Obamacare

[wiphan]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...685080762.html

[jms62]

Originally Posted by wiphan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...685080762.html

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

Naw. It's all just designed to get it to the Supremes asap. The "constitutional" rulings still outnumber the "not", but it needs to go to the Supreme court.

[dellinger63]

Obamacare is supposed to save billions (medicare) yet costs billions up front?

D.O.A.!

Give the seniors their money and get out of their wallets. They're owed before anyone to the tune of $3.6 TRILLION!

Then we can talk of Obama/Hillary care. or maybe not!

[Danzig]

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't? it's the one thing i've always questioned. everyone who is covered knows that the price per person would be lowered if everyone buys, but how do you force it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't?

The judges that have already ruled it constitutional have said it is so under the Commerce Clause.

I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them.

Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined.

Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...150806791.html


SCOTUS has decided to take on the healthcare law...

[Riot]

Good. The Obama administration pushed for it to happen before the election. Four out of five courts have upheld it.

“The latest decisions on the Health Care Law was made by some extremely conservative judges who are friends of Scalia and Thomas, and they were scathing in their attacks against the arguments regarding most of the bills' stipulations.

These were among the most conservative of judges and many of the legal interpretations of the decision which I have read indicated that the decisions were designed to warn Thomas, Scalia and Roberts that the Law should stand and that there were firm foundations for its' legitimacy.

It is as if those conservative judges were warning the conservatives on the Supreme Court that were they to overturn it, then they would come under harsh criticism for having done so, and that even they, the most conservative of judges within the Appellate system were secure that the country had the right to make this law.

Thomas, of course, doesn't care about legal precedents or whether it is constitutional, he has been bought and paid for by the Kochs and other right wingers.

However, the Appellate ruling was clearly aimed at he, Scalia, and the rest about keeping their hands off the legitimacy of it, and let's just hope they are scared off by it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social...118098193.html

[Danzig]

the obama admin didn't push for it to be heard. they tried to delay it, including asking the appellate court to re-hear the case. he didn't want it to be ruled on in an election year. they recognized that anything other than a full pass from scotus would cause a lot of issues, that the act would have to be re-worked if any portion of the law was struck down.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the obama admin didn't push for it to be heard. they tried to delay it, including asking the appellate court to re-hear the case.

I think you have that backward. Where did you hear about them asking an appellate court to rehear? I've kept a close eye on this, and I've never seen that. What appellate court? They have asked lower appellates to SKIP hearing, to get it heard by Federals and closer to the Supremes more quickly.

They have the opportunity to delay, even now, and they did not take it, as was all over the news last week when they announced they hoped the Supremes would take it. They announced in January they want it heard before the election. Yes, they WANT it heard before the election, because they are quite confident will be upheld. They want it out of the election mix as passed and done.

The longest argument, set for two hours, will consider whether Congress had the power under Article 1 of the Constitution to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Article 1 outlines the types of laws Congress may pass, such as those that regulate interstate commerce. The Justice Department has argued in the lower courts and in its petition to the Supreme Court that the health care law's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a penalty on their tax returns, falls within Congress' power under the commerce clause of Article 1.

The cases granted Monday come up from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which struck down the individual mandate by a 2-1 vote, holding that the provision exceeds the scope of the commerce clause.

Majorities on the 6th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit have disagreed, siding with the Obama administration that the law falls within the clause's broad boundaries as articulated by the Supreme Court over the past seven decades.

The justices will also hear 90 minutes of oral argument on whether the entire health care law must fall should they find that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The 11th Circuit found the mandate could be severed from the rest of the law and therefore refused to throw out the whole law. That ruling reversed Judge Roger Vinson's decision at the district court level that the mandate was not severable. The National Federation of Independent Business urged the Court to reinstate Vinson's decision, which remains the only one in the country to strike down the health care law in its entirety.

[Riot]

http://www.healthcarelawreform.com/

Posted on October 11, 2011
by J. Peter Rich and Webb Millsaps

The Obama Administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate, a provision in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that the Administration once referred to as the “linchpin” of the sweeping 2010 health reform law.

The Administration, which could have requested that the Eleventh Circuit re-hear the case en banc, filed their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (the Petition) on September 27, 2011.

By not pursuing the potential interim step of an en banc re-hearing the Administration has made it more likely that the Supreme Court will hear the case and make its ultimate ruling on the matter prior to the November 2012 election.