senators who voted to do so should be ashamed of themselves.

[randome]

2. Opting out is still not significant in the long term.

The states that chose this option are already regretting it. It's only a matter of time. Too bad some people have to suffer because of GOP hissy fits. I'm sure it's not insignificant to them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[mountain grammy]

4. Yes, suffering and dying. Roberts and Republican governors are killing people.

[RedSpartan]

5. And it will change quickly in the fall (I hope)

as Dems win the Governor's mansions in PA, FL and ME.

[dotymed]

6. In Tn.

it is very significant.

[spanone]

3. k&r...

[cthulu2016]

7. Except Roberts didn't DO that. That was a 7-2 decision, IIRC.

The mandatory Medicaid expansion decision is harmful, but since the liberals on the court were 50-50 on it, it's hard to attribute it to Roberts' grand plan to ham-string Obamacare.

Put another way, two liberal justices cast precisely the same vote as Roberts on both decisions.

Roberts is an ass, but the thesis of the article is just dumb. A tricked up, conspiratorial way of stating the obvious, which is that the medicaid decision was harmful.

[kitt6]

8. That Grin tells it all.

God help us!