# waiting \[for Supreme Court decision on health care law\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510 "2012-06-18T13:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/321 "2012-06-29T13:48:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > With a Republican chairing the [actually, you mean apprropriations] committee [and having a majority in the House], it would be easy to give it only token funding, enough to comply with the law but not enough to actually work. There’s nothing to filibuster with that. Then, when the nearly-unfunded doesn’t work, loudly bleat on all their favorite news outlets that “Obamacare doesn’t work! See?”. But appropriations must still go through the Senate, and the President. So they must either compromise or have a stalemate that shuts down part or all of the government for a while. The House Republicans may indeed choose stalemate - they would love to shut down government. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/322 "2012-06-29T13:49:25Z")
That’s not bad, but I’d prefer them to frame it as a penalty for freeloaders and moochers - those that decide not to buy insurance until they are sick or expect the rest of us to subsidize their ER bills when they can’t pay them. The problem with the credit for buying is that it sets a baseline of higher taxes for everyone and then rolls them back. Punishing moochers is a better political frame, IMO. If you get subsidies and can afford insurance but still choose not to buy it then you are screwing the rest of us - pay your penalty. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/323 "2012-06-29T13:50:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You mean, like, one? Yes. Do you know how many members of the Progressive Democrat Caucus will lose their Senate seats in the next few years? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/324 "2012-06-29T13:50:48Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > I suppose that President Romney could instruct the IRS to not enforce the penalty tax and undercut funding for the program. On what grounds? He can’t just refuse to enforce a law unless he believes it is unconstitutional, perhaps - but it was just declared constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/325 "2012-06-29T13:57:52Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Yes. Do you know how many members of the Progressive Democrat Caucus will lose their Senate seats in the next few years? There is no such thing as the “Progressive Democrat Caucus”. If you mean the “Progressive Congressional Caucus”, there is currently only one Senate member - Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And he’s not even a Democrat. And he’s the third most popular Senator in the country. If you mean liberal Democrats in general, most of them are safe - it’s the moderate ones in conservative states that are more likely to lose their seats. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/326 "2012-06-29T13:57:56Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > On what grounds? He can’t just refuse to enforce a law unless he believes it is unconstitutional, perhaps - but it was just declared constitutional. Executive Order. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/327 "2012-06-29T13:59:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Executive Order. That might work. But it won’t stop the parts that Democrats like. All it will do is increase the deficit. ETA: I should add that conservatives in general seem to miss the point that liberals don’t give two shits about the individual mandate. Obama himself famously opposed one. We want universal coverage, employer mandates/penalties, state exchanges, community rating, Medicaid expansion, and subsidies for coverage. The individual mandate is just a means to an end - and one of the most viable ones if you want to keep the private insurance market without the freeloader death spiral. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/328 "2012-06-29T14:06:14Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > There is no such thing as the “Progressive Democrat Caucus”. > > If you mean the “Progressive Congressional Caucus”, there is currently only one Senate member - Bernie Sanders of Vermont. And he’s not even a Democrat. And he’s the third most popular Senator in the country. > > If you mean liberal Democrats in general, most of them are safe - it’s the moderate ones in conservative states that are more likely to lose their seats. Oops. I was refering to the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is an organization within the Democratic Caucus. There is no quarentee that there will enough Congressional Progressive Caucus Democrats left in the Senate to stop a GOP effort to overturn the Obamacare TAX. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/329 "2012-06-29T14:10:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Oops. I was refering to the Congressional Progressive Caucus which is an organization within the Democratic Caucus. > > There is no quarentee that there will enough Congressional Progressive Caucus Democrats left in the Senate to stop a GOP effort to overturn the Obamacare TAX. I’m not getting all unhinged here. First of all, Romney is NOT going to win. Secondly, Democrats WILL keep the Senate. Thirdly, if Boehner does keep the gavel, he will preside over a smaller GOP House majority with fewer batshit crazy teabaggers. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/330 "2012-06-29T14:12:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Executive Order. That would bankrupt private insurance companies, and result in single payer government health care like they have in Europe. Is that what you want? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/331 "2012-06-29T14:26:17Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Executive Order. Well, yeah, it would be an EO. But it would be unconstitutional. The President can’t just do whatever he wants with an EO. He can’t just declare that a law won’t be followed because he disagree with it. EO is not some special magical power. It just means the President is giving an order. EO is not a grounds for a decision, it’s just a decision. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/332 "2012-06-29T14:28:50Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Oops. I was refering to the Congressional Progressive Caucus… Yes. And the only Senate member is Bernie Sanders. [http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71](http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71) ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/333 "2012-06-29T14:37:05Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > There is no quarentee that there will enough Congressional Progressive Caucus Democrats left in the Senate to stop a GOP effort to overturn the Obamacare TAX. I guarantee there won’t be. Because there aren’t any Senate Democrats in the CPC today. There is only one Socialist (I), and he won’t be losing election any time soon - he comes from a state that is in the process of implementing single-payer UHC. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/334 "2012-06-29T14:53:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That would bankrupt private insurance companies, and result in single payer government health care like they have in Europe. Is that what you want? I was answering a specifc question. I didn’t say an EO was a good or bad idea. Obama recently used an EO to stop deporting younger undocumented workers regardless of what U.S. law says. What prevents a President Romney from using the same tactic? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/335 "2012-06-29T14:58:21Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Obama recently used an EO to stop deporting younger undocumented workers regardless of what U.S. law says. What prevents a President Romney from using the same tactic? The fact that the Supreme Court just declared the law constitutional, for one. So if Romney isn’t going to suspend the law based on a claim that it is unconstitutional, what other grounds would he have? He has no legal basis to do so. There is nothing in the law that gives him that power. Whereas Obama maintains his action was consistent with the law, and this hasn’t been challenged in court yet. It may not be, but he has claimed it is. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/336 "2012-06-29T15:01:04Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Yes. And the only Senate member is Bernie Sanders. > > [http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71](http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71) My mistake. Then I’ll say that there might not be enough members of the Senate Democratic Caucus after the next two elections to make effective use of a filibuster. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/337 "2012-06-29T15:03:46Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > My mistake. Then I’ll say that there might not be enough members of the Senate Democratic Caucus after the next two elections to make effective use of a filibuster. Just say “there won’t be enough Democrats.” Is that so hard? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/338 "2012-06-29T15:15:14Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > The fact that the Supreme Court just declared the law constitutional, for one. > > So if Romney isn’t going to suspend the law based on a claim that it is unconstitutional, what other grounds would he have? He has no legal basis to do so. There is nothing in the law that gives him that power. > > Whereas Obama maintains his action was consistent with the law, and this hasn’t been challenged in court yet. It may not be, but he has claimed it is. Executive Orders have the full force of law. While they may result in legal proceedings, they would be in effect until the legal issues were resolved. If Obama can “claim” that his EO was consistent with the law, so could a President Romney. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/339 "2012-06-29T15:16:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Just say “there won’t be enough Democrats.” Is that so hard? Apparently it is. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/340 "2012-06-29T15:33:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Executive Orders have the full force of law. Yes, but this doesn’t answer the question. What legal justification would Romney give for this EO? > [@](#): > > If Obama can “claim” that his EO was consistent with the law, so could a President Romney. Yes. That’s the question we’re considering. If he did, how would he? What could he possibly say to justify it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=18)