ObamaCare ad

There is a brutal ad released by the RNC. It is brutal not because Verrilli stammered.

In the audio clip, Verrilli acknowledges the political truth that this entire takeover of the health care system was in the face of an insurance system that worked well for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Rather than finding a way to help the 15%, the Democrats decided on a mountain of legislative language and regulations, with the mandate sitting high on top of the mountain, the Democratic Party equivalent of planting the flag.

(Source: Legal Insurrection. HT: CL)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to ObamaCare ad

  1. dover_beach

    Looks like Les (aka Verrilli) has got our back.

  2. JamesK

    I’ve said on the MWF thread that I feel sorry for Verrilli.

    His self-honesty made him so nervous, I expect.

    The same questions were made by non lawyer conserbative commentators 2 qnd 3 years ago.

    There are no good answers.

    The mandate is clearly unconstutional.

    He knows it and every unpoisoned individual 12 years and older would know it after reading the Constitution.

    It’s not difficult.

    It is not close to being difficult.

    All the experts predicted that SCOTUS would uphold the law.

    Just another example of mass leftist insanity.

  3. Calpurnia's Cat

    I was waiting for the sound of broken glass a la Wayne Swan

  4. John Mc

    That’s a great ad for the Republicans. Now in any debate going forward you’re pretty much clear to say over 80% of the American population was served (probably well) by the existing system. That alone pretty much says private health works fine, but just like anything else, you also need a bit of welfare for that other 15% or so.

  5. C.L.

    His self-honesty made him so nervous, I expect.

    Don’t get cocky, James.

    A swallow doth not a bummer make.

  6. Max Scream

    When Mr. Romney succeeded Ms. Swift in 2003, he proposed using an individual mandate to help the state achieve universal health care coverage. Mr. Gruber was again brought in to analyze the idea, which he had not formally modeled before.

    Romney saw it as a traditional Republican moral issue of personal responsibility, getting rid of the free riders in the system, not as much of an economic issue,” Mr. Gruber said. “Not only were the Republicans for it, the liberals hated it. People forget that.”

  7. JamesK

    Don’t get cocky, James.

    A swallow doth not a bummer make.

    True but the lefties are in full on panic mode.

    Reading the Wa-Po, NYT and Politico is side-splitting.

    They’re infectious critters

  8. Oh come on

    Hard not to feel sorry for him. Although I’m sure he’s being paid well.

  9. Max Scream

    What precisely would a lawyer intent on winning on a point of law know about medical insurance in its totality? Answer; nothing.

    Insurance for the majority doesn’t work at all well and there is countless testimony on this point, but the solution is single payer not right wing mandates.

  10. Jim Rose

    obama did not plan well for the supreme court. lost the house in return for what?

    the inability to define a limit to the commerce power will give a 5:4 vote against obamacare at least. the other issue – the medicaid mandates on the states – may go down by a larger margin.

    The states’ case is ObamaCare’s expansion is unconstitutionally coercive, and a violation of congressional power under the Spending Clause.

    the federal government can use incentives to influence policy decisions made by the states, and it does so frequently. It cannot coerce them into compliance. coerce is yet to be defined by the court.

  11. JamesK

    Dan Henninger WSJ: We’re Not France, Yet
    ObamaCare is the coup de grâce of America’s policy mandarins.

    Maybe the United States dodged a bullet this week. Make that a deep-penetration bunker buster into the original idea of America. On Tuesday, the justices of the Supreme Court sounded, on balance, to be disposed against affirming the Obama health-care law’s mandate.

    The Obama administration’s lawyers argued that the mandate to purchase health insurance is a routine extension of the Commerce Clause, which in the 1930s became the most potent sentence in the U.S. Constitution

  12. JC

    This could also be very good for stocks as it will kill one and a Kenyan with one stone. (it’s metaphorical).

    The SCOTUS kills odumbocare and then he’s fucked in the general election.

  13. wreckage

    What precisely would a lawyer intent on winning on a point of law know about medical insurance in its totality?

    The law, presumably. It’s an important part of a little development we call “the rule of law”, but that’s very new, a bit obscure, and only of very contested value, so I can see why you’d ignore it.

  14. Max Scream

    Obama should go to the election promising single payer if the current scheme is declared unconstitutional.

  15. Obama should go to the election promising single payer if the current scheme is declared unconstitutional.

    Because 99% of all Americans look on with envy at those upon whom Government healthcare is already inflicted (IHS, VA, Medicaid) and say, “Hey, I want what THEY’RE having!”

  16. Oh come on

    I know it’s a broken clock moment, but I actually agree with the Troll on this one. Obama definitely should double down on healthcare in November. It’s been a proven winner for him thus far. Right?

  17. Peter Patton

    Max

    What precisely would a lawyer intent on winning on a point of law know about medical insurance in its totality? Answer; nothing.

    Lawyers have been experts in insurance matters since at least the Greeks. Aristotle even advised litigants in insurance cases on rhetorical strategies to use in court.

  18. When I hear the ice tinkling in his glass as he keeps gulping down water, I get this mental image of a man trying his earnest best to choke down a shit sandwich.

    Poor bugger.

  19. JamesK

    David French, Lawyer Advocate, Corner NRO: It’s Tough to Perform Brilliantly When You Have a Bad Argument

    While we still don’t know the outcome of the Obamacare case, that hasn’t stopped some on the left from piling on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for allegedly “choking” during oral arguments. While I haven’t argued in front of the Supreme Court, I’ve had more than my share of state and federal appellate arguments, and these armchair quarterbacks are overlooking a few factors.

    First, it’s tough for any advocate to compare well to Paul Clement. Virtually any fair-minded liberal or conservative can tell you that Clement is just about the best in the business — one of the great oral advocates of our generation. This was his Superbowl, and he delivered a performance about as “clutch” as anyone can deliver.

    Second — and more importantly — it’s tough for anyone to perform brilliantly when your argument is weak on the merits. Listening to NPR these last couple days, I was amused as various commentators suggested General Verrilli should have tried various alternative arguments — arguments that were not only unsupported by precedent but would have collapsed under the slightest level of scrutiny from Justice Kennedy or Justice Scalia. It turns out that the argument for Obamacare rests on a functionally unlimited view of federal power — that the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause, and New Deal precedent have essentially combined to create a form of de facto police power for the federal government. But if you instead place federal power within the context of enumerated powers, then Verrilli’s argument becomes exponentially more difficult.

  20. On your Marx

    It is interesting how far the ‘conservative’ movement have gone.

    Romneycare was a direct buy of what Heritage recommended not that long ago.

    There was no great shouts from ‘conservatives’ then, mostly quite the opposite.

    Obamacare is simply Romneycare made federal but he is a Democrat and everyone now has to oppose what a Democrat proposes.

    Healthcare works well in the USA?

    Really how many people are not covered and how much of GDP does it take?

    Henry Aaron certainly shows up a lack of understanding of basic economics in the Supreme Court.

  21. Oh come on

    It’s amazing how far you’ve gone, Homer, you crazy old coot.

  22. Peter Patton

    Marx

    We have been over and over and over the political, constitutional, legal, and fiscal differences, which show unambiguously why Obamacare is NOT “simply Romneycare made federal”. You are clearly too far gone in your provincial and xenophobic mindset that you will never be capable of empathising – let alone understanding – the Other.

  23. amortiser

    In Australia prior to Medibank’s introduction in 1974, IIRC 92% of people outside Queensland (which had a “free” hospital system) were covered by private health insurance.

    I found out yesterday that at Logan Hospital,south of Brisbane, the wait for Category 1 (most urgent) surgery is now 40 days. I guess those people think its marvellous. Free medical services are great until you have a need for it then you pay for it in queuing often with painful consequences.

    Recently I suffered from kidney stones which is a rather painful condition. I was able to get a hospital bed as I needed it over the 6 days I had to wait for the stone to pass. I had 3 separate admissions over those 6 days.

    This would have been impossible as a public patient. I would probably be still waiting to even see a specialist.

    Everybody loves medicare until they have to use it.

  24. JC

    Amortiser

    As the CATO piece I liked to on the open thread shows, there is no such thing as universal healthcare anywhere in the world. It’s a lie.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf

Comments are closed.