Apparently there's a big decision expected today.
My understanding is that "an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof" to quote TPM Memo. Is that correct?
And if the SC uses basically a small detail to throw out the entire law, how does that reflect on the SC which polls show is increasingly seen as another partisan institution? Wouldn't that be "legislating from the bench"?
I don't have the legal background to have an informed opinion on a lot of this. And as someone who would have preferred single-payer or something more like the French system to a national version of Romneycare, I'm not even sure what I want to happen today....
P.S. I predict that Roberts votes to uphold it.
(06-28-2012 07:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently there's a big decision expected today.
My understanding is that "an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof" to quote TPM Memo. Is that correct?
And if the SC uses basically a small detail to throw out the entire law, how does that reflect on the SC which polls show is increasingly seen as another partisan institution? Wouldn't that be "legislating from the bench"?
I don't have the legal background to have an informed opinion on a lot of this. And as someone who would have preferred single-payer or something more like the French system to a national version of Romneycare, I'm not even sure what I want to happen today....
Well, unless they assume a severability clause, they may have to throw it all out b/c of the individual mandate.
I think the law has good points, but I don't believe the mandate is constitutional.
If they have to redo the thing, we need to move insurance away from being employer based.
(06-28-2012 07:45 AM)d1owls4life Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2012 07:34 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently there's a big decision expected today.
My understanding is that "an explicit health insurance tax incentive would’ve accomplished the exact same thing the law’s mandate and penalty intend, and made it constitutionally bulletproof" to quote TPM Memo. Is that correct?
And if the SC uses basically a small detail to throw out the entire law, how does that reflect on the SC which polls show is increasingly seen as another partisan institution? Wouldn't that be "legislating from the bench"?
I don't have the legal background to have an informed opinion on a lot of this. And as someone who would have preferred single-payer or something more like the French system to a national version of Romneycare, I'm not even sure what I want to happen today....
Well, unless they assume a severability clause, they may have to throw it all out b/c of the individual mandate.
I think the law has good points, but I don't believe the mandate is constitutional.
If they have to redo the thing, we need to move insurance away from being employer based.
Totally agree on employer based insurance, and honestly I think it's odd that employers don't seem to agree. Politically, of course, the problem is that a fair number of people have good employer based insurance, and are loath the lose it.
On the horse race side of things, I have to wonder if it's politically good or bad for Obama if the whole thing gets thrown out. Then the Dems just bring up the popular parts piece-meal and dare the Republicans to oppose it.
Scotusblog:
Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
FTR, not that this will come as a surprise to anyone, while all the news channels were reporting "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN," SCOTUSblog was nailing down the details.
Yeah, CNN was the last I think to correct it. I blame Wolf Blitzer.
Also, I was right about Roberts. I would like a cookie, please.
(06-28-2012 09:11 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, CNN was the last I think to correct it. I blame Wolf Blitzer.
Yeah, I was confused for a while. Now just sticking with Scotusblog. I think I understand the justification for why it was upheld.
Well, finally, some closure. Yes, the House GOP will try to repeal but it won't get anywhere.
(06-28-2012 09:22 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Also, I was right about Roberts. I would like a cookie, please.
I will say I was right too. The mandate was unconstitutional...via the Commerce Clause. Wasn't sure they'd stretch to make it a tax, but I understand it. What matters to me is will this cost less than the way it is? I guess we will find out.
Good call on Roberts.
This is not a surprising ruling. The Constitution provides for an unlimited government by giving the state a monopoly on setting and determining the limits of its own power. Expecting a monopolist to limit its own power is just setting yourself up for disappointment.
I have to partially take back my comment one Wolf Blitzer, though I still generally can't stand him. In this series of clips from CNN and Fox messing up the story, he does appear to be using enough qualifiers to indicate that he understood it was a long complex opinion and was a little worried about jumping the gun.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en...-on-health
(06-28-2012 09:08 AM)texd Wrote: [ -> ]FTR, not that this will come as a surprise to anyone, while all the news channels were reporting "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN," SCOTUSblog was nailing down the details.
Dewey defeats mandate:
![[Image: 479797_726107667281_1141555476_n.jpg]](https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/479797_726107667281_1141555476_n.jpg)
(06-28-2012 10:51 AM)texd Wrote: [ -> ] (06-28-2012 09:08 AM)texd Wrote: [ -> ]FTR, not that this will come as a surprise to anyone, while all the news channels were reporting "INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN," SCOTUSblog was nailing down the details.
Dewey defeats mandate:
That is hilarious.
It never hurts for the public to get a lesson in the fact that a law can be undesirable without being unconstitutional, and that the proper redress for such laws is through the hard work and give-and-take of political and legislative action, not the "I'm telling Mom" resort to the courts. Whether the public has any interest in learning this lesson is another question.
Meanwhile, I wonder if this president will be as eager to heap political praise on the Supreme Court as we was to heap political scorn on them a couple years ago. I am not holding my breath.
Call it a "Tax"... And I remember that "if you make less than $250,000.00 your taxes won't go up a cent."
Since the mandate that wasn't a tax is now a tax, do the idiots in Congress who voted for the ACA and all their supporters who almost immediately after passage received exemptions now have to pay the tax that wasn't a tax, but now is?
I think the Mayans were right.
They have to pay the tax if they don't have insurance (starting in 2014). The tax is the same as the "penalty."