The Big Case

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:19 pm

This week in supreme court is likely to be an overview of the democratic and republican politics over the last 3 years.

I have a strong feeling that the supreme court will mess it up by splitting the victories between the 2 sides.

by charvaka Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:35 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:This week in supreme court is likely to be an overview of the democratic and republican politics over the last 3 years.

I have a strong feeling that the supreme court will mess it up by splitting the victories between the 2 sides.

It is hard to split the difference on this one. They could toss out the individual mandate but seek to keep the rest of the law together, but maintaining coverage requirements for people with preexisting conditions would be difficult without the individual mandate. I hope they let the whole thing stand.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:23 pm

charvaka wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:This week in supreme court is likely to be an overview of the democratic and republican politics over the last 3 years.

I have a strong feeling that the supreme court will mess it up by splitting the victories between the 2 sides.

It is hard to split the difference on this one. They could toss out the individual mandate but seek to keep the rest of the law together, but maintaining coverage requirements for people with preexisting conditions would be difficult without the individual mandate. I hope they let the whole thing stand.

Apparently, the law is thrown out if even one aspect is rejected. Hence, the multiple-angle attack by the Reps. They are focusing more on the individual-requirement citing constitutional rights for individual freedom. What about requiring driver's license, build a home, or even sending your kids to another zone. Everyone driving a car is REQUIRED to have an insurance in most states. In short. anything that is likely to "overlap" others interests is/should be subject to laws. When the uninsured go to ER (81% are non-emergency cases incurring bills off > $2000), that is paid for by others. There is no 100% individuality in personal insurance.

by Maria S Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:24 am

The case is so politicized now, the outcome is obvious.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=us_c2

The tone and questioning of the Justices is quite revealing and would be surprised if even some of the main parts of the Affordable Care Act survive. I think the "individual mandate" part is def. gone..(which is ok, imo)...but the other parts have to be retained.

Too bad, Pres. Obama's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli was very unimpressive and poorly prepared. His points and performance were unconvincing even to me..even some good law college students would have perhaps done a better job!

We'll see..in the end..it's not about Pres. Obama at all..if the important parts are rejected-it will be a huge loss for the ordinary- esp. millions of middle class people who are struggling everyday- unable to get Health Insurance coverage, have inadequate coverage- difficult access to Health Care and end up with huge Medical bills.

by Kris Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:48 am

No, not looking good..

by charvaka Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:56 am

Maria S wrote:The case is so politicized now, the outcome is obvious.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=us_c2

The tone and questioning of the Justices is quite revealing and would be surprised if even some of the main parts of the Affordable Care Act survive. I think the "individual mandate" part is def. gone..(which is ok, imo)...but the other parts have to be retained.

Too bad, Pres. Obama's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli was very unimpressive and poorly prepared. His points and performance were unconvincing even to me..even some good law college students would have perhaps done a better job!

We'll see..in the end..it's not about Pres. Obama at all..if the important parts are rejected-it will be a huge loss for the ordinary- esp. millions of middle class people who are struggling everyday- unable to get Health Insurance coverage, have inadequate coverage- difficult access to Health Care and end up with huge Medical bills.

As usual, it looks like it is up to Justice Kennedy again. I would have expected the solicitor general to anticipate the level of hostility from the conservatives, and have a more succinct argument ready for the line that limits Congress's power in his view when it comes to the commerce clause. I support the ACA, but I am not comfortable with Congress having the power to legislate pretty much anything based on the commerce clause.

by Kris Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:08 am

I am not comfortable with Congress having the power to legislate pretty much anything based on the commerce clause

>>Ditto!

by Maria S Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:46 am

I am not comfortable with Congress having the power to legislate pretty much anything based on the commerce clause

_______

At first glance it seems like giving away too much power to the Govt. But in "practical terms"..not sure, how else the Govt can monitor and regulate all the massive changes (which imo, needs to be regulated- and offer some protection for the average citizen). It's certainly complex- and the unknown can always make us feel apprehensive!

What a difference a good lawyer can make..this person was plain awful.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Mar 28, 2012 12:21 pm

Maria S wrote:The case is so politicized now, the outcome is obvious.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=us_c2

The tone and questioning of the Justices is quite revealing and would be surprised if even some of the main parts of the Affordable Care Act survive. I think the "individual mandate" part is def. gone..(which is ok, imo)...but the other parts have to be retained.

Too bad, Pres. Obama's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli was very unimpressive and poorly prepared. His points and performance were unconvincing even to me..even some good law college students would have perhaps done a better job!

We'll see..in the end..it's not about Pres. Obama at all..if the important parts are rejected-it will be a huge loss for the ordinary- esp. millions of middle class people who are struggling everyday- unable to get Health Insurance coverage, have inadequate coverage- difficult access to Health Care and end up with huge Medical bills.

There goes any chance of insurance for the 50 million - the above 50s who are laid off; unemployed 26+ crowd; those burger flippers who are over 18+ and not covered by broken homes.

Not that the insurance companies will revert to the old premium even after repealing this segment from the health care bill.

The bill is as fundamental as education and freedom of speech. While no one can say they will need insurance the next year, no one can say they WILL not fall sick the next year. Can the republicans tell the insurance companies NOT to pass on the uninsured costs to others? Can the justices give the hospital the right to turn away any uninsured - like the pvt docs can do? Can the republican congress force the insurance companies not to charge more than 10% of their previous years disbursement? Can they cap the annual bonus to executives to less than their annual salaries and taxed at 35%?

Some of these will teach the Limbaughites to realize the essence of health care reform.

I was surprised at Justices comparing Health insurance mandate with owning cell phones and another "genius" asking if everyone should be mandated to eat specific foods.

Good grief... looks like the slag is rising to the top. If the justices are so outwardly biased and "brilliant" in questioning, this country has "doom" written all over it.

The Chinese must be laughing.

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:52 pm

are you guys comfortable with the notion of government mandating that you require auto insurance if you're going to drive a car?

by charvaka Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:59 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:are you guys comfortable with the notion of government mandating that you require auto insurance if you're going to drive a car?

AFAIK, that requirement is based on state laws in the several states, not a federal mandate under the commerce clause.

by charvaka Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:30 pm

Maria S wrote:I am not comfortable with Congress having the power to legislate pretty much anything based on the commerce clause

_______

At first glance it seems like giving away too much power to the Govt. But in "practical terms"..not sure, how else the Govt can monitor and regulate all the massive changes (which imo, needs to be regulated- and offer some protection for the average citizen). It's certainly complex- and the unknown can always make us feel apprehensive!

I think -- and of course this is just my PSO* -- that the administration should have argued that Congress has the power to regulate the healthcare market, but not say require people to buy specific foods. A clear and concise argument for where the line is -- that is something supporters of ACA can reasonably expect from the administration. I have read articles that have suggested how the administration could have drawn that line, but in the end Virrelli failed to deliver that.

PSO: Personal Subjective Opinion, as opposed to Absolute Opinion

by charvaka Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:35 pm

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:are you guys comfortable with the notion of government mandating that you require auto insurance if you're going to drive a car?
AFAIK, that requirement is based on state laws in the several states, not a federal mandate under the commerce clause.

I answered your question based on a technicality. You probably intended your question to cover any government mandating that people buy insurance. I have no problem with that -- to the contrary, when there is a free-rider problem (as there is for auto insurance and health insurance), I want government to regulate the market and compel people to buy insurance. The fact that the US constitution does not allow Congress to assume legislative powers wherever such free-rider problems exist in the markets means that technicalities become more important than they ought to be.

by Maria S Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:24 pm

Most States already have a mandatory requirement to have some kind of Auto Insurance Coverage- if not they issue tickets, or suspend the driving license if it's a repeat violation. It may be Local-State-Federally mandated, we are already meet plenty of these mandated requirements in so many ways.

Here is an articulate and easy to understand perspective..as someone commented- wish this Mr. Stone could have appeared to argue in the SC!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/supreme-court-health-care_b_1385270.html

*Hmm..PSO..thanks, I learned something today! My knowledge is so limited when it comes to fancy acronyms and the Urban Dictionary- you cool people are experts!Have you enrolled in a law program, yet:) You'll be good..my HUGS!

HUGS: Humble Unbiased Good Suggestion!

by charvaka Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:57 pm

Maria S wrote:*Hmm..PSO..thanks, I learned something today! My knowledge is so limited when it comes to fancy acronyms and the Urban Dictionary- you cool people are experts!Have you enrolled in a law program, yet:) You'll be good..my HUGS!

HUGS: Humble Unbiased Good Suggestion!

LOL good one.

by Kris Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:29 pm

Most States already have a mandatory requirement to have some kind of Auto Insurance Coverage- if not they issue tickets, or suspend the driving license if it's a repeat violation. It may be Local-State-Federally mandated, we are already meet plenty of these mandated requirements in so many ways.

>>>Yes, states do have their requirements, but Scalia, Kennedy et al are looking at it mainly from the standpoint of potential federal power grab. That may seem technical but it does have broader implications to the extent a precedent will be set one way or the other. I think this debate is healthy.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

The Big Case

The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case

Re: The Big Case