26 states appeal health care law to Supreme Court
 

With the Healthcare bill maybe going to the Supreme Court for review any guesses on it out come.

Given the current makeup in the court right now I could see it overturned.

What a mess this would be to have it up during the presidential election cycle. Should have a decision on whether to hear arguments by the summer I'm guessing.




Barney

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/29/us...ling.html?_r=1


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-care-law.html

IMHO, it stinks like shit and should be overturned.

What just happened was we pooled our money and sent an idiot uptown to buy more wine, and he came back with a case of Mad Dog 20/20.

Send his stupid ass back uptown to exchange it for something that we can stand to drink.

Chas

I think I'm pretty much with you on this one, Chas, though I can't say it so artfully. ;) There's no doubt that the health care system was FUBAR when Obama came on board, yet he achieved the impossible. He made it worse.:(

I heard today, that even if the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case A.S.A.P., ----That it won't be until late next year that we'll have a ruling. So, that would put it right in the middle of the hottest part of the election.

Dave

I'm sure it's the same for everyone. But now my insurance company tracks my prescription refills and appointments then notifies my doctor if I let any of them lapse. Then I get a phone call and eventually a letter reminding me of how important having healthcare coverage is. Got one last month because I missed my annual ECG. I don't know if that's part of PPACA or not. But I can't help but wonder when such things are going to have a heavy penalty attached..........

Dave

So, the SCOTUS may, in effect, decide the election for the second time in 12 years.

I agree it was a bad bill without a single payer or a government option the it was incomplete. My hope was that the bill was gong to be a starting point to build upon. There are good portions in the bill that address some needs like the extended coverage for kids and pre-diagnosed conditions.

If it gets overturned I'm afraid an attempt at reform will not be attempted again for good long while.


Yes!


Barney

Some of the things like coverage for kids and the minimum percentage of premiums that must be used for health care costs are not part of the challenge as I understand. Even the courts that have found parts of it unenforceable have upheld the majority of its provisions. Is much as the GOP would tout it as beating "Obamacare" it would only be a partial overruling. Of course, the Court could refuse to hear it at all.

Regards,

D-Ray

One can only hope!

But in these times I wonder if politics and not the law will intervene somewhat.



Barney

Do you mean the politics of the guys who wear the robes?

Regards,

D-Ray

What! .... With the decisions of late I wounder.

Like on a corporations ability to contribute and on women's rights in the work place.




Barney

I believe the biggest issue is the constitutionality of the mandate. Now, as lame as I may feel Obama is, I don't think he's stupid. And having been a Professor of Constitutional Law, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't have considered this aspect at great length.

The make up of the court is a conservative majority, this is true.

As I see it, this raises an interesting scenario. If the president is wrong, then the cons on the bench will seize the opportunity to strike it down, that much is a no-brainer. But, if he's right, would they stun and anger the right-wing base with an unpopular ruling?

I don't think the Constitution much matters to anyone, anymore. If you really think about it. Oh, lots of people love to wave it around and claim they're "strict constitutionalists"---But are they really? Only when it suits them.......and that's sad. It really is.

Dave

How can folks say on one hand that the "government is trying to take over" something that amounts to 17% of the economy - billions and billions of dollars, and also argue that regulation of that part of the economy is not within the scope of regulating interstate commerce. The content of the health care bill is a legislative political issue. The Court would have to go through some extreme contortions to suggest that Congress did not have authority to act. Now if they let Clarence Thomas write an opinion striking down the law, I will lose all respect for the justices. (I know that they know better than that. As wrong headed as they are about many things, they are not stupid.)

Regards,

D-Ray

It should be interesting. A gut feeling tells me the mandate will be struck down, but the rest will stand. Of course, then back to the legislature for appropriate tweaking. I'm still wondering who the hell wrote the monstrosity. Have you tried reading it? Oh, BTW, do you know of any good, free, legal sites that are useful?

On your question, Google scholar. I have tried it and it worked pretty well. I am more familiar and efficient with our subscription service, though. Sometimes you can find guidance with a plain old Google search. Most of the laws administered by particular government agencies are available on the agency web sites, such as DOL.gov; nlrb.gov; hhs.gov, etc.

Here is a column predicting success in the Court. It is essentially coming from the same perspective I gave, but providing more concrete examples.

Regards,

D-Ray

Interesting choice of words.:)

Freudian slip?

Chas

Kind of like....

LOL!

Hey! Never, ever, question the supreme wisdom and righteousness of our masters. They know better than the people.

Pete

If the mandate for healthcare is struck down, then can they go after Social Security next?!





Barney

How so?

Dave

Misspelling---corrected.

And everything the government makes us pay for? Which is pretty much everything the government does. Think about it.

Dave

Just thought I'd drag this thread out to refresh what was said in the pasted up to this weeks events.



Barney

I think Dave stoked this issue a couple of days back here.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showthr...5799#post95799

I know, thought what was posted on this subject before the hearings seemed interesting.


Barney

I would not bet on that. AFAIK the Roberts Court has done astronomy a big favour in proving that there is life on other planets because Roberts and Alito sure did not come from this one.

No because the government does have the right to tax. That professor from G'town (I think) who is against PPACA said Medicare is a different story and that the government can tax people to provide Medicare. The big objection he had was the government can't "tax" you to provide private health insurance. So SinglePayer would be perfecly in line with the Constitutioon but not Aetna, US Healthcare, etc.

This bill was a disaster from the beginning. I hope the entire thing is struck down.

With the current makeup on the court I would venture anything could happen. Just yesterday they handed down a decision that could silence whistle blowers.

Now Limiting damages against the government to legal cost only. They just limited damages to monetary losses no longer including mental distress. Reversing case law since the seventies BTW. (Enacted after Watergate)




"Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented, arguing the ruling "cripples" the 1974 Privacy Act's "core purpose of redressing and deterring violations of privacy interests," as Sotomayor wrote for the dissenters. Justice Elena Kagan was not involved in the decision because she had worked on the case while solicitor general."

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/28/437...-sue-feds.html



Barney

ROTFLMAO!!

(wipes tears) Post of the month!

Pete