Among President Donald Trump's first acts in the Oval Office on Friday was putting his signature on a rather lengthy executive order that deals a major blow to ObamaCare. The executive order states that it's the policy of the Trump administration to repeal the 2010 health care law and gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), presumably nominee Rep. Tom Price, M.D. (R-Ga.), who is awaiting Senate confirmation, "all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation" of ObamaCare.

A good law needs to be clear, concise and open to debate throughout the entire lawmaking process; ObamaCare had none of these things. Since public opinion was opposed to ObamaCare from the start, the law was forced through Congress with no time to debate. Now, it appears to be up to the courts and executive orders to try to fix the many problems with the bill.

It is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in any case it takes up, even after oral arguments; King v. Burwell is no different. It is probably safe to assume that Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas will rule for the petitioner (King) and that Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayer and Kagan will rule for respondent (Burwell), but it is difficult to judge which way Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy will rule. This being said, oral arguments still brought some interesting insight from the Court.

While the federal government often entices states to promote its agenda by promising “free” federal money for the states that adopt their programs, this money is never free, and always comes with strings attached. When the federal government offers “free” money for a program it is really just hoping to get the states hooked on the program before the giveaways disappear, much like a drug dealer who offers you the first hit for free.