Cite.
The court said that this part of Obamacare “would imperil individual liberty, render Congress’s other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states.”
Questions for discussion:
How will this affect health care costs?
How will this affect Obama’s re-election prospects? His health care reforms were one of the few things he actually got done.
Discuss.
Regards,
Shodan
Too soon to tell. There is now a split between Circuit Courts of Appeal (think the one in Cincinnati ruled it was constitutional and yet another Court is expected to rule relatively soon), so SCOTUS will likely have to settle it.
How soon do you think it will make it to SCOTUS? October 2011?
Regards,
Shodan
Depends on what you mean by “make it to SCOTUS”…some papers may be filed by then, but I would not expect an actual decision on the merits from them in 2011.
The irony is that single payer would have had no Constitutional issues at all, and been much more effective. This is what comes of compromising with right wing zealots.
They also ruled that the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the Health Care Act, so the rest of the Health Care Act stands.
You mean this is what happens when you elect those in the pocket of insurance companies.
Replace **2011 **with **2012 **and a rulling released in the summer of 2013. That’s if the case moves quickly.
It’s not a compromise if you’re trying to placate the other side by unilaterally adding things they openly hate.
What is “Obamacare” exactly, and how is it different from whatever preceded it?
“Obamacare” was originally a Republican alternative to single payer. It’s a conservative, insurance company friendly plan which was originally proffered by Bob Dole as an alternative to HillaryCare. The Republicans only “hated” it this time around because they didn’t want to give Obama any kind of victory.
I will assume that your questions are predicated on this law’s thorough judicial defeat before the election.
I expect they will continue to rise, without any meaningful reform, and working stiffs will continue to get shafted.
I don’t know. On the one hand, folks who want meaningful reform will be exasperated by a perception that the law was basically scuttled by Republicans (yes, if we make the necessary assumption, it’ll actually be scuttled by judges, but of course the perception will be, right or wrong, that Republicans are behind the court cases). On the other hand, people who are Tea Party types will be thrilled to see the law fall apart.
There may be some folks who see it as evidence of Obama’s inefficacy. I don’t know how many that’ll be.
Overall, though, I think the economy will continue to be the big story. If it continues, as it appears likely to, to continue to suck, a Republican who can plausibly claim to be unconnected to its continued suckitude will have a good shot at election.
The more interesting question, in my mind, is not how it affects the horse race, though. The more interesting question is where we should go from here. In addition to thinking we should go single-payer, I also want a pony.
That’s an – interesting view of the situation.
My view would be that the Republicans only ever floated it as the lesser of two evils compared to HillaryCare, and always preferred doing nothing over either. My view explains why the GOP didn’t promptly vote for the Dole plan during all the years they held the House and Senate and Presidency after Clinton left office: they didn’t actually want it then, sure as they never really wanted it before and merely kept on not wanting it after. How does your view explain such an otherwise remarkable lapse?
I don’t think anybody is going to switch from Obama to whatever monster the GOP ends up nominating because the individual mandate is tied up in appellate courts. It doesn’t affect the rest of the legislation anyway.
The rest of the legislation is fundamentally flawed - that’s why they needed the mandate in the first place.
I agree they were lying about wanting to do anything at all, but that doesn’t alter the fact that they pretended to support this before they opposed it.
Again, my view is that they weren’t pretending to prefer the stuff in question over HillaryCare; they genuinely preferred it over HillaryCare, though they genuinely preferred doing nothing to either. Is that your view as well?
What a nightmare that would be, though. The insurance company can’t deny me for a pre-existing condition, but I’m not required to purchase it. If I am 24 and healthy, why buy insurance? If I am in a car wreck, then I’ll have my next of kin purchase a policy for me while the police are extracting me from the wreckage.
Nobody will buy insurance until they are in an ambulance on the way to the hospital. The only people carrying insurance will be deathly ill. It would be like being able to purchase fire insurance when you see your house burning down. The whole system will collapse.
Can I get a serious no-bullshit answer to “what is Obamacare?”