The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
So lets get this right not a single republican voted for the final passage of the National Healthcare Bill but now it’s “bi-partisan”
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
“Personal responsibility clause” that’s ripe talk about reaching to the top shelf – personal responsibility coming from a Democrat? Give me a break… why not just past a personal responsibility law that mandates everyone gets a job and we’ll no longer need food stamps, welfare, HUD, unemployment, Medicaid or any entitlement program and therefore wouldn’t need ObamaCare. Unemployment would be zero and tax revenue would flow into the coffers and the debt would be paid off – sounds great doesn’t it? Problem is you can’t mandate, legislate or regulate personal responsibility.
Some also questioned the Verrilli’s performance, as he stumbled and coughed at times in defending the bill on Tuesday. Earnest defended the attorney.
Kind of hard to defend the indefensible for Verrilli this is a direct transcript from his opening argument… VERRILLI: For more than 80% of Americans the, uh, insurance system does provide effective, uh, access. (pause) Uh… (pause) Excuse me. (drinks water) Uh… (coughs) It… be…because the… Uh… The, uh… The, uh… (drinks water) Excuse me. (long pause) Not making any of that up.
The Supreme Court finished its final day of hearings concerning Obamacare today, with arguments focused on whether a rejection of the individual mandate would invalidate the entire law.
Now one of Obama’s problem is there is no severability clause (salvatorius) in the bill and to my knowledge if any part of the bill is deemed unconstitutional then the entire bill is invalid. Frankly this is a rookie mistake to put forth a bill or a trick as the House had the clause in the bill and the Senate removed it – why? Who know? Any bill of any size and does not include a severability clause means if any part of a contract is found to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable that section and that section only can be stricken from the contract and without it the entire thing goes.
Kind of looks like this…
And while the outcome looks bleak for Obama’s healthcare bill it ain’t over until the fat lady sings and we likely will not have an answer until June.