The implication is Obama losing the general election. A broad overturning would be a Carter-esque political collapse. Not just for all the obvious reasons but because it would brand Obama as unconstitutional ideologically. It would be as well a discouraging blow to progressives already weary of Obama's record and seal off health reform politically for some time.
Reading this reminded me that I saw a article the other day saying that an overturn might actually help Obama in the general election:Originally Posted by Enidigm
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-showdown.html
I don't have a real opinion either way. I think the electorate is so fickle that anything the Supreme Court says in June will be mostly forgotten by November anyhow.
As imperfect as it is, if PPACA is overturned, say goodbye to any political will to do more than tinker around the edges of the current non-system for another 10 years at least, correspondingly ever fewer people being covered by adequate insurance, and rising health care costs to the point of collapse. It'll be a disaster for the country.
It's funny to hear Romney repeatedly making a case for the mandate: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/2...nied-coverage/
“Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, `Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered,’”
But you don’t want everyone saying, `I’m going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn’t make sense. But you have to find rules that get people in that are playing by the rules.”
What's crazy-making about the "OMG Kenyan Socialist Muslim Death Panels" objections to PPACA is that its basic approach is the one that Bob Dole campaigned on back in 1996. Bob.Fucking.Dole, Republican Presidential nominee in 1996. But because a black President signed it into law, well, now it's un-American somehow. Someone please shoot me.
I can only hope that Justice Kennedy comes down on the right side and understands that this market is unlike any other, because no one knows exactly when they'll need care, and to what extent they'll need it and how expensive it'll be (which is why an insurance approach to payment, whether private or public, is the only way to handle it).
so why was that guy sent in to defend aca? as mentioned above, it sounds like some of the qt3erati would have done a better job and it was supposedly a slam dunk issue. was there no one else?
It is a slam dunk issue, just not for the side you think.
I listened to the entire Tuesday audio transcript. It was painful. This is a guy who was editor of the law review at Columbia, and surely prepped to the max before going into the SC to argue this. And he sounded like some high schooler who gets on stage and forgets their lines. He made Miss South Carolina sound like MLK Jr.
I think you are overstating the effect of overturning the PPACA, wrt. rising costs. I don't see the ACA reducing health care costs in any significant way. Thus, I don't see the overturning being a 'disaster' for the country -- although I have no idea what you mean by a disaster, do you mean something as bad as Iraq, as Vietnam, as great as the Great Recession, the great depression, nuclear war?
Anyway, my money is still on Roberts not having the stones to overturn.
Finally, even if it is overturned I don't see it materially affecting Obama's reelection chances, which I think are dominated by the economy (and maybe gas prices).
aca includes baby steps towards cost reduction, with plans to improve or expand the parts that work.
comparative effectiveness research: doctors treat people with a bunch of treatments but have no idea if the cheap ones work better or worse. actually figuring out the most cost effective way to treat someone will reduce costs. the findings will NOT be used to restrict medical treament options.
exchanges and cadillac exchanges: employers shift employee wages to health benefits since the employer pays less taxes that way, which means the people get a bigger tax break the richer they are. since they have awesome insurance they use it more, for every medical issue. employers will shift the money back to wages.
ipab: non partisan health medical experts and doctors, appointed by the president for 5-year terms, confirmed by the senate submit medicare recommendations. the suggestions are not required to be enacted but congress does have to do an actual yes or no vote.
accountable care organizations: fee for service means the more medical treatment the doctor prescribes, the more he gets paid. this is not mandated but trial programs are set up to determine if they are effective or not at controlling costs while maintaining good care.
incentives for quality: medicare will provide money based on quality of results, not just quantity.
but didn't most legal experts and former supreme clerks say, "yeah, totally constitutional, no brainer" as the issue went through the courts?
Just because there is a "consensus" among so-called "experts" does not necessarily mean that their opinion is not bullshit. Many fields are subject to the echo chamber effect, left-leaning jurisprudence seems particularly susceptible. Remember how the second amendment was supposed to be about state militias or whatever nonsense they were claiming to argue that it was not an individual right?
I like how the "court" is infallible when they decide things that you "agree" with, and when they don't they're activist "judges."
It was to judge by Supreme Court decisions until recently. You guys should be happy, consistent public opinion and activist conservatives judges got you what you wanted!
Huh? The court is never infallible. At least there is now a focus on the actual words and intent of the Constitution. The Commerce clause was never ever intended to give the federal government anything like the powers it has assumed post-Wickard.
Usually you need an actual victory before declaring triumph and departing the field, but libertarian bloggers (Ilya Somin and Randy Barnett et al) have decided it's a foregone conclusion so they're partying early. I look forward to the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in June-July.
Um, Jason, remember, none of us on here are qualified to have any kind of informed opinion on this case. Only experts in constitutional law.
Substitute the flippant "infallible" in my post for "focusing on the actual words and the intent of the Constitution." My snark remains the same, though.
I don't need a law degree to note that Supreme Court interpretations of the second amendment changed radically in the last two decades.
Interestingly, for all the fuss over a limiting principle to Commerce CLause power, Congress already has the power to compel any behavior they want via the tax code. A 100% marginal tax rate on all income + rebates for whatever behavior Congress cares to name is totally Constitutional.
IOW if Congress gets a bug up its collective ass to make us eat broccoli, we are all going to be eating broccoli.
I'm thinking that if the SC invalidates Individual responsibility, Congress should just disallow the discharge of medical debt in bankruptcy.
Don't want to buy medical insurance, better not get hit by a bus, dead beat, or your house will belong to the hospital.
I'm sick so my sarcasm detector isn't functioning properly. Are you srs?
Because of course the constitution has changed in the last 15 years, so all the organisations and people that were advocating for an individual mandate 15 years ago and opposing it as unconsititional now aren't being inconsistent at all.
And regulating the sale of handguns under the commerce clause is clearly nonsense, but regulating the production of drugs under the commerce clause is just dandy.
And it's not political at all.
Huh? What does this have to do with the legal issue at hand? Romneycare was a state program, states do have the authority to impose an individual mandate. Yes, Romney has flip-flopped politically, no shit.
Huh? Sure they have the right to regulate it. They just can't prohibit it, because of the second amendment.
Huh? You think I agree with Gonzales? It was bullshit.
I bet the gun lobbies would love that one. Armed revolts have got to be good for business.
Yeah, wrong tree to bark up. Interstate gun trade is heavily regulated. It's intrastate that falls outside the federal purview.
H.
And given the social darwinists on the right, their demonstrating their beliefs with their lives would be a problem why?
Mandate falls 5-4 with Kennedy or Roberts writing majority opinion.
Com rating/GI fall as well. rest of attack stands 6-3 or 5-3-1 with maybe Soto writing majority.
Medicaid stands 6-3
Malathor, I obviously wasn't talking about Romneycare (because that's state program, also wasn't 15 years ago). 15 or so years ago (remember Bill Clinton?) lots of Republicans were supporting the idea of individual mandates at a federal level - nothing got passed because democrats wouldn't swallow that. Moving onto Gonzales - sure, for someone with your legal perspective Gonzales was bullshit. So you have to ask yourself, why did Scalia and Kennedy vote to uphold? Is it because of politics?
And Houngan, give me a bit of credit, I'm talking about the 1995 Lopez decision (same 9 justices as Gonzales), not the 2nd Amendment decisions in 2008 and 2010 (this being a discussion on the commerce clause, not the 2nd amendment). Also, as I understand it it's pretty much established that the U.S. congress can legislate on intrastate commerce under the commerce clause. Wickard goes a hell of a lot further than that after all.
That dealt with, I'll move onto my more general point. If there had been a big fuss from legal scholars about the consitutionality of a federal individual mandate over the last 20 or 10 or even 5 years then I think a decision to strike down the law would be a lot less controversial, but the current situation smacks of Republican legal scholars suddenly "discovering" a limitation of the commerce clause and then trying to get a "friendly" court to strike the law down on those grounds.
This is absolutely spot-on. The Republican handling of the individual mandate is arguably the great single collective act of hypocrisy I've ever witnessed in my life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote