Obamacare - RIP

[theeedude]

For which you were already successfully rebutted. This time, by the lead judge on the SCOTUS.

Circular argument.

 

[blankslate]

All I have to do is get blatantly-unconstitutional legislation through that makes everyone a millionaire, and then get the SCOTUS to overturn it.

Only it's not blatantly unconstitutional... otherwise every lower court would've decided against it. Some have decided for it and some against... that's pretty much ambiguous and based most likely on the judge's politics (as much as we'd like it not to be)

Face it. The judges on SCOTUS are politicians in robes and a couple of them might have reason to recuse themselves, but we know they won't.

 

[monovillage]

Even a paper like the L.A. Times is saying it looks as though the entire healthcare bill will be stricken down.

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ntire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

 

[Atreus21]

Only it's not blatantly unconstitutional... otherwise every lower court would've decided against it. Some have decided for it and some against... that's pretty much ambiguous and based most likely on the judge's politics (as much as we'd like it not to be)

Face it. The judges on SCOTUS are politicians in robes and a couple of them might have reason to recuse themselves, but we know they won't.

Quite true, but they're only politicians in robes when you disagree with them. Otherwise they're icons of judicial wisdom and mental prowess.

 

[First]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

CNN seems to think otherwise, that the justices expressed significant hesitation in being forced to pick and choose interpreting 2700 pages of law, meaning the entire law would stand even if the mandate is struck down. Of course, reading into oral arguments is nowhere near a certain science.

Also, I listened to the full 2 hrs of oral arguments from day 2 yesterday and have to say that Kennedy and Roberts are by no means in the tank to strike down the mandate for conservatives as Toobin claimed they were. Other non-CNN commentators agreed, too.

 

[hal2kilo]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

CNN seems to think otherwise, that the justices expressed significant hesitation in being forced to pick and choose interpreting 2700 pages of law, meaning the entire law would stand even if the mandate is struck down. Of course, reading into oral arguments is nowhere near a certain science.

Also, I listened to the full 2 hrs of oral arguments from day 2 yesterday and have to say that Kennedy and Roberts are by no means in the tank to strike down the mandate for conservatives as Toobin claimed they were. Other non-CNN commentators agreed, too.

Also, they may be playing devils advocates in their discussions to draw out as much information as possible.

Guessing how the justices are going to decide case by the oral arguments is risky at best.

 

[Genx87]

I will honestly be in disbelief if this court doesnt allow this expansion of the federal govt.

 

[theeedude]

I will honestly be in disbelief if this court doesnt allow this expansion of the private health insurance industry.

FTFY

 

[Genx87]

FTFY

I guess you are missing the part where the expansion is the federal govt to force me to buy from those private insurers.

 

[theeedude]

I guess you are missing the part where the expansion is the federal govt to force me to buy from those private insurers.

No expansion there. Requiring market participants to cover their own risk so it doesn't become other people's problem (externality) is a fundamental function of government.

 

[Genx87]

No expansion there. Requiring market participants to cover their own risk so it doesn't become other people's problem (externality) is a fundamental function of government.

Who's risk?

 

[theeedude]

Who's risk?

The risk that uninsured will incur medical losses beyond their ability to pay. Do you understand? Because you should before you form an opinion on health care reform.