The Supreme Court ruled on King v. Burwell 3 days ago as I’m writing this that the IRS rulings are constitutional. Whereas with the gay marriage decision I was pretty much meh on it (with exception to the civil liberties aspect) as I explain in my column from yesterday, I was outraged and baffled by the Supreme Court’s upholding of the IRS rules on Obamacare subsidies to states with federal exchanges. The law itself clearly states that only states with their own exchanges are eligible for subsidies, but John Roberts for a 2nd time now has saved Obamacare (for a little bit longer at least). This time he’s managed to lure Anthony Kennedy into the mess who actually dissented with Scalia, Alito and Thomas the first time. What’s more baffling though is that in comparing his majority opinion to his same-sex marriage dissent as Judge Andrew Napolitano observed is that it sounds like two entirely different people writing those opinions.

In the Obamacare decision, he justifies the federal government running rough shot over the states, but then completely condemns them of doing so on same-sex marriage. Justice Scalia at least was consistent in both his dissenting opinions. By this point, Congress should continue trying to repeal Obamacare in whole (though I somehow doubt Senate President McConnell and House Speaker Boehner are gonna put up a serious fight). Short of that, the states should try nullification. Currently the majority of state governments are in GOP hands with 31 state legislatures and 31 governorships. Trifecta control rounds up to 24 states (AL, AR, AZ, FL, GA, IA, IN, ID, KS, LA, MI, MS, NC, ND, NE, NV, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WI, WY). Then there’s 4 states that are D Gov/R legislature (MO, MT, NH, PA, VA, WV) and then there’s AK with an Ind gov.

If all 24 trifecta GOP states and a few D/R split states were to successfully pass nullification legislation and override a gubernatorial veto (in the case of D/R states), then that could spell the end of Obamacare at least in those states’ borders. Now this depends on how much guts these legislatures have and a lot of times they back down with a few notable exceptions (TX as such an example). And then there’s some GOP states that have adopted Obamacare exchanges and/or medicaid expansion with OH, NV and WV for example (the last two to be fair did so when their legislatures were controlled by Democrats and only went GOP in the last cycle). But in the case of OH, they’ve been a Republican trifecta for 4 years now since John Kasich was elected Governor in 2010. Eventually he backed down and adopted Medicaid expansion (via Obama-style of bypassing legislature and going through an executive committee).

I know I was being a bit negative there, but I still think state nullification is a viable option (or constitutional convention works as well). If one or two states start doing it then it could become very well spread throughout numerous other states. So let’s assume for a moment that somewhere around 15-20 states pass Obamacare nullification acts that make its implementation illegal within their borders. Let’s further assume that it actually works and that a Republican is elected to the White House in 2016 (preferably Ted Cruz or Rand Paul be in there) and the GOP maintain their congressional majorities. Then Obamacare is repealed FINALLY in let’s say early-mid 2017.

What happens after that? The average joe thinks that the US healthcare system is capitalist when that couldn’t be further from the truth. Even well before Obamacare, US healthcare has been a govt hybrid freakazoid of sorts going back to the 1960s when Medicare, Medicaid and regulations were introduced during the LBJ administration. Prior to this, healthcare was much more affordable and people could just walk in get the care they need and pay for it straight up. However overwhelming bureaucracy today makes it way to expensive to pay for healthcare out of pocket which is something the left doesn’t understand. It’s not greedy capitalists that are making healthcare expensive, it’s an increasing government bureaucracy and cronyism that’s making it so.

There’s a couple of models the US believe or not can look at elsewhere in the world such as Switzerland or Singapore where they’ve actually blended elements of both the right and left and still manage to get closer to a free market setup than the US does. While both systems have their flaws that constitutional conservatives and libertarians would shake their heads at, whatever does work has worked phenomenally well. Another example of a free market like setup is based here in Oklahoma (OKC to be precise; I live in Bartlesville). Reason TV did a mini-documentary on the Surgery Center of Oklahoma over two years ago. In fact it’s media all over the place from the NY Times to Fox News and elsewhere. Since they started posting prices online several years ago (which hospitals don’t do to hide the true costs) Canadians have been flocking down south to get healthcare treatment. And yet the left upholds the Canadian system as to admire.

If the US were to adopt a system similar to the Surgery Center, it would be the no.1 location for medical patients from around the world to flock too. Is there anything I missed or should correct? What did you think of my take overall? Let me know your thoughts below in the comments section. Have a great day and God bless!