Wrong Direction 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.cnnIt looks like it's going down from what a lot of analysts seem to be saying on twitter. Perhaps, or perhaps the justices are looking for a way to define healthcare as special. This case is being framed by conservatives as a confirmation of the government's right to make people do all sorts of stuff...as an authority without constitutional limitation. The administration's job is not to defend this law as the government's right to impose anything they ever want. Rather, they want to define how this law reflects a special circumstance that provides the government with this authority. In other words, if the government is arguing for limitless rights, they'll lose easily. However, if they're only arguing for a small carve out, the conservative justices might view this as a case that provides an outer bound to the commerce clause while still allowing the mandate. The government's challenge is to define that outer limit for the judges.......I think. So, the judges, by virtue of those questions could simply be seeking the definition of that outer limit of authority. The question itself may actually be very predictable, it's the government's response that might be most meaningful. So basically I think people may be jumping to conclusions, but I hope they're spot on. ---------- Post added March-27th-2012 at 01:57 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. If you believe this, that's fine, but it's still irrelevant. I actually think we're talking about two different things. What I'm referring to is what would need to happen to make this law constitutional now. If the mandate is struck down, people who just wanted to get along would work to tweak this law so it is constitutional (think Dems running both houses with veto proof majority). However, the only way R's would work with D's now is if they compromised away a ton of this law. Basically, they'd need to agree to a totally new law, which won't happen. That's my only point. ---------- Post added March-27th-2012 at 01:59 PM ---------- 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 Because they need 218 votes in the house and 51 in the Senate, and a presidential signature on the law. This law doesn't codify your mechanism. For what it's worth, I think your solution would be a much better funding mechanism in general, provided the right purchasing flexibilities provided to the taxpayer with that waiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 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. You and JMS should open a law firm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 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 They could do this and in truth, I would not be opposed to this but then they would have to have a vote on the floor and that would likely not pass. That's why they don't want to label this as a Tax. This is the real issue IMO. If this legislation is strong enough to stand, then it should be strong enough to get passed on the floor. If it is not, then it won't and this is what this Administration is trying to avoid at all costs IMO. ---------- Post added March-27th-2012 at 12:10 PM ---------- You and JMS should open a law firm. To be honest, I consider myself lucky to simply be sane enough to come to work and spend the occasional hour or two on a message board. I think I would be doing JMS a disservice, hanging him with a an anchor such as myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 According to early reports, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all supported the Law. The other Justices seemed to have questions. “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Justice Kennedy “May failure to purchase something subject me to regulation?” Justice Scalia "Can the Government compel the purchase of cellphones" Chief Justice Roberts "Can the Government force people to buy Burial Insurance?" Justice Alito No questions were put forth by Justice Thomas. Justice Kennedy said the requirement to obtain insurance was unprecedented, giving rise to “a heavy burden of justification.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/hard-questions-from-conservative-justices-over-insurance-mandate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 According to early reports, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all supported the Law. The other Justices seemed to have questions.“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Justice Kennedy “May failure to purchase something subject me to regulation?” Justice Scalia "Can the Government compel the purchase of cellphones" Chief Justice Roberts "Can the Government force people to buy Burial Insurance?" Justice Alito No questions were put forth by Justice Thomas. Justice Kennedy said the requirement to obtain insurance was unprecedented, giving rise to “a heavy burden of justification.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us/hard-questions-from-conservative-justices-over-insurance-mandate.html Washington Post depicted both Kennedy and Roberts on the fence by the end of the argument. Its hard to gauge what any of them are really thinking though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I still think Kagans will be the most interesting opinion. I hope she writes a seperate one from the majority or minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I find this whole process endlessly fascinating. This really is a huge ruling.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 By virtually all accounts that i've read or heard about today's proceedings, it appears, that this legislation is headed for overturn by the USSC. It's not over yet but it does not look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 By virtually all accounts that i've read or heard about today's proceedings, it appears, that this legislation is headed for overturn by the USSC. It's not over yet but it does not look good. It looks good to me though (And most Americans). But I shouldn't speak too soon after all it hasn't been overturned yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I loved the "Will Congress mandate that we eat broccoli?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Wouldn't it be paying a fine for "not' eating broccoli? you pay the fine if you don't get healthcare you pay the fine if you don't eat broccoli. Paying the fine for not being in the healthcare system supposedly creates a cost shift for the rest of us. but don't we all eventually use it and then have the same bill as everyone else we still don't have to pay and make the IRS etc. come after? If we pay the fine will it make healthcare cheaper? or will that 12% only cover a fraction of a fraction of what would be needed, and the people that have healthcare still pay 80% of what we pay now? Next logical step is it doesn't work and we go single payer system as was wanted to begin with.. Back to the "We will never pull you over for seat belt laws", wait 2 years... its not working, "Click it or Ticket!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter44 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 When they get rid of the mandate I hope they get rid of the SS mandate and the Medicare mandate, and the social and corporate welfare mandates, etc.... yep, last time I read the Constitution it didn't say that the government could do any of those things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 By virtually all accounts that i've read or heard about today's proceedings, it appears, that this legislation is headed for overturn by the USSC. It's not over yet but it does not look good. I disagree, and I want it declared unconstitutional. I think they asked the questions they had to ask. Kennedy in particular was giving the government an opportunity to respond directly to points being filed in briefs. The fact that he asked those questions seems to be what people are making judgements about, but they're predictable questions. What is troubling for me is the liberal justices' seeming lack of a willingness to even consider the state's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 When they get rid of the mandate I hope they get rid of the SS mandate and the Medicare mandate, and the social and corporate welfare mandates, etc.... yep, last time I read the Constitution it didn't say that the government could do any of those things... Those are very different animals and the constitutionality of such programs is unquestioned among legal scholars. And before you respond, note that I believe Obamacare is and should be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Those are very different animals and the constitutionality of such programs is unquestioned among legal scholars. And before you respond, note that I believe Obamacare is and should be unconstitutional.How about the mandate that hospitals cannot deny care to anyone, even if they can't pay or don't have insurance. That is what bugs me about this case... the reason everyone needs health insurance is because everyone has to pay for the uninsured... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 How about the mandate that hospitals cannot deny care to anyone, even if they can't pay or don't have insurance. That is what bugs me about this case... the reason everyone needs health insurance is because everyone has to pay for the uninsured... That reads like a policy rationale to me, not a legal rationale. There are other ways to pay the legal bills of people who cannot than requiring everyone to buy a private product. Just because Congress hasn't explictly done so doesn't mean there aren't other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 How about the mandate that hospitals cannot deny care to anyone, even if they can't pay or don't have insurance. That is what bugs me about this case... the reason everyone needs health insurance is because everyone has to pay for the uninsured... And that is why the Heritage Foundation and Romney supported the individual mandate before they were opposed to it. If you want to game the system just show up at an emergency room when things get bad. Denying healthcare to deadbeats in need is a step most people are not ready to take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Assuming "Obamacare" is dismantled, can anyone tell me what the Republicans are proposing to replace it with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I guess the only other options if this gets struck down is Single payer, Universal, or have the same law but get rid of the mandate? If they get rid of the mandate does the law still take effect, just no mandate? I guess we can FORCE those who freeload and don't get a plan to pay back all bills/expenses, by forcing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Assuming "Obamacare" is dismantled, can anyone tell me what the Republicans are proposing to replace it with? Not specifically, because a comprehensive plan has not been written. I'm told they're actually drafting one for next year now, but I'm sure it's in the formative stages. Generally, they'll try to de-regulate, allow people to purchase plans out of state (e.g., with less mandates), and provide premium support to poor people. I suspect they'll also need to provide a risk-sharing subsidy to insurance companies as a way to offset making them accept people with pre-existing conditions. This is in addition to their Medicare/Medicaid proposals that the hill just voted again to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 How about the mandate that hospitals cannot deny care to anyone, even if they can't pay or don't have insurance. That is what bugs me about this case... the reason everyone needs health insurance is because everyone has to pay for the uninsured... I am well aware that the uninsured heap enormous costs upon the insured (and, more broadly, society) as a result of their failure to pay bills, seek preventative care, etc. So, I am sympathetic to efforts that seek to extend coverage to the uninsured and, at a gut level, even sympathetic to the mandate. However, as Wrong Direction noted, the social utility of Obamacare is, at best, a secondary issue for the SCOTUS to weigh when deciding whether the mandate is constitutional. The broader, and far more important issue, is whether any provision of the Constitution implicitly grants the federal government the authority to compel everyone to purchase products solely because they have pulses. If I were a justice, I seriously doubt that I could be convinced to side with the Obama Administration. That said, I'm all ears ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I guess the only other options if this gets struck down is Single payer, Universal, or have the same law but get rid of the mandate? There are other options to a single payer (which won't happen in the next 30 years) system. If they get rid of the mandate does the law still take effect, just no mandate? There's a decent shot that the mandate is struck down and the rest of the law left in tact. This would explode costs, and thus force future legislative action in some form. If I had to bet, I'd say this is most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 That is what bugs me about this case... the reason everyone needs health insurance is because everyone has to pay for the uninsured... dingdingdingdingdingdingding That's what galls me about this whole thing. Why are we (or some, anyway) propping up the freeloaders and aggressively defending their right to freeload as if it were some noble cause? I'd rather Congress force you to buy your own damn insurance then force me to pay for you because, gosh you didn't think you'd need it. That's why this comment from Scalia really bothers me. It's also an area that Justice Elena Kagan touched upon. "And this is especially true, isn't it, General Verrilli, because in this context, the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?" she asked. Verrilli agreed, saying people never know when they'll need coverage. It was an answer Justice Antonin Scalia jumped on. "We're not stupid. They're going to buy insurance later. They're young and need the money now. When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us," he said. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/27/swing-justice-poses-tough-questions-on-obamacare-at-supreme-court-hearing/#ixzz1qLdig1TD Sure. I'll just buy it later. Unless of course I get diagnosed with any one of 1000 diseases, in which case I'll never be able to get insurance for the rest of my life. But those sorts of things only happen to other people. It's the perfect illustration of the problems with people's mindsets, and why we as a country need some kind of mandate in the first place. Because too many people are too dumb and short-sighted and need to be protected from themselves so they don't bankrupt the lot of us. That's another policy argument, not a legal argument for this particular fix. But I think this fight has done enough damage, that assuming it gets struck down (which I think it will) there won't be another chance to "replace it" with anything other than a Medicare for all single-payer type system. Of course, being against health care freeloaders was a standard GOP position about 10 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heyholetsgogrant Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Assuming "Obamacare" is dismantled, can anyone tell me what the Republicans are proposing to replace it with? "But he doesn’t favor comprehensive legislation to replace it. “We would want to more modestly approach this with more incremental fixes,” he told me. “Not a massive Republican alternative.” Source: Bloomberg Author: Ramesh Ponnuru http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/supreme-court-case-won-t-end-republican-obamacare-attacks.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Those hoping for affirmation of the legality of the law should still take some heart from: “The commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate existing commerce,” Clement said. “It does not give Congress the far greater power to compel people to enter commerce to create commerce essentially in the first place.” It was in the questioning of Clement and Michael Carvin, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, that supporters of the law saw a glimmer of hope. Roberts told Carvin that he was not addressing the government’s point, “which is that they are not creating commerce in health care. It’s already there, and we are all going to need some kind of health care; most of us will at some point.” And Kennedy said the government might be right that the interwoven markets of health insurance and health care are unique. “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,” he said. “That’s my concern in the case.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Interesting that so little seems to be made in the "main stream (liberal?)media" of this exchange compared to some more obtuse readings into other comments. It seems like Kennedy is looking for a way to limit the ruling he wants to make. Roberts is still a question mark in my eyes because he seems to legitimately be listening and weighing all sides of the arguments. He may be the one with the most open eyes. At this point I think followers will see either what they expect or what they fear reading into yesterday's hearing. It would be a good psych test. took quotes from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-main-constitutional-question-in-health-care-law/2012/03/26/gIQAkyKWdS_story_1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.