paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
Link to this post
|
Sea_of_inK
Posts:
3,238
Registered:
Oct 18, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 2,898
User ID: 978,446
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I hope it gets ruled unconstitutional and we get the public option we needed. That probably won't happen though.
-----signature-----
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
The public option would have been a no-brainer if Democrats would just agree to cap government contributions. Theoretically it's supposed to act like a private insurance company therefore it shouldn't need a constant influx of government money. Fine by me. Have $10 billion of startup money and never come back for more. When your little experiment fails don't whine for more money. You're not getting it.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
paulg_68 posted: The public option would have been a no-brainer if Democrats would just agree to cap government contributions. Theoretically it's supposed to act like a private insurance company therefore it shouldn't need a constant influx of government money. Fine by me. Have $10 billion of startup money and never come back for more. When your little experiment fails don't whine for more money. You're not getting it.
They did. They government was going to provide startup money and that was it. The option would be self-sufficient.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I still have some faith in the supreme court. So I am predicting 6-3 or 7-2 upholding it.
If they rule against it it will really just show we have a third political branch whenever the decision actually matters. People will stop looking at Bush v. Gore as an outlier and realize we are back to the days of an overtly political court, like we had in the 1920s-40s.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Phlegm573
Posts:
14,133
Registered:
Jun 12, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 12,216
User ID: 687,948
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
8 of the 9 votes are foregone conclusions. It all depends on whether Anthony Kennedy's coin comes up heads, or tails.
-----signature-----
"I try to make men-only kinship?" - bstulic "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." - actual Republican voter http://tinyurl.com/6p8a7rp - summary of Israel vs. Palestine
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I don't think that's true. Thomas is the only clear vote against based on past decision. Alito and Roberts haven't had a major commerce clause case on the supreme court, so it's hard to say. Scalia should vote for obamacare unless he decides to be a total hypocrite.
The 4 liberals will vote for it because it agrees with their basic jurisprudence, as should Kennedy based on his past decisions. That's five votes, and they should get Scalia and probably Roberts as well at the very least if those two don't decide to sell out to political pressure.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Bjorvald
Posts:
9,251
Registered:
Apr 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,849
User ID: 665,468
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Phlegm573 posted: 8 of the 9 votes are foregone conclusions. It all depends on whether Anthony Kennedy's coin comes up heads, or tails.
How can any vote be a forgone conclusion?
-----signature-----
Bjorvald 9lx healer Blinknone, various toons on classic GANKED AGAIN
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
It actually may wind up a tie because obviously Clarence Thomas will be recusing himself from this case due to clear conflict of interest (ie his wife has been actively campaigning against the law since like forever).
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
IMHO
Title: Official Outpost Greeter
Posts:
30,884
Registered:
Nov 1, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,020
User ID: 490,177
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted: It actually may wind up a tie because obviously Clarence Thomas will be recusing himself from this case due to clear conflict of interest (ie his wife has been actively campaigning against the law since like forever).
-----signature-----
You're Right ~ Koneg He's [Manegarm] like the Fred Phelps of atheism. ~Bubbledude many of you are in the Republican boat, aka the ship of fools. ~Modeeb We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different. ~Kurt Vonnegut
|
Link to this post
|
Elocism
Title: Pseudonym
Posts:
25,124
Registered:
May 3, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 18,742
User ID: 675,144
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
i like how Yuki has a built in rationalization for when this crap gets struck down
-----signature-----
you are broken now but faith can heal you just do everything i tell you to do
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Elocism posted: i like how Yuki has a built in rationalization for when this crap gets struck down
If you want to call "what they said last time on the same subject" "rationalization" go ahead I guess. If you look at what they've done in the past Obamacare will be fine.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Vydor
Posts:
11,620
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,121
User ID: 573,998
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I don't really know what "gut" it means, I think the only significant thing that will happen is the mandate will be over turned, but that will be a major problem for the bill.
-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Vydor posted: I don't really know what "gut" it means, I think the only significant thing that will happen is the mandate will be over turned, but that will be a major problem for the bill.
Yeah I think 'gut it' really means 'rules individual mandate unconstitutional' because that would have the effect of 'gutting it.' I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the mandate on insurers to cover pre existing conditions could possibly hold if the individual mandate is not upheld, otherwise people would just wait until they get sick to get insurance and the system would collapse.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Vydor
Posts:
11,620
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,121
User ID: 573,998
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted:
Vydor posted: I don't really know what "gut" it means, I think the only significant thing that will happen is the mandate will be over turned, but that will be a major problem for the bill.
Yeah I think 'gut it' really means 'rules individual mandate unconstitutional' because that would have the effect of 'gutting it.' I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the mandate on insurers to cover pre existing conditions could possibly hold if the individual mandate is not upheld, otherwise people would just wait until they get sick to get insurance and the system would collapse.
-nods- Kinda what I was thinking.
-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
|
Link to this post
|
Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Maybe next we can mandate that everyone must go to college. Then we could start a program where you have to get a license for "community sensitivity training" (with a continuing ed requirement). How about mandatory nutrition training? Hey, people could even be required to eat healthy foods and the results could be printed out so that we could all file our nutrition report with the feds, kind of like income taxes. I'm sure I could come up with some more "progressive" ideas here but this makes the point.
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
How about mandatory STFU???
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Friarspam
Posts:
12,363
Registered:
Jan 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,619
User ID: 1,200,702
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted: How about mandatory STFU???
u mad, comrad-brah?
-----signature-----
My folks went on vacation and all I got was this lousy sig.
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Friarspam posted: Maybe next we can mandate that everyone must go to college. Then we could start a program where you have to get a license for "community sensitivity training" (with a continuing ed requirement). How about mandatory nutrition training? Hey, people could even be required to eat healthy foods and the results could be printed out so that we could all file our nutrition report with the feds, kind of like income taxes.
I'm sure I could come up with some more "progressive" ideas here but this makes the point.
There are lots of stupid ideas that arn't unconstitutional. You demean the constitution when you try to fit everything you don't like into the unconstitutional catagory.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Johnathan Cohn summary: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/102073/supreme-court-day-2-mandate-oral-argument-reaction-analysis-roberts-kennedy Two of those conservatives, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, seemed openly hostile to the government’s arguments. The justices don’t always tip their hands and, so, it’s impossible to know what they really are thinking. But they certainly seemed prepared to strike down the individual mandate, on the grounds that it unfairly compels individuals into a form of commerce, buying insurance, they would not do on their own. Alito seemed particularly concerned that, because of the mandate, young, healthy people would have to pay more for their insurance, because they would effectively be subsidizing the sick. In a direct response to the government’s argument that the law’s minimum coverage requirement is “necessary and proper,†Scalia responded that it was clearly necessary but not proper – and that government could avoid the problems of the insurance market by simply not requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of pre-existing condition, as the law will do. At various points the liberal justices made counter-arguments through their own questions – that cross-subsidy of sick to healthy is the whole point of programs like Social Security (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), that everybody gets sick eventually (Elana Kagan), that the failures of the insurance market are a clearly national problem empowering the federal government to use its powers (Stephen Breyer), and that functionally the mandate is no different than a clearly constitutional tax credit (Sonia Sotomayor). They also got Clement to admit that a requirement that people buy insurance when they show up at the hospital would be constitutional, prompting Kagan (I think it was her) to question why it was unconstitutional to require purchase beforehand. They also got the side challenging the law to admit that, short of a government takeover of health insurance, the government might have little ability to make insurance universal while still preserving the private insurance industry. As readers know, I find those arguments persuasive. If Alito or Scalia felt similarly, they did not indicate it. The question at this point is what John Roberts, the chief justice, and Anthony Kennedy will do. They sent more ambiguous signals. Kennedy, near the end, seemed interested in finding some middle constitutional ground that would justify the mandate but not other government regulations. Roberts seemed to grasp the dynamics of the health insurance market, picking up on the liberal justices’ line that everybody is, by definition, in the health care market because everybody gets sick. That argument alone could carry the day – and, of course, there's the possibility he'd vote to uphold the law based on the government's taxing power, a possibility he hinted at Monday. But both Roberts and Kennedy questioned Verrilli more aggressively, invoking arguments that came from the right – including, yes, references to broccoli. Over and over again, they and the other conservatives asked for a limiting principle – a reason to think approving the mandate woudn’t lead to unlimited federal power. Verrilli struggled to answer the question and, at times, seemed unsure of whether to call upon the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause as justification. (In its briefs, the government invokes both, for separate reasons – more on that soon.) Reaction in the press room, although mixed, seemed more negative than reaction elsewhere. My canvassing of legal experts found pretty mixed opinions on how the case will turn out. (Walter Dellinger, the Duke law professor who supports the law, pointed out that the plaintiffs effectively made it clear that the only way to create national health insurance would be through a single-payer system, an idea most conservatives detest.)
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Are they going to strike it down or not?
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart. Drill Anwar! Kapie Drevid in Tanks
|
Link to this post
|
Eager_Igraine
Posts:
20,126
Registered:
Nov 21, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 19,548
User ID: 740,268
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted:
Vydor posted: I don't really know what "gut" it means, I think the only significant thing that will happen is the mandate will be over turned, but that will be a major problem for the bill.
Yeah I think 'gut it' really means 'rules individual mandate unconstitutional' because that would have the effect of 'gutting it.' I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the mandate on insurers to cover pre existing conditions could possibly hold if the individual mandate is not upheld, otherwise people would just wait until they get sick to get insurance and the system would collapse.
-----signature-----
I radiate more heat than light. I know what you're trying to do but you're just sailing another failboat over the falls. - imaloon1
|
Link to this post
|
cabbyman
Posts:
36,024
Registered:
Jan 6, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,306
User ID: 755,896
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Drudge is making it sound like it's getting raped under examination.
-----signature-----
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.†"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace†- Thomas Paine
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
over and over again, they and the other conservatives asked for a limiting principle – a reason to think approving the mandate woudn’t lead to unlimited federal power.
I think it is still too close to call right now, but this point is very important. The Obamacare team has been unsuccessful thus far to illustrate a limiting principle in this legislation. There are no limitations in the current bill, and we've already seen that its passage will allow the Federal Government to make sweeping rules/laws changes in many different areas of our lives.
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired) Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Obamacare will be fine. They're just trying to figure out how to word the opinion so it makes it sound like they arn't saying anything at all goes.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I would like to make a prop bet: Mandate gets stricken down 5-4 or upheld 6-3. I lose all other outcomes. Any takers? BTW: "Unconstitutional" now up to 51% on Intrade (was as low as 30% yesterday), still climbing.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Vydor
Posts:
11,620
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,121
User ID: 573,998
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Wow, reading the transcript, Scalia is down right hostile. I've been watching what Kennedy's tone is and it doesn't look too friendly to the administrations position. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html
-----signature-----
Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I enjoy paying for Scalia's health insurance with my tax dollars
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Groucho48
Posts:
11,206
Registered:
Oct 22, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 11,136
User ID: 847,611
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Yeah, it didn't seem to go too well. Vermicelli wasn't able to handle some questions he must have known would be coming. But, there were some positive signs as well... “Yesterday the Chief Justice said that it doesn’t make much sense to say that the mandate is separate from the penalty or the tax,†Dellinger said. “He seemed yesterday to have accepted the government’s argument that there’s a real choice here. If you don’t want to have health insurance that you can pay the tax penalty.†That could have broad legal implications. On Monday, in response to questioning from Justice Elena Kagan, Verrilli noted that under the law, a person who chooses to pay the tax penalty rather than comply with the mandate will not be considered in violation of the law. So it’s a choice — not a unilateral command. If even one of the conservative justices agrees, he could vote to uphold the law on unexpected grounds. “Once the government has said that the mandate is not an independent requirement, it merely provides a choice of paying the tax or having insurance, and given the fact that the Chief Justice yesterday recognized that, it is quite possible that you could have four votes to uphold this under the Commerce power and two votes to uphold it under the taxing power,†Dellinger said. A tax penalty for not having health insurance isn't really any different than having a tax penalty for not owning a house.
-----signature-----
“Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it.†– Richard Feynman
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Scalia is being hostile because he doesn't like the gubmint's arguments. He wants them to give him some good excuse to vote to uphold it that he can latch onto as a lifeline so he doesn't get a lot of rage from RWNs. The gubmint lawyer was not giving him what he wanted to hear so he was getting annoyed.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Yukishiro1 posted: Scalia is being hostile because he doesn't like the gubmint's arguments. He wants them to give him some good excuse to vote to uphold it that he can latch onto as a lifeline so he doesn't get a lot of rage from RWNs. The gubmint lawyer was not giving him what he wanted to hear so he was getting annoyed.
He erred in Raich, and he made plenty of statements today trying to differentiate this case from any precedent.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Bobvillas
Posts:
1,099
Registered:
Nov 19, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 1,099
User ID: 1,338,010
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I know very little about law, but the talking heads all seem to think that it is going to have a hard time being upheld.
-----signature-----
"well honestly i didnt learn "jw" on the net i learned it from multiple females that have texted me. but keep on truckin broheim." Thorikos http://fluffytit.mybrute.com
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted:
Yukishiro1 posted: Scalia is being hostile because he doesn't like the gubmint's arguments. He wants them to give him some good excuse to vote to uphold it that he can latch onto as a lifeline so he doesn't get a lot of rage from RWNs. The gubmint lawyer was not giving him what he wanted to hear so he was getting annoyed.
He erred in Raich, and he made plenty of statements today trying to differentiate this case from any precedent.
\
Scalia likes to try out counterarguments on the litigators to see if they can knock them down.
I wouldn't read much into it. He'll decide whether to vote for or against it later and it won't really have much to do with what he said in court one way or the other.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Reading tea leaves from Kennedy's comments (the title of the link, not my words) http://acalitigationblog.blogspot.com/ There were some glimmers of hope for the Government from Kennedy in the second half of the argument. Let me point out three specific exchanges, which will likely be analyzed and re-analyzed thousands of times between now and the end of June. First, consider this question that Kennedy asked Paul Clement, at pp. 56-57 of the transcript: Is the government's argument this--and maybe I won't state it accurately. It is true that the noninsured young adult is, in fact, an actuarial reality insofar as our allocation of health services, insofar as the way health insurance companies figure risks. That person who is sitting at home in his or her living room doing nothing is an actuarial reality that can and must be measured for health service purposes; is that their argument? This hints at, perhaps, some sympathy with the notion that Congress must regulate this group--must force them into the insurance market--because their "actuarial reality" is necessarily having a substantial impact on interstate commerce, and in a market in which those people do generally participate--that for health care services. Second, consider this exchange with Clement, on p.70 of the transcript: MR. CLEMENT: And with respect to the health insurance market that's designed to have payment in the health care market, everybody is not in the market. And that's the premise of the statute, and that's the problem Congress is trying to solve. And if it tried to solve it through incentives, we wouldn't be here; but, it's trying to solve it in a way that nobody has ever tried to solve an economic problem before, which is saying, you know, it would be so much more efficient if you were just in this market-- JUSTICE KENNEDY: But they are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for. MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Kennedy, I don't think that's right, certainly in any way that distinguishes this from any other context. . . . Again, Kennedy is here revealing at least some sympathy for the notion that the practice of not acquiring health insurance is having a very real and substantial impact on the health insurance market. Their practice of "self-insuring," if you will, is ensuring the existence of uncompensated care, which has a very real and immediate impact on the current pricing of health insurance premiums. Finally, consider this exchange with Michael Carvin on p. 104 of the transcript: MR. CARVIN: It is clear that the failure to buy health insurance doesn't affect anyone. Defaulting on your payments to your health care provider does. Congress chose, for whatever reason, not to regulate the harmful activity of defaulting on your health care provider. They used the 20 percent or whoever among the uninsured as a leverage to regulate the 100 percent of the uninsured. JUSTICE KENNEDY: I agree--I agree that that's what's happening here. MR. CARVIN: Okay. JUSTICE KENNEDY: And the government tells us that's because the insurance market is unique. And in the next case, it'll say the next market is unique. But I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree, in the insurance and health care world, both markets--stipulate two markets--the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. That's my concern in the case. This is probably the most telling passage. It certainly does not indicate that Kennedy is convinced by the Government's argument for constitutionality. But Kennedy has at least expressed a "concern" with the challengers' position--not to mention an admission that this case is not black-and-white, falling into a clear and distinct categorical prohibition. A willingness to tolerate some gray is certainly to the Government's advantage.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
It should be interesting to see what happens when/if they decide against the individual mandate. The pre-existing condition policy will still be in effect, and without the mandate, it will be financially unsustainable for insurance companies to operate at a profit while covering only sick people. That should make for some interesting times, as insurance companies go out of business like crazy, leaving no choice for insurance coverage for anyone....except people who have access to medicare and medicaid that is. I'm pretty sure even the most "conservative" justices (with the exception of Thomas who is an effing idiot) can look beyond this one decision and see what the result of striking down the individual mandate will be.....which is universal single payer health care. Not sure that the "conservatives" screaming for it to be struck down have quite come to this realization yet however.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
You really think any of these bastards (from either party) have our best interests at heart when they make a decision like this? Interestingly enough, it doesn't appear that Kennedy will side with the liberals on this one, though Roberts might. Or at least that's what CNN's reporter took from today's arguments.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
CNN's reporters are stupid. Maybe not quite as stupid as Fox's reporters, but pretty stupid.
Nothing Kennedy said made it seem like he was particularly likely to come down against it. Kennedy always wrings his hands in public at the arguments whenever he has a case he doesn't find 100% straightforward. He was wringing his hands both ways today, which is totally normal.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I'm betting on a 6-3 decision that upholds it.....but I'm almost always wrong
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I am going with 7-2, with Thomas and Alito being the losers.
I do not think Scalia will sell himself out over this, especially if he ends up on the losing side anyhow. Alito is dumb enough I can see him doing it. And Thomas is just Thomas and would be selling out if he DIDN'T vote against it.
There'll probably be three opinions. The four libs will have one, kennedy will write one for himself and roberts, and scalia will write a narrow concurrence where he bitches about the liberals but ultimately agrees with them.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I agree with most of that...except the Scalia part. I think he will write his own dissent and explain why him voting against it had nothing to do with the reason the other two idiots voted against it, while never exactly explaining why he voted against it. It will also include a lot of bitching about liberals and include a slam or 3 against Roberts just because he can never seem to resist doing so.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I dont think they will change it much if there are other examples of the government acting the exact same way. If this is somehow unique and overstepping government powers of the past then its possible conservative justices might oppose it.
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun! A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Link to this post
|
Bjorvald
Posts:
9,251
Registered:
Apr 5, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,849
User ID: 665,468
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Jeffrey Toobin (CNN legal analyst) described today as a "total trainwreck for the Obama administration" and now predicts the mandate will be struck down. This is after spending the last year defending it and basically laughing at the idea it might be unconstitutional.
-----signature-----
Bjorvald 9lx healer Blinknone, various toons on classic GANKED AGAIN
|
Link to this post
|
Koneg
Title: Evil Genius
Posts:
31,388
Registered:
Dec 4, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 28,579
User ID: 530,943
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted: I enjoy paying for Scalia's health insurance with my tax dollars
You're opposed to employer-provided health benefits?
-----signature-----
* First rule of a gun fight: Have a gun. | "Any sufficiently advanced idiocy is indistinguishable from trolling." -- Arthur C Clarke
|
Link to this post
|
Bonzoboy1
Posts:
7,090
Registered:
Aug 1, '08
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,015
User ID: 1,312,136
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
“When you are changing the relation of the individual to the government … do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?â€
-----signature-----
Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often and for the same reason.
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
in most cases the court sides with precedent. Yuki what do you think honestly?
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun! A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Link to this post
|
sweeny_comodore
Posts:
9,066
Registered:
Aug 23, '07
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,113
User ID: 1,248,480
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
constitution?? that old piece of paper??!
-----signature-----
Jesus? No, but there is indeed a god shaped hole in the heart of man, why is yours so empty? -- snarf igraine the original monotheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
|
Link to this post
|
Yukishiro1
Posts:
38,362
Registered:
Sep 20, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 31,453
User ID: 718,633
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
__Bonk__ posted: in most cases the court sides with precedent. Yuki what do you think honestly?
Precedent says they uphold it at lesat 7-2.
Doesn't mean they will. But if they don't it'll be pretty embarassingly partisan.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Well I think if precedent is there then they will hold it up but perhaps by a slim margin Thanks
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun! A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
I turned on the news while I was cooking, first time I've watched the "news" in months, years probably. God damn do they have some stupid reporters. I'm amazed at how horrible CNN is these days, guys on there wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The guest "expert" they had on was obviously disgusted with their legal guy and his lack of understanding and his crazy conclusions based upon snippets of conversation. MSNBC was just as bad. No wonder people in this country are so god damn stupid.
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Z-Elder
Posts:
8,621
Registered:
Mar 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,465
User ID: 657,803
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
The SCOTUS is a partisan republican arm of the government. This is going down in flames. Duh.
-----signature-----
"The poison of our ordinary habits has killed the magic of the moment" "Men are not in hell because God is angry with them . . . they stand in the state of division and separation which by their own motion, they have made for themselves"
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
LOL Republicans. Like, what a joke of a political party. Republicans: Universal Health Care is BAD BAD BAD. SOCIALISM! NO WAI. MUST HAVE PRIVATE SECTOR SOLUTION! Obama: OK, kewl, here's this solution that you guys advocated in 1994 and have at times continued to advocate. I think I'll pass that. Republicans: SOCIALISM! NO WAI. WE HAVE NO PLAN WHATSOEVER TO COVER MORE PEOPLE OR CONTROL COSTS, BUT THIS IS REALLY BAD. Obama: Wat Republicans: YEAH. AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, DONT GO DOING ANYTHING TO MEDICARE!!! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS...OK FOR SENIORS! THEY VOTE DAMMIT!
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
stevenmeadowsin
Posts:
5,377
Registered:
Dec 13, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 3,796
User ID: 1,100,236
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted: LOL Republicans. Like, what a joke of a political party. Republicans: Universal Health Care is BAD BAD BAD. SOCIALISM! NO WAI. MUST HAVE PRIVATE SECTOR SOLUTION! Obama: OK, kewl, here's this solution that you guys advocated in 1994 and have at times continued to advocate. I think I'll pass that. Republicans: SOCIALISM! NO WAI. WE HAVE NO PLAN WHATSOEVER TO COVER MORE PEOPLE OR CONTROL COSTS, BUT THIS IS REALLY BAD. Obama: Wat Republicans: YEAH. AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, DONT GO DOING ANYTHING TO MEDICARE!!! UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS...OK FOR SENIORS! THEY VOTE DAMMIT!
................... This was a failure in leadership from Obama. As you pointed out reps have been for some of the exact legislation in the past but no one wants a noob to ram it down their throats. Obama originally wanted this thing passed in 2 weeks and didn't look for any rep votes. Regardless of whether you are for or against this...the way Obama handled it in trying to strong arm the reps is the real story.
-----signature-----
The fact that the internet collective is so overwhelmingly supportive of Ron Paul is proof that he is the champion for idiots! .. Corky_Aloof
|
Link to this post
|
Ptilk
Title: Creepy old pirate
Posts:
50,658
Registered:
Feb 13, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,530
User ID: 645,124
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Go figure you have to strong arm a group of idiots who refuse to vote for the exact same shit they have supported for decades. It's their own god damn ideas but because Obama supported them..... suddenly they are EBIL socialism !! Yeah, strong arming was never required or anything. Keep your gubbermint hands off my medicare!!!!
-----signature-----
(none)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Obama strong armed all the reps by...signing the bill? lol
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Obamacare is a turd and the Democrats are 100% responsible for it.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
Link to this post
|
Z-Elder
Posts:
8,621
Registered:
Mar 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 8,465
User ID: 657,803
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
republicans have no problem mandating that women get reproductive tests they do not need but insurance is Evil because of a mandate!
-----signature-----
"The poison of our ordinary habits has killed the magic of the moment" "Men are not in hell because God is angry with them . . . they stand in the state of division and separation which by their own motion, they have made for themselves"
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Republicans are hypocrites and Obamacare is still a turd.
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
Link to this post
|
Walker_ID
Posts:
24,809
Registered:
May 29, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,164
User ID: 683,720
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
i suspect the mandate will be shot down....5:4 but i hope it's at least 6:3
it's clear that the court doesn't buy the argument that it's a tax....and i think the justices realize it will grant the fed virtually unlimited powers with no restraints if they allow the mandate to stand
-----signature-----
You can't outrun Darwin
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Economist from the Brookings Institute criticizes the Justices' understanding of externalities http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0327_health_care_scotus_aaron.aspx Several of the justices, notably Scalia and Alito, responded to the externalities argument by saying that every economic transaction creates similar externalities. "If I don't buy a Volt, I raise the price of Volts," said Scalia. Alito said much the same thing. So did Paul Clement's brief for the plaintiffs. This response was and is bad economics. It is true that every commodity is produced along what economists call a "cost curve"—raising output may lower average or marginal unit costs by spreading overhead or achieving economies of scale, but it may also raise costs by forcing up the cost of inputs or incurring diseconomies of scale. None of this occasions concerns about fairness or free-loading or, to use the economist's term, "externalities." But the cost shifting that occurs when uninsured patients fail to pay their bills does; it causes one group—the insured—to have to pay part of the cost of services others use. Perhaps the most glaring instance of the failure to appreciate what an externality really is came from Justice Alito who at one point challenged the solicitor general by positing that the cost of all of the care currently used by those who are uninsured is less than would be the cost of the insurance they would be forced to carry. That being the case, Alito asked, how can one say that the uninsured are shifting costs to the insured? This query is painfully detached from an understanding of what an externality really is, how insurance works, or what the impact of insurance would be on service use.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Walker_ID
Posts:
24,809
Registered:
May 29, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,164
User ID: 683,720
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
it's not really a requirement for scotus justices to understand the minutiae of economic theory
-----signature-----
You can't outrun Darwin
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
No but it would be nice if they are basing there decision on an economic principle for them to at least have some basic understanding of that principle.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Walker_ID
Posts:
24,809
Registered:
May 29, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,164
User ID: 683,720
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
if their questions were so far off base then it should have been an easy matter to counter/answer them
-----signature-----
You can't outrun Darwin
|
Link to this post
|
-Espiritu-
Posts:
10,404
Registered:
Nov 29, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 9,216
User ID: 999,377
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
the car comparison paled in comparison to the food comparison. I'm not surprised Assmale wants to focus on the car comparison.
-----signature-----
Espiritu - SWTOR (retired) Espiritu (MajorMUD, UO, DAoC, SB, FFXI, WoW, WAR, Travian, SC2, SWTOR)
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Walker_ID posted: if their questions were so far off base then it should have been an easy matter to counter/answer them
Pointing out that these justices don't understand the economics at play here != the solicitor general understands the economics at play here. It's pretty obvious to most observers that Verilli looked pretty clueless at times the past few days. -Espiritu- posted: the car comparison paled in comparison to the food comparison. I'm not surprised Assmale wants to focus on the car comparison.
The food comparison is even dumber than the car comparison, but for completely different reasons. [ ] broccoli [ ] health care 1. People are 100% likely to require one of these at some point in their lives 2. People who cannot afford one of these can get it for free (to them, by law) 3. When people get it free, the cost is shouldered by those who paid for insurance against the eventual and inevitable cost associated with its consumption. I'll point out for you which one of these is the correct answer in a subsequent post if you can't figure it out for yourself.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
cabbyman
Posts:
36,024
Registered:
Jan 6, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,306
User ID: 755,896
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional even if it makes good fiscal sense.
-----signature-----
“No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.†"Life's tough. It's tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace†- Thomas Paine
|
Link to this post
|
Ashmaele
Title: Pastor of Muppets
Posts:
19,662
Registered:
Jan 15, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,903
User ID: 612,352
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
cabbyman posted: Unconstitutional is unconstitutional even if it makes good fiscal sense.
This is true. I am genuinely curious what would happen in a scenario where the mandate is ruled unconstitutional but the rest of the law is allowed to stand. I have my thoughts but honestly there are a variety of possible outcomes.
-----signature-----
I had a dream. It was an incredible dream. When I awoke, I had a huge mess to clean up.
|
Link to this post
|
Walker_ID
Posts:
24,809
Registered:
May 29, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 23,164
User ID: 683,720
|
Subject:
What will the SCOTUS do with Obamacare
|
Ashmaele posted:
It's pretty obvious to most observers that Verilli looked pretty clueless at times the past few days.
agreed....he seems completely inept at providing a good argument for the govt...his stumbling and bumbling was an embarassment....and its one of the few times when i'm glad stupid politicians appoint retarded(read: inept) people to high positions
-----signature-----
You can't outrun Darwin
|
Link to this post
|