Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

[_Abyssinia]

Individual Mandate Under Fire: Obamacare at the Court, Day 2

The funniest answer in the two hours (although there was no laughter in the courtroom) was when Verrelli claimed that Congress had passed the ObamaCare law to deal with a serious problem “after long study and careful deliberation.” Anyone who knows the history of the frenzied and swift nature of the passage of ObamaCare, when almost none of the members of Congress knew what was in the 2,700 page bill, realizes what an absurd statement that was.

blog.heritage.org/2012/03/27/individual-mandate-under-fire-obamacare-at-the-court-day-2
Five Takeaways From Tuesday’s High Court Health-Care Showdown
blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/03/27/five-takeaways-from-tuesdays-high-court-health-care-showdown
Obamacare is the Biggest Threat to Women-Owned Small Businesses

thegrindstone.com/career-management/obamacare-is-the-biggest-threat-to-women-owned-small-businesses-216
Reid slams Toobin, says justices’ tough questions don’t mean law’s demise

thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/218531-reid-slams-toobin-says-justices-tough-questions-wont-mean-health-laws-demise

 

[_Abyssinia]

Roberts will likely vote to strike down Obamacare

Following today’s oral arguments, some are making the case that there are two swing votes on the constitutionality of President Obama’s national health care – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Though I agree that Kennedy could go either way, based on today’s arguments, I’d be extremely surprised if Roberts voted to uphold the law.

Those who say that Roberts’ vote is in play point out that he asked critical questions to both sides. But a closer look reveals that when he was badgering President Obama’s solicitor general Donald Verrilli, he was speaking for himself, but when pressing lawyers opposing the law – Paul Clement and Mike Carvin – he created distance from the position by noting he was articulating the position of the government.

There are a number of examples of him forcefully challenging the Obama administration’s key arguments, using such phrases as “it seems to me,” which I highlight below (with emphasis).

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/roberts-will-likely-vote-strike-down-obamacare/449636

 

[Leegal]

Could someone help out with this? I don’t understand about Roberts. What is he doing?
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/did-john-roberts-throw-a-wrench-in-major-argument-against-obamacare.php

This is from yesterday’s argument which centered on whether or not the penalty is a penalty or a “tax.” If it were a “tax” – the Court could not reach the rest of the issues because they are prohibited from hearing lawsuits until there has been an actual harm, which will not happen until one year after the mandate goes into effect on Aug. 13, 2012.

If it’s a penalty, it can reach the other issues. I think he’s saying that whether it’s a penalty or a tax, you can’t separate the mandate from its punishment – whatever you call it.

I don’t read anything into this as to be suggestive of how he will decide. There’s still several questions before the Court – the tax/penalty question had to be threshed out first.

 

[Leegal]

Roberts will likely vote to strike down Obamacare

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/roberts-will-likely-vote-strike-down-obamacare/449636

I listened to Roberts again. It was he who asked the question will forcing people who will never use maternity coverage, pediatric care or insurance for substance abuse lead to other mandates forcing people to buy coverage they will not use. This to me hints at things to come, like the contraception/sterilization mandate that we are struggling with.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Shifting Arguments

In today’s Supreme Court oral argument (the audio is here), Justice Ginsburg again and again pressed the notion that the reason for the individual mandate in Obamacare is that cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured means that everyone is effectively in the health insurance market in one way or another. But that argument is just not based in fact.

John Cogan, Glenn Hubbard, and Daniel Kessler nicely summarized the data on this in the Wall Street Journal last year, saying that “there is no credible evidence of a cost shift of any substantial consequence, either within state boundaries or across state lines.” There is, of course, some shift in costs to taxpayers from the uninsured—costs that present themselves not in the insurance premiums of people who have insurance but in government budgets. But that shift will grow far worse under Obamacare, it will not be alleviated.

The fact is that the individual mandate is a solution to a problem with Obamacare, not to a problem with our health-care system. The new insurance system envisioned under Obamacare, in which insurers are basically not allowed to employ risk rating, could not work if people were allowed to wait to buy insurance until they were sick. Such a system therefore requires the government to mandate participation. But that can’t in itself justify such a mandate—not constitutionally and not practically. Acknowledging that the system you have designed can’t function economically unless everyone is compelled to participate in it should make you wonder about the wisdom of that system, rather than making you defend the proposition that Congress has the authority to compel everyone to buy what you want them to buy. And the attempt to justify the mandate as an independent solution to a problem with American health care that existed before the enactment of Obamacare is simply not valid.

nationalreview.com/corner/294598/shifting-arguments-yuval-levin

 

[JMJSHJ]

If the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare and it looks like it will with what Fox is reporting about Kennedy, then would that doom Obama’s re-election campaign?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I listened to Roberts again. It was he who asked the question will forcing people who will never use maternity coverage, pediatric care or insurance for substance abuse lead to other mandates forcing people to buy coverage they will not use. This to me hints at things to come, like the contraception/sterilization mandate that we are struggling with.

I hope Roberts continues to think about that over the coming months. If ObamaCare is upheld, Congress will be able to require Americans to buy practically anything.

 

[SamH]

I hope Roberts continues to think about that over the coming months. If ObamaCare is upheld, Congress will be able to require Americans to buy practically anything.

Look for an uptick in the sale of Volts.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare and it looks like it will with what Fox is reporting about Kennedy, then would that doom Obama’s re-election campaign?

Obama taught constitutional law, ObamaCare as it stands is very flawed constitutionally. If it is overturned I think it will put a dent in his campaign, his signature piece of legislation will be destroyed.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Look for an uptick in the sale of Volts.

Seriously. Congress could mandate that every home purchase a car that ran on rainbows and angel kisses.

 

[Leegal]

And all this money will pass through corporate coffers and not the federal government (like social security).

Yes, indeed. The average premium is $5,000 per year. Yet a young, healthy person uses about $800 of the insurance. The rest is profit – and when it’s no longer profit it will be used to cover those who are less healthy and use the service more. That raises the premiums based on “experience” which is:

premium - use = the new amount you or the company pays. The insurance companies will not allow their profits to go down.

 

[Leegal]

If the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare and it looks like it will with what Fox is reporting about Kennedy, then would that doom Obama’s re-election campaign?

 

[Leegal]

Seriously. Congress could mandate that every home purchase a car that ran on rainbows and angel kisses.

And that argument was made too. In order to boost the auto industry, can Congress pass a law requiring all of us to buy a car? What if you don’t have a license? You cannot register a car without a license (not in NY), so do they then require you to get a driver’s license and then buy a car, which you cannot afford.

 

[SamH]

And that argument was made too. In order to boost the auto industry, can Congress pass a law requiring all of us to buy a car? What if you don’t have a license? You cannot register a car without a license (not in NY), so do they then require you to get a driver’s license and then buy a car, which you cannot afford.

But they can’t require that you have photo ID to vote?

 

[PTL]

This is from yesterday’s argument which centered on whether or not the penalty is a penalty or a “tax.” If it were a “tax” – the Court could not reach the rest of the issues because they are prohibited from hearing lawsuits until there has been an actual harm, which will not happen until one year after the mandate goes into effect on Aug. 13, 2012.

If it’s a penalty, it can reach the other issues. I think he’s saying that whether it’s a penalty or a tax, you can’t separate the mandate from its punishment – whatever you call it.

I don’t read anything into this as to be suggestive of how he will decide. There’s still several questions before the Court – the tax/penalty question had to be threshed out first.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

87 Percent of Americans Agree With Conservative Supreme Court Justices on Broccoli Mandate

Conservative justices on Tuesday sharply questioned whether the government can force Americans to buy health insurance. In oral arguments over the new health care law passed by Congress in 2010, justices wondered if the law could set precedent allowing Congress to require Americans to buy other products, such as cell phones, burial insurance, gym memberships and broccoli.

“If the government can do that, what else can it do?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.

The recent national Reason-Rupe poll of 1200 adults released yesterday shows 87 percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that you buy broccoli. Eight percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy vegetables.

Proponents of the law disagree vegetable mandates logically follow from a health insurance mandate. The Obama administration’s lawyer Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Scalia: “No, that’s quite different” because participation in vegetable market is not unpredictable and involuntary.

reason.com/poll/2012/03/27/87-percent-of-americans-agree-with-conse

 

[GaryTaylor]

But they can’t require that you have photo ID to vote?

Perhaps a bad analogy, Food was the one used by a Judge in the projected 2014 period. The Government would be able to tell you what you can and can’t eat. Judge Roger Vinson that would be, case you want to read his comments on Obamacare

Course thats if one needs to eat?

 

[Holly3278]

I wonder how their ruling will affect the elections, especially if they rule Obamacare as unconstitutional?

 

[CatholicGOPer]

**Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court
**

On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”

The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing power — but that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday…

Rest of story: nation.foxnews.com/obamacare/2012/03/26/obama-lawyer-laughed-supreme-court

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I wonder how their ruling will affect the elections, especially if they rule Obamacare as unconstitutional?

I think that if it is ruled Constitutional, it is going to fire up the conservative voter base. Honestly, I think Obama is in worse trouble if the SC decides in favor of the mandate.