Rick Scott Predicts "Obamacare" Will Be a Loser in the Supreme Court -- Is He Right?

Illustration by Miche Ratto
Who needs Husseinobamacare?
Yesterday, Gov. Rick Scott made a visit to the Palm Beach Post editorial board and predicted that the challenge of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act raised by Florida and 25 other states would win in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arguments before the Supreme Court won't take place until March, but Scott said yesterday, "It's not the law of the land. I don't believe it will ever be the law of the land."

He's already issued a statement on the lawsuit since the Supreme Court agreed to hear it, of course, arguing it was about jobs twice in his brief release.

"With this news, I am hopeful that ObamaCare will be repealed by the end of 2012 and we can put a stop to further tax increases, additional job losses, the inability of many Americans to keep their existing health insurance, and the rationing of healthcare, all of which ObamaCare threatens to do," Scott says. "I applaud Attorney General Pam Bondi for leading the effort to protect Floridians' freedom to make their own healthcare choices and I am also grateful that former Attorney General Bill McCollum had the foresight to initiate this lawsuit."

While there's some debate over whether the Supreme Court's striking down the individual mandate portion would gut the whole law, that's not what we're interested in -- we want our readers to predict whether the governor is right in saying, "I don't believe [Obamacare] will ever be the law of the land."

Given the fact that the governor has as many victories in constitutional courts as FAU has won football games this year -- zero -- it doesn't seem that hard to bet against him.

Scott also told the Post yesterday that yes, "of course" he will follow the law if it's upheld by the Supreme Court.

So let's hear from you: Will "Obamacare" become the law of the land after the Supreme Court decision?

Cast your vote below:

Follow The Pulp on Facebook and on Twitter: @ThePulpBPB. Follow Matthew Hendley on Facebook and on Twitter: @MatthewHendley.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Make no mistake about it, the only reason people/states are fighting against this law is simple.  Profits and campaign contributions.  The wealthy healthcare industry (IE: Rick Scott) stands to lose a ton of money by being forced to actually insure everyone and pay out on claims.  They, through their hired hands (our honorable politicians) would rather see children die then give up some of their BILLIONS in profits.  It's that simple.  This has nothing to do with the economy, jobs, or the Constitution.  It's greed and curruption at it's ugliest. 

Anyone saying anything other than this is a hired hand of the healthcare industry or is just ignorant. 


It's ridiculous that this has even made it to the Supreme Court. The law is obviously Constitutional, no matter what some of the assholes on the Court may say. Congress has a Constitutional right to raise a tax to help cover out-of-control federal health care spending on those without any coverage.

The tax is waived if you can show that you have insurance- either Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's benefits, through a spouse, through your employer, an individual or family policy- whatever.

If you don't have insurance, the government will subsidize a plan that you can choose on an exchange. If you choose not to have insurance, the tax will be about $600 per year for an individual- far less than paying premiums for a year.

No one is "forced" to buy insurance or anything else, and taxing citizens is not a "mandate" despite the use of that terminology (created by Republicans and the conservative Heritage Foundation). Every American will still have a choice whether or not to have health insurance.

What the Affordable Care Act comes down to is Congress raising a tax that is waived if you have insurance. That's all.

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault