Healthcare Law Prediction Thread UPDATE: ACA UPHELD

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by ElMonoDelMar, Jun 27, 2012.

?

How will the SCOTUS rule?

  1. Strike the mandate, leave the penalties.

  2. Strike the mandate, dispute its existence.

  3. Punt

  4. Reject the Commerce Clause reasoning, but find that the mandate is a tax.

  5. Other (Explain in thread)

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. ElMonoDelMar

    ElMonoDelMar Senior member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    SCOTUS is set to issue their ruling on the Affordable Care Act tomorrow. I figured we should get a prediction thread going to give us something to argue about until the decision is released.

    According to a Washington Post blog, there are a few ways this could unfold.

    1) Strike the mandate, leave the penalties. Joey Fishkin of the University of Texas thinks that the Supreme Court could call the mandate unconstitutional while leaving the law functionally unchanged.

    2) Strike the mandate, dispute its existence. Walter Dellinger, a former solicitor general in the Clinton White House, suggests that Roberts could say that it would be unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance. Point, conservatives! But the court could also hold that the Affordable Care Act isn’t actually forcing anyone to buy health insurance.

    3) Punt. This was the solution favored by Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative star on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He argued that the Anti-Injunction Act specifically barred the court from considering the mandate until the federal government actually begins enforcing it.

    4) Reject the Commerce Clause reasoning, but find that the mandate is a tax. A related option for the Supreme Court would be to say that the federal government does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to impose an individual mandate. But it does have broad power under the Constitution to levy taxes. So, writes David Savage in the L.A. Times, the court could find that the mandate is a tax.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rt-could-split-the-difference-on-health-care/

    EDIT: According to CNN ACA has been upheld in its entirety.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1
     
    #1 ElMonoDelMar, Jun 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2012
  2. Atreus21

    Atreus21 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    9,036
    Likes Received:
    11
    Other: I have no earthly clue what they're going to do.
     
  3. munkus

    munkus Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think they'll punt so neither political party can claim it as an election-year victory.
     
  4. yllus

    yllus Lifer<BR>Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    20,006
    Likes Received:
    22
    I don't think they dare be seen as that activist a court.
     
  5. Bowfinger

    Bowfinger Lifer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    15,341
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm going to go out on a limb and predict their decision will be...controversial.

    Beyond that, who knows?
     
  6. tydas

    tydas Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that Rush and Mark Levine will grab their pitchforks and torches to storm the castle...
     
  7. PokerGuy

    PokerGuy Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    12,569
    Likes Received:
    21
    Most likely they'll craft some sort of ruling that nobody will be happy with. Those options presented in the blog are contorted drivel though, there are logical problems with each of them.
     
  8. ElMonoDelMar

    ElMonoDelMar Senior member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that if they punt that will successfully piss everyone off.
     
  9. Hayabusa Rider

    Hayabusa Rider Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2000
    Messages:
    39,330
    Likes Received:
    3
    ^^^
     
  10. MovingTarget

    MovingTarget Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    33
    I think that the mandate is likely toast, but that the rest will stand. Then again, it is foolish to underestimate conservative activism within SCOTUS.
     
  11. PrinceofWands

    Joined:
    May 16, 2000
    Messages:
    13,529
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not a prediction, but a prayer: gimmie 6-3 or better against the mandate, law is stricken because they attached no severability. I don't have any faith that it'll happen, but that's the best case scenario.
     
  12. Fern

    Fern Elite Member <br> Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    26,087
    Likes Received:
    2
    I don't understand what this means. Seems to me if you strike the mandate you are automatically striking the penalty. How can I be penalized for not doing something if there is no mandate compelling me to do it?

    Doesn't seem at all logical to me. If you don't have the (Constitutional) power to force me to do something, how can you penalize me for not doing it? If you're penalizing me for not doing something, how is that not forcing me to do it?

    Highly unlikely IMO. I think they would have rejected hearing the case and waited until the anti-injunction act's conditions were met.

    If this turns out to be only a ruling on the application of the anti-injunction act's applicability it will be the hugest legal prick tease of all time.

    Another "No" IMO. If the penalty is a tax it would be a direct tax. If they rule it a direct tax the Constitution says it must be apportioned. That's all but impossible to comply with so it effectively kills it.

    I think they may kill the mandate. And I think conservatives will mistakenly believe this kills Obamacare. And I think liberals needlessly fear the same thing. If anybody will listen to Howard Dean he's quite happy to clearly explain
    why the mandate is completely unnecessary. This plan is said to be similar to MA's and they don't have a mandate. The only problem I see is the relatively few tweaks that might be necessary. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Obama tried an Exec order, or something similar, to remedy that.

    Fern
     
    #12 Fern, Jun 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2012
  13. sactoking

    sactoking Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    The lack of a mandate doesn't "kill" the ACA but it will make what's left so unappealing that something will have to be done. Some of the market reforms like age 26 can easily live on without the mandate. Some market reforms like age/smoker ratemaking can live on without the mandate, maybe with a few small tweaks. Some market reforms like guaranteed issue/guaranteed renewability and 300% premium band spreads need the mandate to survive.

    If the ACA survives intact the market reforms will cause health premiums to go up. If the ACA survives sans mandate the market reforms will cause health premiums either skyrocket to such a degree that everyone is on Medicare, an Exchange, or without coverage or health insurers will voluntarily dissolve or go insolvent.

    The mandate was the bone thrown to health insurers to get them to buy in to the market reforms, but the mandate doesn't make the market reforms profitable it makes them survivable.

    While I, personally, feel that the mandate is at best immoral and at worst Unconstitutional I do recognize that the consensus likely outcome of ACA standing without the mandate will be a disaster.
     
  14. Fern

    Fern Elite Member <br> Super Moderator
    Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    26,087
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is precisely where Howard Dean disagrees with you.

    And MA's premium band spread is far less than 300%

    Edit: Let me go ahead now and admit I cannot any longer recall with any detail as to how MA law overcomes those problems with their lack of a mandate. I think I enumerated that some time ago in a similar thread, but can no longer recall those details. I would expect if the mandate is stricken we'll much more of Howard Dean on TV explaining how it wasn't necessary, or even desirable, in the first place.

    Fern
     
    #14 Fern, Jun 27, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2012
  15. zinfamous

    zinfamous No Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    75,292
    Likes Received:
    506
    I think it's 50/50 right now, which is astonishing in and of itself. SCOTUS would have to essentially toss out a dozen precedent-establishing cases from the previous 150 years or so to declare this unconstitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

    but I wouldn't be surprised if they do--One thing Roberts has certainly shown, is that his confirmation testimony in which he declared he 'takes precedent quite seriously,' was outright BS.

    What happened with Citizens United--not just the ruling, but the way he convinced his collegues to turn the plaintiff's case into something far beyond what the plaintiff requested--is outright appalling.
     
  16. zinfamous

    zinfamous No Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    75,292
    Likes Received:
    506
    They already have.
     
  17. Slew Foot

    Slew Foot Lifer

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    12,119
    Likes Received:
    23
    The whole thing will stand
     
  18. BonzaiDuck

    BonzaiDuck Lifer

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    10,925
    Likes Received:
    37
    I'm greatly in favor of Kennedy turning toward Ginsberg, but I don't know and can't predict. It really seems like hair-splitting.

    The health-insurance industry would not be what it is today without government midwifery. And since uninsured obtaining services from hospitals and clinics is a free-rider problem, I can't see why it should be "unconstitutional" to make people pay for health insurance if they can afford it, or pay a penalty on their Form 1040. The progressives have used the analogy of DMV requiring auto insurance or paying something directly. Health insurance is not like broccoli. One is simply a vegetable commodity; the other is a hedge against risk which carries a free-rider problem and other aspects of collective or public goods.

    Frankly, I think the case brought to the Supremes was stupid. But then, so may be some of the Supremes.
     
  19. sactoking

    sactoking Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, no offense to Howard Dean, but he really doesn't know jack about insurance.

    All I can say is that everyone I have spoken to at various state insurance departments, in the industry, and at the NAIC all agree that the mandate is absolutely essential to those market reforms.

    MA didn't overcome those problems without a mandate; Chapter 58 Sec 12 of the bill as enacted stipulates that all MA residents must have insurance.

    For the life of me I cannot find if MA has premium band caps and what they are. Since the ACA is modeled after MA I have to believe they're there but if they are they're hidden which is odd since MA would likely be touting them as a "valuable consumer protection".
     
  20. Farang

    Farang Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Messages:
    10,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree.

    I think there has been a shift in the media from 'wow, that was more hostile than we expected' after oral arguments to 'we expect this to be overturned.' I think there is way too much expectation from people that the court is going to get rid of the mandate, when really we have no way of knowing.

    Given that, I rely on previous expectations that the court will probably find it constitutional.
     
  21. Hayabusa Rider

    Hayabusa Rider Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2000
    Messages:
    39,330
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hopefully they'll reign in the ridiculously broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
     
  22. sactoking

    sactoking Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some morbid part of me hopes the whole thing stands so I can drop my insurance and decide if I want to pay the penalty (which is less than the cost of insurance, by a lot) or, since I own a business and underwithhold on my taxes, just tell the .gov to pound sand since they can't enforce the mandate anyway.
     
  23. cubby1223

    cubby1223 Lifer

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Messages:
    13,328
    Likes Received:
    7
    I predict the Supreme Court will make a decision and half the people in this forum will go bat-shit crazy over the decision.
     
  24. CPA

    CPA Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    30,326
    Likes Received:
    1
    The mandate is toast, at the very least.
     
  25. Ronstang

    Ronstang Lifer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Messages:
    12,419
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only if the court is derelict in it's duty. There is no way anyone can spin the mandate to be constitutional. It is not a tax, it was not structured as a tax, if it was we would not be in court. If it is held as constitutional then there is absolutely NOTHING the government cannot force you do to if they so choose. I cannot see Kennedy letting the mandate stand considering he actually takes his job seriously. The loons like Ginsberg care more about their agenda than the constitution so we know this will come down to Kennedy.