Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[DMT]

good read here

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...The+New+Yorker

Informative but I wouldn't call it good...just means that we'll have an extremely dysfunctional government for the forseeable future.

[OaklandA's]

Haven't had time to read enough on this, but my impression is that Roberts rejected the Team Obama use of the Commerce Clause as rationale for the law. Instead, he went with the "taxing power" angle that Obama has been trying to escape for a couple of years now.

That would imply that Obama's side won in spite of themselves, no?

The government made three arguments for the ACA, a primary and two alternatives. The first was that the ACA was constitutional as an extension of the commerce clause. If the Court did not agree that with the Commerce clause scope, the Gov't argued that the ACA was still constitutional under the "Necessary and Proper" clause, because it is needed to enact Congress' reforms. If the Court did not like those two, the Gov't offered Alternative B, which is that the ACA is functionally equivalent to a tax, and is therefore constitutional.

The Court did not agree with the primary argument, or Alternative A, but they did agree with Alternative B. This is fairly common in legal cases. You first make an argument that you think is correct, and then also provide backups or alternatives if the Court does not agree with some or all of your argument. That is what happened here. The Court did not pull the tax idea out of nowhere - Solicitor General Verrilli mentioned it in his arguments.

[onejayhawk]

In terms of election impact, this is exactly the result I wanted. Repubs should be a little more fired up in november with the promise of legislating obamacare away. On the other hand they could become demoralized but that usually doesnt happen until you get destroyed in a recall election.

More than a little.

This really does give something to both sides. On one hand the left gets to keep its favorite toy. On the other, the Republicans get to run against National Health Care and higher taxes without changing the subject. This is going to do damage to the Democrats in November. The question is, is a one time hit is worth it?

J

[Judge Jude]

"The Court did not pull the tax idea out of nowhere -"

Certainly. It seems as if the concept from the right that this might be Constitutional from a taxing angle has been talked about for over a year, and I seem to remember those justices also talking about it in recent legal arguments.

What I missed was the "ok, psst, alternative B but please don't pick this one" angle. Tons of talk about why it was legit and not a tax, was all I had heard.

I think the ruling makes a lot of sense, and would not have raised an eyebrow if Kennedy was the one with the "winning" argument as usual. The fact that it was Roberts instead is interesting. Can't wait to read the arguments, and amazed at how vehemently Kennedy apparently went against this.

The Commerce clause part was the thing that made me scratch my head, and that went down in flames.

I would have guessed that if Roberts went where he did, so would Kennedy (and possibly Alito, but for different reasons).

[Judge Jude]

and here's the nonsense from Romney and Obama today, broken down:

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/

[chancellor]

This strikes me as an incredibly simpleminded take on the situation. I think you're really, really deluding yourself if you think that Romney is going to get any traction by bashing his own creation. Perhaps he'll garner some of the moron vote with that tactic, but he's already got that vote firmly in hand anyways.

The greatest mechanical engineering mind of our generation taught me a valuable principle - "I am a simple man, and I understand only simple things".

Some of what I've said is already rolling - Tea Party activity is spiking again, and Romney took in a huge amount of money already today.

Oh, yeah. And I cheated. I happen to know AFP is already working on an ad relating to my next to last sentence.

[onejayhawk]

This strikes me as an incredibly simpleminded take on the situation. I think you're really, really deluding yourself if you think that Romney is going to get any traction by bashing his own creation. Perhaps he'll garner some of the moron vote with that tactic, but he's already got that vote firmly in hand anyways.

I think you are delusional if you think otherwise. As chancellor has already noted, the Tea Party has stirred after a long quiet spell. This is fuel for the campaign. It reamins to be seen what octane.

J

[B-Fly]

I think both bases are fired up today. Ultimately, however, while it may be good for Romney, having the signature domestic legislative achievement of his presidency rendered a nullity by the Supreme Court would have been terrible for President Obama. Now he can still run as the guy who ended insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, allowed parents to keep their kids on their family health insurance through age 26, and ultimately delivered universal health care where many behind him had tried and failed. Like the auto-industry rescue and the end of bin Laden and Qaddafi, those are a lot easier things to run on than explaining how bad things would have been if not for the stimulus bill.

[Steve]

You see, Republicans were for it before they were against it.

Sigh.

Frankly, in the last few months, I've become disgusted by both sides.

[DMT]

I think both bases are fired up today. Ultimately, however, while it may be good for Romney, having the signature domestic legislative achievement of his presidency rendered a nullity by the Supreme Court would have been terrible for President Obama. Now he can still run as the guy who ended insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, allowed parents to keep their kids on their family health insurance through age 26, and ultimately delivered universal health care where many behind him had tried and failed. Like the auto-industry rescue and the end of bin Laden and Qaddafi, those are a lot easier things to run on than explaining how bad things would have been if not for the stimulus bill.

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm confused why you also state this is good for Romney? Because the tea partiers are fired up? Who cares? None of them were voting Obama anyways. This was absolutely a huge win for Obama IMO. He not only gets to finally explain to the public what the bill will do (as his admin has utterly failed to do thus far) but also he gets to expose Romney for the absolute hypocrite that he is with his inane position of the bill he helped create being good for a state but not the country. If opposition to the bill is Romney's main line of attack, he's done for. National security is off the table with OBL dead, the stimulus was created by Bush. The economy will of course be major but Obama can point out how Romney cut jobs in his rise to the top.

[B-Fly]

I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm confused why you also state this is good for Romney?

It's good for fundraising and for GOTV. Romney raised a lot of money in the wake of the S.Ct. opinion because people realized that Obamacare won't be wiped away by the Court and would instead require a legislative repeal pushed and signed by a Republican president. As for GOTV, some Tea Partiers and other conservatives were lukewarm about Romney and may have been tempted to look for a third-party protest vote or even stay home. The need to roll back Obamacare through legislation further incentivizes them to line up behind Romney. Romney also now has an argument that conservatives need to elect him so he can appoint more conservative justices, too.

[Moonlight J]

[Moonlight J]

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Mitt Romney, 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

[B-Fly]

Mitt Romney, 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...n30_st.art.htm

I could almost vote for that guy.

[onejayhawk]

I Romney gets elected, he will dodge rocks from both extremes.

Not that this is news.

J