Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care


#1

From the Washington Times:
Judgment Day has finally arrived in Washington for President Obama and his health care law, which after two long years of court battles will earn a final legal decision Thursday from the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

At stake is the chief domestic accomplishment of Mr. Obama’s term in office — a plan to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans — and the court’s verdict will determine the limits of government powers in a 21st-century economy.

The White House, members of Congress, health care stakeholders and activists on both sides spent Wednesday refining their talking points, lining up legal professionals to offer rapid-fire analysis the instant the court releases its decision, and putting the final touches on a slew of news conferences, conference calls and tweets they have scheduled in the aftermath.

In the world of Washington, it’s the most momentous day in years.

Today will be an interesting day. I look forward to reading the caterwauling regardless of the outcome.

In the interest of balance, here’s something from the Politico (left wing political perspective):
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on the future of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law will undoubtedly define the court under Chief Justice John Roberts. But it also has the potential to define the careers of several of the legal minds who helped the case get there.

When Congress started debating health care reform in 2009, the individual mandate — the requirement for nearly all Americans to buy health insurance — wasn’t one of the biggest issues opponents raised. But that changed when a handful of conservative legal scholars started writing articles, including an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in September 2009, that suggested the mandate could be the bill’s real legal weak spot.

From even farther to the left, we have the Daily Beast’s take on it:
Kids. Sick people. Southerners. These are just a few of the people who could get the shaft if the Supreme Court axes the Affordable Care Act.

With the epochal Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act coming this week, pundits and prognosticators have been working themselves into a tizzy trying to figure out who would win and who would lose in each of the 492,503 (approximately) possible directions the Roberts Court could take in its ruling.

There’s a lot at stake, from the ability of young adults to cover their chronic medical conditions to the ability of insurance companies to screw over young adults trying to live with chronic medical conditions. Here, the people who might be most screwed if the ACA gets knocked down.

By the way, Intrade currently (5:15 AM) lists the mandate as being overturned by 68.8%.


#2

[quote="markomalley, post:1, topic:289636"]
From the Washington Times:
Judgment Day has finally arrived in Washington for President Obama and his health care law, which after two long years of court battles will earn a final legal decision Thursday from the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

At stake is the chief domestic accomplishment of Mr. Obama’s term in office — a plan to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans — and the court’s verdict will determine the limits of government powers in a 21st-century economy.

The White House, members of Congress, health care stakeholders and activists on both sides spent Wednesday refining their talking points, lining up legal professionals to offer rapid-fire analysis the instant the court releases its decision, and putting the final touches on a slew of news conferences, conference calls and tweets they have scheduled in the aftermath.

In the world of Washington, it’s the most momentous day in years.

Today will be an interesting day. I look forward to reading the caterwauling regardless of the outcome.

In the interest of balance, here's something from the Politico (left wing political perspective):
Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on the future of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law will undoubtedly define the court under Chief Justice John Roberts. But it also has the potential to define the careers of several of the legal minds who helped the case get there.

When Congress started debating health care reform in 2009, the individual mandate — the requirement for nearly all Americans to buy health insurance — wasn’t one of the biggest issues opponents raised. But that changed when a handful of conservative legal scholars started writing articles, including an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal in September 2009, that suggested the mandate could be the bill’s real legal weak spot.

From even farther to the left, we have the Daily Beast's take on it:
Kids. Sick people. Southerners. These are just a few of the people who could get the shaft if the Supreme Court axes the Affordable Care Act.

With the epochal Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act coming this week, pundits and prognosticators have been working themselves into a tizzy trying to figure out who would win and who would lose in each of the 492,503 (approximately) possible directions the Roberts Court could take in its ruling.

There’s a lot at stake, from the ability of young adults to cover their chronic medical conditions to the ability of insurance companies to screw over young adults trying to live with chronic medical conditions. Here, the people who might be most screwed if the ACA gets knocked down.

By the way, Intrade currently (5:15 AM) lists the mandate as being overturned by 68.8%.

[/quote]

I know i'm from Britain but i'm interessted, why is the ruling due?


#3

Today is the last day of the current session. Since they decided to accept the case, they need to issue their judgment before they go on their traditional summer recess.

The common wisdom is they want to issue the opinion and then get out of town. Regardless of how they decide, there are going to be some very, very unhappy people.


#4

[quote="markomalley, post:3, topic:289636"]
Today is the last day of the current session. Since they decided to accept the case, they need to issue their judgment before they go on their traditional summer recess.

The common wisdom is they want to issue the opinion and then get out of town. Regardless of how they decide, there are going to be some very, very unhappy people.

[/quote]

Yes, and rulings always come out on Mondays and Thursdays. So when the decision wasn't handed down on Monday, everyone knew it would be today (in 25 minutes!).


#5

It looks like it got upheld 6-3, though the Individual Mandate has to be considered a tax on those who don't buy insurance rather than a fine. :(


#6

[quote="Joe_5859, post:5, topic:289636"]
It looks like it got upheld 6-3, though the Individual Mandate has to be considered a tax on those who don't buy insurance rather than a fine. :(

[/quote]

Right.

I made the mistake of listening to Fox Business News, and they originally reported that the Mandate was struck down. Then, five minutes later, one of their own reporters broke in and said, no that's not right, they upheld the mandate,

I had to change the channel to get the news correct.

The Mandate is Constitutional, and will be treated as a Tax for those who do not buy insurance.

Jim


#7

This is going to boost Romney’s campaign, and the lawsuits against the HHS mandate continue

Romney will repeal ObamaCare


#8

Our hope now lies in the Church challenging the HHS mandate.

Hail Mary, full of Grace.....


#9

**Live from ScotusBlog: ‘The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate’ **

What does that mean?


#10

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Mandate

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

The individual mandate, the law’s backers say, is needed to cover 33 million uninsured people, but it’s also a requirement that polls say most Americans want to see thrown out.

(read more)


#11

2009 Obama said mandate was not a tax

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax


#12

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:7, topic:289636"]
This is going to boost Romney's campaign, and the lawsuits against the HHS mandate continue

Romney will repeal ObamaCare

[/quote]

No he wont.

Romeny said he will merely make the states control it themselves.

However, they will still have to have a health insurance program, my guess, the same as Massachusetts.

Jim


#13

IMO, this gaurantees Obama for a second term and beyond.

We also now conclusively know that it is impossible to know what we will get with any justices approved to the SC bench. Roberts went to the left.


#14

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:9, topic:289636"]
*Live from ScotusBlog: 'The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate' *

What does that mean?

[/quote]

Which was part of the AHC anyway. The only thing is, they called it a penalty, but now will call it a tax.

The way it works is, when you file your income tax, you'll have to provide your health insurance number. If you provide it, you don't get taxed. If you don't provide the number, the tax will be added to your tax liability.

It's the way it works with Romney Care, and Obama Care is essentially the same thing.

Jim


#15

[quote="JimR-OCDS, post:12, topic:289636"]
No he wont.

Romeny said he will merely make the states control it themselves.

However, they will still have to have a health insurance program, my guess, the same as Massachusetts.

Jim

[/quote]

RomneyCare is a state program that would not fit every state which Romney has said himself, he has also said there are things he would change.

The mandate is unpopular, whatever poll you read, this is going to help Romney. In fact, some have said if the mandate was struck down that would help Obama because the unpopular part would then be thrown out. Now it is left in, that is not going to help Obama.


#16

Medicaid Expansion struck down. Not sure what that amounts too.

I think I might go back and look up the topics where supporters repeated droned "it's not a tax" over and over.

I don't think the word tax even appears anywhere in the bill - control + f didn't locate it.


#17

[quote="irishpatrick, post:13, topic:289636"]
IMO, this gaurantees Obama for a second term and beyond.

We also now conclusively know that it is impossible to know what we will get with any justices approved to the SC bench. Roberts went to the left.

[/quote]

With the unpopularity of the mandate?


#18

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:9, topic:289636"]
*Live from ScotusBlog: 'The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate' *

What does that mean?

[/quote]

Drudge now has: The court reinforces that individuals CAN"T simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate... without the apostrophe

So I guess that people can *either *pay the tax *or *acquire insurance. I don't see how this can *possibly *count as a tax.


#19

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:15, topic:289636"]
RomneyCare is a state program that would not fit every state which Romney has said himself, he has also said there are things he would change.

The mandate is unpopular, whatever poll you read, this is going to help Romney. In fact, some have said if the mandate was struck down that would help Obama because the unpopular part would then be thrown out. Now it is left in, that is not going to help Obama.

[/quote]

I disagree. I think this is an enormous win for Obama, and the left will become highly charged, and those in the middle will just go along.


#20

Might be tax increase


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.