Supreme Court starts to hear "Obama Care" law today

[punisher73]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-0326-krauthammer-20120326-7,0,7884941.column

The US Supreme Court will examine whether or not President Obama's health care law is constitutional or not.

Do you think it will pass?

 

[Steve]

I think it's going to be upheld.

 

[dancingalone]

The swing vote will likely come from Justice Kennedy. I see a 5-4 vote either way on whether the mandate part of the law is upheld. The Obama administration seem to claim that the law can survive intact even with if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, although most experts think it would be a financial disaster without everyone paying into the system.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The swing vote will likely come from Justice Kennedy. I see a 5-4 vote either way on whether the mandate part of the law is upheld. The Obama administration seem to claim that the law can survive intact even with if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, although most experts think it would be a financial disaster without everyone paying into the system.

That's what I read as well. I was a bit surprised to read the analysis, but in the end, I agreed with it. Most likely a 5-4 split, and Kennedy is the swing vote. I suspect he may to uphold the individual mandate. That will be a very bad thing for individual liberty, and I'll be very sad.

 

[ballen0351]

They make everyone pay into social security i dont see them overturning this either

Actually only working folks pay social security which i suspect will be the same for heathcare the people that work will need to pay for the ones that dont

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I hope it fails.

If that mandate is upheld, there is nothing that you can't be forced to buy. Good bye freedom.

"First, the penalty for not buying health insurance is not a tax. Even if the penalty were a tax, it would fail the constitutional requirements for income, excise, or direct taxes. Second, the power to regulate interstate commerce extends only to economic activities; it does not permit Congress to compel such activities in order to regulate them. Third, the mandate is not necessary; indeed, it is merely a means to circumvent problems that would not exist if not for PPACA itself. Nor is the mandate proper; it cannot be reconciled with the Framers' original design for a limited federal government of enumerated powers.

An essential aspect of liberty is the freedom not to participate. PPACA's directive that Americans buy an unwanted product from a private company debases individual liberty. And it's unconstitutional."

The Case Against President Obama's Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers
[url]www.cato.org




[/URL]

4. The Individual Mandate Threatens the Foundations of Contract Law
3. The Individual Mandate Cannot Be Justified Under Existing Supreme Court Precedent
2. The Individual Mandate Rests on an Unbounded and Unprincipled Assertion of Federal Power
1: The Individual Mandate Violates the Original Meaning of the Constitution

The 4 Best Legal Arguments Against ObamaCare
reason.com

 

[Steve]

They make everyone pay into social security i dont see them overturning this either

Actually only working folks pay social security which i suspect will be the same for heathcare the people that work will need to pay for the ones that dont

A distinction, however, is that social security is public. I would agree with you completely if there were a public option under the healt care reform act. But there is not. Requiring citizens to purchase from private vendors is something completely new.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

A distinction, however, is that social security is public. I would agree with you completely if there were a public option under the healt care reform act. But there is not. Requiring citizens to purchase from private vendors is something completely new.

That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me. If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered. Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.

I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me. If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered. Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.

I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...rguments-individual-mandate/story?id=16012066

While it is very early for anyone to guess at outcomes, I found this encouraging:

Kennedy asked whether the law "changes the relationship" between the federal government and the individual in a "very fundamental way". He pointed out that the law requires an individual to "do an affirmative act. "
...
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli about the limits of federal power.

"Can the government require you to buy a cell phone?" Roberts asked.

I remain hopeful that this mandate will be found unconstitutional and will thus unravel the healthcare reforms.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

CNN
Toobin: Mandate in grave trouble
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin says questioning by Supreme Court justices leads him to believe the health care reform law is in peril. He called today's session "a train wreck" for the White House. WATCH | A SHARP DIVIDE

FOX

• Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy may hold the final say as to whether or not the individual mandate — the provision in Obama's health care law requiring Americans to buy health insurance — is constitutional, as the Supreme Court appears to be closely divided after a hearing.
• ObamaCare Faces Crucial Hearing | Supreme Court Signals It Won't Punt on ObamaCare Decision
• OPINION: What Happens If Individual Mandate is Thrown Out? | OPINION: Why We Went To Court Over ObamaCare

MSNBC
Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of individual mandate
NBC's Pete Williams, who has been listening in as the Supreme Court hears arguments about President Obama's health care reform law, says he thinks it's "very doubtful" the high court is going to find the law constitutional.

Skeptical Kennedy signals trouble for Obama's healthcare law
Los Angeles Times - ‎17 minutes ago‎
By David G. Savage and Noam N. Levey The Supreme Court's conservative justices sharply attacked the insurance mandate that is at the heart of President Obama's healthcare law, strongly suggesting Tuesday they are prepared to strike it down as ...

Supreme court divided over Obama healthcare law |
Reuters - ‎35 minutes ago‎
By Joan Biskupic and James Vicini | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared closely divided along ideological lines over whether Congress had the power to require most people in the United States to buy medical insurance, ...

Hard Questions From Justices Over Insurance Mandate
New York Times - ‎47 minutes ago‎
With the fate of President Obama's health care law hanging in the balance at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, a lawyer for the administration faced a barrage of skeptical questions from four of the court's more conservative justices.

Supreme Court turns to key constitutional issue in health-care law
Washington Post - ‎53 minutes ago‎
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ended two hours of arguments about the key component of the nation's health-care overhaul, with the court's dominant conservatives appearing deeply skeptical that the Constitution gives Congress the power to compel ...

Conservative justices question insurance mandate
Boston.com - ‎26 minutes ago‎
Supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, as the court continued hearing arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak) By Mark Sherman ...

Key Supreme Court Justices Roberts and kennedy Skpetical of Obamacare Mandate
ABC News - ‎23 minutes ago‎
Two years after President Obama signed the signature achievement of his administration, the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether a key provision of the law is constitutional. In a courtroom stuffed with spectators, ...

Justices signal possible trouble for health insurance mandate
Chicago Tribune - ‎21 minutes ago‎
Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court's conservative justices Tuesday laid into the requirement in the Obama administration's healthcare law that Americans have health insurance, as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on ...

Mandate could be in big trouble after Supreme Court arguements
Politico - ‎16 minutes ago‎
Before Tuesday, most legal analysts seemed to agree that the Supreme Court would probably uphold health care reform's individual mandate — even if the conservative justices had to hold their noses to do it. Just minutes into the oral argument Tuesday, ...

Health Law Seen in Jeopardy After Questioning by Justices
BusinessWeek - ‎9 minutes ago‎
By Greg Stohr and Laurie Asseo on March 27, 2012 US Supreme Court justices voiced skepticism about President Barack Obama's health-care law, hinting they might strike down his biggest domestic achievement just months before the election.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Majority of views seem to point to Kennedy as the swing vote here. It's almost guaranteed to be a 5:4 decision, along ideological lines.

While I'm encouraged by the news, it's not over until the decision in late June.

I'm hoping the mandate is struck.
I'm also hoping that Congress will figure out how to save the good parts of the law.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Majority of views seem to point to Kennedy as the swing vote here. It's almost guaranteed to be a 5:4 decision, along ideological lines.

While I'm encouraged by the news, it's not over until the decision in late June.

I'm hoping the mandate is struck.
I'm also hoping that Congress will figure out how to save the good parts of the law.

Agree with all of the above.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....

 

[Steve]

That right there is the cunning beauty of the entire situation to me. If the public option had been retained, there'd be no issue with the mandate, since those who couldn't or wouldn't purchase private insurance would still be covered. Instead, the public option was removed to appease conservatives, who are now trying to get the healthcare bill killed at the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds.

I'm hoping the Court upholds the mandate, not for any constitutionality reasons, but simply because this entire process has been an attack on the healthcare bill from the get-go.

Agreed. I think that the right thing to do is single payer. Everyone's covered and it's constitutional. At least, it's as constitutional as Social Security.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Agreed. I think that the right thing to do is single payer. Everyone's covered and it's constitutional. At least, it's as constitutional as Social Security.

I would not have a major problem with that.

 

[Steve]

Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....

Define "done it right."

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Imagine if they'd done it right from the start rather than waste 2 years and millions of dollars....

By doing what, exactly? Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo? There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists. Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

By doing what, exactly? Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo? There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists. Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/

"People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93,'" Obama said on Aug. 21, 2008, at a town hall in Chester, Va. "And what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

None of those things happened. So I call ********. Feel free to deny it.

Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn't delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we've gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there's a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/



None of those things happened. So I call ********. Feel free to deny it.

I don't like closed-door politics either, but how does that answer what healthcare plan would have been "done right" or acceptable?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Define "done it right."

By doing what, exactly? Retaining the public option, dropping the mandate, leaving everything at status quo? There isn't any form of regulation that would have been acceptable; ANY attempt at addressing the healthcare issues would have been attacked and sabotaged by conservatives and insurance lobbyists. Constitutionality is a convenient smokescreen, the only motivation herein is to kill the bill and keep private insurance in complete control.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...17/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/



None of those things happened. So I call ********. Feel free to deny it.

I don't like closed-door politics either, but how does that answer what healthcare plan would have been "done right" or acceptable?

First, I don't consider SS Constitutional, but the USSC did and we trust these 9 people who can never be fired more than the 500 or so we elect every few years..... /sarcasm.

You're right. It's a mess.

Hows this:
Increase the medicaid/care taxes a few % points. Use that to expand those systems while increasing their efficiency.
Using the already in place system, make it easier for lower income Americans to obtain -basic- health care such as ER visits, needed drug coverage, wellness visits, etc. Leave the boob jobs, elective surgery and whatnot to the private insurance folks, who can focus on those being relieved of covering the 'low end of the pool they ***** about all the time'.

Over simplified, yes. But we've beaten this to death over 2 years, and come up with at least 5 options that would have been better than what we got. If we can do it, why the hell didn't they?

Congress simply isn't allowed to order me to buy something. This is a badly written law. If this is struck down, blame the idiots who passed it in the first place with the illegal mandate, and no severance clause.

I hope it is struck down. I hope that Congress after getting smacked, goes back and quickly fixes the problem so that all of the good parts are able to survive. I also hope that in November every one of those sorry SOBs that voted yes are kicked to the curb and a government that can comply with the Constitution put in place.