Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

And we still hate condescending jackasses. Could you show me my unpaid hospital bills please? Could you explain to me what my employers' plan covers for what I pay? Or do you just want to continue your false presumptions?

If you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, what is your plan?

[ixcuincle]

exactly. please remember the above post when surfing the seas of hyperbole on facebook and fox news.

one more thing: it's my private hope that this is the "don't ask, don't tell" of health care. it sucks, but it is a necessary stepping stone towards modernity and sanity.

Yeah, I thought it was a hard-fought win for the Obama team in the shootout, and I'd really be interested in seeing if they can capitalize on this momentum and win the championship in November. But this was a big win today for them. A sensational upset, wouldn't you say, Macca?

[mjah]

mjah,

that odd dynamic might not be so odd if one believes he was trying to preserve the perception of the courts. If he knew it would come out 5-4 in favor, the court looks far better/less political with him on the liberal side and Kennedy on the conservative side. A decision of this magnitude is better accepted if those perceptions aren't reinforced.

That's a fair point, though it still leaves the question of why Kennedy would always jump to the opposite side of Roberts in the first place.

Also, both are considered conservative justices (Roberts clearly, Kennedy leaning/swing), so if the two were guaranteed to fall on different sides of the decision then it would be more about just switching the order of two colors in the rainbow.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm skipping the necesary and proper clause section. That's a legal version of a teenager's "But everybody else is doing it" argument.

[NoVaO]

Well sure.

Higher taxes or more government reliance? Great choice.

I love democrats.

Or you get seriously sick or injured, go to the emergency room, and have your costs passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. You can't afford health insurance? There will be subsidies available to you. You don't have to take them. But it's much better than spending almost your entire income on just health insurance.

I really don't get the government reliance thing. It's not like Government is constantly reminding you how much you owe them for the subsidies. It's a service the Government is providing for people who cannot afford health insurance. And you don't seem like the kind of person who will become dependent on Government. If anything, you seem like the kind of person who would work harder just to get off Government assistance.

[JMS]

I think what will be interesting is the impact on the fall election. Does this mean Obama cruises to reelection. The Dems retake the House and keep the Senate. Liberalism on steroids in 2013.

Or does this lead to the opposite, Romney cruises to victory, Repubs keep the House and take the Senate.

My gut says that this will give Obama his victory.

GOP House leadership is pointing to this decision saying it's now more important than ever to expand the GOP majoirty to repeal Obamacare...

[Wrong Direction]

Tulane,

You said Medicaid expansion was thrown out. If so, that's huge. Can you elaborate? Sucks that I'm busy at work now, lol.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is a pretty well-written section. I would allow Roberts on The Bar Review.

Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(. That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning

income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, itmay be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.

The question is not whether that is the most naturalinterpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a “fairly possible” one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, “every reasonable constructionmust be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow' date=' what is your plan?[/quote']

The best argument would have been for the US to say "show me some living American who hasn't already received healthcare. Anyone born?" So, the argument should not have been "everyone is going to need healthcare some day," the argument should have been "everyone has already entered into the health care market."

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Tulane,

You said Medicaid expansion was thrown out. If so, that's huge. Can you elaborate? Sucks that I'm busy at work now, lol.

It was thrown out with a "but." Without having read the section in detail, it seems like the Feds can incentivize the states to participate but not punish them for lack of participation.

[NoVaO]

Tulane,

You said Medicaid expansion was thrown out. If so, that's huge. Can you elaborate? Sucks that I'm busy at work now, lol.

Wasn't thrown out. Just that the federal Government can't strip a state of all it's Medicaid funding if they choose not to go along with the program.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm officially bored (though this is exceedingly well written). I'm going to Scalia's dissent. Those are always fun.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Tulane,

You said Medicaid expansion was thrown out. If so, that's huge. Can you elaborate? Sucks that I'm busy at work now, lol.

This part is probably the most complicated part of it, so I may get this wrong. But it seems to me like 7 justices said that the medicaid expansion is not constitutional for different reasons. I think what the majority is here though is that the federal government cannot take away previous medicaid grants if states opt out of this expanded medicaid program.

I have to stress that that part is very confusing, and I'm gonna have to go over it a few times to see who said what exactly and how many justices agreed with the arguments.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 11:33 AM ----------

LKB, do you see Scalia and the others joining in Roberts' opinion saying that the interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into the market. You would have thought they would have joined on those parts, but I don't see it. I think that means that Roberts' opinion on that is not a majority, but the simple majority is that the interstate commerce clause cannot allow congress to pass the ACA.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

On my way to Scalia, I found this. This basically sums up the Medicaid aspect:

Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability

of health care, and requiring that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choosenot to participate in that new program by taking awaytheir existing Medicaid funding. Section 1396c gives theSecretary of Health and Human Services the authority tocaid]

payments . . . to the State” if she determines that the State is out of compliance with any Medicaid requirement, including those contained in the expansion. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. In light of the Court’s holding, the Secretary cannot apply §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid fundsfor failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion.

That fully remedies the constitutional violation we have identified. The chapter of the United States Code thatcontains §1396c includes a severability clause confirmingthat we need go no further. That clause specifies that “fany provision of this chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainderof the chapter, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.”§1303. Today’s holding does not affect the continued application f §1396c to the existing Medicaid program. Nor does it affect the Secretary’s ability to withdraw funds provided under the Affordable Care Act if a State that has chosen to participate in the expansion fails to comply withthe requirements of that Act.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 10:37 AM ----------

LKB, do you see Scalia and the others joining in Roberts' opinion saying that the interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into the market. You would have thought they would have joined on those parts, but I don't see it. I think that means that Roberts' opinion on that is not a majority, but the simple majority is that the interstate commerce clause cannot allow congress to pass the ACA.

I don't see Scalia joining anything. I haven't gotten far enough. Does Ginsburg write a separate concurrence/dissent? This seems to have been written by Roberts and Ginsburg, who are working out their issues.

Here is what I think happened. I don't think this is the precedent on the Commerce Clause section. I think the Court of Appeals decision is. Does that make sense?

I have to admit, I'm kind of lost on the vote counting here.

[Baylor Alum]

Basically, the majority said that the Federal government can delegate its programs (Medicaid) to the states with their consent. It can incentivise the States to go along with the program through funding. But it cannot force or coerce the states to carry out federal programs, and stripping pre-existing funding would constitute coercive penalty for refusing to do so.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I take that back. Roberts spells it all out here:

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part andunconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe

what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s

power to tax.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Where do you see "more government reliance" in this bill? All of the incentive is for you to buy private insurance.

Here, Mitt Romney can probably explain it better than any of us can...

Love that vid

[JMS]

JMS, Scalia's opinions in Gonzalez and the ACA case are not inconsistent. In Gonzalez, he was addressing Congress' power to regulate noneconomic activity. In the ACA case, he is addressing economic inactivity. The power to regulate interstate commerce presupposes that there is commercial activity to be regulated. Inactivity cannot be regulated.

I have not read the current opinions... I was commenting on Prosperity's statement "Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause can't compel people into commerce. " Noting that Kennedy and Scalia in 2005 GONZALES V. RAICH did apply the commerse clause on somebody who was in fact not involved in commerse but was growing medical MJ for personal use. This was discussed in the oral arguments.

If you have read the current decision could you explain the distinction you are making please.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Good God. Ginsburg wrote The Iliad.

[MattFancy]

I love all the idiots on Twitter saying they're moving to Canada over this. Guess they don't realize Canada has universal health care?

[Baylor Alum]

I take that back. Roberts spells it all out here:

5 Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy) held the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause alone.

Interestingly, it is a tax for constitutional purposes, but it is not a tax for Anti-Injunction Act purposes.

[ixcuincle]

If you thought CNN had bad coverage, imagine Fox News or MSNBC coverage of "The Decision".

CNN gets a lot of crap, but they are a solid news organization. Given, I am heavily biased since I wake up every morning at 5 pacific to watch CNN, but they don't flaunt bias as obviously as MSNBC or Fox News.

And no, I'm not going to watch CSpan. CSpan is awful.

[Bliz]

I love all the idiots on Twitter saying they're moving to Canada over this. Guess they don't realize Canada has universal health care?

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That is tremendous.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Bliz

[Tulane Skins Fan]

In regards to Medicaid:

Roberts, Breyer and Kagan agreed that the ACA gave the Secretary of HHS the power to withdraw existing medicaid funds for failure to comply.

Ginsburg and Sotomayor disagreed and said that the HHS could withdraw existing Medicaid funds. BUT they agreed that the portion is severable from the rest of the Act.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy ruled that the ACA was unconstitutional coercion upon the states in regards to the Medicaid expansion/penalties. But also ruled its not severable.

So, from this you get 7 justices (majority) saying its unconstitutional and 5 (majority) saying it is severable. But again, Roberts' opinion is a little different than Scalia's. I think it means that the Sec of HHS cannot withdraw all Medicaid funding if the states opt out of the medicaid expansion.

This part is the most confusing by far to me.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Tulane Skins Fan

[MattFancy]

bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That is tremendous.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 11:44 AM ----------

If you thought CNN had bad coverage, imagine Fox News or MSNBC coverage of "The Decision".

CNN gets a lot of crap, but they are a solid news organization. Given, I am heavily biased since I wake up every morning at 5 pacific to watch CNN, but they don't flaunt bias as obviously as MSNBC or Fox News.

And no, I'm not going to watch CSpan. CSpan is awful.

Solid news organization? This is one of the biggest decisions in American history and they got it wrong.