Anyone here Really think Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-Alito-Kennedy WON'T Overturn Healthcare?

I think that's the only thing they are really freaking out about.

it'd be hard to finance the ACA.

you must pay a significant fine at a later time.

it has many provisions, most of which don't apply to many people. For instance, if you're wealthy, you don't need to sign up for ACA's provisions, since you don't qualify for subsidies or Medicaid.

They don't want massive demonstrations.

They are chickenshit.

Even Antonin Scalia cares about his legacy.

because they can. They have long stoped looking at the Constitution for any guidance.

and the only way to over turn their decisions is with a constitution amendment, which is almost impossible with 50 states.

They actually seem to have absolute royal-like power. No one can seem to stop them, even when what they do is outside their jurisdiction, and to all appearances, unconstitutional and maybe even treasonous.

<snip>

But a 2005 Scalia opinion affirming the federal government’s power to control locally grown medical marijuana gives some defenders of the health care law hope, according to a report from Bloomberg News’ Greg Stohr.

Scalia wrote in the marijuana case that “Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general economic regulation of interstate commerce.” Some think that supports government regulation of another noneconomic local activity – the refusal to buy health insurance. Administration lawyers have cited the case throughout their health care case briefs.

“It would be a huge coup for the administration to win Scalia over and certainly in the realm of possibility,” Theodore Ruger, a constitutional and health-care law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in Philadelphia, tells Stohr.

Bloomberg Law analyst Betsy Goldman took a deeper dive into Scalia’s Commerce Clause opinions, which describe his views about the limits of federal government power to regulate private economic activity. She found that “government may have the opportunity to win Justice Scalia’s vote if it can demonstrate that without the individual mandate, Congress’s ability to regulate interstate commerce would somehow be undercut.”

<snip>

Link: http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-11/scalia-could-be-a-surprising-health-care-swing-vote/

to force people to buy health insurance from a private company and have to pay a stiff penalty if they refuse to do it.

Don't these people even read the constitution?

upholding and interpreting the Constitution

They need to redeem their CU decision (and reputation ) in part. I expect a qualified acceptance of the legislation. Don't predict which part will be struck down, but suspect they will accept the individual responsibility part. Will deny at least one part to further muddy the issue and appear to assuage their wingbat supporters.

So there has been some speculation -which is all any of us have to go on- that the SC will simply punt the issue until later.

There is nothing to rule for or against if the law isn't even in effect.

They probably love the idea of the windfall of cash flowing into corporate America.

When the rates for men and for women are equalized. My bet is the men will be grossed up to the ladies, not vice versa

the other day the guest was a repug against the healthcare bill. I was shocked when the host asked him, "why are you against a bill that basically is from the heritage foundation?" "why are you against an idea that was a repug idea"? The man was speechless for a moment.

Because this healthcare plan is the heritage foundation plan. And it's a bonus for the health insurance industry. They'll huff and puff; but being the greedy corporatists, they won't do anything about this bill.

back the Presidency. They can more than make up for it with their friends once they are in power.

Form the article:




http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_supreme_court_is_more_concerned_with_the_politics_of_the_health_care_debate_than_the_law_.single.html

might it not be even worse for Romney than it would be a defeat of Obama's policy? Romney will have to explain why he supports a now non-existent healthcare system where young people no longer can ride on their parents' policy and where pre-existing conditions keep a lot of people out. It might be harder to explain why benefits that people were expecting to have and now don't have are no longer available than if we were starting with a blank slate of campaign promises that we had in 2008. I think it could hurt the Republicans among independents. Hopefully, Obama will win in 2012 and get the opportunity to replace at least one conservative member of the court and reset the balance. An overturning of healthcare might really mobilize Dems and Indies with the realization that something must be done about this court.

at least, that's how Romney will be able to describe it, even if only the individual mandate is struck down. The PPACA will be "unconstitutional" and Romneycare will not be, which will make all the rhetorical difference.

But I'm not counting on it.

means no mandate for hospitals to treat them. They are businesses, remember, and businesses to not have to serve customers who can't or won't pay. Show up without insurance, you'll have to post a 50K bond to get treated. Just my prediction. That will be almost the same as a mandate.

ER's are required by law to treat everyone regardless of ability to pay ....
that was passed - Lord ... back when Ronnie was president ....
and I believe it is a national law not state law ....

Just like Congress did with Medicare.

And no problem with Congress deducting Medicare premiums from recipients' social security checks.

But a majority will hold that Congress *cannot require individuals to buy insurance with their own money.*

Attempting to do so was just an abdication of Congress's responsibility (and constitutional authority) to pass a tax.

The unwillingness to pass a tax reflects the lack of political will or consensus to subsidize a cradle-to-grave national health system.

The Affordable Care Act is much much easier to overturn than it is to uphold, due to Congress's own cowardice and corruption.

No severability or saving clause means it all goes.

You might even see a six member majority.

Back to the drawing board. The need to deal with free rider cost shifting being the key problem driving reform.

I never understood that .....

To make it easier to dispose of the legislation in its entirety.

Now, does the SCOTUS decision harm the President or does it energize a progressive backlash by the electorate leading to widespread Democratic victories?

Will the status quo ante be welcomed back?

The decision will be published about a month before the election.

since there are too many possibilities to guess at and since I can't affect the outcome anyway.

uphold a fascist law cooked up by The Heritage Foundation and championed by the likes of Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney.

I pray some obstinate partisan streak or blind moment of hate that captivates the fuckwits in the House.

the plan they once supported. We were always at war with Eastasia.

in the event it is overturned.

The health insurance industry will destroy itself if the mandate is overturned.

They are actually in a lose-lose scenario now; they have been turned into a public utility by the ACA and are now being regulated as such.

And if there is no mandate, the call for a public option will be thunderous as insurance providers increase rates through the roof and throw anyone off if they stub a toe.

The PPACA was the best we could do with a landslide presidential victory and a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That's quite sad, but if the PPACA goes, no further reform will be attempted.

We had 58 Democrats, a good progressive independent and Joe Lieberman, who has always voted with Republicans on anything important. And with Democrats, you can never pin them down--unlike Republicans, who are one senator with 40 heads, Democrats think for themselves.

Yeah, I was counting Lieberman. Sad when the former vice-presidential nominee isn't a reliable vote for important votes for his own party. He even threatened to filibuster the public option.

CT's economy is rooted heavily in insurance, banking and defense manufacturing.

It's not just Lieberman, you'll never see insurance reform support from any CT Senator unless they have balls of steel or a desire to lose. Likewise, there's a reason why both Lieberman and Dodd opposed any investigation of Wall St. Our state economy is built on stalwarts of conservative business.

It's a tossup as to whether the conservatives will answer to their corporate masters, or make a political move in favor of the Republican Party.

it's hard to say, except I heard on the radio recently that although he is a moderate conservative who will rule with the liberals sometimes, he usu. rules with the other conservatives.

So it doesn't look good.

who knows? But I'm not concerned much about it one way or the other policy-wise if they just strike out the mandate. Either way, we still need single payer.

The mandate was a planned bonanza for the one percent, orchestrated by both parties. It was the fully anticipated goal all throughout the faux negotiations, and all the corporatists want it.

They managed to require that every single American in this entire country purchase an outrageously overpriced corporate product throughout his or her entire LIFE. Think about that. What a brilliant scam on behalf of the insurance corporations, unprecedented in its scope and utterly brilliant in the way our politicians manipulated both political sides in order to pass it.

Of course it will be defended at all costs.

This surfaced in the 90s, was suggested by the Heritage Foundation, and the ball was picked up and played by Newt Gingrich of all people.

In short, what Republicans want those five often look favorably upon.

So I answer yes, I think it is definitely possible. When President Obama says in connection with this issue, the Republicans have a short memory during this election season, he is referring to the fact he agreed to this as a compromise necessary to get the law passed. Remember, he campaigned against it in 2008, and Hillary supported it. But it is one thing to be against something during a Presidential campaign than it is to have to pass a law while sitting in the Oval Office. In the latter instance, one often has to make deals with the Devil.

Sam

on health care.

He is published to state that the mandates are a step to the privatization of medical care.

Health care as a human right would be good for society, business, and individuals.

Overhead and the associated paper and electron based back office would be reduced to one centralized system in most cases; the savings would pay for more health care. Health care should be non-profit.

This is so so obvious.

To understand the issues, read this:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/march/15/supreme-court-curtain-raiser.aspx

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101620917

and this

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/is-the-health-care-law-constitutional-yes-it-expands-liberty-627884/?p=1

AND LISTEN TO THE ORAL ARGUMENTS, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

I've been hearing that our side was not totally prepared for Kennedy's questions. I admit that I have not been following them as I probably should have.

so there's NO WAY I'd say what they're telling me: 'SO FAR,' as to today re: Mandate, is about 5 minutes long!

and that the most they could possibly do is repeal the mandate as a stand alone clause. For me this is the most liberal decision possible and I doubt that will happen.

Nothing is for certain with this court but I am fairly certain the law stands.


Repealing the entire law means all this goes away too :

Small business tax credits which are then increased in 2014
Increased Federal funds to states for Medicare
"doughnut hole" closed
Anti-fraud measures
Expanded coverage for early retirees
Healthcare.gov site to help compare insurance options and choices
Children able to stay on parent's plan until age 26
Requiring plans to cover preventive care
Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage
People can now appeal insurance company coverage determinations
Lifetime limits on coverage are gone
Annual limits are regulated until 2014, then eliminated
Rate hikes need to be justified
Funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care doctors and nurses
Establishing Consumer Assistance Programs in the States
A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund
Funding for community health centers
Increased payments to rural health care providers
Prescription drug discounts
Free preventive care for Seniors
At least 85% of premiums spent on health care services (some exceptions)
Reforming the Medicare Advantage program
A new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation that will begin testing new ways of delivering care to patients
Improved care for seniors after they leave the hospital
The Independent Payment Advisory Board
Increased access to at home services
Incentives for integrated health systems
Fighting racial and ethnic health disparities
Reduced paperwork and administrative costs
Payments linked to quality outcomes
Improved Preventive Health Coverage
Increased Medicaid Payments for Primary Care Doctors
A national pilot program to encourage hospitals, doctors, and other providers to work together to improve the coordination and quality of patient care
More funding for CHIP
Establishing Affordable Insurance Exchanges
Increased Access to Medicaid
Tax credits to help the middle class
Insurers will be prohibited from dropping or limiting coverage because an individual chooses to participate in a clinical trial
Paying Physicians Based on Value Not Volume


I don't see them being able to do that. The outrage will be overwhelming.

The conservatives are the most activist I have ever seen when it comes to their own politics. We may have a chance with Roberts and Kennedy. If the mandate does get struck down, we need something to control costs - preferably single payer or Medicare for all - or at least a public option.

Funny how many states and supporters of big business want to toss out "Obamacare" even when they stand to benefit most from it. Yes, it needs tweaks but many forget that Social Security, at its inception, was solely for orphans and widows before it became the safety net that keeps many Americans out of abject poverty.

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/03/government-health-care-at-its-finest/

The mandate is a moist dream for the for profit insurance industry, why would a corporate supremacist buck that gold mine?

Thanks for the thread, Redneck Democrat.