Will the SCOTUS rule Obamacare to be constitutional or not?

Will the SCOTUS rule Obamacare constitutional?

  • Total voters
    0
#26
#26
I honestly don't know. This debate is so politically charged and both sides are claiming so much I'm not sure what to believe at this point. In the absence of clear facts, I am inclined not to support any government mandate.

I'm with VBH, I wouldn't be surprised to see thing thing go 5-4 either way.
 
#27
#27
It may wind up 4-4. Kagan may well recuse herself when arguments begin (as she should). Lord what a cluster we're going to have if that happens.
 
#28
#28
One wonders how much a given Justice, on either side, would include in his or her calculus on the matter the fact that striking down the law would be a major embarrassment for Obama likely just weeks before the election.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
One wonders how much a given Justice, on either side, would include in his or her calculus on the matter the fact that striking down the law would be a major embarrassment for Obama likely just weeks before the election.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that the reelection will have. I impact on the justices' decision. Probably a bit naive of me
 
#31
#31
The Texas AG was on Fox yesterday and he was trying to make the point that the SCOTUS does not have to "approve" it, just uphold the lower court ruling. He gave the impression that it was a HUGE distinction.

LG or someone help with that as I am not sure what the difference, if any, is, thanks.
 
#32
#32
T-TownVol said:
The Texas AG was on Fox yesterday and he was trying to make the point that the SCOTUS does not have to "approve" it, just uphold the lower court ruling. He gave the impression that it was a HUGE distinction.

LG or someone help with that as I am not sure what the difference, if any, is, thanks.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. This case combines opposing rulings from multiple lower courts. So the SCOTUS would have to select which lower court ruling they agree with, which would, in essence, be approving or disapproving of the law.
 
#33
#33
bamawriter said:
That's not exactly true. This case combines opposing rulings from multiple lower courts. So the SCOTUS would have to select which lower court ruling they agree with, which would, in essence, be approving or disapproving of the law.
Click to expand...

He made it sound like it was MUCH easier for the SCOTUS to just uphold the lower court that declared it un-con. The suit is to over turn that is it not?
I realize that some lowers have said it is-con, but that is not the challenge brought by the DOJ is it?
 
#35
#35
T-TownVol said:
He made it sound like it was MUCH easier for the SCOTUS to just uphold the lower court that declared it un-con. The suit is to over turn that is it not?
I realize that some lowers have said it is-con, but that is not the challenge brought by the DOJ is it?
Click to expand...

He has a point there. Some of the lower courts upheld it's constitutionality, but gave differing opinions as to why. The 11th Circuit struck it down and there is no discrepancy as to why.
 
#37
#37
I haven't read the opinions or the questions issued by the Court. I am given to believe, however, that today's oral argument was whether an old tax injunction law means that the court has to wait until the mandate is implemented and someone actually fined for not buying the insurance.

Would mean deferral of the case until at least 2015.
 
#38
#38
Every time a big case like this comes up and I read reports about what justices asked which questions, I wonder who in the Bush 1 administration was in charge of vetting Stephen Breyer.
 
#39
#39
KiffinKiller said:
It's just going to get worse. The baby boomers are entering retirement.
Click to expand...

With the debt crisis + baby boomers retiring, where's the upside in all this? Politicians are crossing their fingers for the zombie apocalypse in December.
 
#40
#40
Weezy said:
With the debt crisis + baby boomers retiring, where's the upside in all this? Politicians are crossing their fingers for the zombie apocalypse in December.
Click to expand...

I'll be the first one to the samurai sword booth in the mall.
 
#41
#41
Weezy said:
With the debt crisis + baby boomers retiring, where's the upside in all this? Politicians are crossing their fingers for the zombie apocalypse in December.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In my opinion, the baby boomers will go down as the worst generation in history.
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
I haven't read the opinions or the questions issued by the Court. I am given to believe, however, that today's oral argument was whether an old tax injunction law means that the court has to wait until the mandate is implemented and someone actually fined for not buying the insurance.

Would mean deferral of the case until at least 2015.
Click to expand...

I heard an interview last week and basically the hearing will be 3 separate issues on 3 separate days. Day 1 was not the real crux of the issue. (Assuming I understood the interview I heard).

I think today was the equivalent of a motion to dismiss (or something like that) that is not expected to prevail.

This sums it up pretty good - tomorrow is individual mandate day.

Health care case seems likely to go on in court - CBS News
 
Last edited:
#43
#43
volinbham said:
I heard an interview last week and basically the hearing will be 3 separate issues on 3 separate days. Day 1 was not the real crux of the issue. (Assuming I understood the interview I heard).

I think today was the equivalent of a motion to dismiss (or something like that) that is not expected to prevail.
Click to expand...



Yup. I think at least some Justices would opt for that. Interesting political dynamic to that.

If a Justice felt that he/she was going to be in the slim majority, then that is a heckuva an incentive to go ahead and say, nah, we have jurisdiction. The same Justice, if he felt he was going to be in the slight minority, might switch his vote to no jurisdiction, and write a scathing dissent saying they have to wait.

I heard today that the government (meaning the Obama administration) has argued that it is not a tax, and so does not implicate that injunction law. That suggests to me that the Obama administration thinks right now that they have the votes to uphold it.
 
#44
#44
I still am somewhat bemused by the facts and figures on public opinion on this.

For one thing, 24 % of the population thinks that the Court has ALREADY struck down the law. For another, so many conservatives express resentment at the high cost of health care caused by the uninsured driving up secondary costs to the paying customers. And yet they complain mightily when a law is passed that requires the freeloaders to start paying.

Remarkable.
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
I still am somewhat bemused by the facts and figures on public opinion on this.

For one thing, 24 % of the population thinks that the Court has ALREADY struck down the law. For another, so many conservatives express resentment at the high cost of health care caused by the uninsured driving up secondary costs to the paying customers. And yet they complain mightily when a law is passed that requires the freeloaders to start paying.

Remarkable.
Click to expand...

You couldn't just stick to talking about the case could you?
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
And yet they complain mightily when a law is passed that requires the freeloaders to start paying.
Click to expand...

1) that won't happen anyway

2) the costs are absolutely outrageous (and double what the Pres told everyone)

3) it won't work

4) when did the gov't get the power to dictate citizens buy a product and who they must buy it from
 
#47
#47
I'm honestly not familiar with the law at all. Everytime these conversations come up I feel compelled to go read up, but realize I have no time. I would rely on the news if it didn't paint two completely different pictures.
Left-leaning:
1. An individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance. Sounds cool.
Right-leaning:
2. Free health care. Sounds expensive.

I'm guessing the answer is somewhere in the middle of a law that is as thick as the Bible.
 
#48
#48
the fine/penalty/tax levied against employers for not insuring their employees worries me. I read that it costs about $5k per year to insure 1 employee. the ACA will fine/penalize/tax the employer $2,500 per employee per year if insurance is not provided. (note: the exact numbers might be off). this leads to a back door single payer system. is that true? dunno. but pretty worrisome if it is...
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
I still am somewhat bemused by the facts and figures on public opinion on this.

For one thing, 24 % of the population thinks that the Court has ALREADY struck down the law. For another, so many conservatives express resentment at the high cost of health care caused by the uninsured driving up secondary costs to the paying customers. And yet they complain mightily when a law is passed that requires the freeloaders to start paying.

Remarkable.
Click to expand...

What's remarkable is that you think it's a simple as this.
 
#50
#50
Weezy said:
I'm honestly not familiar with the law at all. Everytime these conversations come up I feel compelled to go read up, but realize I have no time. I would rely on the news if it didn't paint two completely different pictures.
Left-leaning:
1. An individual mandate requiring people to buy insurance. Sounds cool.
Right-leaning:
2. Free health care. Sounds expensive.

I'm guessing the answer is somewhere in the middle of a law that is as thick as the Bible.
Click to expand...

My preference actually would be for a single payer system that was basically a catastrophic plan - to prevent the bankrupting impact of severe, chronic disease. This would be a stripped down Medicaid/Medicare that was means tested but was in fact true medical insurance. This would also address the pre-existing condition issue for major diseases.

From there, I'd work both the tort reform and selling across state line issue to allow for any manner of catastrophic to cadillac plans (either primary or supplemental) for individuals to purchase.

Finally, I'd remove employers from the equation as direct payers by allowing them to set up programs (like 401Ks) that employees can buy into or doing their own (self insured) plans.

Move this back to consumers buying and using insurance as they need with government safety net for catastrophic coverage.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top