Health Care Law Massacred in Supreme Court

[jrobie79]

Please tell me that you don't take that definition of "voluntary" seriously. That's like saying that you have the option not to pay taxes.

gotta agree with you there...

[joshh]

We don't need the SC to tell us that this law is unconstitutional. However if Americans can get free shit, then the constitution is secondary. Which is where we are now.

[rwh11385]

We don't need the SC to tell us that this law is unconstitutional. However if Americans can get free shit, then the constitution is secondary. Which is where we are now.

Bread and circuses.

[joshh]

Bread and circuses.

Exactly, and yes I did have to look that up.

[jrobie79]

Bread and circuses.

:up:

[tjts1]

Don't get your hopes up just yet right wing nut jobs.

The heart of the health care law championed by President Barack Obama may be in judicial trouble, but the Supreme Court appeared very inclined Wednesday to keep the rest of the sweeping reform legislation intact.
On the final day of its marathon public debate over the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the justices tackled what would happen if they ruled against the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the key funding mechanism of the law.
At issue Wednesday morning was whether the entire law's 450 or so provisions would have to be scrapped if the individual mandate were found unconstitutional.
A separate session is scheduled for Wednesday afternoon on whether states would be "coerced" by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration by the risk of losing that funding if they refuse.
Even though the health care law's "individual mandate"-- requiring most Americans to have health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a financial penalty-- appeared to be on shaky legal ground, few on the court seemed eager to take the drastic step and invalidate the rest of the landmark legislation.
"There are so many things in the act," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, including many provisions not directly related to market reforms such as Native American health care. "Why make Congress redo that? Who should we stop and start from scratch?"
Added Justice Elena Kagan. "Half a loaf is better than no loaf," meaning some provisions would survive.
And the court appeared in no mood to pick and choose.
"You want us to go through 2,700 pages" of the law, asked Justice Antonin Scalia. "Is this not totally unrealistic ... to go through one by one and decide each one?"
Justice Anthony Kennedy said he was reluctant to take on this "awesome exercise of judicial power," at the expense of congressional discretion.

The law will stand.

We don't need the SC to tell us that this law is unconstitutional.

Actaully yes you do, thats why the SC was written into the constitution. Maybe you should put a little more time into reading the constitution.

[2761377]

Actaully yes you do, thats why the SC was written into the constitution. Maybe you should put a little more time into reading the constitution.

not exactly. the founders did not envision the need to interpret the Constitution, they felt its' provisions were self-evident.

it wasn't until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the court assumed it role as the arbiter of constitutionality.

hth,
robert w.

[jrobie79]

not exactly. the founders did not envision the need to interpret the Constitution, they felt its' provisions were self-evident.

it wasn't until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the court assumed it role as the arbiter of constitutionality.

hth,
robert w.

exactly. article 3; there is no mention of any interpretive power by the SCOTUS

[jrobie79]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story

Reporting from Washington—

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.

An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.

The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.

But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.

The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.

[gwb72tii]

Doesn't the mandate have an opt out provision if you have no income?

Please tell me that you don't take that definition of "voluntary" seriously. That's like saying that you have the option not to pay taxes.

as you know if you're in finance as i am, if you've never paid into SS, you don't qualify

and an individual has to sign up for medicare when they reach the age

and that makes them entirely different than the mandate in obamacare, which is involuntary

IMHO

[nrubenstein]

as you know if you're in finance as i am, if you've never paid into SS, you don't qualify

and an individual has to sign up for medicare when they reach the age

and that makes them entirely different than the mandate in obamacare, which is involuntary

IMHO

And how exactly do you not pay into SS? And while it's true that you don't have to sign up for Medicare, haven't you spent your life paying into it?

[ck_taft325is]

Don't get your hopes up just yet right wing nut jobs.




The law will stand.


Actaully yes you do, thats why the SC was written into the constitution. Maybe you should put a little more time into reading the constitution.

not exactly. the founders did not envision the need to interpret the Constitution, they felt its' provisions were self-evident.

it wasn't until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that the court assumed it role as the arbiter of constitutionality.

hth,
robert w.

Pwnt.

[ejnight]

Just a side note on SS. every one that works, pays in and at the same level up to $100,000 If you make more than $100,000 a year you only pay on the first $100,000.

[jrobie79]

that doesnt make it constitutional....

[nrubenstein]

Just a side note on SS. every one that works, pays in and at the same level up to $100,000 If you make more than $100,000 a year you only pay on the first $100,000.

Exactly. Which is why it's utterly absurd to suggest that you have a reasonable option to opt out.

Either you don't work, or you make all your money in capital gains. Those are not, to most people, reasonable options.