obamaKare and the Supremes

• QuakerOats

  Top 5 Freedoms at stake:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/23/top-5-freedoms-at-stake-if-obamacare-is-upheld/
  
  
  For the sake of the future of the republic, obamaKare must be overturned, one way ...... or another.
• fish82

  

  It'll be interesting to see how long it takes them to rule on it and the timing of the ruling.
  
  My money is still on the individual mandate going down 5-4.
• derek bomar

  

  it might not even go to a vote - there's some obscure law that states that the key provisions of a law need to go into place (2014) in order for the USSC to rule on it... sounds like they heard arguments on that this morning.
• Devils Advocate

  

  derek bomar;1128103 wrote:it might not even go to a vote - there's some obscure law that states that the key provisions of a law need to go into place (2014) in order for the USSC to rule on it... sounds like they heard arguments on that this morning.

  Wow Fish... Don't strain yourself making a prediction like that.
• sleeper

  

  It should go down. Unconstitutional. Period.
• tk421

  

  If they do end up upholding the law, they've basically given Congress the ability to make Americans buy whatever product they want for the good of the country. Everyone line up for your chevy Volts next,m gotta keep Government Motors and those union workers in business.
• UncleYoder

  

  tk421;1128154 wrote:If they do end up upholding the law, they've basically given Congress the ability to make Americans buy whatever product they want for the good of the country. Everyone line up for your chevy Volts next,m gotta keep Government Motors and those union workers in business.

  Reductio ad absurdum
• lhslep134

  

  Don't see it getting through. It unconstitutionally coerces states to regulate a Federal initiative.
• HitsRus

  

  Reductio ad absurdum

  How so?
  
  The law isn't even fully enacted and already the HHS is mandating what has to be included in the policy.
  I think from a historical perspective, you have to be very careful in setting precedents where the government is concerned.
• queencitybuckeye

  I believe this goes well beyond the powers granted to the federal government.
  
  That said, as a practical matter, the productive are always going to pay for the healthcare of the unproductive. Always have, likely always will.
• jhay78

  

  Audio and transcript from today's arguments:
  
  http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Monday
• Apple

  

  Looks to be a win-win for the R's this November whether the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate or not. An overwhelming number of people, aka voters, don't want it. If it passes constitutional scrutiny, voters will elect people to abolish it. If it doesn't pass, voters will get rid of the people who jammed it down their throats.
• dwccrew

  

  Apple;1128445 wrote:Looks to be a win-win for the R's this November whether the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate or not. An overwhelming number of people, aka voters, don't want it. If it passes constitutional scrutiny, voters will elect people to abolish it. If it doesn't pass, voters will get rid of the people who jammed it down their throats.

  Didn't they already have a chance to in the 2010 elections? I believe they did get rid of some and some were able to get re-elected.
• Apple

  

  dw... The chances are not finite and they most assuredly did not end in 2010. It's called, incrementalism. Knock off a few in 2010, get more the next time around. I'm pretty sure the libs had no idea they'd get the "shellacking" they had in '10. R's took control of the House, picked up a seat or two in the Senate and were able to start to control the bleeding. 2012 has the opportunity for Rs to pick up even more support.
• fan_from_texas

  I'll go out on a limb and say the mandate is upheld on narrow grounds. I don't like that result, but I think that's what we'll see.
• believer

  

  fan_from_texas;1128540 wrote:I'll go out on a limb and say the mandate is upheld on narrow grounds. I don't like that result, but I think that's what we'll see.

  I hope you're dead wrong. The commerce clause has been over used and abused and this would just about guarantee that the gubmint can "mandate" that Americans must purchase anything the Feds believe to be in our "best interest."
  
  It's just another symptom of out-of-control intrusive government.
  
  I hope the Supremes have the common sense and courage to say "hell no."
• QuakerOats

  http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justice/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
• stlouiedipalma

  I've said before that it would be upheld by a 5-4 vote. I'll still stand by that prediction, but I think they will strike down the individual mandate. I also believe they will allow the rest of it to stand.
  
  
  Probably the biggest question is where we go if the entire law is dumped. While a lot of this law doesn't go into effect for a couple years, some of it already has. The challenge for the Congress is coming up with some kind of health care reform to replace it. If they choose to do nothing (a pretty standard response in recent years), will it sit well with the voters, particularly those 18-26 folks whose coverage on their parents' plans will simply go away? Does Congress simply throw up its hands and return to the status quo? Overturning it will make some folks real happy but it will also shift the onus for replacing it right back onto those who have fought so hard for repeal.
• dwccrew

  

  stlouiedipalma;1129276 wrote:I've said before that it would be upheld by a 5-4 vote. I'll still stand by that prediction, but I think they will strike down the individual mandate. I also believe they will allow the rest of it to stand.
  
  
  Probably the biggest question is where we go if the entire law is dumped. While a lot of this law doesn't go into effect for a couple years, some of it already has. The challenge for the Congress is coming up with some kind of health care reform to replace it. If they choose to do nothing (a pretty standard response in recent years), will it sit well with the voters, particularly those 18-26 folks whose coverage on their parents' plans will simply go away? Does Congress simply throw up its hands and return to the status quo? Overturning it will make some folks real happy but it will also shift the onus for replacing it right back onto those who have fought so hard for repeal.

  I thought before the law was enacted that the age limit to remain on your parents insurance was 22 or 23? I know it was not 18. This law only extended it by a couple of years.
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1129276 wrote:I've said before that it would be upheld by a 5-4 vote. I'll still stand by that prediction, but I think they will strike down the individual mandate. I also believe they will allow the rest of it to stand.
  
  
  Probably the biggest question is where we go if the entire law is dumped. While a lot of this law doesn't go into effect for a couple years, some of it already has. The challenge for the Congress is coming up with some kind of health care reform to replace it. If they choose to do nothing (a pretty standard response in recent years), will it sit well with the voters, particularly those 18-26 folks whose coverage on their parents' plans will simply go away? Does Congress simply throw up its hands and return to the status quo? Overturning it will make some folks real happy but it will also shift the onus for replacing it right back onto those who have fought so hard for repeal.

  Wouldn't the onus be on Bam/Nancy/Harry? They're the ones who wrote an unconstitutional law. Why is it not on them to fix their own mistake?
• believer

  

  fish82;1129794 wrote:Wouldn't the onus be on Bam/Nancy/Harry? They're the ones who wrote an unconstitutional law. Why is is not on them to fix their own mistake?

  Isn't that like asking the blind to lead the blind?
• queencitybuckeye

  stlouiedipalma;1129276 wrote:Overturning it will make some folks real happy but it will also shift the onus for replacing it right back onto those who have fought so hard for repeal.

  The onus will remain where it always has been and likely always will be.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "particularly those 18-26 folks whose coverage on their parents' plans will simply go away"
  
  These 18-26 folks don't need a Cadillac health insurance plan, just a catastrophic coverage underwriting. No one between 18-26 needs more than a yearly check-up, and whatever birth control they wish to purchase. With co-pays there is no reason why a healthy 26 year old should spend more than $500 per annum. If they want to insure against a catastrophic accident or disease, the premium should be very cheap. They shouldn't be lumped into a public option that puts them in the same actuary category as a 70-year old.
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;1129803 wrote:They shouldn't be lumped into a public option that puts them in the same actuary category as a 70-year old.

  Absolutely they should. That's what the British-model death panel clause is all about. Everyone gets the same slow, mediocre taxpayer funded health care. Whether or not you deserve a heart transplant, hip replacement, or knee surgery depends upon your value to society and expected life span. That would favor the younger group. Social Darwinism at work.
• QuakerOats

  You hit it; let the 70 year olds die so we can afford to give 20-something liberal twits their contraception for free. The convenience generation should always get their way.