Obamacare - RIP

[First]

If it is upheld,

It will be and it won't be close.

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.

rofl.

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

lol, it's going to be a fun few weeks/months.

 

[Pens1566]

What's your prediction for the outcome?

I'll wait for spidey to predict, then go with the opposite. I'm guaranteed to be correct then.

 

[cubby1223]

Political calculation is very simple for Obama. If the conservative court overturns Obamacare, it's no longer an issue for Republicans to run on, and he can go and say, see, Republicans took away your coverage for pre-existing conditions, and contraception coverage requirement (war on women). If you want those back, you need Democrat presidents to change makeup of the court.
If the conservative court upholds it, than it takes a lot of the steam out of the tea party crowd, because they've been putting a lot of eggs into the constitutionality argument, and if a conservative court says it's constitutional, it takes away Romney's excuse that it was a good idea in Mass, but the federal government isn't allowed to do it.
Obama wants a ruling one way or another by the election, because any ruling is better than no ruling for him.

Do you not have any clue how fucked up your post is?

Your plan of action is to convince people that there is no honor or credibility in the justice system. All the courts are is an extension of the partisan political game that many already believe is destroying this country.

And the fact that you take pleasure in this...

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think Roberts gave away the game today:

“The idea that the mandate is something separate from whether you want to call it a penalty or tax just doesn’t seem to make much sense,” Roberts said, over strong objections from attorney Gregory Katsas. “It’s a command. A mandate is a command. If there is nothing behind the command, it’s sort of, well what happens if you don’t file the mandate? And the answer is nothing. It seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime. … Why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else. Or else what? Or else nothing.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-major-argument-against-obamacare.php?ref=fpa

There's no real enforcement mechanism to this "mandate." The bill explicitly forbids criminal actions for not paying or the IRS from forcibly collecting. It amounts to little more than a suggestion.

 

[First]

Because laws are package deals.

lol troll.

 

[theeedude]

Do you not have any clue how fucked up your post is?

Your plan of action is to convince people that there is no honor or credibility in the justice system. All the courts are is an extension of the partisan political game that many already believe is destroying this country.

And the fact that you take pleasure in this...

Sarcasm?

 

[theeedude]

The penalty sounds like a tax to me, a tax you can get out of by buying insurance. It's like disability insurance here in California. If you show you obtained private disability insurance, you don't have to pay the state for its.

 

[Bitek]

I'm going to predict the ACA is upheld and tea-partiers shit bricks

 

[Fern]

The penalty sounds like a tax to me, a tax you can get out of by buying insurance. It's like disability insurance here in California. If you show you obtained private disability insurance, you don't have to pay the state for its.

It meets no definition of any tax we have (so far) under the Constitution.

If they try to argue it is I will be very curious how they do so.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I think Roberts gave away the game today:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-major-argument-against-obamacare.php?ref=fpa

There's no real enforcement mechanism to this "mandate." The bill explicitly forbids criminal actions for not paying or the IRS from forcibly collecting. It amounts to little more than a suggestion.

I'm inclined to agree with those who feel his remarks are more aimed at going forward with the case even though the 'tax' portion has not taken affect.

Fern

 

[OrByte]

Arent both sides conceding its not a tax?

Because if its a tax, the court cant hear the case?

 

[cybrsage]

lol troll.

It is impolite to talk to yourself while in the company of others. Your mom did a bad job teaching you basic manners.

 

[cybrsage]

About what Roberts said:

Randy Barnett, a constitutional scholar and one of the architects of the legal challenge, isn’t concerned just yet. He thinks Roberts’ critique was limited to the narrower subject of Monday’s arguments over whether the court has the jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case yet, given that nobody will be assessed a fee for violating the mandate until 2015.
“The only thing I think Chief Justice Roberts was expressing resistance to was our argument that the mandate was separate from the penalty for purposes of the [Anti-Injunction Act],” Barnett said in an email. “That is only one of the bases on which the AIA does not foreclose consideration on the merits. I don’t think he was signaling anything at all about the constitutionality of the mandate penalty, the subject of tomorrow’s argument. If he was, however, I expect to get a much better sense of that tomorrow so we won’t have to wait long to find out.”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-major-argument-against-obamacare.php?ref=fpa

 

[lopri]

Whether the ACA is a economically sound policy, I do not know. After all, it's modeled after the Republican alternative to "Public Option" system preferred by the liberals, and it's quite analogous to social security privatization which up to this point the Republicans have advocated. (They might have changed their mind on that by now, though.)

But is it Constitutional? Resoundingly yes. I understand people have gut feelings and senses of righteousness, but those are not exactly a legal argument. The constitutionality of the ACA is quite straight-forward if you have followed our system of the past century.

The current misunderstanding is best understood as self-fulfilling prophesy. You keep repeating something and people start to doubt.

Roberts has a lot of hot cases waiting in the wings - Voting rights Act, states' vote-supressing laws, affirmative action, states' policing of immigration, same-sex marriage, unresolved questions on gun rights and campaign finance, etc. Oh and the increasingly obnoxious states' anti-abortion laws that are enacted for the purpose of reaching the court (with the obvious goal of Roe v. Wade reversal) may eventually get to the court as well.

The ACA hearing is kind of like a political theater for the court to redeem itself, after the backlash of Citizens United. Roberts deeply cares about his reputation and his courts'. There is no doubt in my mind he will write the majority opinion affirming the constitutionality of the ACA. Once all the craze around the ACA quiets down, he will silently go onto dismantle aforementioned precedents.

 

[werepossum]

I think Roberts gave away the game today:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-major-argument-against-obamacare.php?ref=fpa

There's no real enforcement mechanism to this "mandate." The bill explicitly forbids criminal actions for not paying or the IRS from forcibly collecting. It amounts to little more than a suggestion.

Today it's a suggestion, tomorrow it's priority one. That's how government grows.

Breyer really savaged the defense. Doesn't matter, it's going to pass muster - just not as some sort of non-tax. Is it unconstitutional? Sure, but not nearly as unconstitutional as much of what SCOTUS has approved over the years. Roberts has dialed back some government powers, but overall SCOTUS is not in the business of curbing government's growth or power, especially when it comes to money. I would not be at all surprised if Roberts does draft the majority opinion approving the mandate.

 

[1prophet]

Individual mandate is nowhere near pushing the limit of the commerce clause. The court ruled that growing wheat on your own farm for use on your own farm is subject to federal production quotas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

That was most likely pushed by big corporations,

imagine if everyone decided to install alternative power for their own consumption like solar and wind and the power companies and oil companies then sued the individuals because they would be hurting commerce and the supreme court ruled you must buy some power from your local utility while limiting how much you could produce, or you must buy a gas powered car to help the oil companies.

I bet it won't be just conservatives that would be up in arms over that.

 

[lopri]

I would not be at all surprised if Roberts does draft the majority opinion approving the mandate.

Especially so, that way he can limit the scope of the ruling. He certainly won't let, say, Bryer or Scalia write the majority opinion. There is a small chance that he will let Kennedy write the opinion (Kennedy is an attention-whore) for strategic reasons. But considering the extraordinary steps he has taken for this case (publicly defending Thomas/Kagan against recusal calls, whooping 6 hours of oral argument, etc.), it seems like Roberts wants to establish his interpretation of Commerce Clause as THE Commerce Clause of 21st century.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Political calculation is very simple for Obama. If the conservative court overturns Obamacare, it's no longer an issue for Republicans to run on, and he can go and say, see, Republicans took away your coverage for pre-existing conditions, and contraception coverage requirement (war on women). If you want those back, you need Democrat presidents to change makeup of the court.
If the conservative court upholds it, than it takes a lot of the steam out of the tea party crowd, because they've been putting a lot of eggs into the constitutionality argument, and if a conservative court says it's constitutional, it takes away Romney's excuse that it was a good idea in Mass, but the federal government isn't allowed to do it.
Obama wants a ruling one way or another by the election, because any ruling is better than no ruling for him.

That's not how most are seeing it because 3 out of 5 do not want the mandate. If it is ruled out by the court then it's expected that that will remove the biggest issue in the Republicans favor and that will make it easier for Obama. If it is approved then the majority will tend to favor Republicans. Both sides have something to win and to lose. It's not unlikely that Obama will win in either case, but the make up of Congress can certainly change in favor of the Reps. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[werepossum]

Especially so, that way he can limit the scope of the ruling. He certainly won't let, say, Bryer or Scalia write the majority opinion. There is a small chance that he will let Kennedy write the opinion (Kennedy is an attention-whore) for strategic reasons. But considering the extraordinary steps he has taken for this case (publicly defending Thomas/Kagan against recusal calls, whooping 6 hours of oral argument, etc.), it seems like Roberts wants to establish his interpretation of Commerce Clause as THE Commerce Clause of 21st century.

Good points. Personally I think the Commerce Clause has long ago been stretched beyond anything recognizable.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not how most are seeing it because 3 out of 5 do not want the mandate. If it is ruled out by the court then it's expected that that will remove the biggest issue in the Republicans favor and that will make it easier for Obama. If it is approved then the majority will tend to favor Republicans. Both sides have something to win and to lose. It's not unlikely that Obama will win in either case, but the make up of Congress can certainly change in favor of the Reps. We'll have to wait and see.

Depends on what you mean by the make up of Congress. The Republicans will lose seats in the House almost no matter what happens in the general election, they will most likely gain some in the Senate.

I actually don't think that the removal of the mandate would help Obama at all, it would most likely hurt him in fact. The damage to his prospects from a primary part of his signature legislation being ruled unconstitutional would affect him much more than the percentage of people who would say 'oh man I'm glad I don't have to do that in 2014'. People don't vote that way.

 

[Ninjahedge]

So let me get this strait.

It is unconstitutional for us to be forced to pay for Health Care, but it is OK for us to be taxed and pay for Medicare?

It would be illegal for us to be forced to invest in a 401K, but we are forced to contribute to SS.

It is illegal to force us to pay for insurance, but we cannot drive (something that is vital for economic survival in the US) if we do not pay a private firm for insurance.

BS. There are many things that are "forced" on us that, in the long run, make all of our lives better. Either by reducing global long term costs, or by making society run smoother. Everything from infrastructure to social safety nets.

There are tweaks that are needed for all of these things, but this SC hearing is just political maneuvering by the RP to take a bill where they relegated the "choice" to required participation in a program instead of direct government subsidization and now they are working to overturn it.

If this was passed as a true "health care reform" on Medicare et all, this would not even be a "Constitutional" issue.

Semantics are sickening.

 

[fskimospy]

So let me get this strait.

It is unconstitutional for us to be forced to pay for Health Care, but it is OK for us to be taxed and pay for Medicare?

It would be illegal for us to be forced to invest in a 401K, but we are forced to contribute to SS.

It is illegal to force us to pay for insurance, but we cannot drive (something that is vital for economic survival in the US) if we do not pay a private firm for insurance.

BS. There are many things that are "forced" on us that, in the long run, make all of our lives better. Either by reducing global long term costs, or by making society run smoother. Everything from infrastructure to social safety nets.

There are tweaks that are needed for all of these things, but this SC hearing is just political maneuvering by the RP to take a bill where they relegated the "choice" to required participation in a program instead of direct government subsidization and now they are working to overturn it.

If this was passed as a true "health care reform" on Medicare et all, this would not even be a "Constitutional" issue.

Semantics are sickening.

Yes. Bizarre isn't it? What's strange is also the attempts to slippery slope it when people say 'what's next? a mandate to buy broccoli?!?!' Of course is that the government could already forcibly tax you, buy broccoli, and deliver it to your house. Oddly enough, having you buy it yourself is an Outrage To Freedom, but having them take your money and buy it for you is not.

 

[OutHouse]

So let me get this strait.

It is unconstitutional for us to be forced to pay for Health Care, but it is OK for us to be taxed and pay for Medicare?

It would be illegal for us to be forced to invest in a 401K, but we are forced to contribute to SS.

It is illegal to force us to pay for insurance, but we cannot drive (something that is vital for economic survival in the US) if we do not pay a private firm for insurance.

BS. There are many things that are "forced" on us that, in the long run, make all of our lives better. Either by reducing global long term costs, or by making society run smoother. Everything from infrastructure to social safety nets.

There are tweaks that are needed for all of these things, but this SC hearing is just political maneuvering by the RP to take a bill where they relegated the "choice" to required participation in a program instead of direct government subsidization and now they are working to overturn it.

If this was passed as a true "health care reform" on Medicare et all, this would not even be a "Constitutional" issue.

Semantics are sickening.

good post.

 

[xBiffx]

So let me get this strait.

It is unconstitutional for us to be forced to pay for Health Care, but it is OK for us to be taxed and pay for Medicare?

It would be illegal for us to be forced to invest in a 401K, but we are forced to contribute to SS.

It is illegal to force us to pay for insurance, but we cannot drive (something that is vital for economic survival in the US) if we do not pay a private firm for insurance.

BS. There are many things that are "forced" on us that, in the long run, make all of our lives better. Either by reducing global long term costs, or by making society run smoother. Everything from infrastructure to social safety nets.

There are tweaks that are needed for all of these things, but this SC hearing is just political maneuvering by the RP to take a bill where they relegated the "choice" to required participation in a program instead of direct government subsidization and now they are working to overturn it.

If this was passed as a true "health care reform" on Medicare et all, this would not even be a "Constitutional" issue.

Semantics are sickening.

Taxes required a constitutional amendment in order to go into affect. I don't see that happening here. Car insurance is a state mandated law, not federal, which is a huge difference. The federal government doesn't have the authority to require car insurance.

Want to pass an amendment that says the federal government is regulating HC and as such everyone is required to purchase it, fine. Want to make HC a state issue and allow states to require it, fine. In both of these cases it would be implemented constitutionally but that is the point. It can't get implemented at the federal level without back room deals and dead of night decision making along with a SC decision that equates to more legislating from the bar. Probably because those involved know they are treading on weak constitutional ground.

Personally, I have no problem with any law, decision, regulation as long as it fits within constitutional guidelines and is decided on through a constitutionally accepted process. I don't see that in this case.

 

[cybrsage]

But is it Constitutional? Resoundingly yes. I understand people have gut feelings and senses of righteousness, but those are not exactly a legal argument. The constitutionality of the ACA is quite straight-forward if you have followed our system of the past century.

So you are fine with the government saying you must buy a new car or pay a fine if you do not? You know, forcing you to engage in commerce or be fined?