The risk to the nation if the Court strikes down the Obamacare Mandate

By Tom Quiner

The Obamacare Mandate appears to be in trouble.

No one can predict how the Supreme will vote. But the nature of the Justice’s questioning reveals grave reservations with the mandate.

We’re faced with three possible outcomes.

The Court could uphold the mandate and Obamacare just as it is.

The Court can strike down the entire Obamacare piece of legislation, all 2700 pages of it.

Or they can strike down the mandate only, while retaining the rest of the legislation.

It is this last possibility that is troubling. The mandate is the funding mechanism for Obamacare. If Mr. Obama is re-elected, which is more than a reasonable possibility, and if the Democrats retain control of the Senate or retake the House, we could be stuck with a worse situation: Obamacare would not be able to be repealed.

Insurance premiums would skyrocket as if we were living in a second-rate banana republic with hyper inflation. How could they do anything else? Obamacare requires insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions. It requires them to keep kids on their folks insurance until they are 26.

Both of these requirements raise premiums.

Democrat’s goal has always been to get rid of the insurance companies and go to a single-payer system. As insurance premiums spiral out of control due to Obamacare, do you think liberals will say, “Woops, we we wrong”?

Not a chance. Instead, they will say, “See, we told you we need a complete government takeover.”

I hope the mandate is overturned, but it is fraught with peril.


  1. Kevin Pokorny on March 29, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    Tom, Are you of the position that insurance companies can deny coverage to people due to pre-existing conditions? Why? How do you expect people to get coverage then? What is your objection about this? Just wondering. Enjoy reading your blogs.

    • quinersdiner on March 29, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      Kevin, the quick answer is that there are better ways to do it than requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, which has its own unintended backlash. I am in agreement that there has to be a mechanism to cover these people. Generally, it would involve a well-run system of high risk pools that will involve some tax payer dollars. HIPPA and COBRA laws need updating. It might be worth doing an entire blog post on it. Keep reading, and great to hear from you.

  2. Embattled Farmers on March 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    I think if they overturn the mandate, they will kill the whole thing and tell Congress to start over. It’s not just that Obamacare requires coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, but insurance companies can’t charge higher premiums for people who have been or are very sick. If you have a lot of accidents or tickets, your car insurance goes up! One size fits all doesn’t work.

  3. juwannadoright on April 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Do we as a civilized society have the responsibility to see that all our citizens receive quality healthcare? Absolutely. But it is the most remarkable leap of faith that suggests that entrusting that basic human right to a government that admits that fraud is rampant within the system, contributing to our out of control costs; and that has shown itself incapable of managing its own (and our) affairs in a business-like manner (Amtrak, the USPS to cite only a few examples), suddenly has the prescience to manage anything – let alone our most fundamental right – which is a right to life as expressed in our healthcare system.