In The Wake Of The Obamacare Ruling, Should Part D Die?

I've got a hypothetical bouncing around in my head and would like some input from you guys...

First, let me preface this by saying that what I'm going to write is probably very farfetched, but then 99.999% of the law professors and legal pundits that have been opining on the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, claiming that we would be laughed out of every court in the country, and be zipped at the Supreme Court because, <em>of course</em>, the government can make us purchase health insurance and even broccoli were 100% wrong:

As we know, George Bush is to blame for Obama's Depression (h/t Vice-President Bide) even though the Bush Recession ended in June, 2009.  According to all of the really smart people, the current financial conditions are the result of:

1.  The "unpaid for" Bush tax cuts.

2.  The "unpaid for" and "illegal" Iraq war.

3.  The "unpaid for" and "illegal" Afghanistan war.

4.  The nano-thermite explosives that the Bush-Cheney-Mossad-Saudis-CIA-MI6-Gambinos-Al Qaeda-CFR-NWO-Bilderbergs-Koch Bros-Halliburton-Lypsynka of Libya, May Allah Grant Peace To His Soul And Heap Honour Upon His Name And Family-International Brotherhood of Garden Gnomes Local 5168 Conspiracy gave to the 5 Orthodox Jews, who were seen dancing in the street next to the guy, who would one day stand in Zuccotti Park holding a sign that said "Jewish money controls American politics.  Eat the 'Hebe' Bankers!" to use to blow up all of the WTC buildings.

5.  Darth Cheney's Zeal Team 6 from Planet Z that flew their black UFO/helicopter combos into New Orleans in the dead of night and blew up the levees and flooded the city because George W Bush "hated black people" like Condi Rice, Ron Paige and Colin Powell.

OK, enough with the funnies.  Here's the meat:

6.  The <strong><em>"unpaid for"</strong></em> $400 billion prescription drug act, which was actually half the size of the "unpaid for" plan put forth by the "moderate" Democrats...something they've conveniently forgotten.

Anyhoo, under Helvering v Davis, the Supreme Court held that the Social Security Act was constitutional under the Taxing & Spending Clause...not the General Welfare Clause...not the Commerce Clause...not the Necessary & Proper Clause.  Taxes were actually assessed and collected.

Medicare has never been challenged in whole because it was built onto the SSA and had attenuating payroll taxes to pay for it.

Yesterday, Roberts wrote that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause, but constitutional under the Taxing & Spending Clause because actual "taxes" would be assessed and collected.

So, here's my out-in-left-field hypothetical:

Under the ruling yesterday, would the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernisation Act of 2003 be constitutional since it was not paid for, according to the Left?

It would not be constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

It would not be constitutional under the Necessary & Proper Clause.

It would not be constitutional under the General Welfare Clause standing alone.

And, if it is unconstitutional, what would that do to Obamacare's provision that closes the "donut hole"?  Would we have a situation where we are left with a box of Dunkin' Donuts "donut holes" and no donuts?  LOL?

I think that we should demand that the Left reconcile this inconsistency immediately.  If Part D was "not paid for," then under what theory is it constitutional in light of the Obamacare mandate decision?

Progs, please open your blue books.  Double-spaced.  Front pages only. 30 minutes.  Begin.

XOXO