They could save a lot of time and money if it could just be skipped straight to the SC, since we all know it is going there. What amendment does the mandate possibly violate?
Agreed on going straight to the SC - I think one of the cases asked to go straight there, but the SC denied it and said it needed to go through the regular appeals process. The key issue is that everyone agrees that Congress can regulate interstate commerce activity. But the question is whether they can regulate NON-commerce - ie, the choice to not buy insurance.
Since the mandate isn't going to be enacted until 2014 there was no reason to fast track this to the USSC. Also since there are multiple cases in multiple districts it would still take the lower courts to sort through those. Besides those practical issues I think it is good to allow the lower courts to hear these cases that way more judicial opinions are generated and a more widespread view of the jurisprudence of the healthcare law is developed before the USSC hears it.
If the people who do not want to buy insurance is willing to sign that they will not use free medical care when they do not have the money to pay for it, I think they should be allow to not buy insurance. If they break a leg or have heart attack, just sit at home and wait for god to save them should be allow as an option.
Yes, and if they get diabetes or some other chronic illness that they can't afford the outrageously-priced medicine for then they should have the option of grand theft auto, murder-for-hire, selling drugs, or simple aggravated robbery .... oh wait ....
I think the Supreme Court will hear the case just in time for the 2012 election. It will either be a boost to Obama or hurt him. I also think the SC is waiting so more judges can make statements on whether it is constitutional or not. I think it will be ruled constitutional based on the arguments and statements I've read from judges so far.
One twist to this is I'm not sure which result would be a boost to Obama vs hurt him. On one hand, having it declared legal is a huge victory and a key legislative achievement that gets spotlighted. On the flipside, it creates a huge sense of anger amongst the opponents and may increase turnout on the right. On the flipside, if it's not ruled legal, it's a huge win for the GOP, but it takes some excitement away from the base. And progressively will get really riled up at that point.
Hey, if they think they don't need insurance like everyone else, let them deal with it anyway they want as long as they don't put the cost on the rest of us is fine with me.
I highly doubt a defeat in the USSC of the health care bill will be anything but a disaster for Obama.
You'd be surprised. The passage of it was a disaster for Obama as well and a huge boon to the GOP. Despite it being a massive policy defeat for them, it was the best thing that could have happened to the GOP from a short-term political stance. If the GOP can't run against health care in 2012, it takes one issue off the table.
A USSC defeat of health care, especially close to the 2012 election will not take the issue off of the table as a political ammo. The Republicans will just continue to hammer Obama with it as a massive intrusion of the Federal government while pointing out that if not for the USSC this would've been implemented. Overall though it makes Obama look very very weak since his signature legislative accomplishment is overturned.
It would also immediately solidify the base and get the hard core Libs to come back and work for him. He could then comfortably run to the center. I think Dem Congressionals could run on an overturn as well or better than Repubs.
It shows the absolute dominance of corporate controlled media that national health care is even being debated at all.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. We shouldn't be forced to buy health insurance - we should have a single-payer system. Without price controls, I'm not sure any of this is going to work anyway... but, at the least, it's gonna work better than the filthy greedy profit-w**** system as it's currently established.
It wont work. The Appeals Court decision is absurd. It upheld everything but the mandate which means I can now not buy insurance, wait till I'm sick, then buy coverage from an insurance company since they can no longer deny me coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The mandate is central to making the whole thing work. Also all of the offsetting spending cuts and revenue increases were designed around subsidizing mandatory insurance for low income people. Now all of those provisions have no context anymore.
Obama was against it before he was for it. But before that he was for a single payer system. So I guess he will be against this ruling but could change that in the future.
Even with the mandate nobody is forced to buy insurance. They could pay the penalty and do without insurance if they chose.
