# Healthcare Reform Down In Flames? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004 "2010-12-13T17:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/101 "2010-12-14T16:25:00Z")
What do you mean “sit back and take it”? There’s not much the insurers can do other than lobby some more. Insurance costs are constantly going up anyway, so I’m not sure Obama has to rationalize anything; in any event, this decision will almost certainly be overturned on appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/102 "2010-12-14T16:44:40Z")
Sit back and take it, in this case, meant eating the cost increases. For a supposed revenue neutral bill that didn’t have the American Taxpayer paying anything, it sure sounds like they will be paying more… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/103 "2010-12-14T16:47:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not the same point. (Or true.) Well, I base that on historical notes. No matter how liberal reporters or owners can be, they cannot be as liberal with the news as they would like: From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: In the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” chapter: J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was \*\*not \*\*being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war were getting. Stern replied: _“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”_ Amazingly, that that was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much: As I saw in a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. Back then the New York Times knew Enron’s methods were bananas and that Enron was likely not a good investment. The Times economic reporter interviewed by Charlie Rose had this commentary on why they did not report much about that conclusion: Because “Other things came up!” Charlie Rose, not making \*\*any \*\*follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer, just completed the picture. ---
**Author:** ![CPomeroy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ed8c4c/32.png) [@CPomeroy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CPomeroy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/104 "2010-12-14T16:52:25Z")
It was mentioned here and I have seen it in articles about this ruling, but I am not sure I understand why this ruling is considered more signficant thant he previous ones. Would someone be willing to explain this? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/105 "2010-12-14T16:55:50Z")
> [@CPomeroy](#): > > It was mentioned here and I have seen it in articles about this ruling, but I am not sure I understand why this ruling is considered more signficant thant he previous ones. Would someone be willing to explain this? Two reasons. 1. The legal challenge was considered a long shot at the outset. This ruling changes the landscape by giving added heft to the legal challenge. The previous rulings did not change the legal landscape, since they were in line with the initial assumption. 2. HCR is the law of the land. This ruling raises the possibility of the law being overturned, which would be a big change from the current status. The previous rulings represented no change in current status. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/106 "2010-12-14T17:11:09Z")
Or, from the [NYT](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14assess.html) > [@](#): > > By the numbers, President Obama is beating opponents of his signature health care bill two to one in federal court. Of the three district court judges who have ruled on the merits of constitutional challenges to the landmark Affordable Care Act, two have sided with Mr. Obama. > > But from a political standpoint, the only case that really matters is the one Mr. Obama lost on Monday. > > Judge Henry E. Hudson’s decision leaves the White House playing defense for the foreseeable future on an issue it once thought would secure Mr. Obama’s legacy. It provides another rallying point for conservatives as they make the case that government is overreaching and must be reined in. And as the Virginia case and others like it make their way through the appeals process and ultimately to the Supreme Court, it ensures that health care will remain a topic of intense debate in the new Congress and into the 2012 presidential campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/107 "2010-12-14T17:14:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Two reasons. > > 1. The legal challenge was considered a long shot at the outset. This ruling changes the landscape by giving added heft to the legal challenge. The previous rulings did not change the legal landscape, since they were in line with the initial assumption. > > 2. HCR is the law of the land. This ruling raises the possibility of the law being overturned, which would be a big change from the current status. The previous rulings represented no change in current status. Not sure what sources you were using to call the unconstitutionality a ‘longshot’; there is an awful lot of legal opinion out there saying otherwise. Here’s [Forbes’](http://blogs.forbes.com/merrillmatthews/2010/12/14/double-trouble-for-obamacare/) most recent take on it. Maybe it just doesn’t enter into the liberal mind that it’s possible that government power seizures can actually be unconstitutional? > [@](#): > > But the Democratic Party is now controlled by liberals who believe that battles over the limits of federal power are over and that big-government won. Hence, when soon-to-be-ousted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about the constitutionality of the individual mandate, her only response was “Are you serious?” The idea that the Constitution might keep her from legislating anything she wanted to legislate was ridiculous—until now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/108 "2010-12-14T17:15:09Z")
[http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php?ref=fpa](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/amateur-hour-va-judge-makes-elementary-error-in-health-care-ruling.php?ref=fpa) **Amateur Hour: VA Judge Makes Elementary Error In Health Care Ruling** From _Talking Points Memo_, without which no citizen can hope to be well-informed. Lefty site advisory. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/109 "2010-12-14T17:32:00Z")
Quoth **Kearsen** : > [@](#): > > For a supposed revenue neutral bill that didn’t have the American Taxpayer paying anything, it sure sounds like they will be paying more… If I buy a new car, and then someone comes along and slashes the tires, I don’t complain that the car is a ripoff because it doesn’t work very well. Yes, if the death panelists manage to get the individual mandate slashed out of the health care bill, then costs will go up, but that’s not because of a problem with the health care bill, it’s because someone vandalized it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/110 "2010-12-14T17:39:21Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > Sit back and take it, in this case, meant eating the cost increases. > > For a supposed revenue neutral bill that didn’t have the American Taxpayer paying anything, it sure sounds like they will be paying more… They won’t be paying anything, at least not with their taxpayer hats on. They might be paying more to insurers, of course. Anyway, I don’t see what point you’re trying to make here. Obviously, the revenue neutrality rests on the the bill being enacted. You might as well say that a judge’s ruling blocking the F-22 from entering service means it’s a flawed program. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/111 "2010-12-14T17:56:32Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Quoth **Kearsen** :If I buy a new car, and then someone comes along and slashes the tires, I don’t complain that the car is a ripoff because it doesn’t work very well. Yes, if the death panelists manage to get the individual mandate slashed out of the health care bill, then costs will go up, but that’s not because of a problem with the health care bill, it’s because someone vandalized it. There is no severability in the bill. It’s all or nothing. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill will be struck down. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/112 "2010-12-14T18:07:19Z")
Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/113 "2010-12-14T18:09:27Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a district court. The ruling will probably be overturned on appeal before it ever gets to SCOTUS. I’ll bet you $500 you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/114 "2010-12-14T18:15:12Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > In Michigan and in, of all places, Virginia, there have already been two decisions upholding the law. This makes it, to the best of my knowledge, 2-1 for. Odd that those decisions are not mentioned by the liberal media. > > It’s definitely going to the Supreme Court, and I see no reason for anyone to start celebrating. What Virginia decision upheld the law? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/115 "2010-12-14T18:16:05Z")
You really think the 4th will uphold it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/116 "2010-12-14T18:17:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Being from Virginia, I wouldn’t be surprised if our attorney general carefully picked his forum. Um… well, he’s suing on behalf of Virginia, and he’s suing the federal government. What other forum could he have picked? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/117 "2010-12-14T18:20:07Z")
Virginia’s a populous state. Doesn’t it have three federal districts? ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/118 "2010-12-14T18:20:38Z")
You know, with all this talk of polls, I gotta wonder WTF? The only polls that really matter are the ones held on Nov 4th every couple years. Besides, isn’t it generally viewed to be a bad thing to govern by polls? At least, I remember Clinton being crucified for doing that back in the 90’s. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/119 "2010-12-14T18:22:54Z")
The elections are not a direct referendum on legislation. Some people doubtless voted based on their opposition to or support for HCR; almost undoubtedly, most did not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004/120 "2010-12-14T18:25:55Z")
> [@theR](#): > > There is no severability in the bill. It’s all or nothing. If the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, the whole bill will be struck down. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Cite? He can’t cite his first claim, except by linking to the bill, which I presume you can do just as easily as he can. His second and third sentences together state one single claim, which is presumably what you’re asking for a citation in support of … but it seems clear to me that he’s asserting that BECAUSE there is no severability clause in the bill, it’s all or nothing. In other words, that’s his case. It’s for you to show that the lack of a severability clause does not mean the provision is not severable. (Since this is true, you should have no problem doing so.) But you can’t demand a cite for a negative. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/healthcare-reform-down-in-flames/564004.md?page=7)