Thought Chief Justice Roberts was a conservative?

[werepossum]

Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative....


After the Citizen's United decision which is questionable at best.

and the possible fallout from a decision that struck down the ACA.

Think about it.

One nightmare scenario is that President Obama requests a one page bill that would simply say something along these lines.

"The eligibility age requirement for Medicare is removed and people can enroll themselves and their children at any age."

it's quite possible that Chief Justice Roberts voted for purely pragmatic reasons rather than an actual belief in the ACA.




Additionally people should consider the fact that despite the public view of Obamacare

when polled on the individual components of the bill many of them received majority approval. Some of them over 70% approval.

The source data for the above image is in this document.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-T.pdf

The favorability information about the components of the ACA start on page nine. The demographic data on who responded to the poll is on the page immediately following the cover page.

Interesting.

I think Chief Justice Roberts voted yes on this so he could always counter "You're a right wing conservative diehard" accusations with "Hey I voted for Obamacare didn't I?"

C'mon think about it. That has to be at least part of the reason. :twisted:

Increasingly more likely that Obama simply unilaterally changes the law by Executive Order and allows everyone who wants Medicare to join. That would certainly bankrupt Medicare as constituted, especially considering that he's already looted it to pay for other parts of Obamacare, but as long as we can borrow unlimited amounts we can't possibly repay that probably isn't a problem. Since we're already going to subsidize people up to roughly twice mean income, that might well be enough to destroy our credit rating altogether - although considering the response in bond sales to our previous downgrading, that might well have no real effect either, at least until other, more lucrative investments seem reasonably safe.

As far as Roberts' vote, while the mandate is pretty clearly unconstitutional it isn't nearly as much of a violation as other SCOTUS decisions. How could demanding that someone fund commerce they will almost certainly make over the course of a lifetime be more unconstitutional than a decision making it illegal to avoid commerce (or any external transaction) altogether? For the other part of the decision, I don't see how this could reasonably be considered as beyond Congress' authority if considered as a tax. From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, possibly, as it's a direct tax without apportionment. But isn't it really just a component of one's income tax?

 

[woolfe9999]

Forcing people to be responsible is not the same as self responsibility. But I do agree that forcing the states to pay a lot more to hand out more medicare coverage was one of the worst parts of the law.

Forcing people not to be parasites is another way of putting it. If you can afford health insurance and do not buy it, then you are deciding to save yourself money, knowing that if you get hurt or sick, you can get care on other people's dime. This mandate says you need to pay at least a little something for that privilege.

As for the expansion, it's Medicaid, not Medicare. And not because they were forced to pay for expanding it. Actually, the federal government covers 90% of the cost of the expansion. The reason Roberts found this partly unconstitutional was because HHS had the option to withhold up to 100% of a state's existing Medicaid funding if the state did not opt in to the expansion, or opted in but did not implement it fully. His reasoning was that Medicaid funding is typically about 10% of a state's total revenues, so threatening to withhold it is like holding a gun to the state's head.

He also mentioned that the expansion of eligibility for Medicaid - because it is government insurance - could be viewed as a precursor to universal single payer like in Canada. This seemed to concern him.

It's also worth mentioning that the difference between the "tax" rationale and the "commerce" rationale is significant. If a mandate is within Congress's Commerce power, there is no limit to the degree of coercion they can apply. They could in theory declare that not buying the thing they want you to buy is a crime and you can be put in jail and/or face a draconian monetary penalty. Under the tax rationale, only a small tax, not enforceable by criminal sanction, is permitted. Basically, Roberts is saying the government can nudge us to buy something with small incentives and penalties but can't force us to buy something by holding the rhetorical gun to our heads.

This is why I think it's a bit premature to conclude that Roberts is some raging liberal. He's pretty close to a Reagan republican in both logic and temperament, so far as I can tell.

 

[woolfe9999]

This is probably true but it's a crack in the door at least one state, Vermont, wants to implement a version of universal health care
http://healthcare-legislation.blogspot.com/2012/01/vermont-wants-to-be-single-payer-state.html
They will, of course probably, use the extra medicare funds to help achieve that.

If it's successful word will eventually get and eventually more state legislatures will want to do what Vermont has indicated it wants to do.

Universal Health Care didn't happen all at once in Canada it was passed province by province.

Which makes this nugget kind of funny

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/obamacare-decision-medical-rd-could-decl
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

People have posted that they're moving to Canada. Silly twits what little they know...

Such as the fact that Canada mostly avoided a bank crash like ours because they actually regulate their bankers.

http://www.american.com/archive/201...canadas-marvelous-mortgage-and-banking-system

Yes, but since Roberts has allowed the states to opt out without losing any existing revenue, this becomes a matter for the states to decide, individually. If it spreads from state to state, it is because each state is looking at it in operation and deciding they like it. That's very different than the federal government imposing it from DC by fiat.

Anyway, I seriously doubt you'll see red states adopt anything like this, in this century. I can agree it might spread to some of the blue states, if it's successful in a place like Vermont.

 

[dank69]

In what world are 26 year olds "children".

If you go to a college campus, you will see a horde of these self absorbed, ungrateful, immature children. Adult bodies, baby minds.

that 26 year old child provision grates at me more than the fricken mandate. it just is not right.

Damn those people that are pursuing a PhD or going to med school. Get a fucking job! Right?

 

[lopri]

Here is a breakdown.

Roberts is a church-goer with attention-seeking behaviors.
Alito is an altar boy who loves little animals.
Kennedy is a self-important priest who turns on/off the light in the prayer room.
Scalia is a cranky nun who checks up on everyone else's attire.

Thomas is the final boss.

 

[lopri]

Maybe he didnt want to be remembered as the douche he has been

Bingo.

Though he declined to discuss the health care ruling, Roberts said he hoped people would look back in 50 years and describe the court’s legacy under his tenure in this way: “We did our jobs according to the Constitution and to preserving equal justice under the law. There is no better legacy you can ask for.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...sion/2012/06/29/gJQAzOHfBW_story.html?hpid=z2

He's deeply conservative, yet he knows where he stands in the history. It's not my type of personality but once in a while it could turn out to be useful.

 

[blankslate]

Yes, but since Roberts has allowed the states to opt out without losing any existing revenue, this becomes a matter for the states to decide, individually. If it spreads from state to state, it is because each state is looking at it in operation and deciding they like it. That's very different than the federal government imposing it from DC by fiat.

I don't disagree with this at all. It's is a good compromise on the medicare aspect of the law.

It leaves the carrot in and takes away the, arguably way too big, stick.

Anyway, I seriously doubt you'll see red states adopt anything like this, in this century. I can agree it might spread to some of the blue states, if it's successful in a place like Vermont.

This again I don't disagree with. *If* Vermont's program gets off the ground and is successful then other blue states will adopt it.

If those are successful then eventually people in red states who are middle of the road minded will end up talking about their experiences with health care with their friends and/or relatives in blue states...
Inevitably, governments in red states will be pressured to take the money and expand medicare.

Admittedly the above scenario depends on Vermont's plan being successful.

And the timeline is obviously very open to speculation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Inevitably, governments in red states will be pressured to take the money and expand medicare.

Oh, please. Red State govts are already welfare queens, so they'll take whatever federal money they can get. They'll be first in line, complaining that it isn't really enough to prevent seceding from the union... & ebil soshulism, too...

 

[ElFenix]

Damn those people that are pursuing a PhD or going to med school. Get a fucking job! Right?

the problem wasn't the relative handful of grad students. the problem was that a lot of young and healthy (read: low risk) people were deciding they'd rather have a 3 series with their paychecks than pick up the employee portion of their medical insurance, and so were running around without it. because they weren't in the pool, their premiums weren't getting pooled with the high risk people. so the high risk people might have had to pay more.

 

[blankslate]

Oh, please. Red State govts are already welfare queens, so they'll take whatever federal money they can get. They'll be first in line, complaining that it isn't really enough to prevent seceding from the union... & ebil soshulism, too...

Governors for some red states have stated that they won't take monies available to expand medicare from the ACA. [/shrug]

 

[mshan]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/map-where-obamacare-expand-medicaid-most-175400889.html

"According to the National Journal's Ron Brownstein, the 26 states that sued over the Medicaid expansion contain 55 percent of the nation's uninsured, a total of 27.6 million uninsured people. Texas alone has 6.1 million uninsured people. Expanding Medicaid in Texas would cover 2.0 million people, the Kaiser Family Foundation (pdf)"

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/map-where-obamacare-expand-medicaid-most-175400889.html

 

[werepossum]

Oh, please. Red State govts are already welfare queens, so they'll take whatever federal money they can get. They'll be first in line, complaining that it isn't really enough to prevent seceding from the union... & ebil soshulism, too...

Tennessee is arguably the most conservative state in the union and we started our own Medicaid program years ago. See Tenncare. Ironically the decision to not allow the federal government to remove all Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid program saved our program; had the ruling upheld that part of the law, Tenncare would have been abolished and Tennessee's poor would have had no insurance at all.

 

[woolfe9999]

Tennessee is arguably the most conservative state in the union and we started our own Medicaid program years ago. See Tenncare. Ironically the decision to not allow the federal government to remove all Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid program saved our program; had the ruling upheld that part of the law, Tenncare would have been abolished and Tennessee's poor would have had no insurance at all.

How so? If Tennessee is currently getting federal Medicaid money, then they can only be using it to fund a Medicaid program which meets federal requirements. If what they are running is a totally state funded program, then the loss of Medicaid funding wouldn't affect them. I'm not really doubting what you're saying, just confused. Are you saying that Tennessee gets the Medicaid money and they have a Medicaid program that meets the federal requirements but goes way beyond it, using state money?

 

[manimal]

Once you give people something so very important like covering a child to age 26 on a parents plan, removing caps, removing pre exists, it is really impossible to then turn back the clock. Just maybe Roberts knows a friend or family member that has a very sick child and by killing off healthcare reform would have meant certain harm to the family or child, or mother fighting cancer. Who knows what forms his opinion.
I'm now totally convinced same sex marriage will easily survive a US Sup Court challenge.
The legalities concerning SS marriage are more clearly defined by law.
Who would have thunk it might be a republican right wing court that gives healthcare reform, single payer, AND SS marriage.
I guess there is a God. And he is good.

Great post

 

[Steeplerot]

Tennessee is arguably the most conservative state in the union

Working class Hillbillies in TN or KY know firsthand what unregulated industry can do, even though since the southern strategy they vote R, they are still the descendants of miners and loggers who deal with such issues.

I have family and friends in both states and none of them are conservative nor does anyone they mingle with I have met watch fox in a trailer all day and rageout or something.

Good working class folks, some a bit confused about their own self interests. But what's new? The working class of Appalachia have been dicked around for ages.

 

[mshan]

I don't have the link, but there was an article on Yahoo earlier today talking about the health insurance exchanges states will be required to be up and running in some sort of alpha form to work out kinds before system goes live in January 2013, or as mandated by the ACA, the federal government will create the exchange for the state.

Some states were still posturing that they weren't going to do it until after election, or not even after that, even if it is not in their best interest.

I saw Karen Ignani (lobbyist for health insurance companies), who if memory serves me correctly was a very harsh critic of Obamacare while it was originally being debated, on PBS Newshour yesterday is now much more concilliatory and basically saying, look, this is going to be law, and we have 18 months to make the law better and offset unintended consequences (she specifically mentioned finding someway to offset the 3% sales charge small businesses will be charged under ACA).

 

[zinfamous]

I find Supreme Court ideology fascinating. The nomination process is always so intensely analyzed and politicized and the assumption seems to be that nominees for the bench will share their nominating President's political views. At least as often as that actually happens, much of the time it turns out that the nominee can think for themselves and end up with their own distinct view of things. Bush's nominees are a great example. Alito is a conservative through and through, but Roberts seems much more his own man (in my not so expert opinion).

I think the major factor in all this is that while the Supreme Court nomination process is ridiculously political...once you're there, you're there. That kind of ideological and legal freedom brings out the best in people, IMO, or reveals those people as the complete tools they always were.

I think that is the absolute worst thing about the current terms for SCOTUS.

In fact, the one sensible thing that ever came out of Rick Perry's mouth (of course, this wasn't his idea--it had been floating around for over a decade--but he brought it back to discussion), was a very novel, and very prudent system of term limits:

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/new...y-term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices.html

Once rolling, it would insure a relatively non-hegemonic balance for SCOTUS--lifetime appointments for Federal judges, but an 18 year limit to serve on SCOTUS, wherein the justice will return to circuit court, if they so wish. This gives the same potential number of appointments for every 4 year term of a president, and would likely encourage the appointment of older, experienced individuals rather than young ideologues to grow old, gray and out of touch while they senesce behind that bench.

 

[epidemis]

I think the major factor in all this is that while the Supreme Court nomination process is ridiculously political...once you're there, you're there. That kind of ideological and legal freedom brings out the best in people, IMO, or reveals those people as the complete tools they always were.

Why is the vote usually split along those lines then? Doesn't scream ideological freedom to me

 

[zinfamous]

As far as Roberts' vote, while the mandate is pretty clearly unconstitutional it isn't nearly as much of a violation as other SCOTUS decisions. How could demanding that someone fund commerce they will almost certainly make over the course of a lifetime be more unconstitutional than a decision making it illegal to avoid commerce (or any external transaction) altogether? For the other part of the decision, I don't see how this could reasonably be considered as beyond Congress' authority if considered as a tax. From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, possibly, as it's a direct tax without apportionment. But isn't it really just a component of one's income tax?

Well, is it not pretty clear that it is, in fact, constitutional?

that is what this is all about, no?

 

[werepossum]

How so? If Tennessee is currently getting federal Medicaid money, then they can only be using it to fund a Medicaid program which meets federal requirements. If what they are running is a totally state funded program, then the loss of Medicaid funding wouldn't affect them. I'm not really doubting what you're saying, just confused. Are you saying that Tennessee gets the Medicaid money and they have a Medicaid program that meets the federal requirements but goes way beyond it, using state money?

The issue was whether the federal government could force a state to expand the program on pain of losing all federal Medicaid money. If Tennessee was forced to expand the program to cover as many people as the ACA mandates, either the state would be bankrupt or the state would drop Medicaid coverage, period. Tenncare does go beyond Medicaid, and that almost broke the state. Part of the problem was that Tenncare enrolled anyone who was low income and/or uninsurable without doing its basic due diligence as to what each insuree and each class of insuree cost the program. From 1994 to maybe 2000 it was a shining example of smart health care; by providing insurance to people who had previously used the emergency room, Tenncare was able to save a lot of money. But by 2000 it was becoming clear that the program was not viable as constituted. Problem is, people who suddenly get their health care paid by someone else consume more of it. The state literally faced bankruptcy. Tenncare subsequently (2004/2005) dumped a couple hundred thousand people off its rolls, most of the people who were not eligible for Medicaid. It's stabilized at around 9 billion - almost a third of our budget - of which the state provides about 3 billion and the federal government pays about 6 million. So Tennessee's politicians are perhaps more aware than most of exactly what that expansion would cost.

Tennessee started another program called CoverTennessee, a program that could cover low earner and high premium/uninsurable people, to provide health insurance to those people not eligible for Medicaid or Tenncare but honestly not able to afford health insurance either. I think though that new enrollment is currently frozen on that too. Low earner and high premium/uninsurable people simply inevitably cost more to provide with health insurance than what they can afford to pay, and the cost rapidly escalates beyond what the state can pay as well.

Working class Hillbillies in TN or KY know firsthand what unregulated industry can do, even though since the southern strategy they vote R, they are still the descendants of miners and loggers who deal with such issues.

I have family and friends in both states and none of them are conservative nor does anyone they mingle with I have met watch fox in a trailer all day and rageout or something.

Good working class folks, some a bit confused about their own self interests. But what's new? The working class of Appalachia have been dicked around for ages.

We are a bit more union friendly than most conservative states. Part of that is no doubt that so many of us have family history with the company store and near-indentured servitude of coal mining camps, but it's also because, as a right-to-work state, most of our unions are skilled trade unions. The trade unions are pretty horrible when working for TVA, but other than that are pretty reasonable and can be seen to add value.

As far as trailers, I've lived in a trailer park, apartment buildings, an apartment above a manufacturing plant, and individual houses, and by far the highest percentage of liberal or progressive people was in the trailer park. But even there, most of the people were moderate to liberal. Only in the projects and a select few neighborhoods do you find a majority of people on the left. And even there, most are anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage.

 

[werepossum]

Well, is it not pretty clear that it is, in fact, constitutional?

that is what this is all about, no?

I meant clearly unconstitutional in the sense that it is beyond any power allocated to the federal government in the Constitution. I wasn't surprised that SCOTUS ruled it constitutional, albeit only after ruling it unconstitutional, since it is (to me anyway) less unconstitutional than some other standing powers. Mandating economic activity that would not otherwise exist on the grounds that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce clearly doesn't meet the intent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, which is why SCOTUS struck down the mandate as an acceptable power under the Commerce Clause. Remember, the Obama administration adamantly if incompetently argued that the mandate is NOT a tax but rather an exercising of a power under the Commerce Clause. Five justices rejected that argument. But it also is clearly less of a violation than is Wickard v. Fillburn which empowered Congress to regulate something that was designed to avoid all direct economic activity under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. I think that is why SCOTUS ruled it acceptable as a tax. (That and Roberts' realization that the mandate could easily have been rewritten as a tax with an offsetting credit anyway if simply struck down.)

He is probably trying to rein in the federal government's power by limiting its power under the Commerce Clause. Unfortunately, accepting the mandate as an acceptable tax also opens the door to Congress taxing things with no foreseeable economic activity simply to control behavior. But then, SCOTUS is not in the business of disempowering government.

 

[Jhhnn]

Tennessee is arguably the most conservative state in the union and we started our own Medicaid program years ago. See Tenncare. Ironically the decision to not allow the federal government to remove all Medicaid funding to states that did not expand their Medicaid program saved our program; had the ruling upheld that part of the law, Tenncare would have been abolished and Tennessee's poor would have had no insurance at all.

In other words, Tennessee gets to keep the federal money while being stingy with their own, keeping their little fangs embedded in the govt teat. They'd blame Obama, of course.

Gotta love Red State moochers. I suppose it's better to give 'em the money- otherwise they'll migrate, bring their backwardness with 'em.

 

[Sonikku]

How can a man wise enough to acknowledge corporations right to free speech be so stupid when it comes to healthcare? The only good thing about it is it forces every American into becoming a customer of the struggling insurance companies whom we all know will treat Americans with compassion and care. Yet, this is Obama's idea. No good can come of this. We can only hope Romney is able to overturn this farce, Republicans like him know a thing or two about health care that works.

 

[Jhhnn]

How can a man wise enough to acknowledge corporations right to free speech be so stupid when it comes to healthcare? The only good thing about it is it forces every American into becoming a customer of the struggling insurance companies whom we all know will treat Americans with compassion and care. Yet, this is Obama's idea. No good can come of this. We can only hope Romney is able to overturn this farce, Republicans like him know a thing or two about health care that works.

Parody poster?

 

[nehalem256]

Damn those people that are pursuing a PhD or going to med school. Get a fucking job! Right?

My brother is pursuing a PhD and gets health insurance through the college. But then again he is getting in math. Maybe if you pursue a PhD in art history or women's studies you don't get it.

And I did not realize that "children" went to grad school 🙄