Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[keale]

Depends on whether or not you ask people if they like "Obamacare" or if they like the benefits of Obamacare.

Thats sad. Really makes just shake my head

 

[BenBurch]

...

What's he going to do with the rest of his first week?

Profit!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama's most significant achievement is ruled a tax increase on poor and middle-income Americans.

See, right there ^ another dishonest talking point.

The poor have the option of government assistance countering any increased cost they can't afford.

The middle class as a whole, is going to be better off financially in several ways. One, those of us paying for deadbeaters' care through markups on our health care costs will see a benefit as the cost is shared by everyone, not just paying customers.

Two, a major cause of bankruptcy will be eliminated.

Three, those in the middle class who are paying costs for chronic health problems that no insurer will cover will now have access to insurance thus lowering their costs.

And four, all of us with kids over 18 but under 26 will pay less with our kids on our policies than if we had to have individual plans for the kids. My son is 22 and in college.

 

[DavidJames]

If the Republicans are able to make the Palin's tweet (Brainster, for example, has bought in to it hook line and sinker) stick with the public. Obama is toast.

I expect the dozens of "the private sector is doing fine" ads to be replaced by the apparent (read lie) claim that Obama is now taxing poor people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Romney is spewing lies right now.

I'll wait till he's done to point out why his claims are false.

 

[JamesDillon]

President Barack Obama, April 2012:Chief Justice John Roberts, June 2012:The President's remarks were discussed here.

It's not exactly unusual for the Court to express its standard post-Lochner paean to judicial modesty and the autonomy of the political branches in policy matters, and Roberts has been more vocal about deference to the political branches more so than most Justices. Seems a bit of a stretch to assume that his language here is a response to Obama's statement.

What will be more interesting to see is whether the left's newfound appreciation for judicial restraint and the democratic virtues of majoritarian lawmaking lasts beyond the present moment. I rather doubt it.

 

[grunion]

I'm hoping Democrats can find as many clips as possible of Santorum's "Obomneycare" stump speeches and run them ad nauseum. The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[jasonpatterson]

This was such a pleasant surprise from Justice Roberts. I'm honestly stunned that this passed with the court as currently exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If the Republicans are able to make the Palin's tweet (Brainster, for example, has bought in to it hook line and sinker) stick with the public. Obama is toast.

Here are 2 talking points that should be used:

The individual mandate is about personal responsibility, (not government intrusion).

Private health insurers are evil.

 

[Tony]

The ACA is a terrible, hacked-together, mishmosh of a legislation. The only thing that can be said for it is that it is head and shoulders above the cruel, deadly, and nonfunctional system we have without it. So I'm glad to see it stay... for now.

Now if only we could put together a proper national health system like civilized countries have.

This pretty much echos my thoughts.

 

[Brown]

Romney is spewing lies right now.

I'll wait till he's done to point out why his claims are false.

I have previously predicted the following:

8. The U.S. Supreme Court will uphold part of the US healthcare overhaul, but not all of it.
8a. At least one Supreme Court justice will suggest that, unless the US Constitution specifically authorizes the Congress to implement a national healthcare plan, the US Congress cannot do so, no matter what.
8b. Look for at least one Supreme Court justice to become ill, which will make bench appointments a prominent campaign issue. The Republican candidate will pledge to nominate someone like Scalia.

Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct. Except for the part about someone being ill, I expect prediction 8b to be close to coming true.

 

[DavidJames]

Here are 2 talking points that should be used:

The individual mandate is about personal responsibility, (not government intrusion).

Private health insurers are evil.

I agree, reality is on Obama's side, but the meme could stick. Those talking points will take much longer then a 30 second TV ad to explain.

The cynical part of me wonders if Roberts actually considered the political fallout of the tax bit.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Wow, talk about being "in the bubble!!" I had heard that certain folks who identified themselves as "conservative" had decided--before the decision came down--that there was no conceivable scenario under which they could be deemed to "lose," and that no matter how the case came out, Romney would be the "winner."

Sounds like the mark of a Fox viewer. I'm stuck with Fox News over here since I got to Thailand, but it's been educational as I'd never seen it before. There has not been a talking head, whether delivering "News" or their screaming matches passing for commentary, for the past three weeks who wasn't absolutely positive that this was going to be struck down. Half of their discussions start with "well, after the Supremes knock-out Obamacare...".

Right now, they're in need of several chiropractors as they're throwing their collective back out doing contortions to find ways to spin this. They were totally unprepared as they thought they had this one in the bag. They've at least gotten politicos out to make statements about this being the reason "we need to win the election and repeal this".

Fox News is really reprehensible. They're interviewing a GOP Representative and throw him loaded questions on how this hurts the economy. Then they have a Dem Senator on and he wisely filibustered for two minutes because when their question came it was "How do you explain to those families that they have to pay higher taxes for this, though?"

 

[Vorticity]

I have previously predicted the following:

8. The U.S. Supreme Court will uphold part of the US healthcare overhaul, but not all of it.
8a. At least one Supreme Court justice will suggest that, unless the US Constitution specifically authorizes the Congress to implement a national healthcare plan, the US Congress cannot do so, no matter what.
8b. Look for at least one Supreme Court justice to become ill, which will make bench appointments a prominent campaign issue. The Republican candidate will pledge to nominate someone like Scalia.

Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct.

News coverage of the actual content of the decision has been patchy.

Re prediction 8 above: Which part of the ACA was not upheld by the SCOTUS?

 

[crimresearch]

It's not exactly unusual for the Court to express its standard post-Lochner paean to judicial modesty and the autonomy of the political branches in policy matters, and Roberts has been more vocal about deference to the political branches more so than most Justices. Seems a bit of a stretch to assume that his language here is a response to Obama's statement.

What will be more interesting to see is whether the left's newfound appreciation for judicial restraint and the democratic virtues of majoritarian lawmaking lasts beyond the present moment. I rather doubt it.

 

[Puppycow]

Sounds like the mark of a Fox viewer. I'm stuck with Fox News over here since I got to Thailand, but it's been educational as I'd never seen it before. There has not been a talking head, whether delivering "News" or their screaming matches passing for commentary, for the past three weeks who wasn't absolutely positive that this was going to be struck down. Half of their discussions start with "well, after the Supremes knock-out Obamacare...".

Right now, they're in need of several chiropractors as they're throwing their collective back out doing contortions to find ways to spin this. They were totally unprepared as they thought they had this one in the bag. They've at least gotten politicos out to make statements about this being the reason "we need to win the election and repeal this".

Fox News is really reprehensible. They're interviewing a GOP Representative and throw him loaded questions on how this hurts the economy. Then they have a Dem Senator on and he wisely filibustered for two minutes because when their question came it was "How do you explain to those families that they have to pay higher taxes for this, though?"

Funny. I was reading a Nate Silver blog post about this, which was yesterday, before the decision was announced:
Overconfidence Suggested in Supreme Court Predictions

Bettors at the prediction market Intrade are quite confident that the Supreme Court will declare the individual mandate unconstitutional when it rules on the government’s health care bill. (The decision is expected to come on Thursday.) At this writing, the consensus prediction of the market is that there is a 74 percent chance that the court will vote to overturn the mandate.

This represents a reversal from earlier, when the conventional wisdom held that the Supreme Court was more likely than not to uphold the mandate.

That was before oral arguments were made in the case in March, however. These were evidently perceived to be a “game changer.” The government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., sometimes struggled in offering a crisp defense of the law, and the questions of him from the court were often skeptical.

After these oral arguments, Intrade’s betting shifted dramatically. Quickly, the chance of the mandate’s being overturned climbed to about 65 percent from 35 percent at the market.

The odds of the mandate’s being overturned have fluctuated some since then, but have risen even further in the past few weeks, according to the market.

Is such a large shift in sentiment justified? In my view, probably not.This may be another case of traders being overconfident about the value of their information, a property which has also been observed in the stock market.

 

[JamesDillon]

Somebody made a ton of money on Intrade today. Wish it was me.

 

[Puppycow]

Re prediction 8 above: Which part of the ACA was not upheld by the SCOTUS?

Something about whether the federal government can withhold Medicaid money from states that don't comply with new rules regarding Medicaid.

 

[marksman]

For the record, here's how the voting actually went.

Part II. Does the Anti-Injunction Act prevent the Court from hearing this case?
No: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: --

Part III-A.1 Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to enact the individual Mandate?
No: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Part III-A.2 Does the Necessary and Proper Clause allow Congress to enact the individual Mandate?
No: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Part III-B. Can the individual Mandate be construed as a tax?
Yes: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
No: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito

Part III-C. Is the individual mandate consistent with Congress' taxation powers?
Yes: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
No: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito

Part IV. May Congress withhold Medicaid from States who do not meet Act deadlines?
No: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Sotomayor

 

[marksman]

Of note, and as noted by Ginsberg in her opinion, the decision that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause do not justify the mandate is mere "dicta" because the mandate is separately upheld under Congress' taxation powers.