Individual mandate in trouble?

[LoneLaugher]

I assume "USC" refers to the United States Constitution. What limits does that place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other?"

Read on. You'll get to it. We can only hope that something shiny distracts you before you can respond.

I'd like an asnwer to that question, pleasw.
What limits -does- the Constitution place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other"?

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

 

[The T]

Probably celebrate a little. That would hasten the march toward single payer.

Republicans and the insurance lobby will have the most difficulty if the mandate is declared unconstitutional.

BTW.........the court is not acting within the limits placed on it by the USC if the rule on it either way. That ought to bother you nutters but it doesn't. Wonder why?

Did you just say that if the SCOTUS rules for, or against Obamacare, they are acting outside their Constitutional authority?

Yes. Do you think you have trapped me or something? The law was passed by duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the duly elected President of the United States. They shouldn't even be hearing the case.

Tell us what "equal but Separate BRANCHES" of our government is? And could you further clarify for us 'Separation Of Powers'?

I'll expect an answer for it in your own words in a day or so AFTER you research it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read on. You'll get to it. We can only hope that something shiny distracts you before you can respond.

I'd like an asnwer to that question, pleasw.
What limits -does- the Constitution place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other"?

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

Nothing in there answers my question to the end that I asked it.
Disagree?
Please copy and paste the text that meets the needs of my question.

 

[bripat9643]

There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.

If the court overturns Obamacare, government healthcare will never have a chance of getting passed ever again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Really? The stupidest reasoning you've ever heard in your life? Whoa!

Is the federal court system for overturning the will of the people?

Yes, that's exactly what it's for.

You are the biggest fucking moron in this forum.

Keep going, dummy. The answers await you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.

If the court overturns Obamacare, government healthcare will never have a chance of getting passed ever again.

Yes. Beautiful, isn't it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'd like an asnwer to that question, pleasw.
What limits -does- the Constitution place on the Supreme Court that would interfere with it ruling "one way or the other"?

Supreme Court & Judicial Review

Nothing in there answers my question to the end that I asked it.
Disagree?
Please copy and paste the text that meets the needs of my question.

You don't agree. That does not mean that the question has not been answered. I have answered the question.

 

[The T]

There is zero chance single payer will happen in the U.S. any time in the near future and it would be unconstitutional anyway.

If the court overturns Obamacare, government healthcare will never have a chance of getting passed ever again.

Yes. Beautiful, isn't it?

They didn't learn the first time from 'HillaryCare'...The Statists just had to wait to foist it and thensome for the bases to be loaded in thier favour.

 

[SniperFire]

4) Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.

And while you are at it, make State Farm insure our automobiles after we wreck them!

 

[bripat9643]

It was passed in the manner outlined in the constitution. Therefore, it is the will of the people.

That doesn't make it constitutional, nimrod. Do you think a bill giving government the authority to censor newspapers is constitutional, even if it was passed in the manner outlined in the Constitution?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please, dummy. Learn your place.

 

[jillian]

Since when do "most Americans" have a clue about what is constitutional?? If there was a vote on Jim Crow, it would still pass in places.

That's what the Court is there for.... or at least it used to be.

As for whether the Court will sustain the mandate... there are years of precedent saying they should. Not that precedent ever stood in the way of the justices who decided Bush v Gore... That said, Kennedy did more than just ask the question he did... which was to be expected:

This is what was left out from the article at the beginning of the thread... it's what really came from SCOTUSBlog:

The second, and possibly even more important, comment came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a key swing vote on the Court. Justice Kennedy appeared to voice some sympathy for the government’s argument that the health care market is “unique.” Even if a healthy young person without insurance may not need health care in a particular time period, he reasoned, that young person will nonetheless be “very close” to having an effect on insurance rates – for example, on the theory that, as he ages, he will eventually need care that he can’t afford without insurance – in a way that just doesn’t happen in other markets.

During his four minutes of rebuttal, Solicitor General Verrilli tried to return the Court to the big picture, reminding it once again that Congress had enacted the ACA to deal with a “grave problem” and that it opted to do so (and rejected the permissible alternative of having everyone buy insurance if and when they need it) with a method that it knew would actually work. This is exactly the kind of choice, he concluded, that the Constitution leaves to the democratic process.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/t...glish-will-the-mandate-squeak-by/#more-141995

 

[Pheonixops]

Justice Kennedy has harsh questions for the govts lawyer.

Check out scotusblog

Not looking good for uncle Sam.

Good, I hope so. But if you are betting on your republicans, check this out:

LOL, check this out......Bro. Let's check out some of "those" republican candidates:

" MR. GREGORY: Now, I know you’ve got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.
(Videotape, October 3, 1993)
REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?


REP. GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did.

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond…


MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.


REP. GINGRICH: …or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.

MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it."

"The latest fad in health care reform is the "individual mandate" — a law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance and threatens punishment for those who don't. Massachusetts, under the governorship of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, has already created a health care policy with an individual mandate as its centerpiece."



PolitiFact | Pro-Santorum super PAC ad says Gingrich supported individual mandates



Let's check out "brother" Santorum: "Rick Santorum supported the idea of “requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance” when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.



“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes."



Rick Santorum, Individual-Mandate Fraud | The New Republic

"Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.

On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.

But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on."

So take your republican's are the saviors crap and well maybe you should re-examine your stance.

 

[Salt Jones]

Different opinions:

"Reading the tea leaves, it sounds like Justice Kennedy accepts the basic framework of the challengers that mandates are different and especially troubling. Instead of saying that mandates are therefore banned, however, Justice Kennedy would require the government to show some special circumstances justifying the mandate in each case. The answered question in this case is whether the special economics of the health care market justifies the mandate here."

The Volokh Conspiracy » Kennedy’s “Heavy Burden of Justification” Approach, and Whether the Nature of the Health Care Insurance Market Can Satisfy It

"If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior."

"If the vote had been taken after Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., stepped back from the lectern after the first 56 minutes, and the audience stood up for a mid-argument stretch, the chances were that the most significant feature of the Affordable Care Act would have perished in Kennedy’s concern that it just might alter the fundamental relationship between the American people and their government. But after two arguments by lawyers for the challengers — forceful and creative though they were — at least doubt had set in and expecting the demise of the mandate seemed decidedly premature."

Argument recap: It is Kennedy’s call (FINAL UPDATE 3:14 pm) : SCOTUSblog

 

[Syphon]

4) Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.

And while you are at it, make State Farm insure our automobiles after we wreck them!

yes because a kid born with cancer or a birth defect carries the exact same value as a car.

 

[SniperFire]

4) Create an individual law stating insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions.

And while you are at it, make State Farm insure our automobiles after we wreck them!

yes because a kid born with cancer or a birth defect carries the exact same value as a car.

Not the Federal gubmints job. But this you are learning the hard way!

 

[Syphon]

And while you are at it, make State Farm insure our automobiles after we wreck them!

yes because a kid born with cancer or a birth defect carries the exact same value as a car.

Not the Federal gubmints job. But this you are learning the hard way!

really, you dont think the health and safety of its citizens is the governments job?

you willing to put your money where you mouth is?

 

[SniperFire]

Why don't all you weepy weepy libs all pool together and just give yourselves all the free healthcare you want? I mean, their must be MILLIONS of you.

 

[skookerasbil]

If you're a conservative and want to laugh your ass off.........go over to DRUDGE right now!!!

The list of lefty k00k losing is a mile long.

Shit........even Sotamayor kicked Obama in the balls today!!!

 

[Syphon]

Why don't all you weepy weepy libs all pool together and just give yourselves all the free healthcare you want? I mean, their must be MILLIONS of you.

who said anything about "free" health care. the ACA makes you purchase health care. what law are you referring to?

the difference is, that im willing to be part of a system that provides services to all for the same price, not services to some based on how much money they have.