Should OCare Lies and Deceptions Render it Null and Void?

One man thinks so, and he wrote a scathing letter this month to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts telling him so:

The point I am making is simple. Obama ADVERTISED and SOLD his Obamacare to the American People under DECEPTION and LIES and this was the President of the United States that did the initial lying. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, also perpetrated Obama's LIES.

Based on the forgoing, this should make Obamacare NULL & VOID! The best analogy that I can think of is, let's say you go to your car dealer to purchase the car of your dreams and you agree to buy the car for the price you agreed on. The dealer orders the car and when it arrives at the dealership, the salesman says, "Oh, by the way, I lied, the cost is really double the cost that we promised." You would NOT be OBLIGATED to purchase that car, for the simple reason that the sales person used BOTH LIES and DECEPTION to get your business and the contract would be NULL & VOID!!

In Screw You, Mickey Kaus, Ann Coulter writes of her experience to purchase health insurance under the new Obamacare scheme:

With zero help from the Obamacare website, I eventually figured out that there was one lone insurance plan that would cover treatment at a reputable hospital. The downside is, no doctors take it.

So my only two health insurance options -- and yours, too, as soon as the waivers expire, America! -- are: (1) a plan that no doctors take; or (2) a plan that no hospitals take. You either pay for all your doctor visits and tests yourself, or you pay for your cancer treatment yourself. And you pay through the nose in either case.

That's not insurance! It's a huge transfer of wealth from people who work for a living to those who don't, accomplished by forcing the workers to buy insurance that's not insurance. Obamacare has made actual health insurance "illegal."

It's not "insurance" when what I want to insure against isn't covered, but paying for other people's health care needs -- defined broadly -- is mandatory.

It's as if you wanted to buy a car, so you paid for a Toyota -- but then all you got was a 10-speed bike, with the rest of your purchase price going to buy cars, bikes and helmets for other people.

Or, more precisely, it would be like having the option of car insurance that covers either collisions or liability, but not both. Your car insurance premium would be gargantuan, because most of it would go to buy insurance, gas and air fresheners for other people in the plan.

If you have employer-provided health care, you may not have to make the 400 phone calls I had to, but the result will be the same: You're not getting what is commonly known as "insurance." You're getting a massive bill to pay for other people's chiropractors, marriage counselors, birth control pills, smoking cessation programs, "preventive care" appointments and pre-existing conditions.

Health insurance has been outlawed, replaced with a welfare program that has been renamed "insurance."

Mandel: The Great Miscalculation of John Roberts

Opponents "lost the [Obamacare] case, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts's decision to elevate politics over jurisprudence," writes Seth Mandel. "But now it's time for Roberts to confront disappointment himself."

Roberts believed he was doing two things by upholding ObamaCare: he was settling the issue of whether the mandate is a tax (it is), thus protecting the Commerce Clause, and he was preventing the further delegitimization of the Supreme Court by the Democrats, thus improving its general reputation. He failed on both counts.

Roberts extended an open hand to the administration and its allies only to find, as a favorite White House metaphor would have it, a clenched fist. But he shouldn’t have been surprised—nor should he be surprised to read the recent polling showing his Court to have lost some of the public’s respect. Apparently, bowing to pressure and issuing a ruling consistent neither with constitutional law nor public opinion won’t endear him to the people.

But Roberts’s ruling should have at least settled the tax issue. After all, the bill only survives because the mandate must be labeled a tax... Here [Press Secretary Jay] Carney unleashes the chutzpah:

“With regard to the penalty as was discussed by Chief Justice Roberts in his opinion, for those who could afford health insurance but choose to remain uninsured — forcing the rest of us to pay for their care — a penalty is administered as part of the Affordable Care Act.”

Far from settling the question, then, Roberts’s decision has rendered the Court’s opinion irrelevant. The debate about ObamaCare continues as if there were no Supreme Court ruling, only now there’s no judicial oversight waiting on the horizon. Roberts seems to have accomplished nothing with this ruling except diminishing the Court’s standing.