Healthcare Law Prediction Thread UPDATE: ACA UPHELD

[sportage]

This is weird in that it absolutely will be a huge win for "insurance for profit" if the reform survives in totality in the short term. But past that, insurance companies truly believe the next logical step is the public option or medicare expansion.
That.... profit insurance companies do not want in any form. Period!
It makes sense that if everyone is mandated to buy healthcare, that an affordable public option would have to be the next step developed and included for those low income folks or those folks on a fixed income.
If this survives the court, we will be on our way to an expanded medicare "option" available to all Americans.
Or at least some sort of government ran healthcare "option" available to all.
That scenario will set every healthcare for profit insurer into terror mode.
What would be the cost of expanded medicare, or some government ran non-profit option? If you take profit out of healthcare, and give that as an option for those without healthcare, everyone American alive could then have healthcare coverage one way or another.
Why anyone would object to that I can not comprehend.
Even the healthcare for profit industry, I would think, should wish to see all Americans having access to healthcare without then going bankrupt to pay the bill(s).

 

[lopri]

OK I'll bite while there is still time : The mandate will be upheld under the Commerce Cluase and Necessary/Proper Clause.

 

[GoPackGo]

If the purchase mandate is struck down then that should mean the government requiring ANY type of insurance coverage should be unconstitutional as well...

 

[epidemis]

They will overturn the law forcing Americans to buy health insurance.

 

[lopri]

If the purchase mandate is struck down then that should mean the government requiring ANY type of insurance coverage should be unconstitutional as well...

That is quite wrong. Even the opponents of ACA admit once you step into the door of a hospital the government can require you to purchase an insurance.

Which is why their claim is bogus. The whole point of having an insurance is that you cannot predict when you're going to enter a hospital.

 

[Bitek]

We'll find out soon. Just glad to finally have a ruling one way or another.

Hard not to.see this court as conservative activist tho

 

[GoPackGo]

That is quite wrong. Even the opponents of ACA admit once you step into the door of a hospital the government can require you to purchase an insurance.

Which is why their claim is bogus. The whole point of having an insurance is that you cannot predict when you're going to enter a hospital.

So if the Supreme Court rules the government mandate for health insurance purchase is unconstitutional, then how can ANY insurance coverage law be constitutional?

I am not saying it should be struck down...playing devils advocate a bit.

 

[Bitek]

Anyone who thinks the Congress will actually try to move again on big hc legislation again is out of thier minds. Either way, this is it for hc reform for a long time

 

[werepossum]

This law will NOT be overturned. It would be politically disasterous for too many people on both sides of the aisle. It would also throw the health care insurance into even more chaos than it is now, and too many lobbiests like this law.

No, it's not going anywhere. We threw out the constitution a long time ago.

Pretty much this. If the mandate does get struck, it's easy enough to reconfigure it to a tax which is waived with proof of health insurance. But the court is essentially the same balance as when it gave us Kelo v. New London which in my opinion is orders of magnitude more onerous and disgusting than mandating that you buy insurance for your own benefit to prevent the rest of us from having to pay for you.

 

[sportage]

If Obama healthcare reform is tossed out, then Obama should immediately get on TV and declare his own presidential mandate to take effect the same hour that all government employed shall have no government provided or government paid or tax payer paid healthcare benefits in any form.
The justices would then have no healthcare, none in congress would have healthcare, all that would end as of today.
THEN.... you'd witness speed of light fast tracking in congress to develop affordable government healthcare before the days end.
Just be thankful I'm not in the presidents shoes.
The sword cuts both ways.....

 

[werepossum]

So if the Supreme Court rules the government mandate for health insurance purchase is unconstitutional, then how can ANY insurance coverage law be constitutional?

I am not saying it should be struck down...playing devils advocate a bit.

SCOTUS has extended the limitations on federal power to the states; SCOTUS has not extended the limitations on the states' power to the federal government. Ergo there are things the federal government may not do which states may do. Or in theory anyway; in reality it increasingly looks like the states are pretty much finished as sovereign powers. (Oddly enough, the one exception seems to be gay marriage which would appear to me to be an issue of basic rights and equal protection, both federal issues. Go figure.)

 

[lopri]

So if the Supreme Court rules the government mandate for health insurance purchase is unconstitutional, then how can ANY insurance coverage law be constitutional?

I am not saying it should be struck down...playing devils advocate a bit.

It will depend on the rationale, or reasoning. The most prominent one the opponents have pushed is distinguishing action/inaction.

In other words, they say the government can require auto insurance for those who "purchase" cars and drives "in public." (actions occured) But they say the government cannot require people before they enter the health care market. (inaction)

But does it sound like a realistic/sensible proposal? The whole thing comes down to timings? That's one of the questions and Justice Kagan wondered aloud during the oral argument.

 

[cybrsage]

Hopefully they'll reign in the ridiculously broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

This

 

[dank69]

mandate survives as tax

 

[nextJin]

looks like the individual mandate is surviving as a tax? Getting several different reports atm

 

[DrewSG3]

The mandate has been upheld

 

[lopri]

ok i'll bite while there is still time : The mandate will be upheld under the commerce cluase and necessary/proper clause.

i said so.

 

[dank69]

mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court

 

[dank69]

The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated

 

[sactoking]

dank is reading SCOTUSblog

 

[sactoking]

Yahoo! says it went 6-3, so more than just Roberts sided with the majority.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yahoo! says it went 6-3, so more than just Roberts sided with the majority.

Gotta be Kennedy, can't imagine it was Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.

 

[Nintendesert]

dank is reading SCOTUSblog

Or just reading off Drudge. :sneaky:

 

[sactoking]

CNN says "Mandate Struck Down"

 

[sactoking]

Fox offers no opinion yet