Impact of Supreme Court overruling Obamacare

heri_clesMarch 27, 2012

What is your opinion of the impact that a SupememCourt ruling, overturning the Aff HC mandate will have, politically, practically and otherwise?

Regarding the 2012 election, I think it will be impactful, and possibly even decisive, since our nation is almost divided down the middle.

Beyond that, I am am concerned that overturning the mandate may have far reaching consequences, depending on how the Court's Opinion is worded, and how it is interpreted by legislators and in future Court rulings.

For example, hoiw can Congress mandate Medicare or participation in Social Security?

The AffHC mandate presents a choice, either you purchase HC insurance or you pay a tax penalty. Medicare is also a choice, either you accept Government assitance for health care or you get your own policy, or you just don't pay, and pass the costs on to others in the HC industry as well as those who have health insurance premiums.

Given the draconan Ryan budget which would begin to take down Medicare and Social Security, I think we are already on a slippery slope with all of our social programs. This is a time we should all be watching this Republican leaning Supreme Court very closely. Remember Alitto shaking his head in disapproval of obama at last years State of the Union when Obama expressed concern over the Courts ruling in Citizens United? From yesterday's hearing, it sounded like Aitto is gearing up once again to issue a partisan ruling that may do long standing harm to our country.

Bush v. Gre, Ctizens United, and now Obamacare.

Who's your daddy?

Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Heri, you're going to give some of us heart attacks!

I thought you were announcing the decision and I was shocked because I had heard that there were still days of arguments to be heard.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 3:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I think if the mandate gets struck down, there may be some other options to explore getting more people enrolled:

- auto enrollment at place of employment like is done for 401K plants

- single payer/expand Medicare to reach more people

Remember, overturning the mandate is just one part of the Act. If that is stricken then there needs to be another way to get more people covered to expand the pool.

I think that Kennedy is the swing man on this decision. He seems the most on the fence while those on both of the other two sides have solid positions.

Making the most vigorous defense of the law was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said enactment of the health care law was akin to the creation of Social Security in 1935.

"Congress, in the '30s, saw a real problem of people needing to have old age and survivor's insurance," she said. "And yes, they did it through a tax, but they said everybody has got to be in it because if we don't have the healthy in it, there's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. So they required everyone to contribute."

Ginsburg said Social Security caused "a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said -- maybe some people still do today -- I could do much better if the government left me alone. I'd go into the private market - I'd make a great investment, and they're forcing me to paying for this Social Security that I don't want; but, that's constitutional."

If Congress wants to address the problem of the uninsured then, Ginsburg said, "Social Security is its model."

In what might be an encouraging signal for supporters of the health care law, Kennedy did display some concern about younger people who chose to go uninsured.

In questioning attorney Michael Carvin, who was representing the National Federation of Independent Business, Kennedy raised the possibility that federal intervention might be justified.

"The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries," Kennedy said. "That's my concern in the case."

Here is a link that might be useful: source

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 3:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marshallz10(z9-10 CA)

The issue is being overblown unless a reversal of the mandate rule negates, as heri states, older social support programs paid by payroll contributions. Relatively few people are likely to be affected by the mandate, mostly some of the young and those in top income brackets who basically self-insure.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 3:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

If the mandate is struck down, then the Affordable Care Act no longer works. It would fold under the weight of spiraling rises in premiums. Millions of people including children would lose their health insurance, we would lose all the good things about Obamacare including No Deductible Preventive Care for disease screenings and birth control, lose the closing of the Medicare drug donut hole, lose putting kids under 26 on parent's policy, lose no dropping children with pre-existing conditions, lose no dropping of adults for pre-existing conditions, lose the administrative controls on how much of our premium HAS to be spent on care rather than overhead and profit, and many other important benefits. It was be disastrous for Obama to have this major policy killed but it would likely result in a firing up of the base who would realize the importance of getting the next Supreme Court justice appointed by a Dem. Look at how the Supreme Court has screwed Dems - the 2000 election, the unleashing of corporate money in politics (PACS), and the Affordable Care Act.

There would also be major negative impact for Republicans who would not have this issue to campaign on and fire the base up. Republicans would also be blamed for the loss of the popular components of Obamacase that people liked and the fact that they have proposed NOTHING to replace Obamacase with.

One silver lining is it could perhaps clear the way for Single Payer - Medicare for all. THAT of course was the preferred option for liberals during the healthcare reform debate NOT an insurance mandate which was a conservative idea in response to Hillarycare and one Republicans pushed for years all the way up to the 2008 election. Ironically, they would have killed the only conservative solution to healthcare reform and left an actual Gov't takeover as the only workable solution to the mess that will be left in the wake of the over-ruling of the Affordable Care Act.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 3:40PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

My only problem with that scenario, KT, is that an awful lot of people are going to really, really suffer and many will die until the gvt shifts over to Medicare for all.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 5:06PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

I agree David, and this coming at the same time the Great Recession has hollowed out people's resources and the Ryan bill proposes to gut Medicare and Medicaid and cut taxes is like a perfect storm of potential suffering and economic calamity like we haven't seen in decades. I wonder if it could precipitate another recessionary dip.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 5:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Good points, kt. A big concern of mine is that the Republicans want to strike it down but they are not offering up what they would do. If they would put together a platform that says "we'll repeal it and then immediately do this and this, then work on doing this and enforcing that ..." then perhaps more people would feel comfortable supporting them.

But all I hear is "we're doing away with it". Back to square one and good luck getting anything soon.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 5:13PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
labrea_gw

Hey then we can have Ryan Care!

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 5:17PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terriks

A Republican "strategist" was questioned this morning on one of the cable news networks about what the Republicans have to offer to replace "Obamacare" as part of the "repeal and replace" pledge. He said that he had no idea - he personally was already on Medicare, a single payer system. I was flabbergasted, and wish that I had jotted down his name.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 6:33PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

nancy-in-venice:
It is almost a certainty that it will be held unconstitutional.

marshallz; KT is right, if the mandate goes, the entire Aff HC Act goes. Absent the mandate we will have the same problems,,,millions without health care coverage...many of they becoming ill as a result of the lack of preventative care, and others requiring emergency health care that they cannot afford.

esh: You are absolutely right. Kennedy is the swing vote. First, let's face it, he was a Reagan appointee.
Secondly, feature this question that he asked at todays hearing.

Kennedy: "Can you (Congress) create (interstate) commerce in order to regulate commerce?"

My answer would have been "yes, absolutely, because Congress has already done that by creating Medicare and Social Security." Congress created Medicare. Medicare is a government program involves interstate commerce.
People have to either use it to get into a hospital for treatment or prove to the hospital that they have privated health insurance coverage....otherwise, unless you need immediate emergency care, the hospital will sens you on your way.

The fact that Kennedy asked such a question has me worried that he has alrady sided with the other 4 ideologue Republicans Justices on the S. Ct.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 8:12PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

I meant to add "rhetorical" in the last sentence, i.e.,

"The fact that Kennedy asked such a rhetorical question has me worried that he has alrady sided with the other 4 ideologue Republicans Justices on the S. Ct.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 8:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ohiomom

Well I am really glad that the government cannot mandate insurance ... cause I am getting ready to drop my STATE MANDATED auto insurance. They can go shove it !!

Yipee !!

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 8:16PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Well I am really glad that the government cannot mandate insurance ... cause I am getting ready to drop my STATE MANDATED auto insurance.

They say that you don't have to drive and that anyway, that is a State requirement, not a Federal mandate.
Of course, then the State would be restricting your freedom by essentially taking away your right to drive.
This casei will be decided along partisan lines, 5-4 in favor of the anti-Obama forces.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 8:21PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
demifloyd(8)

I guess no one mentions the other "ideologues" on the Supreme Court.

Guess you assume you have them in your back pocket--no need to talk about their foregone conclusive votes, right? God forbid they actually interpret the Constitution.

Especially the one that was put on the Supreme Court by Obama just for this landmark decision, and should have recused herself--Elena Kagan, who while U.S. Solicitor General sent an email expressing her excitement and support for the PPACA (Obamacare).

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 8:29PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

demifloyd. It has already been stipulated that the case will be decided along partisan lines.

The question I proferred in the OP was what will the impact be when the mandate is stricken down and with it, the entire Aff HC act?
Politically, will this put Romney in?
How will such an opinion impact any future attempt by government to address health care or health insurance, or even to regulate it, if for example, Congress has no right to create Commerce, according to Kennedy's query?

With government out of health care and health insurance and fewer companies offering health insurance benefits as costs spiral, what do you suggest to control costs?
What about the future of Medicare as health care costs continue to spiral?
Where will the money come from if the Republicans do not want either a public option or the private option in ObamaRomaCare?

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:02PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Yes, demi, there is much talk that the 4 ultra conservatives will vote against it and the 4 liberals will vote for it. No one here is the first to say that. And transcripts from the arguments show justices revealing their bias in no uncertain terms.

Here is an interesting read on the commerce clause and how it has affected the progress of America.

Here is a link that might be useful: How the Commerce Clause Helped Build America

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:07PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Since commerce can be regulated, why haven't health care costs been regulated? I'm not going to provide a link, but I have looked around. It would seem that health care costs in the US are higher than elsewhere.

Or not?

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:10PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
PRO
Brushworks Spectacular Finishes(5)

Since commerce can be regulated, why haven't health care costs been regulated?

Simple answer. Lobbyists and campaign contributions.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Since commerce can be regulated, why haven't health care costs been regulated?

The issue is based upon Congress constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce and how far that right to regulate will be extended.

It would seem that health care costs in the US are higher than elsewhere.
Yes, and they will only get higher if nothing is done.

The fact is that without requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and without mandating that people purchas eprivate insurance, many people will be left to suffer an early death, others will suffer with intreated illness, millions of children will not have healtn coverage, and health insrance will just one more thing that seperates the haves and have nots.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:22PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

LOL. Since when does any Republican want to regulate corporate profit or raise corporate taxes...or health insurance company profits...or regulate the salary of doctors and hospital adminsitrators, oncologists, anesthesiologits, or any other health care professional....like they insist on doing with blue collar union workers, police, firemen, teachers and public employees?
The fact is that reoublicans have NO answer outside ObamaRomacare...which was their big fat idea.
Never forget, Obama wanted the public option, even in the 2008 primary where Hillary wanted the private insurance option/Romney mandate.

    Bookmark   March 27, 2012 at 9:30PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Another perspective:

"The hyperbolic language that is being used about this is way over the top," said economist Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under President George H.W. Bush. The mandate "is important, but not that important. There are other strategies to encourage people to purchase health insurance."

If the mandate only is struck down, the law's Medicaid expansion would still be carried out under a separate provision. The Medicaid expansion also is being challenged, but no lower court has found it objectionable.

Starting in 2014, Medicaid would provide health insurance to over half the estimated 30 million people receiving coverage as a result of the law, mainly childless adults living near poverty.

Another provision in the law provides government subsidies for many middle-class people to purchase individual policies, also available starting in 2014. Those subsidies, which have not been challenged, would probably entice many to buy a plan.

And yet another part of the law imposes fines on medium-sized and large employers who do not provide coverage to their workers.

Still, various economic studies have projected that without the mandate ten million to 15 million people who would have been covered instead will remain uninsured.

Wilensky said the government would have options. It could impose penalties on people who postpone getting health insurance until they have a medical problem, higher premiums for instance.

"You don't have to buy health insurance, but we're going to make you pay for the cost you're imposing on the rest of us," said Wilensky. That's the approach Medicare uses - successfully - to get seniors to buy outpatient and prescription coverage.

Here is a link that might be useful: source

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 7:46AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

Especially the one that was put on the Supreme Court by Obama just for this landmark decision, and should have recused herself--Elena Kagan, who while U.S. Solicitor General sent an email expressing her excitement and support for the PPACA (Obamacare).

I'm not so sure that working as the Solicitor General for the president in a capacity that did NOT involve her participating in meetings about the Affordable Care Act is a basis for recusal. She was not formulating legal opinions about Obamacare or lobbying or engaqed in a political capacity. But if a case could be made that she should recuse herself, there is as compelling a basis for recusal of Clarence Thomas whose wife is a paid political lobbyist ($150K a year) for a Tea Party group Liberty Central which fought against the Affordable Care Act citing her relationship with her husband in her arguments and she received $15 K payments from an anti-healthcare group she started - none of which was disclosed in financial statements required by law.

In any case, I think the possibility of a partisan split in the SCOTUS decision reflects more on the conservatives who are ruling against a conservative principle (the individual mandate) when it is proposed by Obama and this comes on top of several other split partisan decisions WON by conservatives including Bush v Gore and Citizens United which were both radical rulings with no real legal basis or precedent.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 8:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

conservatives who are ruling against a conservative principle (the individual mandate) when it is proposed by Obama

Meaning "they were for it before they were against it", type of thing?

Yup.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 8:23AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Another tidbit:

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision: Yesterday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court raised the distinct possibility that the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire health-care law -- could be decided by another controversial 5-4 decision. Such an outcome, especially after other 5-4 decisions like Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, would have two potential consequences. One, it would feed the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is as partisan as Congress and increasing parts of the media; in other words, these nine justices (either trained at liberal law schools or members of the conservative Federalist Society) are essentially political actors wearing black robes. And two and most importantly, a 5-4 decision would satisfy no one. If the court strikes down the mandate and the health-care law by that narrow margin, liberals and Democrats would blame it on the conservative justices. If the mandate and law are upheld by a 5-4 decision, conservatives would point their fingers at the liberals and the unpredictable "mushy" swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. That's the problem with a split decision: The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus.

Here is a link that might be useful: msnbc

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 9:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

I think overturning the bill, especially by 5-4 decision, may be a very good thing for as it relates to the re-election of President Obama.

Not only will Dems say they tried to improve the healthcare laws in the States but it takes the air out of the " repeal Obamacare" mantra.

When the Republicans don't have that mantra and the economy is clearly turning around then what will their battle cry be?

Not only that but there are going to be a lot of people, on both sides, who want many aspects of the law kept in place. Not sure that they will see the Republicans as keepers of those components.

I dunno, but I think a reversal could be a political win in terms of re-election.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 10:41AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

Well, we're seeing this played out here on the forum. Many people want most parts of the health care reform bill, but will vote Republican anyway, even in the face of a clearly stated and obvious track record of the Republicans - both nationally and at the state level, its all about removing / eliminating / reducing the gvt role in health care.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 10:51AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
fouquieria(10b)

We just have to see how it plays out. If it is overturned, I suspect the Republican Party will pay a long-term price. Possibly being the minority party permanently on the national stage. The flow of extreme conservatism in this country has to ebb eventually.

-Ron-

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 3:26PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Well heri cles, I do. Want to see health care costs regulated, that is. 'Course I'm not a Republican. Or a Democrat. I do vote though, everytime.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 3:41PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg(Z-7)

"When the Republicans don't have that mantra and the economy is clearly turning around then what will their battle cry be?

Iran is going to nuke us of course.

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 5:05PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
kingturtle(Zone 7 GA)

Did anyone catch Romney's nonsense about healthcare on Leno the other night. If this is the best response Republicans have to the possible over-ruling of Obamacare, then they are in trouble. He basically made the case for an individual mandate in saying that people with pre-existing conditions should have gotten health insurance when they were well and that if they didn't there's nothing that can be done to help them.

During an appearance on NBC's Tonight Show, host Jay Leno told Romney that he knew people that had never been able to get insurance before "Obamacare" was passed.

"It seems to me like children and people with preexisting conditions should be covered," Leno noted.

"People with preexisting conditions as long as they've been insured before, they're going to continue to have insurance," Romney explained.

"Suppose they were never insured?" Leno asked.

"Well, if they're 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I've got a heart disease, it's like, `Hey guys, we can't play the game like that. You've got to get insurance when you're well, and if you get ill, then you're going to be covered," Romney replied.

"I know guys that work in the auto industry and they're just not covered because they work in brake dust," Leno pressed. "And then they get to be 30, 35, and were never able to get insurance before. Now they have it. That seems like a good thing."

"But people who have had the chance to be insured if you're working in an auto business for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure all their employees you look at the circumstances that exist," the candidate explained. "But you don't want everyone saying, `I'm going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance. That doesn't make sense. But you have to find rules that get people in that are playing by the rules."

Here is a link that might be useful: Romney has little advice for the uninsured

    Bookmark   March 28, 2012 at 7:19PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

If we are left with nothing more than a Supreme Court Healthcare Act (maybe we can call it Scaliacare)
that riddles Obamacare to the point where no part of it can be implemented, millions of Americans will suffer and die.
The Godfather foisted George Bush on our country and is now poised to smack down health care reforms that benefit millions and would reduce our deficit.

kT; I saw Romney on Leno. I have a preexisting condition so believe me, I wanted to throw a shoe through the TV screen at him. What an arrogant ahole.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2012 at 1:10AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

The new liberal mantra: "millions of Americans will suffer and die. "

A bit overstated, I think.

But people will pay a millions of dollars more than they should, I'll give you that. Maybe that is what you mean by "will suffer".

    Bookmark   March 29, 2012 at 7:20AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
jerzeegirl(9)

I just don't see how the Supremes could overrule this law without impacting future decisions in a serious way.

Isn't the individual mandate the ultimate in personal responsibility? Everyone pays their own way since everyone is involved in and benefits from the health care system. (Yes they do. You most likely were born in a hospital, right? So you benefited from Day 1).

It's a dilemma: You are "forced to purchase a product" that you may not want vs. an even greater number of people are "forced to purchase a product" for those who don't have health insurance? In the long run, I'd rather pay for my own healthcare than to have to pay for others' healthcare.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2012 at 8:05AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw

This has to be taken in the over-all context of the evolving economy - with the recession - folks fired and companies gutting their benefits to survive - the number of uninsured is at an all-time high. The fact still remains that the emplolyer-provided insurance is a huge drag on competitiveness, particularly when the whole brunt on the cost -higher than anybody elses' - is tacked onto the product. That hasn't changed, and will only get worse.

As for 'millions dying', I doubt that, but look what happened in Texas, Arizona, and Kansas were Republican governors have slashed taxes and then slashed medicaid to pay for the tax cuts - thats a whole lot more uninsured people - and if the Ryan budget - voted on unanimously by Republicans - is even partially accepted, there will be even more uninsured. So definitely, millions more people who are sick because they can't get insurance and can't afford the care.

    Bookmark   March 29, 2012 at 10:46AM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Many will die and may will suffer, that is for sure.

Jerseegirl said:
I just don't see how the Supremes could overrule this law without impacting future decisions in a serious way.

You are exactly right. The decision is going to be difficult to frame in any narrow way for the Conservative Scalia Court.
It may impact the ability of Congress to even author a health care bill. It will be difficult to draft any meaningful healthcare reform that forces citizens to do or not do anything. Universal single payer? That is never going to happen now.
Those wo have employer based health insurance or pension health benefits should be happy. Everyone else is fooked.

So mow we wait ffor Scaliacare by the GOPer Godfather.
Like Pacino said in the Godfather, Scalia is ready to rule on Healthcare:

"You can have my answer now if you like. My offer is this... nothing"

    Bookmark   March 29, 2012 at 7:53PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

I thought this was very thought-provoking:

The plaintiffs have conceded that a universal health insurance program would be constitutional if, instead of penalizing people who decline to get insurance, the government enacted a tax and refunded the money to people who had insurance. As Sonia Sotomayor noted, functionally such a scheme would be exactly the same as the Affordable Care Act. Both the plaintiffs and some of the skeptical justices have also indicated that the Affordable Care Act would be constitutional if the law's architects had simply used the word "tax" to describe the penalty.

Think about that for a second: If the justices strike down the Affordable Care Act, they would be stopping the federal government from pursuing a perfectly constitutional goal via a perfectly constitutional scheme just because Congress and the Preisdent didn't use perfectly constitutional language to describe it. Maybe labels matter, although case law suggests otherwise. But do they matter enough for the Court to throw out a law that will provide insurance to 30 million people, shore up insurance for many more, and help to manage one-sixth of the American economy? It wouldn't seem so.

And this about whether the justices are fair and balanced:

Samuel Alito, in particular, suggested during oral argument that he had serious problems with younger, healthier people subsidizing, via their insurance premiums, the medical expenses of older, sicker people - "which just happens to be the defining feature of Medicare, Social Security, and every other social insurance scheme on the planet.

Alito is entitled to his opinion about what makes for good legislation. But heâÂÂs not entitled to impose that opinion on the country and his colleagues arenâÂÂt, either. Their job is to determine whether a law is constitutional, not whether a law is wise. And the more significant the law, the more unambiguous their judgment ought to be.

And more at the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: source

    Bookmark   March 30, 2012 at 3:15PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
david52_gw
    Bookmark   March 30, 2012 at 7:35PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri_cles

Alito's comments make it clear that the Conservatives on the Court would like to render an Opinion that would mark the beginning of the end for our social safety net.
Alito complains that young people would be compelled to pay for older and sicker people's health care.
Well, what about for Social Security and Medicare?
Same formula, no?
Would unemployment benefits be constitutional?
Where would the line be drawn?

I think the judicial repeal will embolden Reactionary Republicans and enrage millions who will be adversely impacted.
It will make an further reform of health insurance industry virtually impossible.
Health insurance will be increasingly difficult for self employed people to purchase and Medicare costs will rise so steeply that the program will fall under its own weight.
And Scalia is asking about broccoli? He will be remembered in history as a partisan zealot and a Judicial thug.

    Bookmark   March 30, 2012 at 11:37PM
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
esh_ga

Another good point:

There is, in fact, a persuasive limiting principle that would allow the Court to uphold health care without endorsing the unbounded federal power that concerns Kennedy and Roberts. It appeared in a Supreme Court brief filed by the government during the lower court proceedings in the eleventh circuit health care challenge that is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The limiting principle goes something like this: In previous cases denying Congress the power to regulate local activities such as guns in schools or violence against women, the Court has drawn a distinction between activity that is truly local and activity that is truly national, in the sense that the states aren't able effectively to regulate the activity on their own. When it comes to violence against women or guns in schools, states arguably have the will and the resources to respond to these problems.

But when it comes to providing insurance guarantees for the uninsured, any state would be worse off if it tried to solve the problem on its own, because it would end up attracting uninsured people from other states seeking to take advantage of its benefits. Because states know this in advance, most don't even try to solve the fundamental problems of health care coverage. Indeed, Representative McGovern of Massachusetts - the only state to pass a universal mandate - made a similar argument during the congressional debate over the Affordable Care Act when he said that a national mandate would free Massachusettes from being "forced to subsidize through higher premiums and higher Medicare and Medicaid costs the uncompensated care of people in other states who do not have health insurance."

The Supreme Court endorsed an argument along these lines when it upheld Social Security in 1937. In Helvering v. Davis, which should have been front and center during the health care oral arguments, Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote that a state might have resisted providing broader benefits or coverage to its neighbors out of fear that it would become "a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose." For this reason, the Court viewed income for the elderly as a national problem that needed a national solution. In the same way, affordable health care - unlike guns in schools or violence against women, subjects traditionally regulated by state and local criminal law - is an essentially national problem.

Here is a link that might be useful: source

    Bookmark   March 31, 2012 at 7:28AM
Sign Up to comment
More Discussions
Not a Kodak Moment for Idaho Legislator
Makes you wonder why they keep trying. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/23/1366371/-Idaho-Republican-to-doctor-Can-a-woman-swallow-a-camera-for-a-pregnancy-exam-w-audio...
duluthinbloomz4
A Cultural Cleansing
ISIS torched Mosul's library. "...books represent...
duluthinbloomz4
What goes around ...
.....comes around "It wasn't supposed to be like...
ohiomom
Boris Nemtsov Assasinated
Shot a few days before he was to lead a peace March!...
labrea_gw
GOP flawed charge that Obama's immigration policy is unconstitutional
GOP leaders have been gloating that the courts agree...
dublinbay z6 (KS)
People viewed this after searching for:
© 2015 Houzz Inc. Houzz® The new way to design your home™