Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[keale]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Depends on whether or not you ask people if they like "Obamacare" or if they like the benefits of Obamacare.

Thats sad. Really makes just shake my head

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

...

What's he going to do with the rest of his first week?

Profit!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Obama's most significant achievement is ruled a tax increase on poor and middle-income Americans.

See, right there ^ another dishonest talking point.

The poor have the option of government assistance countering any increased cost they can't afford.

The middle class as a whole, is going to be better off financially in several ways. One, those of us paying for deadbeaters' care through markups on our health care costs will see a benefit as the cost is shared by everyone, not just paying customers.

Two, a major cause of bankruptcy will be eliminated.

Three, those in the middle class who are paying costs for chronic health problems that no insurer will cover will now have access to insurance thus lowering their costs.

And four, all of us with kids over 18 but under 26 will pay less with our kids on our policies than if we had to have individual plans for the kids. My son is 22 and in college.

[DavidJames]

If the Republicans are able to make the Palin's tweet (Brainster, for example, has bought in to it hook line and sinker) stick with the public. Obama is toast.

I expect the dozens of "the private sector is doing fine" ads to be replaced by the apparent (read lie) claim that Obama is now taxing poor people.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Romney is spewing lies right now.

I'll wait till he's done to point out why his claims are false.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by Brown

President Barack Obama, April 2012:Chief Justice John Roberts, June 2012:The President's remarks were discussed here.

It's not exactly unusual for the Court to express its standard post-Lochner paean to judicial modesty and the autonomy of the political branches in policy matters, and Roberts has been more vocal about deference to the political branches more so than most Justices. Seems a bit of a stretch to assume that his language here is a response to Obama's statement.

What will be more interesting to see is whether the left's newfound appreciation for judicial restraint and the democratic virtues of majoritarian lawmaking lasts beyond the present moment. I rather doubt it.

[grunion]

I'm hoping Democrats can find as many clips as possible of Santorum's "Obomneycare" stump speeches and run them ad nauseum. The hypocrisy is astounding.

[jasonpatterson]

This was such a pleasant surprise from Justice Roberts. I'm honestly stunned that this passed with the court as currently exists.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

If the Republicans are able to make the Palin's tweet (Brainster, for example, has bought in to it hook line and sinker) stick with the public. Obama is toast.

Here are 2 talking points that should be used:

The individual mandate is about personal responsibility, (not government intrusion).

Private health insurers are evil.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

The ACA is a terrible, hacked-together, mishmosh of a legislation. The only thing that can be said for it is that it is head and shoulders above the cruel, deadly, and nonfunctional system we have without it. So I'm glad to see it stay... for now.

Now if only we could put together a proper national health system like civilized countries have.

This pretty much echos my thoughts.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Romney is spewing lies right now.

I'll wait till he's done to point out why his claims are false.

I have previously predicted the following:

Originally Posted by Brown

8. The U.S. Supreme Court will uphold part of the US healthcare overhaul, but not all of it.
8a. At least one Supreme Court justice will suggest that, unless the US Constitution specifically authorizes the Congress to implement a national healthcare plan, the US Congress cannot do so, no matter what.
8b. Look for at least one Supreme Court justice to become ill, which will make bench appointments a prominent campaign issue. The Republican candidate will pledge to nominate someone like Scalia.

Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct. Except for the part about someone being ill, I expect prediction 8b to be close to coming true.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Here are 2 talking points that should be used:

The individual mandate is about personal responsibility, (not government intrusion).

Private health insurers are evil.

I agree, reality is on Obama's side, but the meme could stick. Those talking points will take much longer then a 30 second TV ad to explain.

The cynical part of me wonders if Roberts actually considered the political fallout of the tax bit.

[Foolmewunz]

Originally Posted by Brown

Wow, talk about being "in the bubble!!" I had heard that certain folks who identified themselves as "conservative" had decided--before the decision came down--that there was no conceivable scenario under which they could be deemed to "lose," and that no matter how the case came out, Romney would be the "winner."

Sounds like the mark of a Fox viewer. I'm stuck with Fox News over here since I got to Thailand, but it's been educational as I'd never seen it before. There has not been a talking head, whether delivering "News" or their screaming matches passing for commentary, for the past three weeks who wasn't absolutely positive that this was going to be struck down. Half of their discussions start with "well, after the Supremes knock-out Obamacare...".

Right now, they're in need of several chiropractors as they're throwing their collective back out doing contortions to find ways to spin this. They were totally unprepared as they thought they had this one in the bag. They've at least gotten politicos out to make statements about this being the reason "we need to win the election and repeal this".

Fox News is really reprehensible. They're interviewing a GOP Representative and throw him loaded questions on how this hurts the economy. Then they have a Dem Senator on and he wisely filibustered for two minutes because when their question came it was "How do you explain to those families that they have to pay higher taxes for this, though?"

[Vorticity]

Originally Posted by Brown

I have previously predicted the following:

Originally Posted by Brown

8. The U.S. Supreme Court will uphold part of the US healthcare overhaul, but not all of it.
8a. At least one Supreme Court justice will suggest that, unless the US Constitution specifically authorizes the Congress to implement a national healthcare plan, the US Congress cannot do so, no matter what.
8b. Look for at least one Supreme Court justice to become ill, which will make bench appointments a prominent campaign issue. The Republican candidate will pledge to nominate someone like Scalia.

Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct.

News coverage of the actual content of the decision has been patchy.

Re prediction 8 above: Which part of the ACA was not upheld by the SCOTUS?

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

It's not exactly unusual for the Court to express its standard post-Lochner paean to judicial modesty and the autonomy of the political branches in policy matters, and Roberts has been more vocal about deference to the political branches more so than most Justices. Seems a bit of a stretch to assume that his language here is a response to Obama's statement.

What will be more interesting to see is whether the left's newfound appreciation for judicial restraint and the democratic virtues of majoritarian lawmaking lasts beyond the present moment. I rather doubt it.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Sounds like the mark of a Fox viewer. I'm stuck with Fox News over here since I got to Thailand, but it's been educational as I'd never seen it before. There has not been a talking head, whether delivering "News" or their screaming matches passing for commentary, for the past three weeks who wasn't absolutely positive that this was going to be struck down. Half of their discussions start with "well, after the Supremes knock-out Obamacare...".

Right now, they're in need of several chiropractors as they're throwing their collective back out doing contortions to find ways to spin this. They were totally unprepared as they thought they had this one in the bag. They've at least gotten politicos out to make statements about this being the reason "we need to win the election and repeal this".

Fox News is really reprehensible. They're interviewing a GOP Representative and throw him loaded questions on how this hurts the economy. Then they have a Dem Senator on and he wisely filibustered for two minutes because when their question came it was "How do you explain to those families that they have to pay higher taxes for this, though?"

Funny. I was reading a Nate Silver blog post about this, which was yesterday, before the decision was announced:
Overconfidence Suggested in Supreme Court Predictions

Quote:

Bettors at the prediction market Intrade are quite confident that the Supreme Court will declare the individual mandate unconstitutional when it rules on the government’s health care bill. (The decision is expected to come on Thursday.) At this writing, the consensus prediction of the market is that there is a 74 percent chance that the court will vote to overturn the mandate.

This represents a reversal from earlier, when the conventional wisdom held that the Supreme Court was more likely than not to uphold the mandate.

That was before oral arguments were made in the case in March, however. These were evidently perceived to be a “game changer.” The government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., sometimes struggled in offering a crisp defense of the law, and the questions of him from the court were often skeptical.

After these oral arguments, Intrade’s betting shifted dramatically. Quickly, the chance of the mandate’s being overturned climbed to about 65 percent from 35 percent at the market.

The odds of the mandate’s being overturned have fluctuated some since then, but have risen even further in the past few weeks, according to the market.

Is such a large shift in sentiment justified? In my view, probably not.This may be another case of traders being overconfident about the value of their information, a property which has also been observed in the stock market.

[JamesDillon]

Somebody made a ton of money on Intrade today. Wish it was me.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

Re prediction 8 above: Which part of the ACA was not upheld by the SCOTUS?

Something about whether the federal government can withhold Medicaid money from states that don't comply with new rules regarding Medicaid.

[marksman]

For the record, here's how the voting actually went.

Part II. Does the Anti-Injunction Act prevent the Court from hearing this case?
No: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: --

Part III-A.1 Does the Commerce Clause allow Congress to enact the individual Mandate?
No: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Part III-A.2 Does the Necessary and Proper Clause allow Congress to enact the individual Mandate?
No: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Part III-B. Can the individual Mandate be construed as a tax?
Yes: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
No: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito

Part III-C. Is the individual mandate consistent with Congress' taxation powers?
Yes: Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
No: Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito

Part IV. May Congress withhold Medicaid from States who do not meet Act deadlines?
No: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Alito
Yes: Ginsberg, Sotomayor

[marksman]

Of note, and as noted by Ginsberg in her opinion, the decision that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause do not justify the mandate is mere "dicta" because the mandate is separately upheld under Congress' taxation powers.

[Bob001]

Just a question here: Would the individual mandate be less controversial if a Medicare-style public option had not been dumped early in the legislative process? Suppose the government could say "We will enroll you in the public option plan and bill you for the premiums unless you enroll in a private plan of your choice." This wouldn't be much different from requiring everyone to contribute to Social Security, except that there is no option to be excluded from SS. Personally, I support a national single-payer system like Canada's, the UK's, etc., but even I am queasy about people being forced to buy a commercial product from profit-oriented private companies.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Peephole

It's been upheld 6-3. Roberts voted with the left.

Actually, it was a 5-4 ruling, with Roberts being the swing vote.

Wow, once again, I am pleasantly surprised! I had no expectation that Roberts would vote to uphold the law; I will reiterate that, contrary to our own biases, it is possible for judges (and, dare I say, even politicians on occasion) to defy our expectations and preconceptions.

President Obama's speaking now. Yes we did

ETA: Seeing the earlier posts about the news coverage has made me LOL quite a lot. Another example of "get it first" rather than "get it right"

[RandFan]

I have argued at length that if the ACA were funded via the general fund (tax) then it would not violate the commerce clause. Guess SCOTUS agrees.

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Obama's most significant achievement is ruled a tax increase on poor and middle-income Americans.

By partisan hacks and ill informed mouth breathers.

Daredelvis

[daredelvis]

Originally Posted by Tony

Outside of conservative fantasies, did it ever mean anything? At one time or another, America has had a government that enslaved people based on race, put them in camps based on nationality, criminalized criticism of the government, forced women to carry children they didn't want, forcibly sterilized people, censored information, censored pornography, fined people for saying "bad" words, forced people to pray, forbade what chemicals or drugs people can ingest, forced people into military service. I can go on and on.

But noooo, it only is NOW. When government has reformed healthcare (for good or ill) that "limited and enumerated powers" means nothing.

Very nice Tony.

Daredelvis

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I tried to read the whole decision, but when I opened the pdf my vision blurred and I was overwhelmed with a wave of exhaustion. Secret Obama weapon?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Somebody made a ton of money on Intrade today. Wish it was me.

Speaking of prediction markets, it will be interesting to see how/if this decision affects the odds for the election.

ETA: Wow. Obama's already up by about 3% over at Intrade as compared to yesterday. Guess I've got my answer.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Brown

...

Except for the part about someone being ill, I expect prediction 8b to be close to coming true.

I am told that there are some smouldering health issues.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Brown

I have previously predicted the following:Predictions 8 and 8a have proven correct. Except for the part about someone being ill, I expect prediction 8b to be close to coming true.

For a long time I argued that the individual mandate was OK as a tax, and even after I accepted the government's CC argument, I still wondered why they wouldn't argue (legally, that is, as opposed to politically) that it's a tax.

And I admit I don't understand at all the court's decision that it's not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but it is a tax as far as Congress' authority. I'll have to read the decision more carefully. (So far, I've just read through the holdings in the Syllabus.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

But hats off to Chief Justice Roberts.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

For a long time I argued that the individual mandate was OK as a tax, and even after I accepted the government's CC argument, I still wondered why they wouldn't argue (legally, that is, as opposed to politically) that it's a tax.

And I admit I don't understand at all the court's decision that it's not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but it is a tax as far as Congress' authority. I'll have to read the decision more carefully. (So far, I've just read through the holdings in the Syllabus.)

I just read through the Anti-Injunction Act part and it seems a bit dodgy; basically the mandate is a "penalty" rather than a "tax" because... Congress says so. But I haven't gotten to the part upholding the mandate under the tax power yet, maybe it will make more sense then.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Somebody made a ton of money on Intrade today. Wish it was me.

Nate Silver mentioned yesterday that Intrade was far too certain the mandate would fall.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

I just read through the Anti-Injunction Act part and it seems a bit dodgy; basically the mandate is a "penalty" rather than a "tax" because... Congress says so. But I haven't gotten to the part upholding the mandate under the tax power yet, maybe it will make more sense then.

That's what the holdings seem to say: that for purposes of the AIA, Congress' intent matters, but for purposes of the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the court could overlook that intent and decide that since it functions as a tax, it is a tax. (I recall some precedent to the finding that a tax penalty is a tax as long as it raises revenue. And the revenues raised by the tax penalty in the ACA were part of the calculation of its impact on the federal budget by the CBO. And clearly the idea was that people who might otherwise be purely a drain on the system will at least be paying in something to help offset the costs of care to the uninsured. In other words, that revenue is important as revenue.)

[JamesDillon]

We have broccoli (er, "vegetables") argument at 22-23!

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Obama's most significant achievement is ruled a tax increase on poor and middle-income Americans.

Nope.

The tax penalty most definitely does not apply to the "poor". (Depending on how you define "poor", most of them actually already qualify for Medicaid.) There is in fact a financial hardship exemption. Rather, the tax penalty is aimed at those who can afford coverage but choose not to get it because they are low risk for needing healthcare (that is, those who would like to game the system) and not at those who can't afford it.

In fact, a major aim of the ACA is to make minimum essential coverage affordable to as many of the uninsured as possible.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

It's not exactly unusual for the Court to express its standard post-Lochner paean to judicial modesty and the autonomy of the political branches in policy matters, and Roberts has been more vocal about deference to the political branches more so than most Justices. Seems a bit of a stretch to assume that his language here is a response to Obama's statement.

I didn't read Brown's post like that. I read it as Roberts showing that Obama's assessment was correct. The court did what it did. Obama anticipated it correctly.

As a constitutional scholar, Obama should in principle have a decent idea of how the court works, you would figure. In this case, he was borne out.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I didn't read Brown's post like that. I read it as Roberts showing that Obama's assessment was correct. The court did what it did. Obama anticipated it correctly.

As a constitutional scholar, Obama should in principle have a decent idea of how the court works, you would figure. In this case, he was borne out.

When Obama leaves office in 2016, I really think that President Biden should nominate him for the SC.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

But really if we are going to have a "health care law" let's please get rid of this horrible overregulated piece of garbage they have created. This isn't going to make anything better in the long run. I'm pretty hardcore but if we are going to have a nationalized system we should just go ahead and be done with it by making it single payer. I don't think this half assed stuff is a good idea at all. Either completely privatize and deregulate (my preference) or move to single payer PUH-LEASE!

Agreed. The law makes some baby steps in the right directions, but it's trying to make the current system act like a different system instead of just replacing it with something better. We're basically putting improvements into a double-wide when we should be building a new house.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I didn't read Brown's post like that. I read it as Roberts showing that Obama's assessment was correct. The court did what it did. Obama anticipated it correctly.

As a constitutional scholar, Obama should in principle have a decent idea of how the court works, you would figure. In this case, he was borne out.

I won't try to speak for what Brown meant, but to the extent that Obama's statement was intended as a description of how constitutional decision making actually works, it was entirely false. The degree of support that a provision under review enjoyed from the legislature or the public is (at least theoretically) entirely irrelevant to the assessment of its constitutionality. Obama's suggestion to the contrary was nothing more than propaganda-- and as I noted above, propaganda that one more frequently heard from conservatives, at least in the Warren-Burger-Rehnquist Court days when they tended to be on the losing end of 5-4 splits.

ETA: Obama was also just wrong as a historical matter to suggest that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to strike down a law passed by a strong majority of Congress. Every federal law is passed by a majority of Congress; some of those majorities have been quite large. See, e.g., Schechter Poultry v. United States (striking down the National Industrial Recovery Act, passed by a large majority of FDR's Congress).

[JoeTheJuggler]

So a question for the legal minds here: is the holding on the CC authority dictum since it wasn't necessary to dispose of the controversy before the court? If not, does it change anything wrt CC authority jurisprudence?