Obamacare - RIP

[MovingTarget]

The ACA does not include a separability clause, so if one portion is struck down the entire law is struck down. They purposefully did not include that which is routinely included in every law. They said that without the entire law, the whole thing fails.

I am not sure if the SCOTUS strike the entire thing down due to the lack of the separability clause, but they should.

You know, I've heard this argument before, but what I can't understand is why a separability clause is necessary for ANY law. SCOTUS has the ability to strike down laws in whole or in part for questions of constitutionality. It seems to be that the decision to strike down all or part of a law based on judicial review should not rest with the legislature. Think larger, cybersage...beyond the health care reform law. What purpose do separability clauses have in the first place? How have they served us (or not)?

 

[cybrsage]

It is needed because that is the way things work. That is why you see it in all the laws. A law is a package deal.

 

[MovingTarget]

It is needed because that is the way things work. That is why you see it in all the laws. A law is a package deal.

I realize that. Separability clauses are precedent at this point. But why do we [continue to] require them? Why not just dispense with that nonsense altogether?

 

[Balt]

I realize that. Separability clauses are precedent at this point. But why do we [continue to] require them? Why not just dispense with that nonsense altogether?

Well I'm talking out of my ass here, but maybe because without it the Supreme Court would (in effect) have a 'line item veto' of sorts.

Might be considered too much power.

 

[fskimospy]

I realize that. Separability clauses are precedent at this point. But why do we [continue to] require them? Why not just dispense with that nonsense altogether?

Don't worry, that's not actually how it works.

Severability clauses are not required in laws, they are simply a good idea to include. The absence of a severability clause most certainly does not mean that the entire law must be taken or thrown out, and there is ample Supreme Court precedent for doing exactly that. There are such things as parts of a law that cannot be severed. That's if the unconstitutional part of the law is so central to its purpose that the law would not function without it. For example in a recent ruling about Sarbanes-Oxley (Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) the USSC invalidated part of the law even though it also lacked a severability clause.

I think it's pretty clear that the ACA involves a lot more than the individual mandate and so it is extraordinarily unlikely that the entire law would be cast out in the unlikely event of an adverse ruling, but that is at least a reasonable legal argument to make. The argument that severability does not exist without an explicit severability clause is simply factually incorrect.

Some people just don't know what they are talking about.

 

[theeedude]

LOL Krauthammer. How people give these PNAC guys any credibility after the Iraq mess they got this country into, is beyond me.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Oral arguments begin tomorrow before the SCOTUS. Will the United States of America be fundamentally transformed? Personally, I think not. There is no authority under the Constitution for mandating the populace purchase something on the federal level. Passed in the dead of night, the bill that needed to be passed so we could find out what's in it, Obama's signature 'accomplishment', will collapse as the core of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional.

Obama loses either way. If it's struck down, his highly touted, much ballyhooed, BFD will be rendered impotent and along with it the driving force behind it, Obama himself. If it is upheld, the Tea Party and the legions of Tea Party sympathizers will vote him out, pinning their hopes on a candidate who promises to dismantle the legislation. Regardless, for many years to come every far-reaching piece of legislation brought forth by the Democrats will have an albatross around its neck with the comparison to Obamacare. When you stick your neck far, far out, there's a chance you might lose it.


Obamacare: The reckoning

Repeal this ham-strung Republican compromise called by them "ObamaCare" and replace it by something not dictated by the, dare anyone call it HealthCare lobby.

 

[cybrsage]

I realize that. Separability clauses are precedent at this point. But why do we [continue to] require them? Why not just dispense with that nonsense altogether?

Because laws are package deals.

 

[Zebo]

Obamacare does not include a seperability clause, so if one portion is struck down the entire law is struck down. They purposefully did not include that which is routinely included in every law. They said that without the entire law, the whole thing fails.

I am not sure if the SCOTUS strike the entire thing down due to the lack of the seperability clause, but they should.

Severability clause is not needed. Check this out.
http://www.avikroy.org/2010/06/does-sarbox-ruling-sanctify-obamacare.html

 

[Doppel]

Too premature to call it dead. I predict that it will be substantially maintained after going through whatever court processes are necessary. I'll caveat that by saying if Obama loses next election to a republican and this is still (and it should be) dicking around in courts it may get hacked at the knees by the next republican president.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Unlikely in that order I think. I expect it to be 6-3 with Kennedy and Roberts in favor, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito opposed. On a good day Scalia might join.

This will be a particularly interesting case for Scalia as he has said in the past:


Congress inarguably has such power, but somehow I think Scalia will find a reason to vote against it nonetheless.

As you say government believes that when anything has the potential to influence interstate commerce then they can do anything they like. No doubt when the Constitution was written it was done with the intent that the Federal government ought to have the power to do virtually anything it likes by coercion. Sure.

Nevertheless, I do believe the SCOTUS will not surrender power and we have no real rights unless they are explicitly laid out in the bill of rights, and that's not certain. It's just what some wanted. Congrats.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Repeal this ham-strung Republican compromise called by them "ObamaCare" and replace it by something not dictated by the, dare anyone call it HealthCare lobby.

Absolutely. We should turn it over to the entity that gave you Iraq, works wonderfully with getting a budget through, protects Medicaid from reform and takes bribes to sell favors. They'll fix everything.

 

[MovingTarget]

Don't worry, that's not actually how it works.

Severability clauses are not required in laws, they are simply a good idea to include. The absence of a severability clause most certainly does not mean that the entire law must be taken or thrown out, and there is ample Supreme Court precedent for doing exactly that. There are such things as parts of a law that cannot be severed. That's if the unconstitutional part of the law is so central to its purpose that the law would not function without it. For example in a recent ruling about Sarbanes-Oxley (Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) the USSC invalidated part of the law even though it also lacked a severability clause.

I think it's pretty clear that the ACA involves a lot more than the individual mandate and so it is extraordinarily unlikely that the entire law would be cast out in the unlikely event of an adverse ruling, but that is at least a reasonable legal argument to make. The argument that severability does not exist without an explicit severability clause is simply factually incorrect.

Some people just don't know what they are talking about.

Okay, thanks for the info. I can see that being a logical approach to take wrt severability clauses. Something about having to tack on a clause to every law like that just to hedge your bets with SCOTUS seems...wrong from a legislative POV. It also seems wrong for SCOTUS to nix entire laws due to simply having one unconstitutional part among many important, yet constitutional parts. Both smack of overreach of power.

 

[lotus503]

Oral arguments begin tomorrow before the SCOTUS. Will the United States of America be fundamentally transformed? Personally, I think not. There is no authority under the Constitution for mandating the populace purchase something on the federal level. Passed in the dead of night, the bill that needed to be passed so we could find out what's in it, Obama's signature 'accomplishment', will collapse as the core of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional.

Obama loses either way. If it's struck down, his highly touted, much ballyhooed, BFD will be rendered impotent and along with it the driving force behind it, Obama himself. If it is upheld, the Tea Party and the legions of Tea Party sympathizers will vote him out, pinning their hopes on a candidate who promises to dismantle the legislation. Regardless, for many years to come every far-reaching piece of legislation brought forth by the Democrats will have an albatross around its neck with the comparison to Obamacare. When you stick your neck far, far out, there's a chance you might lose it.


Obamacare: The reckoning

before it was Obamacare it was Romneycare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

 

[Zebo]

Too premature to call it dead. I predict that it will be substantially maintained after going through whatever court processes are necessary. I'll caveat that by saying if Obama loses next election to a republican and this is still (and it should be) dicking around in courts it may get hacked at the knees by the next republican president.

If it's maintained it will break us. Simple supply and demand. There is a reason everyone else has caps on the supply side as well. (drugs, professional payroll, no insurance companies, etc)

My premiums have gone up already 30% and this law is only partially enacted and they will probably keep increasing by at least 20% a year.

Eitherway it's dead. People won't be able to pay for it and it falls under it's own weight or Supremes will bail us out before it's too late.

 

[woodie1]

...snip

Obama loses either way. If it's struck down, his highly touted, much ballyhooed, BFD will be rendered impotent and along with it the driving force behind it, Obama himself. If it is upheld, the Tea Party and the legions of Tea Party sympathizers will vote him out, pinning their hopes on a candidate who promises to dismantle the legislation. Regardless, for many years to come every far-reaching piece of legislation brought forth by the Democrats will have an albatross around its neck with the comparison to Obamacare. When you stick your neck far, far out, there's a chance you might lose it.

lol

Interesting theory but more wishful thinking than anything.

The big thing is how are we gonna pay for all this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If it's maintained it will break us. Simple supply and demand. There is a reason everyone else has caps on the supply side as well. (drugs, professional payroll, no insurance companies, etc)

My premiums have gone up already 30% and this law is only partially enacted and they will probably keep increasing by at least 20% a year.

Eitherway it's dead. People won't be able to pay for it and it falls under it's own weight or Supremes will bail us out before it's too late.

When you examine the aging demographic from a medical POV the only way you are going to substantially curtail the increase in costs is to deny treatment. What will be interesting to see is when this becomes painfully obvious to all if the morality of that time will make self termination seem to be an ethical and even patriotic act. Pip Pip.

 

[Ausm]

No, no, no, see you're supposed to voice your opinion on the matter, not call a columnist juvenile names solely because he doesn't share your viewpoints.

The commentary is mine. I'm pretty sure you consider me an asshole so you could start off by calling me one if you wish. That would be better than attacking the author of an article I linked in support of my viewpoint.

I can only hold your hand so much as I'm running low on my state issued hand sanitizer.

You expect the bar to be raised in ATP&N?? LMAO what a n00b.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You expect the bar to be raised in ATP&N?? LMAO what a n00b.

Let me help!

 

[Fern]

I'm fairly sure that the SCOTUS will uphold the mandate. It shouldn't, but where the Commerce Clause is concerned virtually nothing is off limits.
-snip-

It certainly has seemed that way for quite a while now.

But I personally think this mandate really pushes the limit. We don't know what that limit is, but if there is one, this would be pushing it. Otherwise, we've just found a Constitutional loophole that virtually provides the government unlimited power in ways I feel quite certain never intended.

Exciting times. It took about 200 hundred years to affirm a personal right to bear arms (Heller), now this. IMO, this is case is of huge importance beyond just HC.

Fern

 

[Jadow]

LMAO an opinion piece by this asshole Charles Krauthammer

Why is he an asshole? Krauthammer is known for writing from a rational, well thought out, conservative point of view. He keeps a very even keel and does not get very emotional, he doesn't get personal, and from everywhere I can tell, he's very highly regarded.

Ohh, I see, he's conservative, so you automatically label him an asshole. Well fuck you.

 

[Jadow]

if we end up on a single payer system, say in 5-10 years, because this 'mandate' is upheld

I think we're more likely to end up with single payer if the mandate is thrown out.

 

[fskimospy]

Why is he an asshole? Krauthammer is known for writing from a rational, well thought out, conservative point of view. He keeps a very even keel and does not get very emotional, he doesn't get personal, and from everywhere I can tell, he's very highly regarded.

Ohh, I see, he's conservative, so you automatically label him an asshole. Well fuck you.

Whatever his temperament, he's so often extremely wrong that he has a very poor reputation for...well... predicting things as he's doing here.

 

[Thump553]

Repeal this ham-strung Republican compromise called by them "ObamaCare" and replace it by something not dictated by the, dare anyone call it HealthCare lobby.

Given the history of health care reform since the end of WWII, if this weak reform gets killed then I doubt another one will pass until kids born this year are approaching retirement. After all, look how hysterical the GOP became (and still is) when the Dems pased what was bascially a Republican plan.

 

[Ausm]

Let me help!

+1