The Supremes are almost certainly going to hand down their “Obamacare” decision next week. Dems are debating what to do if the individual mandate is struck down but the rest of the law is upheld. The choices are, we are told, either to hustle and come up with some other incentive for people to buy insurance, or do nothing and wait until everything goes haywire in 2014, and then figure somebody will fix it then.
Part of me wishes the White House would announce that since large parts of the bill won’t work properly without the mandate, the whole thing will have to be scrapped, and all the goodies enjoyed so far (20-somethings on their parents’ insurance, extended Medicare prescription drug coverage, etc.) will be canceled on the spot. And be sure everyone knows this is the Republican’s fault.
What do you think?
You know they’ll always find some way to blame it on the President.
“You know they’ll always find some way to blame it on the President.”
Umm, right or wrong… why shouldn’t they?
“I’ve got this great idea, but it only works if we do this one unconstitutional thing. Oh crap, now that we can’t do that I’m not sure this idea will work out.”
A majority of constitutional scholars believe the mandate is constitutional, and if the usual five justices strike it down, that will be proof that they are right-wing activists who don’t give a hoo haw about the constitution. Scalia would have to reverse his own precedent, for pity’s sake. I assume you are a rightie, meaning you don’t know the Constitution from drain cleaner and only believe the mandate is unconstitutional because the screamers on Fox News have told you it is.But in a rational world, it isn’t.
If SCOTUS strikes ACA down, there are no good choices. Any way to stick the blame on the TeaParty/Republicans would get my vote (so to speak).
I think the President should have exerted considerable resources either slowing down the case’s march to SCOTUS or halting it entirely. Any RATIONAL court would understand that the mandate is like taxes, social security, auto insurance; it is an entirely necessary– and entirely enforceable– evil. And the argument that States (Massachusetts) can magically have healthcare but the federal gov’t. can not is patently ludicrous. But, these guys have shown since Bush v. Gore (and the Court was less stacked then) that they will twist logic into a pretzel for perceived partisan gain. Andrew Sullivan (the Atlantic) believes it will be like their recent (stupid) public union decision; that is, you can’t bill non-union public employees to support public unions. But, I have heard it argued that “Obamacare” is actually BENEFICIAL to the insurance companies in that it greatly expands participation. Therein may be the mandate’ best and brightest hope; that they will consider putting money in the hands of the insurance “1%” more important than giving Boner, Mittens, and The Turtle talking points.
I agree with you whole-heartedly. However, the real solution is to get rid of the insurance companies. No one should be making such great profits on the ill-health of other people. Single payer is the only way to go. Also, I expect the worse from the Supreme Court because of the four judges are barely decent human beings let alone being decent judges.
I weighed in on this months ago. If just the mandate is struck down, any adult should be allowed to exempt himself from ALL of the AHC, not just favorite bits and pieces, or by doing nothing, be bound to the AHC, and all the provisions, including maintaing coverage, with the subsidy provisions, as passed.
In other words, allow anyone who wants to, exempt himself from AHC, and throw himself on the tender mercies of the insurance companies. And if they are unlucky, let them beg for the medicine they need to stay alive or die of conservative stupidity, for which we will need a new ICD-9 diagnosis code.
The problem is, the GOP, would never pass what I call the Individual Responsibility AHC amendment, even though it is in confornance with their philosophy. It would only doom poor stupid conservatives, and it is poor uninsuted liberals they want to kill.
Here is what I would like JCC to explain, not that that person will ever come back and engage in a conversation because that would require facts not cute little talking points, but IF it were possible to reason with JCC I would like to have him(or her) tell me how it is no one on the right was screaming “Unconstitutional!!!!” when bush was spying on God knows who ILLEGALLY via wire tapping with no warrants- but God forbid anyone try to improve health care for Americans, those commie bastards!
Exactly what the hell is your problem? Have any of you ever read the constitution?I would be willing to bet most Americans on the right could not make a legal argument telling us why the law is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down yet they are SOOOO sure it is. It would be funny as hell if the health and well being of so many Americans were not at stake, to watch these idiots state things as if they are FACT without a clue if that were true or not. I have yet to hear from a rightie any logic on how, if this law stood, their lives would be destroyed.
This is yet another example of how faux and friends of the right work. They can get people to throw all logic out the window and vote against their own self interest and well being. Hell no we dont want to be healthy and have insurance!Thats a bad thing!
These are the same people who rail against paying the way for people with no healthcare( till they need it , then everything changes) they preach personal responsibility, till it is time to put up or shut up, then they scream “Unconstitutional”. They are what I call useful idiots. People like limpbo and sean insannity tell them that insurance for everyone is bad and it never dawns on them that rush and sean mean their listeners also. They think “Yeah me and sean should have insurance but everyone else? Really? But news flash: They ARE everyone else.Still they swallow the crap they are spoon fed everyday and till it becomes their reality. Then they distribute the waste accordingly and it amounts to a whole lot of people voting against themselves.
Then we get to mandates.Stop with the ration of crap from the right about mandates while you drive with a seatbelt, with car insurance and plates and a license.Oh and lets not forget that mandated third tail light(thanks Liddy Dole, yep a rightie) Oh and that paycheck you get..notice the taxes and SS you pay? Did you volunteer that money or ? Cause if we have the just say no option on mandates your mom isn’t gonna get a check next month so I hope you make enough to support her. I don’t have parents so screw it , the mandate for me to pay your moms way is over and her ass needs to get a job or two. Come to think of it I don’t have kids either. Whats with this mandate that I pay for your kids to get an education? Seems to me you owe me a shit load of money back. And if mandates are unconstitutional then screw it, pay for your own kids education before you drop them off next fall cause we are all done paying. And whats with this mandate I pay for housing inmates? I was never an inmate, so let em all out cause I aint paying to house them- mandates are unconstitutional after all. Or how about if you raise a crappy kid YOU pay to house them. Why should your kid get 3 hots and a cot on me? Do you get it yet? Our system is based on mandates and if it were not for them everything would fall apart. How long do you think the roads would last when no one pays taxes any more because the government can’t mandate anything (including laws, which couldn’t be enforced because with no money there would be no police unless you count the zimmerman guy from fla).
So how about this JCC..? IF this law is not upheld I will not be able to have insurance so guess what my rightie friend? YOU will be back to paying for my every health care needs TOTALLY. Does that work better for your constitution?And when you can’t afford to go to the doctor yourself because rates are so high people with insurance they pay for cannot afford medical treatment you will still be paying for mine and it won’t cost me anything.Think about that while I am out riding a motorcycle with no helmet- oh my you might need a second job to pay for this….
justme,
Righteous rant!!!
EPIC!
Thanks.
Let’s see, we know that what we had for decades, private health care insurance companies, didn’t work for the people who needed coverage, because the health care corporations valued profits over people.
Most of the insurance coverage plans came from a persons employers, with the individual(s) subsidizing their companies coverage (more and more every year). That was how insurance companies pooled payers with risks.
This system has many, many problems. To many to list. And everyone probably knows them, from costly non-company-pooled individual policies, to denial due to prior condition, to dropping people who paid for insurance for decades, sometimes, exactly at the time that they needed coverage.
And the hybrid that was developed, the ACA, has some great things, like extended coverage for children under 26 by their parents, everyone is covered regardless of prior conditions, and no dropping of policies when the people who’ve been paying for coverage, get sick.
And all of this is paid for by a mandate – something that 99% of Constitutional scholars believed was completely Constitutional – either forgetting that the Robers Court has 4 “activist” Conservative Judges, and a 5th who sides with them a vast majority of the time to make a 5-4 Conservative majority, or else figured that this mandate was SOOOOO Constitutional, that at least one or two of the 4-5, had to come to to their senses and vote for it.
Well, that’s doubtful – especially since Scalia found a way to wriggle out of his own precedent’s in other cases.
This is all purely political, and has nothing to do with Constitutionality, for the 4 judges, and the easily convinced Kennedy. Anything Obama and the D’s support must be deemed unconstitutional because of the fact Obama and the D’s supported it – even if the framework for ACA came from The Heritage Foundation, and was Bob Dole’s answer to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s attempt at national health care.
So, if ACA’s mandate is shot down, the program is, basically, unsupportable by private insurance companies who needed that mandate to pay for the other things.
Therefore, without the mandate, rates will continue to rise astronomically.
In a rational country, the President could take his case to the people, and say, “Look, we tried X, a system based on private insurers, and we could all see that it wasn’t working. So we came out with a hybrid of X+Y, private AND government insurance, and now, something that everyone thought was legal for decades, has been turned on its head by 4-5 “activist” Supreme Court Justices.
Let me suggest a solution – Medicare/Medicaid for everyone. You all have parents, grandparents, friends, and relatives who have had one of the other of those to programs, know it works well, and cheaply, compared to what we have now, and even what we had proposed. So, let’s get Congress to pass a “Medicare/Medicaid For All Plan.”
And in a rational country the people would cheer and call their Congresscritters, demanding this new law.
That’s in a rational country.
Here, all Hell would break loose, FOX News, talk radio, and most Op-ed punTWITS, will inflame people with their wails and shrieks of ‘SocialistFascistCommunism,’ and the 25-35% of Conservative morons (but I repeat myself) will convince enough “Independent” morons (but I repeat myself again), to make-up a “Moron Majority” (ditto) – that will make doing anything constructive seen as being highly destructive.
And so, we’ll go back to the ever-more expensive system that was failing more and more of the citizens, with a majority of those moronic citizens feeling secure in the knowledge that screwing themselves as a way to screw others was “The American Way!”
Ayn Rand will smile, while Jesus weeps.
This Court has had a habit of making rulings that go beyond the specifics of the case. The recent union case being such an example. The specific issue in this case, as I know it, is the mandate. The mandate is said to be constitutional as it fits within the commerce clause. Whatever they argue against the mandate, they will have to find a way to “logically” say it doesn’t fit into the idea of commerce.
When one looks at such a case as Katzenbach v. McClung, the commerce clause was utilized there in a unanimous decision. While I don’t disagree with that decision, I found it interesting that they ruled because the diner sold or used food and products that came from across state lines, the diner’s obligation was to hold up the federal law. It was interesting because it seemed at first glance like it was really reaching to justify it’s decision. (i.e. Because your ketchup comes from PA, and you are in Alabama, you are involved in interstate commerce, therefore…) But when one thinks honestly about it, there is logic to it. How this Court will use their “logic” (note the use of quotes in each case) is anybody’s guess. But since many other rulings were ruled under the same clause, it might be also interesting to see how they write their decision and if they somehow try to influence (or change) previous decisions, perhaps labor in particular. I don’t put it past them.
Having said that, I wonder in their statement if they will dance around Massachusetts’ mandate. I’m not sure how or if their mandate is based on any constitutionality issue.
Considering this mandate came from a conservative think tank, I wonder if it might be worth making them own it and pointing that out. (Silly me.)
Anyhow, it is my belief that the Court will rule against the mandate, if only to make Obama look bad. As it is, this is his legacy, and the GOP will have none of that. As for what will happen to the rest of the ACA, I believe certain elements will survive–such as older children remaining on a parent’s policy–but most of it will be scrapped and may very well be used to sell a need for universal healthcare. Which only the Democratic party can assure will happen, so they need to be put into office to do so.
While I put little stock into polls, I heard of one where nearly three-quarters of the people say to scrap what we have and start over. I think it’s fair to say a good portion of them are progressives who wanted universal care to start with, but as for the rest, are there enough votes in that block who would vote for Obama? I know of some conservatives who voted for Obama because he promised a universal health care, will they believe he can and will do it in a second term? For that matter, can the Democratic party win Congress outright?
I believe the only way to make that work is to get the wealthy progressives to finally get on board to forming the PACs to sell that idea. Unfortunately, they are acting like they are above SuperPACs and seem to be avoiding being part of them.
On that note, everything comes down to many feeling frustrated with the Democratic party with their lack of fight and their constantly taking the high road only to get bit on the arse by the GOP later on. It took the disaster of Bush’s term to motivate people in ’08. Are our memories so short that we need to destroy ourselves again to see the real problems? Are we humans or are we goldfish?
What Gulag said.
not so. A ruling upholding the mandate would extend, not reiterate, the Wickard holding. Scalia could vote to strike the mandate w/o even coming close to reversing his own precedent.
I disagree, or else the hairsplitting involved is on such a sub-microscopic level as to be mostly fantasy.
the constitutional issues are totally different. There’s no doubt that MA’s mandate is lawful, since states have a general police power (ie, general regulatory power) that the federal government does not.
Back when the case was being argued, Sahil Kapur of TPM tweeted this great bit of snark:
Seriously. If, after Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia says the commerce clause doesn’t cover the individual mandate, he’s pretty much saying that the constitution can mean whatever he wants it to mean to suit his moods.
From the Friday News Dump:
Boehner to GOP: Don’t spike the ball on health care
Good luck with that one Boehner.
Republicans won’t get blamed. Obama will get blamed 100%. Even now, as much as Republicans have obstructed things in the 111th Congress, people still think Obama had everything on a silver-platter and should’ve gotten more done and made everything perfect by now.
“And be sure everyone knows this is the Republican’s fault”
The only problem with that is the democrats are incapable of controlling the media noise machine. When was the last time you saw Harry Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer or anyone beside the president himself make a convincing argument on anything? Obama’s biggest problem isn’t the wing-nuts it is the weak kneed wimps that lead today’s democratic party.