Arlen Specter: John Roberts was wrong on Commerce Clause

[Tx4obama]

-snip-

The former Pennsylvania senator — who as a Republican and Judiciary Committee chairman shepherded John Roberts through his confirmation hearings — said the chief justice was wrong on ruling the law in violation of the Commerce Clause and was trying to do too much with one

“He really is trying to ride two horses and when you try to ride two horses, you frequently fall in between,” Specter told POLITICO on Tuesday.

Specter also has the distinction of providing the crucial floor vote, after switching to the Democratic Party, to pass the health care bill in December 2009.

While Specter said that while it’s “a worthwhile objective to protect the legitimacy of the court,” it is going to take a lot more to help the court considering its controversial decisions over the past 12 years. Specter cited Bush v. Gore, Citizens United v. FEC and last month’s opinion striking down Montana’s law limiting corporate campaign contributions.

“I think that’s what he’s trying to do,” Specter said. “Did he do it? No. You can’t do it with one decision. You cannot.”

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78103.html

[Iggy]

1. Agreed, but what the good senator

needs to realize is this hands a huge lifeline to one more bloated industry- the health insurance industry.

Why does Corporatism favor Obamacare? Because Obamacare is nothing more than a huge bailout for another failing industry — the health insurance industry. No health insurer could continue to raise premiums at the rate of two to three times inflation, as they have done for at least a decade. No health insurer could continue to pay 200 million dollar plus bonuses to top executives, as they have done repeatedly. No health insurer could continue to restrict Americans’ access to decent health care, in effect creating slow and silent ‘death panels.’ No health insurer could do those things and survive. But with the Obamacare act now firmly in place, health insurers will see a HUGE multibillion dollar windfall in the form of 40 million or more new health insurance customers whose premiums are paid largely by government subsidies. That is the explanation for the numerous expansions and mergers you have seen in the health care industry in the past couple of years. You will see more of the same, and if you are a stock bettor, you would do well to buy stock in smaller health insurers, because they will be snapped up in a wave of consolidation that dwarfs anything yet seen in this country.

As I write this, I note that health industry stocks have taken a big jump on Wall Street.

Partisans on either side hoping for a big political victory are missing the point. this is about MONEY.

http://www.counterpunch.com/

[LiberalFighter]

2. Will this really benefit the insurance companies?

I don't think so. Just because there will be 40 million potential new policy holders does not mean there will be a huge windfall. First, the 80/20 medical loss ratio has taken affect. It seems like people like to make the numbers bigger each time. According to one report there are 30 million without insurance. If we go with the premise that none of them are children under the age of 26 there is still the fact that they are not required to buy insurance. And not all of them are going to buy insurance. If they are single and their wages are less than stellar they likely will not buy insurance. The cost ratio compared to families buying insurance is much higher. So they will likely go with paying the penalty tax.


Maybe one should read this article: The End of Health Insurance Companies Found at the New York Times that explains what we currently have and what ACA is and will be doing.

[Iggy]

3. I Disagree

A.) The bloated health insurance industries get to mostly continue doing what they have been doing;
charging exhorbitant rates, increasing their rates way beyond inflation, gyping people out of coverage,
and so forth. so there's a WIN. congress, if they had any balls, would make more significant changes.

B.) Millions of people will have to start paying insurance premiums. many of these people are young,
healthy people-- who normally would not join the pool. because they are healthy, the number of
claims will be low. I'm not sure how anyone sees this as NOT a win for the industry

[malthaussen]

4. It's the best they could get

The insurance companies would prefer to be unregulated and to continue to operate in the old fashion. Given that that was not going to happen based on the legislative makeup at the time the ACA passed, they needed to get the best result possible: one that would add to their coffers even if it did force them to, you know, actually insure someone.

Whether or not this will work for them remains to be seen. There's a lot of speculation around that people will do the cost-benefit analysis and just pay the penalty and not buy the insurance until they need it. But I think psychologically, more people would prefer to have the "security" of insurance, if they could afford it. What's definitely going to happen, though, is that the insurance companies are going to have to do a little work to find creative ways to avoid shelling out.

-- Mal

[Rosanna Lopez]

5. Magic Bullet

It's hard to know whether one should ever trust what Arlen Specter says.

This is the guy who came up with the 'magic bullet' nonsense for the Warren Commission. That will always make him a worm, IMO.