Reply With Quote
then again, plenty of uncons utional laws are still alive today. but this one just got too much spotlight on it.
Sadly Obama will suffer a huge blow next week. I say sadly because I think barry meant well, and we do need better healthcare but he ed up. he didn't really read the Cons ution or maybe had really bad law advisers. The Individual mandate will be struck down. You heard it first from El Che
Your thoughts? Do you disagree? If struck down, how will this affect Obama and his re-election chances?
IMO it will be an upppercut to the ribcage to Obama's re-election campaign. i mean the guy's most revolutionary accomplishment turned out to be uncons utional
then again, plenty of uncons utional laws are still alive today. but this one just got too much spotlight on it.
Yeah, I've heard some say that it will be held up as cons utional and some that say it won't. Even if it is it will still keep something like 14-15 million additional with coverage instead of the 20 some million.
Give a decision or simply here the arguments for 3 days?
one way or the other, it will very probably be 5-4.
sorry my bad. we'lll have to wait until end of June for the decision. what timing.
The SC is relaible wing of the GOP ..we know that so it will be a 5-4 decision
The Robert's court will be rmemebred as the 5-4 group.
Report Proves Health Reform Is Here To Stay: 49 States Have Already Taken Action Supporting Its Implementation
– 12 states: Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia—passed new legislation or issued new regulations that addressed all 10 of the reforms: expanding dependent coverage for young adults up to age 26, prohibiting lifetime limits on health benefits, phasing out annual dollar limits on health benefits, prohibiting preexisting condition exclusions for children under age 19, prohibiting rescissions (cancelling insurance, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation), covering preventive services without cost-sharing, expanding coverage of emergency services, allowing choice of primary care provider, allowing choice of pediatrician, and allowing access to obstetricians and gynecologists without a referral.
– The District of Columbia and 11 states: California, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin—passed a new law or issued a new regulation on at least one early market reform.
– 15 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas—issued new subregulatory guidance, such as a bulletin to advise insurers of the reforms.
– 11 states: Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming—reported that regulators were actively reviewing insurer filings for compliance with the reforms even though the state had not otherwise passed a new law or issued new regulations or other guidance.
– Only Arizona had taken no action.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...mplementation/
====
AZ, figgers, what a hole book-burning, racist state.
More Legal Experts Believe Roberts Will Uphold Affordable Care Act Than Kennedy
The experts ABA surveyed were unanimous in predicting that the four liberal justices (Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg) would vote to uphold and that Clarence Thomas would vote to strike it down. Fifty-three percent said Anthony Kennedy would join the liberals, but a higher proportion, 69 percent, thought Chief Justice John Roberts would join the majority. Majorities of about 60 percent predicted that the other two conservatives, Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, would determine the law is uncons utional.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-than-kennedy/
It is certainly not a slam dunk. There is plenty of precedent addressing interstate commerce that has muddied the water.
At Heart of Health Law Clash, a 1942 Case of a Farmer’s Wheat
If the Obama administration persuades the Supreme Court to uphold its health care overhaul law, it will be in large part thanks to a 70-year-old precedent involving an Ohio farmer named Roscoe C. Filburn.
Mr. Filburn sued to overturn a 1938 federal law that told him how much wheat he could grow on his family farm and made him pay a penalty for every extra bushel.
The 1942 decision against him, Wickard v. Filburn, is the basis for the Supreme Court’s modern understanding of the scope of federal power. It is the contested ground on which the health care case has been fought in the lower courts and in the parties’ briefs. And it is likely to be crucial to the votes of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, who are widely seen as open to persuasion by either side.
“Wickard has become so foundational for generations of lawyers that any plausible understanding of the commerce power must come to terms with it,” said Bradley W. Joondeph, a law professor at Santa Clara University.
Both supporters and opponents of the health care law say the decision helps their side, and for three days starting next Monday, it will be at the center of the arguments before the Supreme Court about the law’s cons utionality.
To hear the Obama administration tell it, the Filburn decision illustrates just how much leeway the federal government has under the Cons ution’s commerce clause to regulate the choices individuals make in matters affecting the national economy. If the government can make farmers choose between growing crops on their own land and paying a penalty, the administration’s lawyers have said, it can surely tell people that they must obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8001-...-farmers-wheat
This court has proven that they are affected by thier own politcial dispositions.. have no fear they will find a way to strike it down..
I approve of no insurance mandate, but ONLY IF the uninsured are refused when they show up at a taxpayer-funded medical facility.
Asked if he's confident SCOTUS will rule against Health Care Law Speaker Boehner says "I have no idea what the Supreme Court's going to do".
Right-wing Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA) does not like the Affordable Care Act. In addition to his challenge to the law in federal court, he told a Politico reporter earlier this month that there was little the federal government could do to states if they refused to implement the law.
The Washington Post quoted the interview:
In a brief interview at the Republican Attorneys General Association meeting, Cuccinelli said it would be “contrary to the law” not to implement it. But he pointed out that it might not be easy for the federal government to force states to comply if they continued to resist. “It’s not like there’s criminal penalties out there — it becomes a power struggle,” he said. Cuccinelli noted that it would not be the first time that states have tried to obstruct federal laws, pointing out that states resisted complying with the Alien and Sedition Acts and fugitive slave laws. “There have been periods of time when states have just thrown their hands up and said, ‘We’re not going to do this,’” he said. “It’s still possible, but it’s outside the expected legal structure.
But when pressed on this subject yesterday, the Virginia Organizing Project caught him striking a rather different tone — saying “I expect everyone to obey the law,” if it is upheld by the Supreme Court.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...able-care-act/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 03-22-2012 at 01:49 PM.
Health Insurers: We'll Deny Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions if Health Mandate Is Repealed
Health insurers and supporters of the Obama administration's health-care reform law are currently in the midst of drawing up possible contingency plans in case the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate.
The insurance industry argues that premiums are likely to skyrocket without the individual mandate in place to aid in pushing millions of new enrollees into the marketplace, as healthy people will be less likely to buy insurance, while insurers will still be required to sell policies to all applicants. In fact, a repeal of the individual mandate would increase insurance premiums by 25 percent, according to a study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"The insurance reforms would have to change if the mandate were struck," said Justine Handelman, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association trade group.
Health-insurance officials say that if the mandate is repealed, "their first priority would be persuading members of Congress to repeal two of the law's major insurance changes: a requirement to cover everyone regardless of his or her medical history, and limits on how much insurers can vary premiums based on age." Their next step would be to "set rewards for people who purchase insurance voluntarily and sanction those who don't."
Other possible alternatives to the individual mandate that insurers are weighing:
- Penalize those who enroll outside of short annual windows; deny treatment for specific conditions, especially right after a policy is purchased
- Reward certain insurance buyers, such as offering much lower premiums for younger and healthier people
- Expand employers' role in automatically enrolling employees for health insurance
- Urge credit-rating firms to use health-insurance status as a factor in determining individuals' ratings
Although the mandate has been upheld in two appeals courts, it was struck down in a third. The Supreme Court hearings are scheduled to begin March 26, and an official ruling is expected to be delivered in June.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8013-...te-is-repealed
Careful what you wish for if you're against nationalized health care. If this gets repealed, the proponents of a public option are going to have a nice PR campaign fall into their laps with the many people who have suddenly lost coverage.
It's a win for freedom though!
public option is the BEST WAY to control costs, putting the govt insurance option in direct compe ion with the gouging commercial insurers.
and public option will be financed by payroll/income deductions, similar to SS deduction.
^^^^^This^^^^^
It's all just a matter of time. Twenty years from now, people are going to wonder what the fuss was all about.
Justice Scalia voted in favor of the government in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld federal authority to regulate intrastate marijuana production for medicinal purposes, due to its overall effect on interstate commerce (consistent with Wickard v. Filburn, mentioned in one of boutons' articles above). People think that he and Justice Thomas (who dissented in Raich) vote lock-stock with each other, but it's not necessarily true. Not sure how Justice Scalia could vote against the mandate and still square that with Raich, when the mandate covers interstate activities in an economic market.
and if the med facilities and docs refuse to accept PO patients (like they are refusing medicare/medicaid patients), the US then finances med educations in return for 20 years of full time govt employment as a SALARIED GOVT doctor at taxpayer med facilities.
As with the rest of his policies.i mean the guy's most revolutionary accomplishment turned out to be uncons utional
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
