Unelected

[utvolpj]

so it's only unconstitutional when the dems try to pass it?

no it's only unconstitutional if someone tries to make it into law. The Dems did that. If the GOP had tried to ram it through they would be getting the same treatment from many of us (and even worse by the media)

 

[lawgator1]

I think it's a bit over the top but the case he is hearing is connected to Obamacare and is being argued by the DoJ/Solicitor's office. Obama is the head of the DoJ and made comments regarding his administration's view of the role and authority of the courts. I see that as sufficient basis to question their understanding of the court's role and authority.

It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.

 

[T-TownVol]

It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.

Just like BHO's speach......tit for tat big guy

 

[dreVol]

It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.

the judge asked the doj attorney if she believed that courts had the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws. she said yes and cited marbury v. Madison. he then assigned her the letter assignment because of the apparen misunderstanding in the doj

 

[volinbham]

correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the individual mandate conceived by the gop?

No. In the early 90s IIRC correctly, the Heritage Foundation which is viewed as a right leaning think tank suggested an individual mandate was the best alternative to a series of very bad alternatives and under certain condition (e.g. availability of catastrophic HC plans, etc.). Well before Obamacare, they changed views based on the trajectory of HC insurance regulation. Even before Obama was elected, the Heritage Foundation was NOT in favor of the mandate.

Newt Gingrich agreed with the early position of the HF and advocated but not as an elected official.

Romney signed RomneyCare which includes a mandate at the state level.

The GOP has not to my knowledge advanced a bill that includes the individual mandate nor ever openly advocated for one with the exception of a few individuals (see Newt).


Interestingly enough, Obama was against the mandate in 2007/08. Can we conclude the Dem party conceived opposition to the individual mandate?

 

[volinbham]

It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.

I think we have 2 parties out of line here. I'm not justifying the judge's actions but they would not have come without the thinly veiled threats by one branch of government towards another.

Obama once again shows a failure in leadership.

 

[T-TownVol]

the judge asked the doj attorney if she believed that courts had the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws. she said yes and cited marbury v. Madison. he then assigned her the letter assignment because of the apparen misunderstanding in the doj

don't cloud LG's brain with facts, he is very content to spout the party line

 

[lawgator1]

Just like BHO's speach......tit for tat big guy

The difference is that Obama is a politician running for reelection.

I would have expected more out of a sitting federal judge. What he said, and in the context he said it, is totally inappropriate.

Its not even close.

the judge asked the doj attorney if she believed that courts had the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws. she said yes and cited marbury v. Madison. he then assigned her the letter assignment because of the apparen misunderstanding in the doj

Of course the courts have that power. Obama said so.

Fact is that every side that has a law come up before the court and gets struck down claims it was judicial activisim at work.

That is standard.

The sarcastic and demeaning comment of this judge, said in a place where it has no place, and where it clearly has no meaning other than rhetorically, is inappropriate.

I hope that the DOJ stands silent in opposition, or simply files a one or two sentence response along the lines of:

"The Department recognizes the authority of the Court to pass upon the constitutionality of any statute, regardless of which political party enacted it. A request for the rationale behind public statements unrelated to this case is a breach of the separation of powers."

I think we have 2 parties out of line here. I'm not justifying the judge's actions but they would not have come without the thinly veiled threats by one branch of government towards another.

Obama once again shows a failure in leadership.

Thinly veiled threats? What? What threat? Nonsense.

And the next day Obama went on for quite some time about the role and the power of the judiciary. Seems to me that is an example of excellent leadership.

 

[bamawriter]

It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.

His order is certainly over the top. But a party in the proceedings he's presiding over has made a clear public statement that the Court doesn't have the authority to rule a law unconstitutional. It's not out of line for the judge to make sure that all parties agree on the legitimacy of the proceedings.

 

[lawgator1]

His order is certainly over the top. But a party in the proceedings he's presiding over has made a clear public statement that the Court doesn't have the authority to rule a law unconstitutional. It's not out of line for the judge to make sure that all parties agree on the legitimacy of the proceedings.

Utter crap. If every time a politician made some remark a judge asked for the government to explain it nothing would get done. Judge is a clown.

 

[bamawriter]

The difference is that Obama is a politician running for reelection.

He's also the head of the DOJ. It's no different than if a large corporation was in court, and the CEO was making public statements that the court doesn't have the authority to decide the issue. It doesn't matter whether the CEO was in court, he's the head of one of the parties.

Of course the courts have that power. Obama said so.

Only after getting pummeled for his moronic comments.

I hope that the DOJ stands silent in opposition, or simply files a one or two sentence response along the lines of:

"The Department recognizes the authority of the Court to pass upon the constitutionality of any statute, regardless of which political party enacted it. A request for the rationale behind public statements unrelated to this case is a breach of the separation of powers."

And I would hope the judge would find the DOJ in contempt for clearly defying his very specific order.

And the next day Obama went on for quite some time about the role and the power of the judiciary. Seems to me that is an example of excellent leadership.

It's excellent leadership to change your tune the very next day because you were called out on the absurdity of your statement?

 

[T-TownVol]

Utter crap. If every time a politician made some remark a judge asked for the government to explain it nothing would get done. Judge is a clown.

and LG is butt hurt

 

[bamawriter]

Utter crap. If every time a politician made some remark a judge asked for the government to explain it nothing would get done. Judge is a clown.

Not every politician is the head of the DOJ. If Nancy Pelosi had made the comment that Obama made, it would be totally absurd for the judge to issue that order since she is in no way involved with the DOJ or any other party to the proceedings. Obama is not only involved with the DOJ, he is in charge of it.

 

[volinbham]

And the next day Obama went on for quite some time about the role and the power of the judiciary. Seems to me that is an example of excellent leadership.

You've got to be kidding. You think he is showing leadership here? He even got the case law wrong with his example and asserted that the burden is on the court to demonstration a law is unconstitutional rather than on the Congress to show the law is within their enumerated powers.

How's this for leadership on the issue.

1. He says if the law is struck down millions will suffer.

2. He says they have no contingency plan if it is struck down because he believes they will win.

If millions will suffer, shouldn't their be a contingency plan given the very real chance the law gets struck down?

 

[PuntBamaPunt]

No. In the early 90s IIRC correctly, the Heritage Foundation which is viewed as a right leaning think tank suggested an individual mandate was the best alternative to a series of very bad alternatives and under certain condition (e.g. availability of catastrophic HC plans, etc.). Well before Obamacare, they changed views based on the trajectory of HC insurance regulation. Even before Obama was elected, the Heritage Foundation was NOT in favor of the mandate.

Newt Gingrich agreed with the early position of the HF and advocated but not as an elected official.

Romney signed RomneyCare which includes a mandate at the state level.

The GOP has not to my knowledge advanced a bill that includes the individual mandate nor ever openly advocated for one with the exception of a few individuals (see Newt).


Interestingly enough, Obama was against the mandate in 2007/08. Can we conclude the Dem party conceived opposition to the individual mandate?

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

 

[milohimself]

You've got to be kidding. You think he is showing leadership here? He even got the case law wrong with his example and asserted that the burden is on the court to demonstration a law is unconstitutional rather than on the Congress to show the law is within their enumerated powers.

How's this for leadership on the issue.

1. He says if the law is struck down millions will suffer.

2. He says they have no contingency plan if it is struck down because he believes they will win.

If millions will suffer, shouldn't their be a contingency plan given the very real chance the law gets struck down?

I read some rumblings a while back (I think it may have been one of the Politico blogs, but I forget) that the contingency plan is to let the rest of the law stand, as the SCOTUS, if it strikes down the individual mandate, will rule with severability.

The history behind that is not good, as there have been a number of states over the past decade who passed laws requiring health insurance companies to offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, eliminated lifetime benefit limits, and the rest of the components of the ACA outside of the mandate that remain fairly popular. The result was a skyrocketing of premiums to the neighborhood of six, seven, eight hundred a month, sometimes into four figures. The ACA, like the Massachusetts law, does go a step further in cost-reduction, but I doubt it will be enough.

There's already plenty of evidence out there showing that private insurance markets of any scale can't be required to strike down lifetime limits, retroactive coverage cancellations, coverage of people with pre-existing conditions, etc. without an individual mandate paired with it.

IMO if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, the administration will ultimately have to push for a repeal of the bulk of the law, which would obviously lead us back to square one.

 

[Lexvol]

I read some rumblings a while back (I think it may have been one of the Politico blogs, but I forget) that the contingency plan is to let the rest of the law stand, as the SCOTUS, if it strikes down the individual mandate, will rule with severability.

The history behind that is not good, as there have been a number of states over the past decade who passed laws requiring health insurance companies to offer coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, eliminated lifetime benefit limits, and the rest of the components of the ACA outside of the mandate that remain fairly popular. The result was a skyrocketing of premiums to the neighborhood of six, seven, eight hundred a month, sometimes into four figures. The ACA, like the Massachusetts law, does go a step further in cost-reduction, but I doubt it will be enough.

There's already plenty of evidence out there showing that private insurance markets of any scale can't be required to strike down lifetime limits, retroactive coverage cancellations, coverage of people with pre-existing conditions, etc. without an individual mandate paired with it.

IMO if the SCOTUS strikes down the mandate, the administration will ultimately have to push for a repeal of the bulk of the law, which would obviously lead us back to square one.

Square one...with some real transparency and debate should be welcomed by most reasonable people. This was bad legislation pushed through irresponsibly.

 

[milohimself]

Square one...with some real transparency and debate should be welcomed by most reasonable people. This was bad legislation pushed through irresponsibly.

Yeah, we'll see how that turns out. It got screwed the first time, but we do wind up back at square one and health care costs do push us to a crisis point, a very real possibility in the near future, the solution resulting from that might be even worse. That's how countries have wound up with healthcare that actually is socialized, or at the least laws that are far more overarching than Obamacare was.

 

[milohimself]

I just want to make a quick point in this thread, since I've seen it go practically unmentioned outside of the SCOTUS arguments last week.

We already have universal coverage in the US. If you go to the emergency room, they have to treat you. If you don't pay afterwards, there's nothing they can do other than damaging your credit, but my guess is most people in that position don't have much of a credit score to worry about to begin with. That standard is never, ever going to be repealed, and when it comes to the actual point of payment, is one of the biggest drivers of healthcare costs.

 

[Lexvol]

Yeah, we'll see how that turns out. It got screwed the first time, but we do wind up back at square one and health care costs do push us to a crisis point, a very real possibility in the near future, the solution resulting from that might be even worse. That's how countries have wound up with healthcare that actually is socialized, or at the least laws that are far more overarching than Obamacare was.

This is not going to do anything to off set health costs. It is simply going to redistribute the burden.

Health coverage is too comprehensive. it is not insurance. (I know we have discussed it several times before). As long as it is like that, there will be no end to the escalation of costs.

 

[milohimself]

This is not going to do anything to off set health costs. It is simply going to redistribute the burden.

Health coverage is too comprehensive. it is not insurance. (I know we have discussed it several times before). As long as it is like that, there will be no end to the escalation of costs.

I disagree, there were sections of the law that addressed costs in a very direct way. Particularly at administrative costs, which are far higher here than in any other industrialized country.

As for coverage vs. insurance, that's diving into a whole different realm of economics with this discussion, and there is a host of issues regarding nearly every aspect of health care that make its market behavior very, very different from just about anything else you can analyze.

I don't like the ACA, but for a different reason than most of you; the entrenched interests wound up having to be catered to so much that the bill wound up being a patchwork way to try and make a fundamentally flawed system work.

 

[Lexvol]

I disagree, there were sections of the law that addressed costs in a very direct way. Particularly at administrative costs, which are far higher here than in any other industrialized country.

As for coverage vs. insurance, that's diving into a whole different realm of economics with this discussion, and there is a host of issues regarding nearly every aspect of health care that make its market behavior very, very different from just about anything else you can analyze.

I don't like the ACA, but for a different reason than most of you; the entrenched interests wound up having to be catered to so much that the bill wound up being a patchwork way to try and make a fundamentally flawed system work.

In theory that is probably addressed. Actually believing that our govt will save money in administrative costs (ie efficiency) is like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

 

[T-TownVol]

severability is not on the table due to an oversight by the administration in the bill they submitted for approval.....they simple did not include it and it can not be reinserted no matter how much RBG wants it to

the "we already have universal healthcare" is a straw arguement, not all unpaid bills are picked up through taxes as this bill would do, this is one reason that the CBO has doubled the original cost estimates

 

[milohimself]

Bottom line, and this is my running theme in the politics forum, quid pro quo politics and the relationship between the hill, K street and special interests is going to have to be addressed before an effective reform of health care than get passed.

And tax reform.

And foreign trade.

And campaign finance.

And environmental regulation.

And about anything else you can conceive of.

 

[milohimself]

In theory that is probably addressed. Actually believing that our govt will save money in administrative costs (ie efficiency) is like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Look up the 80/20 rule.

severability is not on the table due to an oversight by the administration in the bill they submitted for approval.....they simple did not include it and it can not be reinserted no matter how much RBG wants it to

the "we already have universal healthcare" is a straw arguement, not all unpaid bills are picked up through taxes as this bill would do, this is one reason that the CBO has doubled the original cost estimates

I was under the impression that the SCOTUS could practice severability as they saw fit, but I was in Mexico all of last week.

And the second part is not a strawman. I'm merely making a statement of fact. Under a number of circumstances, anybody that's physically on United States soil can go to the ER and they have to get treated whether or not they can pay. That is a very significant market distortion that is not going away. I do believe that fits the definition of universal health care. If they don't pay, the costs have to get shifted somewhere. Currently, it gets shifted to other purchasers of care. I'm not sure what, if any, measures there are in the ACA regarding this. I'd appreciate a link.