JMS Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Today begins the 3 days of hearings on Obama Care at the supreme court. This will be more time dedicated to any individual case in hearings by the supreme court in nearly 50 years. The Schedule is as follows.. --- Day 1 Monday March 26 today the supreme court hears arguments as to whether they have jurisdiction or not. The argument is the mandate associated with Obamacare doesn't kick in for another two years. Can the court hear the case before any "damage" is done. Before any litigants have standing? This case is supposed to be published late May, June. --- Day 2, this is the big day, tomorrow March 26th. Does the government have the right to mandate everybody have / pay for health care coverage... The Pro... Hey the government forces us to do things all the time... We must pay taxes, we must serve on jury duty, we must register for the selective service... The federal government also mandates historically purchases. The federal government in the early 1800's mandated in a militia law that all those volunteering for the militia buy weapons. Likewise in 2008 the argument goes the government mandated that every american taxpayer buy a GM automobile.. we just didn't get the cars. The Federal Government under the commerce clause also forces all Americans to buy insurance.. Workman compensation insurance is part of Social Security.This bill it's argued is not all that extreme as it was first proposed by the conservative heritage foundation. Finally the original litigant in this lawsuit was a Ms Brown a small business owner who argued that she should not be required to buy health insurance for her or her employees. Ms Brown has since gone bankrupt. In reviewing her bankruptcy papers under unsecured loans one finds $3k in unpaid health care bills. Thus the pro mandate people are saying every American is already required to pay for health care. We all have bought Ms. Brown's health care as her unpaid debt will be passed along to all of us in the form of higher premiums and or higher taxes as the costs of uninsured defaults are passed along to paying consumers, the government being the largest health care consumer in the nation.... Now on the counter side of the argument... They make the distinction that although the government has the right to regulate commerce, the failure to buy a product is not commerce so a health care mandate doesn't fit under the commerce clause. Also while social security is a potential hole in this logic, they argue it doesn't apply because social security is mandating people pay the federal government, but in this case the federal government is mandating payments be made to private companies... They argue that's different. Finally it's argued by the anti government people, that if the Federal government is allowed this mandate they can literally mandate anything vastly expanding the role of government to the citizen. --- Day 3 Day three is going to be another snoozer like day 1. It deals with issues associated with Medicare and Obamacare. Should be a good hearing.. Seems to me like a slam dunk but given the politics and the unpredictability of the supreme court; anything could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I hope that next the federal government will order everyone to buy a Nissan. My new-found wealth will be great for everyone that's not working right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 This would have been very impressive if you knew how to spell "commerce." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I think day 3 has severability on the docket. That's a huge issue. If the mandate is struck down, the question is whether the whole bill is struck down or whether it's severable. If severable, the rest of the law could stand. If not severable, the whole law is unconstitutional (if the mandate is struck down). The law itself says it's non-severable, but the government will now argue that it is severable. One lower court found the law to be non-severable, the others said it was severable, so this isn't a foregone conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 They should let everyone but Kennedy take a few vaca days. His is the only "vote' that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 They should let everyone but Kennedy take a few vaca days. His is the only "vote' that matters. I suspect it's one of those rare times that you and I agree, that there's something wrong when we can pretty much predict almost every vote of the Supreme Court. Especially when we can predict that it will be a tie. I could understand things like being able to predict how they'd rule on something that's unanimous, like the meaning of "natural born citizen". It's one thing when we all know that the decision will be unanimous. But when we all know it will be a tie, and we can predict who will vote which way? To me, (and I suspect, to you), the only way that happens is when the court is too partisan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 They should let everyone but Kennedy take a few vaca days. His is the only "vote' that matters. A lot of people think this ruling will define the outer limits of the commerce clause one way or the other. Even a ruling upholding the law may place a limit on how far the feds can go in such matters. This could be meaningful in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterx Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm not a business owner so I don't have a viewpoint from their side. I have either paid for my own family's healthcare privately, as a contractor, or have paid part of it as it was offered through a company. We have had one near-freakout experience when our 4 year old almost lost her eye from a relative's dog bite, thank god we had insurance otherwise the cost of surgery would have set us back 10 years. I don't see how someone having healthcare is a bad thing. Being healthy should be a positive, not a negative. Again, I don't know a lot of the nuances of the deal, but I suppose it will costs businesses more money, and we may see that effect with lower salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I still think the law will be found constitutional, but don't think its a slam dunk. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that this is truly politics, and nothing more. This was the GOP's effort to fix healthcare, but it was passed by a "socialist." So, they had to go all out to make it look unacceptable. Honest question in this, what is the difference between the individual mandate to buy health insurance, and the GOP fix to social security. i.e. privatizing it? I don't know exactly what is meant by "privatizing," but its always been my understanding that the GOP fix to Social Security would require individuals to buy "private investments" instead. If that's correct, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I still think the law will be found constitutional, but don't think its a slam dunk. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that this is truly politics, and nothing more. This was the GOP's effort to fix healthcare, but it was passed by a "socialist." So, they had to go all out to make it look unacceptable.Honest question in this, what is the difference between the individual mandate to buy health insurance, and the GOP fix to social security. i.e. privatizing it? I don't know exactly what is meant by "privatizing," but its always been my understanding that the GOP fix to Social Security would require individuals to buy "private investments" instead. If that's correct, what's the difference? In light of this legislation, I suspect a GOP privitatization plan would be presented as an option rather than a mandate. I think it always has been, though I'm not specifically familiar with any legislative language. Also, SS is collected as a tax, which the penalty is not considered by the courts or by Obama, until it went to the courts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 In light of this legislation, I suspect a GOP privitatization plan would be presented as an option rather than a mandate. I think it always has been, though I'm not specifically familiar with any legislative language. Also, SS is collected as a tax, which the penalty is not considered by the courts or by Obama, until it went to the courts. Apparently the DOJ is arguing its not a tax now. I think there was a brief period of time when they said it was a tax, but they are back off that. I think the SC actually appointed an outside counsel to brief and argue whether it was a tax because both sides said it wasnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Apparently the DOJ is arguing its not a tax now. I think there was a brief period of time when they said it was a tax, but they are back off that. I think the SC actually appointed an outside counsel to brief and argue whether it was a tax because both sides said it wasnt. That is so yesterday....today it is a tax...err penalty....Tax penalty (throws up hands) http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/solicitor-general-argues-that-failure.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/03/solicitor-general-argues-that-failure.html Curious - do you frequent Althouse's blog on a regular basis? I can't see how the mandate passes muster (and, personally, don't think it should). I'm curious, does anyone think Obamacare would pass muster if it were reconfigured as a tax credit to those who have health insurance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 For the record, the first day was not about jurisdiction. The court has jurisdiction. The question is ripeness. Taxes cannot be challenged until they actually go into effect. If the mandate is a "tax," the question cannot be raised until 2014. If the mandate is a regulation or penalty, it can be challenged immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If it's not a Tax, the Federal Government has no legal means to impose it. That would pretty much kill the entire plan. Without a means to force citizens to pay into this, the entire plan is DOA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If it's not a Tax, the Federal Government has no legal means to impose it. That would pretty much kill the entire plan. Without a means to force citizens to pay into this, the entire plan is DOA. Yea...that's incorrect. They could enforce it by legal penalty, which seems to be what the Administration is arguing. My wife recently got picked up and didn't have her proof of insurance in her car. She faces a fine unless she can produce the proof of insurance. That fine is not a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Has Kennedy asked anything of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Are you sure Roberts and Scalia aren't in play too? Wasn't one of the surprise affirmations written by a former Scalia clerk? I honestly don't know enough about Roberts to have a feel for how he will vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Yea...that's incorrect.They could enforce it by legal penalty' date=' which seems to be what the Administration is arguing. My wife recently got picked up and didn't have her proof of insurance in her car. She faces a fine unless she can produce the proof of insurance. That fine is not a tax.[/quote'] We will see if it's incorrect. Car insurance is the result of making a conscious personal decision to buy a vehicle. It is not a mandate. IE, I don't have to buy Car Insurance if I don't make the personal choice to purchase a Car. Further more, if I have the financial means to pay out of pocket for an accident and I can prove it, I don't have to buy Car Insurance. In addition, each state has different rules and regulations on how Car Insurance is worked. That is not the case with the Health Car Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Are you sure Roberts and Scalia aren't in play too? Wasn't one of the surprise affirmations written by a former Scalia clerk? I honestly don't know enough about Roberts to have a feel for how he will vote. I think if EITHER of them is in play, then it's possible we'll see a unanimous decision in the affirmative for Obama. And I DO think that's a possibility. While I do NOT think the reverse is possible. Not a chance Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsberg vote to repeal. Kagan is a wild card IMO. It's either 9-0 in favor, 6-3 in favor (or a hybrid, ie Kagan votes with the maj, but issues her own dissent on a specific issue), 5-4 in favor, or (and imo most likely) 5-4 against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c1#/video/crime/2012/03/27/nr-toobin-mandate.cnn Toobin: Mandate in grave troubleCNN Newsroom Added on March 27, 2012 CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says Supreme Court justices were at odds during debate over the health care law. It looks like it's going down from what a lot of analysts seem to be saying on twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If it's not a Tax, the Federal Government has no legal means to impose it. That would pretty much kill the entire plan. Without a means to force citizens to pay into this, the entire plan is DOA. This is the gist of the constitutional challenge. 1, can they impose the mandate and 2, is the entire plan DOA if they cannot. Yea...that's incorrect.They could enforce it by legal penalty' date=' which seems to be what the Administration is arguing. My wife recently got picked up and didn't have her proof of insurance in her car. She faces a fine unless she can produce the proof of insurance. That fine is not a tax.[/quote'] There are ways to control behavior, but the mandate is the mechanism in this law. If Congress all sang kumbaya and decided to work together to find a way to make this work, they could. However, the D's don't want to compromise away a lot of their bill in order to get the R's on board, so that's not really an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Interesting. I think we will all speculate till sometime in the summer when we see the opinions. ---------- Post added March-27th-2012 at 01:43 PM ---------- Wrong Direction, they did compromise a lot of their bill. Many of us wanted single payer like much of the rest of the developed world. Keep in mind, the 60% of people who don't like the bill includes many on the left, and many of the 40 percent view it as better than if nothing had been done. This bill looks very little like the ideas which spawned it, and much of the sausage making happened to try and win R votes. The bill just never gave up the concessions given in hopes of garnering votes which were never truly going to be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenspandan Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Are you sure Roberts and Scalia aren't in play too? Wasn't one of the surprise affirmations written by a former Scalia clerk? I honestly don't know enough about Roberts to have a feel for how he will vote. it's not impossible, but it'd be a real shock. those dudes have been voting along party lines on any remotely contestable case for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If it's not a Tax, the Federal Government has no legal means to impose it. That would pretty much kill the entire plan. Without a means to force citizens to pay into this, the entire plan is DOA. why can't the feds tax everyone for health care but give out waivers to people that buy health insurance? the power to tax is VERY broad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.