SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[AlexW]

I think Roberts is scared of a 5-4 decision, as it would appear to poltical/ideologically driven and might impugn the impartiality of the SC. My best bet is that he and Kennedy flip and uphold it.

 

[R.A.F.]

Striking down the entire law seems unlikely, but I'm not about to second guess. With the Supremes, it's foolish to even try to guess.

Not in this case...not when the Supremes seem content to "parrot" republican 'talking points".


The whole thing will be struck down...just like the repubs want.

 

[RandFan]

If they do strike down the law I want President Obama to start his second term by saying,

"We tried the conservative idea of a mandate and that turned out to be unconstitutional. Now lets work towards universal healthcare."

One can hope...

I like it.

 

[willhaven]

If they do strike down the law I want President Obama to start his second term by saying,

"We tried the conservative idea of a mandate and that turned out to be unconstitutional. Now lets work towards universal healthcare."

One can hope...

I like it.

Either way it can be framed as a loss for the Republicans.

I'm not a big fan of the mandate, but it's better than what we had previously.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Either way it can be framed as a loss for the Republicans.

I guess it can be framed that way. I don't know how that will make a difference, though. If the Justices strike the law down, I don't see how it would look like anything other than a magnificent defeat for the Dems.

 

[Biscuit]

I guess it can be framed that way. I don't know how that will make a difference, though. If the Justices strike the law down, I don't see how it would look like anything other than a magnificent defeat for the Dems.

I think it would be pretty easy to frame it as the compromise on healthcare reform failed because the conservative ideas (the mandate) were unconstitutional. We still have a healthcare crisis so we need to look at the progressive ideas for solving this crisis unless of course the conservatives have any more ideas. Of course they do not.

Its pretty easy to hammer in two points.
1. Everyone needs healthcare
2. There will still be a private healthcare market if you want it.

 

[lomiller]

If they do strike down the law I want President Obama to start his second term by saying,

"We tried the conservative idea of a mandate and that turned out to be unconstitutional. Now lets work towards universal healthcare."

One can hope...

I’m not sure Obama needs to do anything. Without the individual mandate to block freeloaders insurance companies can’t provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions in a commercially viable way. This gives rise to three scenarios if Obama stands pat.
1) Individual States enact their own mandates, and insurance companies refuse to provide their services to people living in states that fail to do so
2) The insurance system for healthcare coverage breaks down, forcing the creation of a publicly funded universal system.
3) Insurance company super PAC’s flood money into the Nov election to beat the Republicans down so far a new version of the individual mandate can be passed.
None of these look to be serious negatives for the Democrats.

 

[RandFan]

I’m not sure Obama needs to do anything. Without the individual mandate to block freeloaders insurance companies can’t provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions in a commercially viable way. This gives rise to three scenarios if Obama stands pat.
1) Individual States enact their own mandates, and insurance companies refuse to provide their services to people living in states that fail to do so
2) The insurance system for healthcare coverage breaks down, forcing the creation of a publicly funded universal system.
3) Insurance company super PAC’s flood money into the Nov election to beat the Republicans down so far a new version of the individual mandate can be passed.
None of these look to be serious negatives for the Democrats.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[SezMe]

Adding to lolmiller's list:
4) Insurance company PAC money floods into the Nov. election supporting Republicans who support complete rejection of ACA. Their goal is to go back to the pre-ACA status quo in which they made gobs of money and regulation was weak. If Obama wins, nothing happens because he would veto any such legislation. If Romney wins, they win.

 

[lomiller]

Adding to lolmiller's list:
4) Insurance company PAC money floods into the Nov. election supporting Republicans who support complete rejection of ACA. Their goal is to go back to the pre-ACA status quo in which they made gobs of money and regulation was weak. If Obama wins, nothing happens because he would veto any such legislation. If Romney wins, they win.

In the debate 2 years ago all the Republican proposals included things like prohibiting insurance companies from dropping people and denying them based on pre-existing conditions. The also promoted ideas like doing away with tax breaks for employer based medical insurance, This is basically a worst case scenario for the insurance company as far as self selection goes.

It also leaves Republicans explaining why it's bad to stop insurance companies from dropping people or denying them based on pre-existing conditions when they have previously supported these. Even if they try this route it's a difficult win and leaves them in a bad spot if they lose.

 

[Biscuit]

I’m not sure Obama needs to do anything. Without the individual mandate to block freeloaders insurance companies can’t provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions in a commercially viable way. This gives rise to three scenarios if Obama stands pat.
1) Individual States enact their own mandates, and insurance companies refuse to provide their services to people living in states that fail to do so
2) The insurance system for healthcare coverage breaks down, forcing the creation of a publicly funded universal system.
3) Insurance company super PAC’s flood money into the Nov election to beat the Republicans down so far a new version of the individual mandate can be passed.
None of these look to be serious negatives for the Democrats.

Good points but I don't think we universal healthcare without president Obama on the front lines.

 

[SezMe]

It also leaves Republicans explaining why it's bad to stop insurance companies from dropping people or denying them based on pre-existing conditions when they have previously supported these. Even if they try this route it's a difficult win and leaves them in a bad spot if they lose.

Hell, the individual mandate was a product of the Heritage Foundation and was wholeheartedly supported by the Reps at one point. I don't think consistency is much of a hurdle ... which is understandable given the short attention span of Joe Public.

ETA: Oops, I speeled your name wrong in #29. Sorry.

 

[jhunter1163]

I’m not sure Obama needs to do anything. Without the individual mandate to block freeloaders insurance companies can’t provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions in a commercially viable way. This gives rise to three scenarios if Obama stands pat.
1) Individual States enact their own mandates, and insurance companies refuse to provide their services to people living in states that fail to do so
2) The insurance system for healthcare coverage breaks down, forcing the creation of a publicly funded universal system.
3) Insurance company super PAC’s flood money into the Nov election to beat the Republicans down so far a new version of the individual mandate can be passed.
None of these look to be serious negatives for the Democrats.

Option 2 is going to happen eventually regardless of any new law, and sooner rather than later. I've said elsewhere that I believe it'll happen by 2020. The current system will be replaced by Medicare-for-all, and the payroll tax will be raised to pay for it (I'd say about doubled, to 3%).

You heard it here first.

 

[Complexity]

Option 2 is going to happen eventually regardless of any new law, and sooner rather than later. I've said elsewhere that I believe it'll happen by 2020. The current system will be replaced by Medicare-for-all, and the payroll tax will be raised to pay for it (I'd say about doubled, to 3%).

You heard it here first.

Apply for the Challenge!

 

[BenBurch]

It will be stuck down on a straight party line vote by men who have never worried about medical bills in decades, if not their whole lives.

 

[angrysoba]

It will be stuck down on a straight party line vote by men who have never worried about medical bills in decades, if not their whole lives.

This may be true. But will they be striking it down out of sheer callousness and then start cackling about it afterwards, or will they strike it down because they genuinely think it is unconstitutional?

Just out of interest, do you think it is unconstitutional?

 

[RandFan]

This may be true. But will they be striking it down out of sheer callousness and then start cackling about it afterwards, or will they strike it down because they genuinely think it is unconstitutional?

Just out of interest, do you think it is unconstitutional?

I've read and heard conflicting information from legal scholars. I honestly don't know. I'm curious, if the liberals on the court hold a minority opinion that it is constitutional what would that mean for you? If a majority held that it was constitutional what would that mean for you?

As for me, if a 5-4 majority held that it was unconstitutional I would accept that it was unconstitutional but it would leave me with some doubt. Unanimous either way and, for me, it would be case closed.

 

[angrysoba]

I've read and heard conflicting information from legal scholars. I honestly don't know. I'm curious, if the liberals on the court hold a minority opinion that it is constitutional what would that mean for you? If a majority held that it was constitutional what would that mean for you?

As for me, if a 5-4 majority held that it was unconstitutional I would accept that it was unconstitutional but it would leave me with some doubt. Unanimous either way and, for me, it would be case closed.

I've no idea actually. As far as I remembered there was an idea that the government has no right to simply demand someone pay more money for something and therefore this law appears to overstep the government's authority. I tried looking up the relevant bits of the constitution but I couldn't find them.

It seems a bit baffling to me that there should be such an issue of liberals and conservatives split on the issue of the meaning of words. Okay, maybe that is naiive of me. This suggests to me that someone is not being honest in their interpretation. Again, how naiive of me!

To put my cards on the table, I am not American and I live in a country where there is government-mandated universal healthcare. I like the system a lot and if I were American I would probably want it there too.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Before the oral arguments, I would have predicted and easy win for the government. Now I'm less certain. But I've noticed before that you really can't read a whole lot into the questions justices ask during oral argumentation. (For example, for all of Kennedy's apparent discomfort with the mandate, near the end he said something about it probably being just a matter of degrees and not a major change in government.)

I do think you left out of the poll one of the more likely outcomes: the mandate is struck down and it's ruled not severable from the major portions of the law (i.e. expansion of Medicaid and most of the health insurance reforms), leaving only a few odd relatively inconsequential bits standing. It's perhaps closest to the third poll option, but I doubt very much there won't find at least a handful of bits that are completely independent of and severable from the individual mandate.

 

[SezMe]

I liked this discussion.