[jeffkrol]

Analysis: Why Supreme Court may uphold healthcare law | Reuters

(Reuters) - Conventional political wisdom holds that the Supreme Court, scheduled to hear a challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law beginning on Monday, is likely to strike it down on partisan lines. The court's Republican appointees enjoy a 5-4 majority.

But a review of lower court rulings by conservative judges, subtle signals from individual justices, and interviews with professors and judges across the ideological spectrum suggest that presumption is wrong - and that the court will uphold the law.

Not that conservative court-watchers like to broadcast such a view in this combustible atmosphere.

"It's almost like they're confessing to some secret vice when they say they don't think (the law) should be struck down," said former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Michael McConnell,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/03/20/the-10-cases-you-must-kn...bamacare-case/

Conservative justices, in particular, feel bound by the principal of stare decisis to honor the decisions of the judges who came before them. But when it comes to Obamacare those past decisions — particularly the ones upholding economic regulations from the New Deal era — will make it hard to invalidate a law that was fully deliberated by Congress and passed to regulate an interstate industry that accounts for 18% of the gross domestic product.

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-23-2012 at 07:00 AM.

[mikemike]

I think the best thing that can happen will be if they strike the law down because that will set the stage for a true referendum on health care in this country.

If they strike it down I think the republican nominee will say, "Obama care was not right for this country and we dodged a bullet there, back to business as usual." And Obama will say, "lets try again, if you want a single payer system vote for me and a democratic congress." If a supreme court strike down of the law sets up a debate and a November election with those parameters, I think that the mandate of the election will be true and if Obama wins the path will be clear for true health care reform instead of half ass health insurance reform on the flip side, if a republican wins I think it is the end of the health care reform debate for about a decade.

[Nesster]

Mike, which utopia is that?

What will really happen: no further reform will be possible, and the whole of the existing reform will not be affected. In other words, single payor will have all the might of the 18% of GDP arrayed against it, business interests will drown out anything else... and the other aspects of the current law will either face Supreme Court challenges, or become impossible to implement due to the lack of sufficient insurable population.

The end result is that those of us who have insurance will pay more for it, and forego future pay increases for it. Those who do not will continue to free load on the rest of us, though this free loading is seemingly OK because it is private sector freeloading.

In case the political polarization happens to flip towards Republicans, they will be emboldened to replace Medicare/Medicaid with a voucher system, so the old people will be screwed. In case the polarization flips towards the Dems, those spineless bastards will simply try to patch whatever they can without extending their necks out one inch.

I watched the Dan Rather report on this upcoming decision, and the analysis seemed to be that the opponents had to sway 4 Justices while the proponents had to sway just 1 to get a majority. The sole Justice solidly against? Clarence Thomas, the only non RINO in the bunch

[normhead]

I think the best thing that can happen will be if they strike the law down because that will set the stage for a true referendum on health care in this country.

What? You have to strike down a law to have a debate? If people are happy with the previous status quo because it amde them a pile of money, how does that make them want to debate? As my childhood friend Bruce Hesben "Keep what you got until you get what you want." Striking down a health care law doesn't foster debate. Leaving it in place and challenging those who don't like it to come up with a better one does. And that's the thing, not one of the opponents of Obama's health care law have a better one. They should put up or shut up. The debate the Republican's want is not about health care, it's about the right of snake oil salesmen to make money from other people's illnesses.

[jeffkrol]

I think the best thing that can happen will be if they strike the law down because that will set the stage for a true referendum on health care in this country.

I'm sorry to do this Mike but the only realistic and logical response to that statement is:

BWA-

good luck w/ a few years of "tort reform" discussions while more Americans go broke or die...........and you think I live in a fantasy world.. Where are the "alternate plans"???
They only had a few decades to come up w/ them.....

[Nesster]

They only had a few decades to come up w/ them.....

But that damn foreign socialist Obama took them!

[Parallax]

But a review of lower court rulings by conservative judges, subtle signals from individual justices, and interviews with professors and judges across the ideological spectrum suggest that presumption is wrong - and that the court will uphold the law.

Not that conservative court-watchers like to broadcast such a view in this combustible atmosphere.

Nor do the liberal court-watchers like to broadcast the predictions of the professors and judges that predict the requirement to purchase insurance portion will be struck down 6-3.

[jeffkrol]

Nor do the liberal court-watchers like to broadcast the predictions of the professors and judges that predict the requirement to purchase insurance portion will be struck down 6-3.

NASHVILLE, TN – In a panel discussion at the Nashville Health Care Council, one veteran Washington journalist – along with think-tank analysts and an insurance executive – predicted that the Supreme Court is likely to uphold all provisions of the Affordable Care Act this spring.

hmmm...............

The court will also decide whether healthcare reform is protected by the Anti-Injunction Act, an 1867 law, which bars courts from striking down tax laws before they take effect. If so, the court could elect to delay any decision until 2015, when penalties can be imposed on individuals refusing to buy health insurance.

http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/panel-consensus-spreme-court-will-uphold-aca

The insurance industry is worried about the consequences of severing the individual mandate from the rest of the legislation. “If that were to happen, insurers would start fleeing the market, premium prices would go up, and there would be a lot of instability,” said Tony Hullender, senior vice president of BlueCross Blue Shield of Tennessee.

The Obama administration is reasonably confident that all provisions of the act will be upheld. “The Justice Department had the option to delay this case, and they chose not to do so,” said Troy.


“A lot will depend on Justice Kennedy’s vote,” said Denniston. “He’s the court’s most respected voice on federalism. There are four solid ‘yes’ votes already, so if Kennedy sides with them, the law will be upheld.”

Care to state your source????

Las Vegas hasn’t posted odds on whether the Supreme Court will reject health care reform. But the American Bar Association has done the next best thing. As part of a special publication devoted to the case, the ABA surveyed a group of veteran observers and asked them to predict the outcome. The results? Eighty-five percent predicted that the court will uphold the law.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101842/supreme-court-health-care-predi...a-survey-lopez

Justice Antonin Scalia

He might seem like one of the least likely candidates to support the constitutionality of the individual mandate. But the Obama administration is directly courting Scalia’s vote.

And because his stamp of approval on the requirement that Americans buy insurance in 2014 would be so surprising, it could also go the furthest in appeasing conservatives who steadfastly oppose the law.

In their defense of the mandate, Obama’s lawyers cite Scalia’s own words in a 2005 case at least five times.

In the Gonzales v. Raich case, Scalia wrote that Congress can regulate a person who wanted to grow legal medicinal marijuana in her home. He said that Congress could do it under the Commerce Clause because the marijuana was “never more than an instant from the interstate market.”

The federal government argues that Congress can regulate the purchase of health insurance in the same way.

Because people can get sick or in an accident, “we are all potentially never more than an instance from the ‘point of consumption’ of health care, yet it is impossible to predict which of us will need it during any period of time,” the government wrote in its Supreme Court brief defending the mandate.

The argument could hurt the 26 states and National Federation of Independent Business, which say Congress isn’t allowed to drag an individual who doesn’t want to buy insurance into the market.

“It’s certainly not harmful [for the government] to say that the intellectual leader of the conservatives agrees with our legal position here,” said Brad Joondeph, a Santa Clara University law professor who follows the health litigation at his ACA Litigation Blog.

Plus, it was 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Sutton — whom in 2009 Scalia called “one of my former clerks whom I am the most proud of,” according to a New York Times report — who was the first Republican-appointed appellate court judge to uphold the law. He also wrote a thorough, 26-page opinion outlining a conservative argument that the mandate is constitutionally sound

.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73412.html#ixzz1py1Ou44a

[Parallax]

hmmm...............

Well that settles it then! One veteran journalist and an insurance "executive" predict it will be upheld.
Nothing more to discuss here, I guess.

[boriscleto]

I'm sorry to do this Mike but the only realistic and logical response to that statement is:

BWA-

good luck w/ a few years of "tort reform" discussions while more Americans go broke or die...........and you think I live in a fantasy world.. Where are the "alternate plans"???
They only had a few decades to come up w/ them.....

Of course "Obamacare" aka "Romneycare" is really "BobDolecare" aka "HeritageFoundationcare".

The first President to recognize that something needed to be done about health care was Roosevelt, no not Franklin, Theodore! I think a century of debate about health care is more than enough.

[jeffkrol]

Well that settles it then! One veteran journalist and an insurance "executive" predict it will be upheld.
Nothing more to discuss here, I guess.

You forgot to mention the "expert panel" at American Bar Association...........

Anyways I'm still curious as to the source of your numbers..........I do consider other analysis......

[jeffkrol]

Of course "Obamacare" aka "Romneycare" is really "BobDolecare" aka "HeritageFoundationcare".

The first President to recognize that something needed to be done about health care was Roosevelt, no not Franklin, Theodore! I think a century of debate about health care is more than enough.

Agreed.. and we finally had an "adult" step up to the plate instead of constantly "debating it"..........
AND to be honest.. it certainly is not "my ideal" but it makes inroads to solving the problem.........

[Parallax]

You forgot to mention the "expert panel" at American Bar Association...........

Anyways I'm still curious as to the source of your numbers..........I do consider other analysis......

The only number I offered was 6-3 against. It was an interview with another expert on CBS This Morning.

[jeffkrol]

More fun analysis:

Healthcare Reform's Day in Court: 6 Experts Weigh-In | News & Analysis

See this is disturbing:

There is no affordability of care and the people that put this bill in place know that the provisions represented in it will increase health insurance premiums to businesses, not do the opposite. If the bill falls apart due to the unconstitutionality of it, which it should, then we are back where we were a couple of years ago with two main concerns still needing to be addressed: 1) access to healthcare for uninsured Americans, and 2) unaffordable insurance premiums. My hope is that we start from scratch and work on a bill to address both of these priorities, not just one.

Clicking ruby slippers together.......
My hope is that we start from scratch and work on a bill
My hope is that we start from scratch and work on a bill
My hope is that we start from scratch and work on a bill

Welcome to OZ

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57403091/boies-unlikely-health-law-wi...ingSubCatAsset

Known as the individual mandate, the requirement has been the most controversial aspect of the law since it was first proposed. Boies said the decision could come down to a 5-to-4 or 6-to-3 decision and the mandate could be declared unconstitutional.

Boies, who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Vice President Al Gore in the contested election of 2000, said the decision in the case could be as significant as a landmark decision from 70 years ago, Wickard v. Filburn.

[jeffkrol]

Losing Affordable Care Act protections would be tremendous loss - Tampa Bay Times

Beyond the Affordable Care Act's future positive impact, the law is improving access to health care right now. If the law is overturned, parents would lose the right to keep their adult children on their policy until the child turns 26 years old, a change that has led to more than 157,000 young adults gaining coverage in Florida and 2.5 million nationally. Health insurers would again be allowed to engage in "rescission," or the cancellation of an individual policy after the insured gets sick. They could charge consumers for preventive care, deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, and reimpose lifetime maximums so that people with chronic conditions, such as cancer, risk crushing medical bills even with insurance.

No longer would insurers have to provide consumers with good value by spending at least 80 percent of premium dollars on health care rather than overhead and executive salaries. Gov. Rick Scott tried to get Florida a waiver from this rule, but the Obama administration wisely rejected the request. Seniors would lose the law's relief from the prescription drug doughnut hole, which currently provides a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs and will close the doughnut hole entirely by 2020.

Americans are often confused about the Affordable Care Act. Six in 10 don't know how it will impact their lives, according to the latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. But for many Americans the law already provides a new level of medical security. It would be a tremendous loss to lose those protections, regardless of who wins the presidential election or how the U.S. Supreme Court rules.