PPACA and Scotus

[bhunter]

I just found this poll:



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

[merrylander]

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

[Boreas]

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

[BlueStreak]

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.

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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.

Dave

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.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

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.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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 onlt 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.

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.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

would think that without state government involved in regulations, requirements, that a somewhat unified health insurance product would developed that would appeal to customers.

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

The difference between states has occurred because of the relatively steady increase in requirements over time.

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

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

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

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

[BlueStreak]

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