Log in or Sign up

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court Sets Historic Showdown For Health Law

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Nov 14, 2011.

Page 1 of 4

ethics Pomp-Dumpster

Member Since:

Feb 15, 2002

Well, here we go. SCOTUS will see and rule on this law and decide whether:

First, and most important: Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority in requiring virtually all Americans to have basic health care coverage?

The second: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, does the rest of the law stand? Even the government now says there would be no way to provide the goodies everyone likes in this law without the expanded pool of people paying into the system.

The third question: Does the law impose unconstitutional conditions on the states by requiring them to pay 5 percent more into Medicaid by 2017 to cover the increased number of people under the program?

And the last question: Is it is premature to decide the first three?

NPR did a fantastic, and objective job on describing what's involved. Please listen to the story vs. just reading the article. It's only 6 mins. Supreme Court Sets Historic Showdown For Health Law : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

ethics, Nov 14, 2011

#1 Top
ethics Pomp-Dumpster

Member Since:

Feb 15, 2002
I have a feeling I know how Roberts is gonna vote on this. From today's argument:

MR. CARVIN: No again. The people who impose the costs on the rest of us are people who engage in a different activity at a different time, which is defaulting on their health care payments. It's not the uninsured. Under your theory you could regulate anybody if they have got a statistical connection to a problem. You could say, since we could regulate people who enter into the mortgage market and impose mortgage insurance on them, we can simply impose the requirement to buy private mortgage insurance on everybody before they have entered the market because we are doing it in this prophylactic way before it develops.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no, that's not -- I don't think that's fair, because not everybody is going to enter the mortgage market. The government's position is that almost everybody is going to enter the health care market.

Emphasis are mine.
Attached Files:
- 86924297-11-398-Tuesday.pdf
  
  File size:
  
  663.4 KB
  
  Views:
  
  10
ethics, Mar 27, 2012

#2 Top
Arc Full Member

Member Since:

Oct 8, 2004

To inject my previous posts and opinions on this:

First, and most important: Did Congress exceed its constitutional authority in requiring virtually all Americans to have basic health care coverage?

Yes.

The second: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, does the rest of the law stand? Even the government now says there would be no way to provide the goodies everyone likes in this law without the expanded pool of people paying into the system.

Too close to call--even money. The answer logically rest with how dependent is the functionality and viability of the law without the individual mandate. If it is decided the mandate is the foundation then the whole law will be tossed. If the mandate isn't given that much weight and its struck down the rest of the law will remain constitutional but functionally and politically it will likely be doomed--definitely so if GOP wins election.

The third question: Does the law impose unconstitutional conditions on the states by requiring them to pay 5 percent more into Medicaid by 2017 to cover the increased number of people under the program?

The answer to this depends upon rulings on the previous questions.

And the last question: Is it is premature to decide the first three?

No.

Arc, Mar 27, 2012

#3 Top
Arc Full Member

Member Since:

Oct 8, 2004

ethics said: ↑

Well, here we go. SCOTUS will see and rule on this law

One addendum:

In the largest trial with largest number of plaintiffs, (State AGs), to date on this issue the federal trial judge found the mandate unconstitutional AND then also tossed the entire Health Care Plan. His reason: He spelled out clearly that lawyers for the Obama care in arguing the case for the government repeatedly used the argument to preserve the individual mandate on the basis that the entire foundation of the whole health plan effectively function or working was that there be the individual mandate. The judge concluded that based upon the government's own line of reasoning and words that since the mandate was being tossed the judge felt based upon the reasoning of the government the plan was now fatally flawed and there was no severability clause it too was out.

Arc, Mar 27, 2012

#4 Top
Allene Registered User

Member Since:

Apr 24, 2000

So now we have to wait until summer to hear their decision.

Allene, Mar 28, 2012

#5 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

ROTFLMAO! Seems Obama challenged the Supreme Court and made reference to unelected judges, judicial activism, and his healthcare plan. Another federal judge took offense to the alleged slight.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican, asked U.S. Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang during oral arguments in Houston yesterday to supply the administration's position on so-called judicial review. The appeals court is reviewing a provision of the law that blocks federal medical payments to certain hospitals.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring, of course, to Obamacare -- what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress,'' Smith said during yesterday's session, according to a recording posted on the court's website.

OOPS!! :lol:

Biker, Apr 4, 2012

#6 Top
cmhbob Did...did I do that?

Member Since:

Sep 30, 2004

From a friend on Facebook:

I eagerly await the day when those unelected justices hold up the law as constitutional so the unelected HHS Kathleen Sebelius can decide if/when I can be treated by a doctor.

Same friend also shared this link: "Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law"

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Samuel Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

I still don't understand why they're trying to force us to buy insurance, as opposed to addressing the high costs of medical care. If they were serious about making medical care available and affordable for everyone, shouldn't they start there?

cmhbob, Apr 4, 2012

#7 Top
Allene Registered User

Member Since:

Apr 24, 2000

I've been following that and waiting to see something posted here. Do you guys think the Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare as it is now, with some tweaks, or throw it out altogether? I don't recall recent presidents before Obama doing that much sniping at the Supreme Court, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention. It looks to me like Obama's main goal from Day One has been to get re-elected for another four years.

Allene, Apr 4, 2012

#8 Top
cmhbob Did...did I do that?

Member Since:

Sep 30, 2004

I can't see how they're going to uphold the individual mandate. The big question will be what that does to the rest of the law.

cmhbob, Apr 4, 2012

#9 Top
Allene Registered User

Member Since:

Apr 24, 2000

Yes, I can see that. Is anyone seriously considering impeaching these people if they do that? I think that's absurd.

One of the things I'm waiting to watch, if Obamacare gets passed, is how Americans will deal with the long waiting periods. If it is anything like Canada, it'll be worse in more rural areas and in smaller cities. Already we have lost 8 GPs in my locality in the past 18-24 months.

cmhbob said: ↑

I can't see how they're going to uphold the individual mandate. The big question will be what that does to the rest of the law.

Allene, Apr 4, 2012

#10 Top
ethics Pomp-Dumpster

Member Since:

Feb 15, 2002

I am hearing the ruling is this Thursday.

ethics, Jun 25, 2012

#11 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

Has to be Thursday. The Supreme Court typically breaks for the summer on June 30th.

Biker, Jun 25, 2012

#12 Top
SixofNine Jedi Sage

Member Since:

Feb 13, 2003

Just got a flash on the iPad that they struck down the individual mandate.

SixofNine, Jun 28, 2012

#13 Top
SixofNine Jedi Sage

Member Since:

Feb 13, 2003

Yikes, now another flash that they upheld it!

SixofNine, Jun 28, 2012

#14 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

I'm getting a live feed from the court, and it was stated that the individual mandate survives as a tax. The ACA pretty much was left intact with a narrow reading on the Medicare portion.

Biker, Jun 28, 2012

#15 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Getting the live feed on Scotusblog.

Biker, Jun 28, 2012

#16 Top
SixofNine Jedi Sage

Member Since:

Feb 13, 2003

CNN just issued a correction to their erroneous initial report.

SixofNine, Jun 28, 2012

#17 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.

No word on the "penalty" if one chooses this route, though.

Biker, Jun 28, 2012

#18 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.

The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)

Biker, Jun 28, 2012

#19 Top
Biker Administrator

Member Since:

Nov 21, 2002

Correction:

Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

Biker, Jun 28, 2012

#20 Top

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 4

Share This Page