SCOTUS has made Mitt Romney's candidacy utterly worthless

[Indy Texas]

The lion's share of the ACA is now considered constitutional, for all intents and purposes (or "for all intensive purposes" for those who attended Texas public schools). That does not imply that it's "good" legislation or "bad" legislation. It simply means the constitutional argument cannot be made in criticism of it.

Let's remember how Mitt Romney justifies opposing the ACA despite crafting a Mini-Me version of it as governor of Massachusetts (though his law was actually the forerunner to the ACA, so maybe that makes the ACA a...Mega-Me?). First, he says that his health reform plan was "completely different" from Obama's - it wasn't. Then, he says he opposes it because it's not something the federal government is allowed to do.

Except that the motley crew of John Roberts, three Old Jews and a Wise Latina have declared that it is something the federal government can do. So what is Mitt's new rationale? If he still opposes the ACA, why did he implement a near-identical plan in Massachusetts? Is he saying he regrets doing that? That his only substantive achievement while in office was actually a bad thing?

Rick Santorum said at one debate that it would be terrible to have Mitt Romney standing on a debate stage next to the President in the fall precisely because he could not serve as an effective critic of the biggest animating force in the Republican Party - the Affordable Care Act. And Santorum was right. Santorum opposed the ACA and the very idea of anything like the ACA from the get go - constitutional or not, it was categorically wrong for reasons of Santorum's moral and economic philosophy. But Romney's only legitimate criticism of Obamacare, because of his words and his actions for the bulk of his political career, was its constitutionality, and that criticism ceased to exist today.

[Indy Texas]

From a legal standpoint, yes it is constitutional as an undeniable fact because the court has said so.


From a standpoint of one's personal opinion such may not necessarily be considered as such simply because of this ruling. One can disagree with a court's ruling or find it to be incorrect and seek to delegitimize the court, or engage in a long term plan to change the composition of the court and hope for a reversal of what is considered to be a previous mistake.

An example of the first situation is exactly what the left did with regards to Citizen's United. The second situation is exemplified by the right's actions against Roe V. Wade.

The right has been trying to overturn Roe v. Wade for 30 years. How long will it take to get rid of the ACA at that rate?

[Indy Texas]

The Health Care Law can be repealed through the actions of the Congress and the President. Roe v. Wade has to be overturned in court, which is unlikely.

And the Republican narrative becomes what? "We kicked 23-year-olds with congenital heart conditions off their parents' insurance policies?" That's a winning platform. Are they going to cut checks to the states that have already spent a substantial amount of money building insurance exchanges? 

[Indy Texas]

Middle class citizens are screwed, their employers will pay the fine rather than pay for their monthly premiums, so the middle class will be forced to pay for Health Care out-of-pocket.  In addition, more employers will outsource rather than pay employee benefits or just go out of business.  Make no mistake about it, the local economies will grind to halt, as businesses freeze hiring and await the new rules, regulations, and taxes.  This will kill the local economy and I feel really bad for small town Americans.

1. Most people already get health insurance from their employers. Under what logic would a company that provided health insurance when it wasn't obligated to suddenly refuse to now that it is obligated?

2. I get so tired of this notion that people just sit on their hands because they are "uncertain" about taxes and regulation. There is never certainty in business. Businesses don't know what tax rates will be in 5 years or 10 years; they also don't know if some new technology is going to come along that makes their product obsolete or if a spike in the price of some input they use is going to create huge losses. Here in Texas, oil & gas companies are hiring people left and right; clearly they've withstood the "reign of terror" and the "uncertainty" that Obama and the EPA have inflicted.

[Indy Texas]

Why would Romney's candidacy be considered "worthless" due to health care, consideirng less than 10% of American's consider it their top issue?

Rick Santorum may have potentially had a leg up on Romney in terms of health care, but in terms of the economy, which is by far the most important issue, Romney is the best nominee for the GOP.

Romney's economic pitch: I know how to create jobs.

He didn't create jobs as governor. Look at Massachusetts' job growth numbers from when he was in office.

He didn't create jobs when he was working in private equity.

[Indy Texas]

Unlike rich liberals in California or Massachusetts, there are real people who don't want to pay for a mandatory health care tax or premium. 

Yes, I'm sure there are "real people" who don't want to pay for the healthcare they receive (because if they won't buy health insurance and they can't/won't pay a small fee not to, how exactly are they paying for doctor visits and hospital bills?). They're the people who get in a car wreck, rack up a $60,000 hospital bill and have no way of paying for it.