John Roberts, evil genius
Cardozo Law School professor Robert Malchman thinks John Roberts is an evil genius for his role in upholding Obamacare.
His arguments are:
That it energizes the Republican base. That is no doubt true, but lots of stuff energizes political bases. Is that a good reason for upholding the law?
That it blunts the push for "real, progressive health care reform, whether universal Medicare or for the creation of a public insurance option." Apart from the unaffordability even of Medicare under its current coverage, that again seems pretty weak as a reason to uphold it.
That this will profit private insurance companies: "The effect of the law will be to drive millions of people to buy insurance from insurance companies in many cases with federally subsidized funds, lining the pockets of those corporations with the public’s money." Among the more amazing facts I discovered in my self-education about investing was that most insurance companies actually lose money on their insurance operations. They make it back, theoretically, by getting to invest the money they get in the form of premiums in between receiving the money and having to pay it back out for claims, but still, insurance is not a very profitable business overall. Add in a political push to interfere regularly with what's being insured and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.
That explicitly to reject arguments that it's permitted under the Commerce Clause in favor of the power to tax undermines the main liberal Constitutional workhorse. That workhorse can't possibly pull any heavier a load, and being prevented from whipping it to force it to do so is a blessing in disguise. Creating a new workhorse in the power to tax by deeming something a tax even if the President has denied repeatedly that it's a tax strikes me as an amazingly foolish thing for a supposed conservative to do.
This guy is a brilliant legal mind like Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.
His arguments are:
That it energizes the Republican base. That is no doubt true, but lots of stuff energizes political bases. Is that a good reason for upholding the law?
That it blunts the push for "real, progressive health care reform, whether universal Medicare or for the creation of a public insurance option." Apart from the unaffordability even of Medicare under its current coverage, that again seems pretty weak as a reason to uphold it.
That this will profit private insurance companies: "The effect of the law will be to drive millions of people to buy insurance from insurance companies in many cases with federally subsidized funds, lining the pockets of those corporations with the public’s money." Among the more amazing facts I discovered in my self-education about investing was that most insurance companies actually lose money on their insurance operations. They make it back, theoretically, by getting to invest the money they get in the form of premiums in between receiving the money and having to pay it back out for claims, but still, insurance is not a very profitable business overall. Add in a political push to interfere regularly with what's being insured and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.
That explicitly to reject arguments that it's permitted under the Commerce Clause in favor of the power to tax undermines the main liberal Constitutional workhorse. That workhorse can't possibly pull any heavier a load, and being prevented from whipping it to force it to do so is a blessing in disguise. Creating a new workhorse in the power to tax by deeming something a tax even if the President has denied repeatedly that it's a tax strikes me as an amazingly foolish thing for a supposed conservative to do.
This guy is a brilliant legal mind like Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.