This is BHO's " Achilles heel" to losing Presidency, particulary if SCOTUS rules against "individual mandate". However, there are contradictions within article, with slim majority favoring "Government imposed individual mandate".
Fucking weird.
-- Modified on 11/16/2011 8:27:06 AM
They passed it with the worst back room deals and accounting tricks. Even now the expense is soaring.
Many people believed that "something" needed to be done, but he never had the majority thinking that was the something. Even if SCOTUS upholds it, it will only be "for now."
There are other provisions that can be challenged, but no court can review them because they are not "ripe." THey may ultimately uphold it all. (I don't predict what court will do.) But it will be the subject of challenges for as long as it lasts.
You can't pass something that big that is so unpopular.
Fucking weird.
-- Modified on 11/16/2011 8:27:06 AM
The history of rulings from the Supremes demonstrates that in cases ruled in favor of Federal Law preemption through the Tenth Amendment, the circumstances were rather narrow in scope. The Obamacare debacle is so massive in scope with substantial requirements imposed on State Governments, The People, Business (part of The People), that the clue to the upcoming ruling can probably be found in the following:
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.
And, this is only one aspect that offers a prediction. When they weigh arguments based on the Commerce Clause, the reasons for rejection only grow.
5-4 for repeal of individual mandate, but I could be wrong about this.
If the high court rules against the individual mandate, what does that imply for other forms of insurance, where an individual mandate already exists, like car insurance.
In my home state of VA, you have to buy car insurance, or you can opt out, but you'll have to pay a fee that is pretty damn close to what you'd pay for insurance anyway.
I wonder if the insurance industry will get smart and try their own hand at bribing members of the high court.
For cars, you can opt out by not owning one. I know several people who don't buy auto insurance. They don't have cars.
There are no particular freedoms granted to cars, so they can be regulated like any other piece of property.
That is one of the arguable problems with the mandate for health insurance. No one can opt out now that Kirvorkian is not longer practicing. (I say "arguable" to aviod getting distracted by the side issue the merits, only focusing on the current issue raised.)
In my home state of VA, you have to buy car insurance, or you can opt out, but you'll have to pay a fee that is pretty damn close to what you'd pay for insurance anyway.
I wonder if the insurance industry will get smart and try their own hand at bribing members of the high court.
Liability is required, and rightfully so. You don't have the legal right wield a four thousand lb piece of metal that can cause injury or death to others without being able to pay for any damage you cause to others. There is no law requiring you to purchase insurance that covers damages you cause to yourself, only to others.
Now your bank may require to purchase insurance on "their" investment before loaning you the money to buy a vehicle, but that's hardly a law.
Major difference between auto insurance and healthcare insurance. Healthcare insurance is for you, auto insurance is for the unlucky people you crash into, NOT YOU.
If they strike it down, his one key piece of legislation is dead.
And no matter how they rule, it is being announced close to election time, which will be a fresh reminder to the public how he and the Dems rammed it through against public sentiment.
So, let's just pretend that Supremes rule 6 - 3 that its unconstitutional. And just for discussion purposes, let's also say in their ruling, the majority Supremes read Congress the riot act in as much as they say it should have been intuitive obvious that such a law could not possibly stand.
So, given that the repubs argued till blue in the face that it was unconstitutional but the dems refused to listen, what does that say about the dems? Are they culpable for all the wasted expense they have caused? Do they owe the country an apology? Should they be liable to business for the expenses they have incurred?
He can act like the victim that tried to bring healthcare to all but the Repubican appointed SCOTUS stopped the dream. It may rally his apatheic base.