PPACA and Scotus
 

I just found this poll:

http://i1138.photobucket.com/albums/...v2-blog480.jpg

What's your opinion on how the SC will rule? I'm leaning towards the SC striking the monstrosity legislation down.

Given the makeup of the current court, with 5 out of 9 bought and paid for, they will likely scrap the whold thing.

There's no Constitutional basis for overturning the entire law (although that may not stop the Roberts Court from doing it). There may be a justification for striking down the individual mandate. I think that's what will happen. The wing nut justices will have to do something to appease the right wing fringe. Also, leaving an eviscerated (zombie) law in place will give Republican candidates something to run on.

John

The decision is supposed to be based on constitutionality, not popularity.

Did the congress and the president have the right to pass a law requiring folks to buy health insurance?

It's already done......in Massachussetts and bears candidate Romneys signature.

If it's a violation of an American citizens individual, constitutional rights for the federal government to require me to have insurance, then how is it constitutional for the same to be done to American citizens in Massachussetts by Mitt Romney? Apparently it's constitutional when a Republican does it.

That being said, the SCOTUS is majority conservative. Therefore the constitution may very well be twisted to meet their agenda anyways. So, I kind of agree with you. It probably will be struck down.:rolleyes:

Dave

I wonder if the Supremes are bothering to read all 2,000+ pages?

Who said they can read? Some of their rulings indicate otherwise.:rolleyes:

Agreed on Constitutionality.

The Feds have different constitutional issues than States. MA might allow it, but it might be different at the Federal level.

Pete

The scope is entirely different wrt states and the federal government. Keep in mind that The Constitution is a limiting document. I suspect that a universal care law could be passed and withstand attacks, however, I'm also quite certain that the politcal will is not there to effectively pass such legislation; hence, the reality of making the system we have better by allowing more competition and reducing the micromanaging emanating from government.

What's the stipulation allowing Selective Service and/or taxation?

No, states have a certain amount of latitude in the laws they enact but they can't pass a law which violates the Constitution, which enshrines the rights of all Citizens. If Obama Care goes then I think Romney Care will have to go too. Any opinion from the SCOTUS that tries to thread a path between tossing out the Affordable Care Act and maintaining the Massachusetts law won't pass the smell test.

John

Who is stopping competition? Certainly not the Feds. if you are going with the "cross state lines" garbonzoos, that is up to the states, not to mention being one of the dumbest ideas of the decade.

Kind of like so many companies being registered in Delaware. So how come Delaware get to dictate rules to the other 49 states.

Congress is not lacking the will to provide universal heallthcare, they are lacking the intelligence.

John not only Romneycare goes but also the mandate that hospitals must care for the indigent. Not that I really expect Roberts and Co. to have the wit nor wisdom to realize that.

If the mandate is killed, I'd just as soon that they kill the whole thing. The GOP will be on the hot seat to replace the overwhelmingly popular provisions regarding preexisting conditions and keeping kids on plans until 26. Indeed, the mandate is the operative core of the PPACA and without it, the whole thing collapses under its own weight.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

Seems pretty simple to me.

I read that Ezra Klein article. I would think that without state government involved in regulations, requirements, that a somewhat unified health insurance product would developed that would appeal to customers. The difference between states has occurred because of the relatively steady increase in requirements over time. Perhaps, even the majority of the requirements were good, but the end effect is the unwieldy system we have today. I'm of the opinion that either a fully universal system, politically untenable, or a much less regulated private system is the answer with both, preferably, not connected to one's employer.

If the SCOTUS strikes down any part of the Affordable Care Act that makes it "delegated to the United States by the Constitution". They would have no other basis for taking that decision.

That seems pretty simple to me.

John

So by pretty much simply deciding to take a case, it's Constitutional?

Pete

A "somewhat unified" product is "somewhat" anti-competitive.

The difference between states is the result of the different regulatory regimes from one state to the next. It has nothing to do with the degree of regulation.

John

If health insurance were to be able to cross state lines they would register in the states with the least control and the customer would get royally screwed. Much like the Delaware deal.

With the resent decisions handed down by the Roberts Court I see the mandate being struck down. If not the whole Bill. They are trying now to frame it so it will be a narrow as possible would be my guess.

I think the Solicitor General arguing the case did a D- job in front of the court IMO. He never even mentioned the fact our first President mandated healthcare to be provided by employers in 1790.


For those who missed this ...http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....-mandates.html

Barney

But, I would think that what is a violation of an individual right under the U.S. Constitution, would be unconstitutional everywhere within the United States. Is that not the drumbeat? People are upset that "the federal government" is trying to force them to buy something they (The individual.) don't want, claiming that this is a violation of their constitutional rights.....right?

But, such individuals would be fine with their state doing the same?:confused:

(Consider this: When you hear someone complain about a "constitutional right" being violated, what are they usually referring to? How many people are you aware of that can even tell you what their state constitution consists of? My guess is, that all too many Americans aren't even aware that their state has one of it's own.:rolleyes:)

What is the basis for an "Individual Mandate" being constitutional at the state level, but not the federal level, if so many folks believe it is a violation of their rights under the national constitution?

As you've stated, the national constitution is a "limiting document". So, how can the rights of the state exceed what is, ostensibly, forbidden at the federal level?

See what I'm sayin'?

Forcing me to buy insurance is a violation of my rights as an American, but not as a Virginian?:confused:

Dave

I see what you're saying, but the Feds are limited in their authority over States. In theory the States have much much more power over individuals than the Feds do.

So yes, if Virginia decides it wants to force you to buy insurance, they can, if it's allowed under their State constitution. It is their sphere of power, not neccessarily the Feds.

Pete

Right.

As Rob has mentioned; The federal government can force hospitals, nationwide, to provide services to people who have no intention of paying. No one questions the "constitutionality" of that......But, they can't make people go out and get their own insurance?:confused:

That's the way I read it.

Right. Now show me the article or amendment that lists mandated purchasing of products such as insurance as something the federal government is forbidden from doing, but extends that right to the states.

Welcome to the Balkan States of America.

That's not the way I read it.

State laws have been found, numerous times in our history, to be in violation of individual rights gauranteed by the national constitution.

Your rights as an American citizen should override any perceived right by the state to violate them. Otherwise, what is the point in having them?

Health care isn't a right guarenteed by the Consititution!

As far as it being the right of the States, what ISN'T in the Constitution automatically goes to the State. So you need to find where it says that the Feds do have that right.

Pete

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "

It's right there.

De facto, when Reagan dictated who received treatment at ER's, is that not what we've said?

Apparently, it is. At least someone thought it was when we mandated that hospitals provide healthcare to people who never pay.

I was speaking in general terms, anyhow, Pete. Beyond healthcare.

I wonder how many laws have been changed, SCOTUS decisions written, constitutional amendments have passed, to override states laws in order to serve justice and the greater good?

I'll bet there's quite a bit of that to be found. Probably starting at a time when the founders were still in office........

Well, if Saint Ronnie did it, it must be okay.:rolleyes:

I wish Don would chime in on his but I'm pretty damn sure I'm right on this. No state law can violate the US Constitution. If that weren't so, the former Confederate States could have retained slavery after the 13th Amendment was ratified.

If SCOTUS bounces all or part of the Affordable Care Act no state can enact a law which replicates any of the stricken provisions.

John

Indeed.

States can do things the federal government can't.

Pete

Right. Any opponents of a given provision would use the SCOTUS precedent to argue legality.....not exactly a constitutional amendment or written law, but at that rate, it might as well be......unfortunately. This is what some of us decry as "legislating from the bench"....or at least they do when someone else does it.:rolleyes:

I agree.

try that on for size

I don't understand the issue here.

Pete

Like NYCs gun bans? I thought the national constitution says the second amendment, "....shall not be abridged."? The city can confiscated weapons, but the feds can't? Then what good is the 2nd Amendment? Shouldn't the feds then have the power to strike down NYCs anti-gun laws?

If it's a violation of your rights under the national constitution, it's a violation anywhere within the U.S. borders. If the Supreme Court of the United States strikes down the individual mandate as unconstitutional at the national level, then individual mandates of all sorts, everywhere become.................


How can I have a right (Or not.) as a U.S. citizen, but not (Or can.) as a Virginian? How can a states rights exceed what is allowed under the US constitution?

Do you feel that being forced to buy insurance, or anything else for that matter, by "the government" is a violation of your rights as an American citizen?

If so, then how can the State of Ohio (A government.) do just that?

I don't believe you're correct on this. The SCOTUS can certainly determine that the US Constitution lacks authority for the individual mandate. That would NOT invalidate a similar provision in the MA constitution that binds only individuals residing in MA.

No, it isn't whether health care is a right, it's whether the Constitution gives the Feds the authority to force it.

Federalism. It's what's for supper. :p

Pete