Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Redneck Democrat

(58 posts)
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:47 PM Mar 2012

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

I never even went to college, but even I know they WILL!

The SCOTUS lost all credibility with Bush v. Gore, and affirmed that it doesn't give a shit about appearances or actual propriety with Citizens United.

56 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Anyone here Really think Roberts-Thomas-Scalia-Alito-Kennedy WON'T Overturn Healthcare? (Original Post) Redneck Democrat Mar 2012 OP
Is only the mandate at risk? nm rhett o rick Mar 2012 #1
I was thinking. YellowRubberDuckie Mar 2012 #7
That's my understanding. It's only the mandate. But w/o the mandate, Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #25
They could run it like Medicare part b. No mandate, but if you dont signup when first eligible rhett o rick Mar 2012 #34
Hmmm. But it's not one thing, like a part of Medicare. The ACA is many things... Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #35
No. See my #40. elleng Mar 2012 #41
No, I don't. stevedeshazer Mar 2012 #2
Yeah I think they will edhopper Mar 2012 #3
The problem is they have to one to answer to Drale Mar 2012 #4
Doesn't Thom Hartmann call them the nine kings? Cleita Mar 2012 #5
It May All Hinge On Scalia... WillyT Mar 2012 #6
Could you imagine if they rule the government has no authority hughee99 Mar 2012 #8
Makes you wonder especially since that is their job, Cleita Mar 2012 #9
They will NOT completely overturn the legislation elfin Mar 2012 #10
The mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014. randome Mar 2012 #11
I read up on this, and it seems you are correctomundo. nt Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #26
hard to say Syrinx Mar 2012 #12
Especially lukkadairish Mar 2012 #13
we have a local political show on everyday newspeak Mar 2012 #47
They're willing to temporarily vote against their and their friends interests to hurt Obama and win stevenleser Mar 2012 #51
Perjury and other crimes should be enough to impeach them if there was actual justice. libtodeath Mar 2012 #14
This may give some perspective on it. savalez Mar 2012 #15
If that unfortunate event happens aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #16
The difference will be that the PPACA will be unconstitutional Alcibiades Mar 2012 #30
I'm hoping Healthcare won't get overturned. ananda Mar 2012 #17
no mandate for patients to be insured greymattermom Mar 2012 #18
hmm don't think so littlewolf Mar 2012 #44
They will hold that Congress can pass a tax to subsidize a national health system. Loudly Mar 2012 #19
why did they not include a severability clause littlewolf Mar 2012 #45
The cynical answer, which is probably the truth? Loudly Mar 2012 #48
I really think I will just wait and see what they do... TreasonousBastard Mar 2012 #20
I see no reason why the fascist five would't TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #21
Except that the GOP is now against Alcibiades Mar 2012 #31
I am pessimistic and think they will. n/t arthritisR_US Mar 2012 #22
No they won't. The mandate will stand, if anything to prevent the public option Lil Missy Mar 2012 #23
This is the correct answer. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #29
No way Alcibiades Mar 2012 #32
We never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate jmowreader Mar 2012 #37
Good point Alcibiades Mar 2012 #38
To be fair... Chan790 Mar 2012 #42
And we only had what you describe for one month between Franken's swearing in and Kennedy's death.nt ieoeja Mar 2012 #49
The insurance companies want the mandate eridani Mar 2012 #24
I think the conservatives will for sure say the mandate is illegal. As for Kennedy, Honeycombe8 Mar 2012 #27
Considering the mandate was originally a conservative idea... MellowDem Mar 2012 #28
Of course they will uphold it. woo me with science Mar 2012 #33
I think there is legitimately a good chance they won't because The Heritage Foundation supported it Samantha Mar 2012 #36
Zeke Emmanuel was a health care advisor to POTUS Obama PufPuf23 Mar 2012 #39
Only sure thing is NEVER BET on what the Supreme Court will do. elleng Mar 2012 #40
what dothe oral arguments tell you so far? CTyankee Mar 2012 #53
They've just begun to be broadcast, elleng Mar 2012 #54
Keep us posted, if you can! I'm sure you'll know a lot more than many of us here! CTyankee Mar 2012 #55
Yes, I think the law stands as written Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #43
There would be outrage. Still, I don't trust that court mvd Mar 2012 #52
Kennedy is supposed to be a swing vote so we will see how he swings this time. WI_DEM Mar 2012 #46
All eyes are on this crooked SCOTUS Brooklyn Dame Mar 2012 #50
Why would they? First and foremost, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are corporate supremacists. Uncle Joe Mar 2012 #56
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
34. They could run it like Medicare part b. No mandate, but if you dont signup when first eligible
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:00 AM
Mar 2012

you must pay a significant fine at a later time.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
35. Hmmm. But it's not one thing, like a part of Medicare. The ACA is many things...
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:56 AM
Mar 2012

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.

stevedeshazer

(21,653 posts)
2. No, I don't.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:53 PM
Mar 2012

They don't want massive demonstrations.

They are chickenshit.

Even Antonin Scalia cares about his legacy.

edhopper

(34,025 posts)
3. Yeah I think they will
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:55 PM
Mar 2012

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

Drale

(7,932 posts)
4. The problem is they have to one to answer to
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:57 PM
Mar 2012

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

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
5. Doesn't Thom Hartmann call them the nine kings?
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 06:58 PM
Mar 2012

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.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
6. It May All Hinge On Scalia...
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:08 PM
Mar 2012

<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/


hughee99

(16,113 posts)
8. Could you imagine if they rule the government has no authority
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:10 PM
Mar 2012

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?

elfin

(6,262 posts)
10. They will NOT completely overturn the legislation
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:18 PM
Mar 2012

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.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
11. The mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 07:21 PM
Mar 2012

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.

lukkadairish

(122 posts)
13. Especially
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:09 PM
Mar 2012

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

newspeak

(4,847 posts)
47. we have a local political show on everyday
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:10 AM
Mar 2012

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.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
51. They're willing to temporarily vote against their and their friends interests to hurt Obama and win
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:00 PM
Mar 2012

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

savalez

(3,517 posts)
15. This may give some perspective on it.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:15 PM
Mar 2012

Form the article:

That’s why the current fuss being made over the health care cases has offered the court a perfect cover story. They will hear six hours of argument next week. They will pretend it is a fair fight with equally compelling arguments on each side. They will even reach out and debate the merits of the Medicaid expansion, although not a single court saw fit to question it. And then the justices will vote 6-3 or 7-2 to uphold the mandate, with the chief justice joining the majority so he can write a careful opinion that cabins the authority of the Congress to do anything more than regulate the health-insurance market. No mandatory gym memberships or forced broccoli consumption. And then—having been hailed as the John Marshall of the 21st century—he will proceed to oversee two years during which the remainder of the Warren Court revolution will be sent through the wood chipper.



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

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
16. If that unfortunate event happens
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:18 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
30. The difference will be that the PPACA will be unconstitutional
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:51 PM
Mar 2012

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.

greymattermom

(5,756 posts)
18. no mandate for patients to be insured
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:25 PM
Mar 2012

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.

littlewolf

(3,813 posts)
44. hmm don't think so
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 09:16 AM
Mar 2012

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 ....

 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
19. They will hold that Congress can pass a tax to subsidize a national health system.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 08:31 PM
Mar 2012

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.

 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
48. The cynical answer, which is probably the truth?
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 11:12 AM
Mar 2012

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.

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
20. I really think I will just wait and see what they do...
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:35 PM
Mar 2012

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





TheKentuckian

(25,180 posts)
21. I see no reason why the fascist five would't
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:37 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Lil Missy

(17,865 posts)
23. No they won't. The mandate will stand, if anything to prevent the public option
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 09:58 PM
Mar 2012

in the event it is overturned.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
29. This is the correct answer.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:36 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
32. No way
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:55 PM
Mar 2012

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.

jmowreader

(50,745 posts)
37. We never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:10 AM
Mar 2012

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.

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
38. Good point
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:20 AM
Mar 2012

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.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
42. To be fair...
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 02:40 AM
Mar 2012

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.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
49. And we only had what you describe for one month between Franken's swearing in and Kennedy's death.nt
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:23 PM
Mar 2012

eridani

(51,907 posts)
24. The insurance companies want the mandate
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:09 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
27. I think the conservatives will for sure say the mandate is illegal. As for Kennedy,
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:14 PM
Mar 2012

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.

MellowDem

(5,018 posts)
28. Considering the mandate was originally a conservative idea...
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:28 PM
Mar 2012

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.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
33. Of course they will uphold it.
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 11:59 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
36. I think there is legitimately a good chance they won't because The Heritage Foundation supported it
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 12:56 AM
Mar 2012

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

PufPuf23

(8,979 posts)
39. Zeke Emmanuel was a health care advisor to POTUS Obama
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 01:23 AM
Mar 2012

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.

CTyankee

(64,047 posts)
53. what dothe oral arguments tell you so far?
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:34 PM
Mar 2012

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.

elleng

(132,403 posts)
54. They've just begun to be broadcast,
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:37 PM
Mar 2012

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!

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
43. Yes, I think the law stands as written
Mon Mar 26, 2012, 08:15 AM
Mar 2012

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.

mvd

(65,203 posts)
52. There would be outrage. Still, I don't trust that court
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:24 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Brooklyn Dame

(169 posts)
50. All eyes are on this crooked SCOTUS
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 12:53 PM
Mar 2012

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/

Uncle Joe

(58,972 posts)
56. Why would they? First and foremost, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito are corporate supremacists.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 01:49 PM
Mar 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Anyone here Really think ...