Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Judge Jude]

"I don't view it as at all tenuously out of line with a century of post-New Deal Supreme Court precedents on the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause."

And you're not worried what conservatives might want to mandate when they get power? You're going to try to convince any federal court that "hey, we've stretched this thing almost beyond description at times, but now that we got our expansion of power that way, let's hold the line, er.... HERE! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

You have more faith in the right wing than I do, clearly.

[DMT]

This entire debate is so ridiculous. If you show up at an ER, they have to treat you. So how does the argument that people can 'opt out' of health insurance make any sense? We are all in the system because we will receive care if we need it. Everyone needs coverage in some form or another because we will all receive care if we need it. Done, argument over. How did the solicitor general fail to make this argument?

[OaklandA's]

And you're not worried what conservatives might want to mandate when they get power? You're going to try to convince any federal court that "hey, we've stretched this thing almost beyond description at times, but now that we got our expansion of power that way, let's hold the line, er.... HERE!"

You have more faith in the right wing than I do, clearly.

Aside from Health Care, what market do you see as ever requiring a mandate? You keep talking about "what might come next" - can you give some specific examples of what you are afraid of?

[DMT]

Aside from Health Care, what market do you see as ever requiring a mandate? You keep talking about "what might come next" - can you give some specific examples of what you are afraid of?

Who cares, dangerous precedent!!!!

[B-Fly]

Aside from Health Care, what market do you see as ever requiring a mandate? You keep talking about "what might come next" - can you give some specific examples of what you are afraid of?

Mandated broccoli consumption! It's coming!

[DMT]

Mandated broccoli consumption! It's coming!

It'd almost be amusing if millions of people's lives weren't hanging in the balance. Actually, it's just idiotic.

[cardboardbox]

LOL...nice to see the LWBC is still in full throat. Let's review the reviews from the hard right concerning Solicitor Verrilli's performance:

"Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.” - Mother Jones

"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate." - Jeffrey Toobin

Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.

It seems pretty clear to me that the o admin is throwing the fight since getting reelected is more likely if the base gets excited.

[onejayhawk]

It'd almost be amusing if millions of people's lives weren't hanging in the balance. Actually, it's just idiotic.

Be of good cheer. With good luck they will overturn the whole law, not just the idiotic part about mandates.

J

[OaklandA's]

This entire debate is so ridiculous. If you show up at an ER, they have to treat you. So how does the argument that people can 'opt out' of health insurance make any sense? We are all in the system because we will receive care if we need it. Everyone needs coverage in some form or another because we will all receive care if we need it. Done, argument over. How did the solicitor general fail to make this argument?

That was the primary argument.

Congress can regulate the method of payment by imposing an insurance requirement in advance of the time in which the service is consumed when the class to which that requirement applies either is or virtually most certain to be in that market when the timing of one's entry into that market and what you will need when you enter that market is uncertain and when -- when you will get the care in that market, whether you can afford to pay for it or not and shift costs to other market participants.

Everyone agrees that it is legal to require payment for medical services. The plaintiffs have suggested requiring insurance at the "Point of Sale" rather than in advance. The government has argued that costs would be prohibitively expensive if people were required to buy insurance just before getting treatment, and that the better way is to have everyone pay in advance, by requiring everyone to have health insurance.

[Moonlight J]

In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed -“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” The law authorized the creation of a government operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance.

I'm guessing the 5th congress and the 2nd President knew what was constitutional given that Adams and most of them were actual drafters of the document.

[DMT]

That was the primary argument.

Ok, and the counter-argument is...broccoli?

I don't see how it makes any sense to require people to pay insurance right before they need treatment. Insurance companies who know they are about to plunk down [tens of] thousands of dollars on someone's health care are just going to eat the loss by undercharging them? Riiiiight.

I do agree with the opponents that the entire thing should be thrown out so that we can replace it with a truly comprehensive single-payer plan. Oh, right, but that can't happen because the insurance lobby has our entire country by the short-hairs. It's sickening.

[Moonlight J]

Well, sure, but to be fair broccoli didn't exist back then.

Factually correct!

Broccoli was first introduced to the United States by Italian immigrants but did not become widely known until the 1920s

[Judge Jude]

Further reading suggests to me that the court will, either at 5-4 or 6-3, find a way to make this Constitutional while boxing it in enough that it likely would not open the door for other federal "intrusions."
That would, for instance, close off possible future federal efforts to get nosy about people's sex lives, perhaps on the grounds that the feds will say that reproductive costs need to be anticipated, so....

I found it interesting that it is agreed that a STATE law forcing you to eat broccoli would be Constitutional. One reason is that, of course, you could just move to the neighboring state with everyone else in your neighborhood right behind.

[onejayhawk]

Further reading suggests to me that the court will, either at 5-4 or 6-3, find a way to make this Constitutional while boxing it in enough that it likely would not open the door for other federal "intrusions."
That would, for instance, close off possible future federal efforts to get nosy about people's sex lives, perhaps on the grounds that the feds will say that reproductive costs need to be anticipated, so....

I found it interesting that it is agreed that a STATE law forcing you to eat broccoli would be Constitutional. One reason is that, of course, you could just move to the neighboring state with everyone else in your neighborhood right behind.

Full faith and credit.

An argument seems to be going on as to whether the offending section should be stricken, or the entire document. If that is indeed the case, then the individual mandate is done, and they are deciding how to remove it.

J

[OaklandA's]

An argument seems to be going on as to whether the offending section should be stricken, or the entire document. If that is indeed the case, then the individual mandate is done, and they are deciding how to remove it.

One again, OJH does not understand what is going on. There were four topics to be discussed during this week's session. These were decided in advance. Discussing severability of the individual mandate was part of the schedule, as that issue already came up in a Circuit Court decision.
1) Anti - Injunction Act Issues (Monday)
2) Minimum Coverage Provision (Tuesday)
3) Severability Issues (Wednesday)
4) Medicaid Issues (Wednesday)