Healthcare Law is in the hands of the Supreme Court

[nickiknack]

Completing three days of historic arguments, the nine justices will hear arguments on whether the rest of the law, Obama's signature domestic accomplishment, can survive should the court decide Congress exceeded its powers by requiring all Americans buy insurance by 2014.

The Obama administration faced skeptical questioning on Tuesday from the court's five-member conservative majority on the insurance requirement. But it was unclear whether it would strike it down or let it stand.

A ruling on the mandate that most people obtain health insurance or face a penalty appeared likely to come down to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, two conservatives who pummeled the administration's lawyer with questions.

If even one of the five conservative Republican appointees joins the four liberal Democratic appointees on the court, the law would be upheld. If the five conservatives remain unified, the law would fall. A ruling is expected by late June.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-usa-healthcare-court-idUSBRE82L1CJ20120328

All I have to say is that if the healthcare law goes down in flames, I'm afraid of the future. I dislike the current piece of shit excuse of a healthcare "reform", but losing it maybe a gateway to Republican Hell, and it may be years that healthcare reform is touched upon again.

[ironbite]

The law itself won't go away.  The mandate that everyone buy insurance will.

Ironbite-good riddance to it too

[Stormwarden]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

[Damen]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

True, but people buy insurance to be able to drive, not live.

That said, I'd love to see the law scrapped and replaced with single payer. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[syaoranvee]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

I don't own or drive a car. And therefore have no need for car insurance

Should I be required to pay for car insurance I do not use for the rest of my life?

[m52nickerson]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

I don't own or drive a car. And therefore have no need for car insurance

Should I be required to pay for car insurance I do not use for the rest of my life?

No.  The government's argument is that at some point you will need health care.  So it is unavoidable that you will participate in the health care market.

[m52nickerson]

The law itself won't go away.  The mandate that everyone buy insurance will.

Ironbite-good riddance to it too

Solicitor General Don Verrilli had made the argument that many of the provisions do not require the mandate, but others such as mandating Insurance Companies cover people even with per-existing conditions are, and have been questioned as how they could work without the mandate by the court.  The answer is they could not.

[kefkaownsall]

Looking at this case it seems strange but the ruling might be 6-3 iin favor of the mandate as Roberts and Scalia have both ruled on similar cases

[nickiknack]

Looking at this case it seems strange but the ruling might be 6-3 iin favor of the mandate as Roberts and Scalia have both ruled on similar cases

That doesn't mean shit Scalia is a POS jerk, and I'm sure he'll flip flop in order to be loyal to his masters, the Republican party, and lookie what I found .

I have no problem with scrapping the mandate,my problem is how will it effect other parts of the law, it was a dumb idea to include the mandate mainly because it was Heritage Foundation poppycock. I hope there's a backup plan, to fall back but I doubt it.

[kefkaownsall]

Looking at this case it seems strange but the ruling might be 6-3 iin favor of the mandate as Roberts and Scalia have both ruled on similar cases

That doesn't mean shit Scalia is a POS jerk, and I'm sure he'll flip flop in order to be loyal to his masters the Republican party, and lookie what I found .

Still the verdict is not set in stone

[Smurfette Principle]

I say 5-4 along party lines with the Republicans carrying the day on this one. You have to remember that this is the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people.

[kefkaownsall]

I say 5-4 along party lines with the Republicans carrying the day on this one. You have to remember that this is the same Supreme Court that ruled that corporations are people.

I am actually strangely enough vcounting roberts and Scalia as swing votes remember despite what Scalia said his record is the most important thing

[nickiknack]

Here's some alternatives to the mandate
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/gruber_mandate.pdf

The auto-enrollment opition sounds somewhat similar to the multi-payer systems in Germany & Switzerland.

[m52nickerson]

From the arguments today it sounds as if the court could very well throw out the whole law, or much of it, if the mandates are found unconstitutional.

I have no problem's with the mandates because with the subsidies in the law no one is going to be forced to purchase insurance they can not afford.  Even if we get a single payer system a new tax would have to be introduced to pay for it, so in the end they are much the same.

[DiscoBerry]

Okay, ironbite, as you know, most states require people to have car insurance. Now, if that mandate goes, does it:

A) Stand that making people buy car insurance would be unconstitutional, and

B) What happens when you're in a wreck, and the person who hit you has no insurance? Then what?

Saying this because my twin sister got into a wreck a number of years ago she still hasn't fully recovered from, and the person who hit her had no insurance.

True, but people buy insurance to be able to drive, not live.

That said, I'd love to see the law scrapped and replaced with single payer. But that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

All they are going to say is that the Feds can't force people to buy insurance, states will still be able to.