The White House's Contingency Plan if it Loses on Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Blame Republicans



The White House has long insisted that it has no contingency plans in place should the Supreme Court rule against the administration in King v. Burwell, a case that challenges the legality of Obamacare's subsidies in the 36 states that opted not to create their own health insurance exchanges under the law.

Even now, with a decision looming, President Obama maintains that there is no ready plan should the High Court side with the challengers.

Responding to press questions yesterday, Obama brushed off a question about whether the administration had a "plan B" in place, and instead argued that the Supreme Court shouldn't have taken up the case at all, that it was an easy to case to decide in the administration's favor even using conservative judicial thinking, and that, should the Court rule the federal exchange subsidies off limits, Congress "could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision." 

It was a short preview of the administration's likely response in the event of an adverse ruling: Blame the Supreme Court for giving a platform to the challengers, argue that the ruling is hopelessly politicized, and then throw the problem back to the GOP-controlled Congress by demanding that it rewritethe health law in a way that gives the administration the very same authority that the High Court had just ruled beyond the bounds of the law.

In some sense, this is the contingency plan: to win the ensuing political fight by laying both blame and responsibility at the hands of others—mostly congressional Republicans.

It's a predictable enough move, but even still, a notably brazen one: Democrats, under President Obama, were entirely responsible for crafting the bill, for passing it, and for implementing it at the federal level. Any conflicts between how the law was written and how it was implemented are the fault of those who wrote and implemented it, not those who opposed the law and its creation. Blaming Republicans for Obamacare's problems is a little like blaming Pepsi for the failure of New Coke.

But Obama's response is not merely about shifting the blame. It's also about avoiding larger, tougher questions about the health law amongst the public.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats understand that a ruling against the administration would open the door to major changes in Obamacare, providing an opportunity to significantly overhaul the law or perhaps even repeal it entirely.

Democrats have been emboldened by recent polls suggesting that the public would prefer the Supreme Court not block Obamacare's federal exchange subsidies. But on the larger question of the law's existence, the public's opinion isn't so favorable. Just over 50 percent of the public continues to oppose the law, according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. As has long been the case with Obamacare, a specific benefit like the subsidies polls well, but the larger law, with its costs and tradeoffs, does not.

President Obama's remarks were designed to call attention to the fact that an adverse ruling from the Supreme Court would put Obamacare's subsidies in doubt. But what he doesn't want to acknowledge is that it would put the status of the entire law into question. Because doing so might run the risk of reminding people that there is a different sort of one-sentence "fix" available: This law is repealed, in its entirety. 

NEXT: This Map Details Whether Asset Forfeiture Laws in Your State Are Good or Awful

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hang on, let me run home and grab my Shocked Face.

  2. The Rethuglitards stole President Obama’s lunch money and ate his homework!

    1. They also drove his car into the ditch.

      1. While sitting in the backseat drinking a slurpee

    2. And they sank his battleship.

      1. +1 Jasper

  3. When can we expect a SCOTUS ruling on this? Can’t seem to find any info on that.

    1. Almost certainly by the end of the month. Won’t find out which day until it’s released.

      1. Why do you think by the end of the month?

        1. That’s when they issue rulings from the spring dockett.

        2. SCOTUS more or less will always release its final decisions for a term at the end of June. I don’t think that’s technically required, but I’ve almost never seen it go longer, unless it’s a case where they decide they need to hear more and push it off to the next term (vanishingly unlikely in this case).

  4. Congress “could fix this whole thing with a one-sentence provision.”

    “This Act, the effect of which is to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its totality, is hereby offered up for Vote.”

    1. You could also add a clause about removing criminal penalties for practicing medicine without a license and repealing drug scheduling and it would still be one sentence.

      1. That’s a lot of words for “this act outlaws FYTW”

      2. And repealing protectionist state “certificate of need” laws that hinder the opening of Medical facilities and repealing barriers to interstate competition of health insurance sales and repeal of state and federal mandates of what health insurance policies have to cover.

        1. You get your freemarket bullshit out of here!!!!!!

  5. Hmm. So it’s the same plan if the asteroid lands tomorrow?

  6. What are you suggesting, Suderman? That the Democrats should have actually read the bill and understood its implications before passing it? What kind of monster are you? You just can’t stand it that a black man is president!

    1. They have to PASS the law to READ it. Some weird procedural thing, I think. I’m not really up on all that stuff. Just saw some California congresswoman talking about it awhile back. I assume she knows what she’s talking about and isn’t just some 5th grade civics teacher who treats the entire country like her 5th grade class.

    2. One congressman actually said it’s not his job to read the bill, he has staff for that, (googling now)…yup, just Max Baucus, who I recalled had a pretty big role.

  7. What matters is who the voters blame, and that is not up to wishful thinking on behalf of Republicans. The states with federal exchanges are run by Republicans, and this challenge was dreamed up by Republican operatives who, oddly, could not find any other basis except one poorly worded sentence in the law. You guys are allowed to hate the law and also recognize a political farce when you see one.

    1. By “political farce,” do you mean “rule of law”?

      Also, did you see that premiums are going to go up 50% in Minnesota? http://www.startribune.com/big…..306436431/

      1. And this is after last year when the insurer with the largest pool of exchange members pulled out of the exchange. Even MN Proletariat Radio had to acknowledge the problem. This is going to be fun.

    2. Wow.

    3. 36 states are run by Republicans? Wow, Team Blue is in worse shape than I thought.

      And I don’t think that counts deep blue states where the state exchanges have outright failed, like Massachusetts and Hawaii.

      1. Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney as its governor, and then more recently somebody named Baker as well.

        The rape camps are reopening as we speak.

        1. And Chris Christie!

    4. You guys are allowed to hate the law and also recognize a political farce when you see one.

      I recognize one.

      Yep…comfortably ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. Americas Political Farce.

    5. Shorter Tony:

      “Words only mean what you want them to mean. How other people interpret them is irrelevant.”

    6. Tony|6.9.15 @ 11:47AM|#
      “What matters is who the voters blame[…]”

      Yes, in the fantasy world of lefty ignoramuses, facts are irrelevant; feelz are all that matters.
      Tony, do you wonder why you’re held in such contempt here?

      1. Let me restate: Republicans will be to blame. They’re to blame for the law being badly written in the first place, and obviously for concocting this desperate attempt to kill the law by means other than legislating, no matter how many Americans they harm in the process. If the voters blame them, they will be correct.

        I’m held in contempt because I argue for raising taxes on billionaires, a crime far worse than saddling millions of regular people with no healthcare options out of pure political spite, apparently.

        1. Tony|6.9.15 @ 12:51PM|#
          “Let me restate: Republicans will be to blame.[…]”

          Let me restate: You’re a liar and an imbecile.
          “[…]I’m held in contempt because I argue for raising taxes on billionaires,[…]”

          You are held in contempt because you are a liar and an imbecile.

        2. Yes, yes, of course… A bill that had no Republican input and no Republican support, so of course the Republicans are completely to blame for it being poorly worded.

          This may be the single dumbest thing I’ve seen you post here, and I was around for the pregnancy/bus accident mix-up…

          1. “[…]This may be the single dumbest thing I’ve seen you post here[…]”

            Pretty sure this is a record only to date; he’ll top it sooner or later, as he did the ‘bus accident’ horse shit.

            1. Of course. Peak Tony Derp is unattainable.

              1. So, what you’re saying is that not only is peak derp unattainable in groups, that it’s also unattainable in some individuals?

                I thought peak derp was only due to external competition (the most derpy at the moment raising to the top for a short time, only to be replaced by the new model) but you’re opening my mind to an internal competition of derp.

                I wonder though, if you locked Tony in a room without outward input*, would his personal derp keep pace with the derp of his ilk? Or is his improvement feeding off the power of the collective derp?

                *I am in no way suggesting we do this. It would be interesting science, though.

        3. Republicans will be to blame. They’re to blame for the law being badly written in the first place,

          That is absurd. No republican voted for this bill. Not one. And no republican wrote a single word of this bill. If you want to blame someone for the crappy wording, blame the people who actually wrote the law. Honestly, how can you be so dishonest?

          1. I think what he means is that Republicans are to blame because they should have helped to write it, that it should have been a bipartisan bill. I.E. the Republicans should have borne part of the responsibility for dumping this BS on the public. But one way or another…

        4. Oh, you poor thing. The Republicans wisely declined the hook and let the Democrats hang themselves on a legal fiasco entirely — and it is literally entirely — of their own making, so of course, the Republicans are to blame for letting the Democrats hoist themselves on their own petard. How rude of them.

          Some people are so choked on partisan hack froth it’s a wonder they can breathe at all.

        5. Re: Tony,

          Let me restate: Republicans will be to blame. They’re to blame for the law being badly written in the first place,

          So much for leftists being smart people. They can’t even write a law wtih anything resembling logic and coherence, being too-easily distracted by Republicans doing… nothing.

        6. They’re to blame for the law being badly written in the first place,

          LOL…clearly out of your fucking mind.

        7. Tony….”They’re to blame for the law being badly written in the first place”

          Whaaaat ?

          Please explain why Republicans, who had nothing to do with writing Obamacare, are responsible for it being a poorly written law ?

          It is well known that Jonathan Grueber , a flaming liberal, wrote much of the law Tony. He even admitted that they made it un necessarily complicated so they could confuse everyone into believing it would work. Why they felt the need to do that isn’t clear since the law was passed before it was actually written. Maybe they just felt they needed to show off how smart they were and how complicated they could make it.

          Yet you find fault with Republicans for the way this overly complicated cluster fuck was written.

          Have you lost your fucking mind ?

          But other than that I love Obama and I think that the attorney jeneral ( sic on purpose) is so cute and obviously smarter that any Republican or Libertarian that ever lived. 🙂

        8. Tony is 100% correct for blaming the badly written law on the Republicans. Clearly the Democrats are completely incapable of writing a bill properly. The handful of intellectually functioning Republicans should have know this and done something to help them.

  8. Blame the Heritage Foundation. Or maybe ?nh Cao.

    1. Look at you what with the Vietnamese diacritics. Next, you’ll be writing your posts entirely in hanzi, showoff.

      1. I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so this guy could vote for Obamacare.

        1. The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

          Enjoying my coffee…

        2. We were in this bar in Saigon and this kid comes up, this kid carrying a shoe-shine box. And he says “Shine, please, shine!” I said no. He kept askin’, yeah, and Joey said “Yeah.” And I went to get a couple of beers, and the box was wired, and he opened up the box, fucking blew his body all over the place. And he’s laying there, he’s fucking screaming. There’s pieces of him all over me, just…like this, and I’m tryin’ to pull him off, you know, my friend that’s all over me! I’ve got blood and everything and I’m tryin’ to hold him together! I’m puttin’… the guy’s fuckin’ insides keep coming out! And nobody would help! Nobody would help! He’s saying, sayin’ “I wanna go home! I wanna go home!” He keeps calling my name! “I wanna go home, Johnny! I wanna drive my Chevy!” I said “With what? I can’t find your fuckin’ legs! I can’t find your legs!”

          1. how very sly of you.

        3. This affects all of us! Our basic freedoms!

  9. Obama … argued that the Supreme Court shouldn’t have taken up the case at all

    because — I am not making this up — Democratcare “is working”.

  10. I don’t think its completely out of bounds that the administration will simply ignore the ruling.

    Here’s one issue SCOTUS has to grapple with: If they rule that the statute doesn’t authorize tax credits through the federal exchanges, that means none of the tax credits paid out in the past couple of years through those exchanges were valid. The IRS should be required to go out and recover them, right?

    Who thinks that is going to happen? It sets up a bind for SCOTUS: either say, welp, horse is out of the barn, nothing we can do, and let the credits stand; or, say, yeah, the IRS illegally paid tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, but we’re OK with that as long as they knock it off, one of these days.

    1. If they rule that the statute doesn’t authorize tax credits through the federal exchanges, that means none of the tax credits paid out in the past couple of years through those exchanges were valid.

      I don’t know, R C. That logical inference seems beyond the scope of such a ruling.

      1. I dunno why Rich. If the statute doesn’t authorize, it doesn’t authorize it and never did.

        There are some really interesting jurisprudential tangles around applying a ruling that overturns a statute retroactively. Reasonable reliance on the statute is one way to avoid retroactive application, so I suspect if this issue gets addressed at all, it will be in a footnote pointing to how reasonable it was for the IRS to think that “established by a State” meant “established by the federal government”.

        Of course, at that point you’re already about 90% of the way to deferring to the IRS anyway. I think that’s why the issue of retroactivity may be more important than people think. Its hard to justify overturning this on a purely prospective basis, so it may not be overturned at all.

        1. The Courts, including the Supremes, have frequently said ” it is and was illegal, but the reversal will only happen from this point, onward.
          There are lots of affirmative action recipients that were allowed to keep their jobs or promotions, even after the method of giving them a free-ride was declared illegal and ordered to be stopped.

    2. Honestly, I’m hoping that SCOTUS doesn’t start thinking “Wow, this administration is going to ignore us. Really, any judicial precedent we try to set actually sets the precedent of the executive branch ignoring the judicial. We should just pipe down any time we have an executive branch that might not listen to us. Wait…”

    3. How many divisions does the Supreme Court command?

  11. This will only be a political farce if the court rules on the plain language of the law. However, if the court ignores both the text and the intent of the legislators and consultants that crafted the bill, and legislates from the bench, that will not be political farce. That will be solid jurisprudence.

    1. the intent of the legislators and consultants that crafted the bill

      Do tell, what might *that* be?

      1. Good. Their intentions were good. Pretty much all good.

        1. “Good golly, Miss Molly!”

          1. Sho like to ball !

        2. Good. Their intentions were good. Pretty much all good.

          I thought their intentions were coercion… oh.

  12. Isn’t one of the great attractions of modern liberalism that nothing that goes wrong is your fault?

    1. Of course. This is why it is important to maintain at least a token opposition.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the GOP establishment’s actual role. It would explain a lot.

      2. Tony up there is pissed off because the Republicans wouldn’t play that role.

  13. if Pepsi hadn’t done the Pepsi Challenge there never would have been New Coke.

    1. Uh, that’s New Coke (D).

  14. For the record, I don’t think this is going to be a close vote. My reading of it will be a 6-3 decision in favor of the government, with Alito/Thomas/Scalia dissenting. Maybe the Chief Justice decides to save face and go with the dissent and make it 5-4, but Kennedy’s going in favor of the government on this one.

    1. I thought our chief justice saved face by not dissenting.

      1. Yep, he saved face the first time. But now he gets to save face wrt the people that called him out on saving face the first time. He gets to save both sides his face by talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    2. I could see them going with a limited ruling too. 5-4 in favor of plaintiff but without enforcing the ruling until the end of the tax year or something… Basically giving Congress time to “fix” things.

  15. “Eventually, it will work itself out into a more stable market.”

    “In the long run, we’re all dead.”

  16. Honestly it doesn’t matter either way. We are fucked either way. Striking it down won’t lead to actual free market reform and upholding will only make the law stronger.

    Just bend over and take it.

    1. Nobody ever says “just repeal the damn thing.” It’s always “repeal and replace.” And you know how the ratchet works. Team 1 repeals team 2’s bill just to replace it with something worse.

      1. I don’t see how the GOP could pass something worse than this. The only way is if they kept all the “popular” items (like guaranteed issue and the subsidies) and got rid of the mandates…

    2. Except that one way we’re getting fucked worse than the other…

      1. It doesn’t matter if the dick is 4 inches 8, you are still getting fucked.

  17. Obama has used blaming others to great success and there’s no reason to believe he won’t continue to do the same.

  18. I’m betting on the ignorance of the typical American. I’ve asked educated, professional people, why do you get medical insurance through your employer? No one knows. It just is.

    Any explanation of the letter of the law intended to coerce states to set up exchanges will not withstand the perception that meanies are trying to deny poor people medical care. And the import of the executive simply ignoring the Supreme Court is an abstraction beyond their comprehension.

    1. Having an employer legally mandated to provide health insurance should itself be unconstitutional, it would seem. Really a very stupid idea to enforce. Good thing companies didn’t used to buy lunch for their employees back in the 50s otherwise they would all need to provide meals meeting a plethora of gov’t guidelines but that still was worse than Luby’s on a good day.

  19. The root problem here is that our political class wants to use the term “insurance” for a program which is NO SUCH THING.

    1. Exactly. And that most people seem to not realize this, or understand what insurance really is.

  20. That headline is needlessly verbose; the sixth through the fourteenth words are redundent.

  21. OT — What’s the possiblity that this law is being strongly supported by tobbacco shop owners?

    City weighing new restrictions on flavored tobacco

    The City Council’s Health, Environment and Community Engagement Committee is scheduled to vote on the proposed ordinance changes on June 22.

    Breathe Free North, a community group working on preventing tobacco use, found flavored cigarillos and flavored smokeless tobacco in 83 percent and 53 percent of stores, respectively, in North Minneapolis, according to a report presented to the Council committee.

    Many youth have also reported being able to buy the tobacco products despite being under age 18.

    The flavored tobacco products covered by the proposed ordinance amendments include little cigar and cigarillo products, e-juice, shisha, smokeless tobacco and other non-cigarette tobacco products.

    Menthol-flavored versions of the products, however, would be exempt from the restrictions.

    The change would mean that the number of places in the city where people could buy flavored tobacco products would go from about 355 places (gas stations, corner stars, bars, etc.) to 15 tobacco product shops, according to the report presented to the Council.


    1. What’s the possiblity that this law is being strongly supported by tobbacco shop owners?


    2. Good thing menthols are excluded, otherwise it would be racist.

  22. Try keeping up with what the President said…your last paragraph proves you don’t. He told everyone that if the ruling goes against the subsidies that the law would be hard to fix. Regardless, he should come up with a different plan for you to disagree with? Sure.

    Your turn to try to insure the millions who have gained insurance…have at it…you’ve got nothing.

    By the way, as always we can depend on your selective use of polls. You love the opinion of Americans, except when the vast majority tell you they don’t want repeal. So much for your concluding sentence.

    1. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 12:55PM|#
      “[…]Your turn to try to insure the millions who have gained insurance…have at it…you’ve got nothing.[…]”

      No, you idiot, it’s not my job to try to insure anyone.
      Fuck off, slaver

    2. This argument is absurd.

      If the government illegally seized my assets and gave them to the less fortunate, those calling for an illegal action to be overturned do not have the burden of providing care for the less fortunate who had gained at my expense.

      1. Jackand Ace is not the sharpest pencil on the desk, so expecting any sort of coherency is not really productive.
        This morning, in the overtime thread, he was claiming that employers should welcome mandated overtime pay, since he ‘knows about business’!

        1. You have to admit that a city planner who lasts less than two years in the utilities industry before being laid off and becoming an English teacher would be very knowledgeable about what employers want.

          1. So it’s like turd ‘being in Finance’; emptying the trash cans in a bank.

      2. I think he’s just confusing us for republicans… again.

        1. I think he’s just confused.

          1. I think he’s just a shithead.

      3. The article is about contingency plans if SC shoots down the subsidies, and maybe then the law. Now you might not like what the law does, but millions have gained insurance from it. Even Peter is whining that there isn’t an alternative plan from the President. You must then agree with Obama…no alternative plans…tell Peter. He is starting to get worried about how bad the reaction will be if millions lose their insurance.

        1. I won’t complain about losing insurance that I didn’t want to begin with.
          If the SC shoots down the law, it wasn’t legal to begin with.
          So your argument here is that if a law does something that benefits some segment of the population, it needs to be accepted?

          1. Actually, no. Then don’t do anything at all. In fact, that is what Obama has said…that it has taken many decades to change health care in this country, in order to reduce the uninsured. You don’t think all those uninsured is a problem. Fine. I would point out that Peter himself is saying what the American people want is important. And the majority of them disagree with you.

            1. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 1:31PM|#
              “Actually, no.”
              And then you go on to prove is is *exactly* your “argument”.
              Keep it up, Jack!

            2. Right. So your argument has changed from “if it’s law, accept it” to “if the American people want it, accept it.”

              1. I never said accept it. I agree, like you, with Obama. That’s it. Now your turn…do something or don’t. It’s peter who wishes he had a contingency plan. I’m looking forward to the next election more each day. Peter is starting to fear it…he knows.

                1. Jackoff Ace, I’m going to do nothing. I’m not really even sure what your malformed opinion is anymore and I have no idea why you think I agree with Obama. I’m starting to think that you’re just someone’s script that randomly puts strings together from comments on Slate.

                2. In the main article Peter doesn’t “wish Obama had a contingency plan”. You’re making that up.

                  Rather, Peter simply observed that Obama doesn’t have a contingency plan and instead is preparing to blame Republicans in the event that a Democratic sponsored bill is ruled illegal by the Supreme Court.

                  1. If Peter was right from the beginning, that the law was going to be a disaster, he never would have written an article like this. Blame? Blame for what? That millions will lose their insurance? If the law was such a disaster, millions would not have gained insurance, the rate of health care costs would not be coming down, and majority of Americans would not be against repeal.

                    He is worried, because blame will be apportioned because the law is working…or else blame would not be part of the equation. And the GOP will get it

                    1. The law is working the same way a new ‘river’ is created by letting excessive water out of a reservoir without a means to replenish it — the river only exists as long as the reservoir has enough water. Right now, you’re standing on the bank of the new river claiming it’s a success without any thought whatsoever that the river cannot exist indefinitely in this paradigm.

                    2. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 3:28PM|#
                      “If Peter was right from the beginning, that the law was going to be a disaster, he never would have written an article like this. Blame? Blame for what?”

                      OK, folks, Jack does the honors in claiming “up” = “down”.
                      Jack, fuck off.

                    3. “the rate of health care costs would not be coming down”

                      What fucking planet are you from ?

                      Every day the news is full of articles about all the upcoming rate increases coming next year, some as high as 50 % and a few even higher.

                      You’re as team stupid as Tony.

                3. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 2:31PM|#
                  “I never said accept it. I agree, like you, with Obama.That’s it.”
                  Sorry, repeating a lie does not change it from a lie.

                  “Now your turn…do something or don’t”
                  Great. Let’s repeal it and let Jack find his own damn insurance.

                4. Jack as soon as you realize that health insurance and healthcare are not one and the same you would necessarily up your discourse on the subject by default.

            3. Exactly. It has taken many decades of government interference to ruin health care in this country, and getting rid of Obamacare is merely a “good start” towards fixing the problem.
              BTW, I’m one of those uninsured, because it’s too darned expensive, and I don’t see Obamacare lowering the cost of insurance. It’s gone up for at least the last two years, not down.

              1. It’s gone up each and every year for decades…one of the problems with health care in this country. And that rate of increase has become less…since…wait for it…the law was passed

                1. Healthcare does not equal health insurance and that is the problem.

                  1. Yea the elderly pay proportionally more of their budgets on health care under MediCare than they did when no insurance existed.

                    This is the fix to health care:

                    1. Remove state boundary restrictions of any sort
                    2. Let health insurance really be insurance…hedge against risk like my catastrophic plan
                    3. Expose patients to actual prices
                    4. Encourage the change of behavior by preserving HSA tax advantages, then phase out the tax exempt status
                    5. Put money directly into the HSA accounts of the extremely poor.

                2. Ho ho ho! So the rate of increase has decreased? But it still keeps going up? Victory for ObamaCare then! It’ll just take a little longer for it to derail itself.

                  1. HO ho ho! It’s improvement, something you thought would never have happened.

                    1. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 3:30PM|#
                      “HO ho ho! It’s improvement, something you thought would never have happened.”

                      Jack, you really are a lying piece of shit, aren’t you?
                      Insurance rates were falling for at least a year prior to the disaster ass-lickers like you love.
                      Not surprisingly, when the government got (more) involved, the rates shot up.
                      So do us and you a favor and STFU.

        2. Jackand Ace|6.9.15 @ 1:18PM|#
          “The article is about contingency plans if SC shoots down the subsidies, and maybe then the law.[…]”

          No, Jack, and thanks for once again proving you’re not real bright.
          The article is about Obo’s political efforts to deflect the blame for his signature disaster.

    3. Regardless, he should come up with a different plan for you to disagree with? Sure.

      No. I want him to stop coming up with plans. His plans suck. Most government plans suck. Most healthcare plans suck worse than they did before this plan. Why is it that idiots insist that government officials always need to have a “plan” for everything?It’s the same moronic argument that comes up when the legislature gets split “But they’re not *doing anything*!” With what we’ve seen, we can all breathe a sigh of relief when they aren’t “doing anything.”

      1. “This is a crisis! Something must be done! This is something! Therefore, it must be done!”

  23. Obama forbid that their contingency plan would actually involve trying to fix the problems for the sake of the people they claim to be trying to help. For Inner Party liberals, that’s only the excuse for their perpetual efforts to maximize their power, which requires maximizing their political influence.

  24. If I was running for president, and Obama began the blame game with Repubs as the whipping boys, (longshot, I know) I’d ask,”Mr President, can you point us to a list of Republicans who voted to approve Obamacare?”. And listen to crickets…

    1. “See, they were obstructionists in the beginning, they’re obstructionists now, and they plan to obstruct any attempt to fix what those Republican-appointed supremes screwed up.”


      1. Yea, they continue to beat that obstructionist drum, but its lost steam and never really mattered, anyway.

        But that will be the response. They couldn’t work with Republicans because Republicans were unreasonable. Which ignores that there was in fact a bipartisan plan early in the process and Obama told the Republicans fuck off – this is my pet project.

  25. “Blaming Republicans for Obamacare’s problems is a little like blaming Pepsi for the failure of New Coke.”

    Actually, one could construct a reasonable arguement.

    1. No, you really couldn’t. The Dems/Obama rejected bipartisan plans outright early in the process. No Republican voted for it. You don’t need to be a team red supporter to say this is team blue’s fault and their fault alone. Unless you are going to argue that the Republicans are just so incompetent that they allowed the Democrats to get such a majority that they could ram this piece of shit through.

    2. Don’t see you actually constructing any argument, much less a reasonable one.

      1. I’m stricly addressing the soda issue. New Coke failing is Pepsi fault, because New Coke sucked ass and Pepsi is just so darn tasty. New Coke never had a chance, the poor little fella.

        1. New Coke was invented to duplicate Pepsi’s flatter, sweeter, shittier flavor and it did, which was the problem because who the fuck wants Pepsi?

          1. No Coke.

            Pepsi !

          2. All I wanted was a Peps! And she wouldn’t give it to me!

    3. “Actually, one could construct a reasonable arguement.”

      One has yet to even attempt to do so.

  26. And JackandAce (Joe?) illustrates my earlier point. What they want isn’t “insurance”. It’s free universal gold plated unlimited health care.

  27. Blame Republicans

    Isn’t that their contingency plan for everything?

  28. That was their plan for the shutdown and Sunderman gobbled it up.

  29. That clusterfuck only became law through shameless procedural chicanery. It should be struck down for that, alone.

  30. Obama lives in a bubble which in turns shows how out of touch he is with the train wreck that is known as “The Affordable Care Act” for which it is not !

  31. Why is this so difficult to figure out? Of course they’ll blame the republicans, and these republicans should have known that from the beginning. Now that the SCOTUS is about to make their ruling, these REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP is afraid of the consequences? They should have had a plan for this. But, knowing these REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP, they have a plan all right, they plan to keep OBAMA CARE. This is what these republican leadership wanted from the start.

  32. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  33. If the goal was to cover honestly poor American citizens, all congress had to do was expand Medicaid/Medicare. Clearly the goal is Socialized Medicine (aka single payer), a backdoor population control plan like the Europeans, and we all know how European medicine compares to American medicine: Not just Rich Europeans, but rich everyone from around the world come here for their most important medical treatments.
    B. Hussein Obummers’ plan is government controlled everything; banking, internet, media, transportation, housing, food… your local police. Check how the lapdog media is playing up local police stories; they are subliminally making the case for a National Police Force.
    Heh! Change! Cancer is Change, you got your Change alright.
    Go directly to 1984, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

  34. The court should block the subsidies to state exchanges. The Republican congress should offer a bill to repeal Obozocare – and nothing else. Let the IRS ravage voters in states without exchanges, all the while making it clear that not one Republican ever voted to enact or implement the law, that every bit of the suffering derives from Demoncrap actions, and that the clear and simple course to ease their suffering is for Obozo to sign the repeal. Then. Wait. Just wait until the pain is so great, Demoncraps start getting death threats. And if Obozo doesn’t give in – that’s fine too. After a year and a half of suffering the result of a Demoncrap law preserved by a Demoncrap president – how badly will the Demoncraps lose in 2016?

  35. If the subsidies are taken away in those States why would the Republicans, strategically politically, do anything?

    1. Why wouldn’t they say ‘The Supreme Court ruled on this. It is a piece of law on the books. We should let the law play itself out and people can decide if this is the law they want.’

  36. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.