Obamacare goes to Supreme Court Monday

[Pressing-On]

Page 21

LOL!

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Clement, I didn't take the time to figure this out, but maybe you did. Is there any chance that all 26 States opposing it have Republican governors, and all of the States supporting it have Democratic governors? Is that possible?

MR. CLEMENT: There's a correlation, Justice Scalia.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Yes.

(Laughter.)

[Pressing-On]

This segment covers the severability argument, i.e., if the mandate is struck down, the remaining portions of Obamacare will be unable to function properly and should then be invalidated.


National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...rgument=11-393

Transcript:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...pts/11-393.pdf

[canam]

Obama will get a thorugh spanking on this !

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by canam

Obama will get a thorugh spanking on this !

I don't know. Hope so, but we will see. I believe they will have a ruling on Friday and their opinions will be available at the end of June.

I'm just getting around to listening to the severability argument. That should be interesting. I have really enjoyed listening to the oral arguments.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What would be great is if the Supreme Court can rule with a surgical knife and not an "all-or-nothing" approach. I am just not sure if it is their place to perform surgery on this very good intentioned, but poorly written law.

Something needs to be done about healthcare in America, but the current Healthcare Reform would do more harm than good, as it stands right now.

After yesterday I think it's obvious that the conservatives on the bench rightly feel that its outside the bounds of their constitutional powers to, as you say, "rule with a surgical knife". Scalia asked the Solicitor General for a precedent for that and he could name none. What needs to be done in America about healthcare is to allow open borders for insurance companies. The level of competition would be raise and prices would lower. Health insurance would be a lot more affordable. Besides the real number if uninsured in USA is about 15 million not 50 million. Many of those 15 mil are young ppl who choose not to carry insurance because theynare young and healthy. Another segment of that 15 mil are wealthy folks who choose not to carry insurance and pay as they go.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

After yesterday I think it's obvious that the conservatives on the bench rightly feel that its outside the bounds of their constitutional powers to, as you say, "rule with a surgical knife". Scalia asked the Solicitor General for a precedent for that and he could name none. What needs to be done in America about healthcare is to allow open borders for insurance companies. The level of competition would be raise and prices would lower. Health insurance would be a lot more affordable. Besides the real number if uninsured in USA is about 15 million not 50 million. Many of those 15 mil are young ppl who choose not to carry insurance because theynare young and healthy. Another segment of that 15 mil are wealthy folks who choose not to carry insurance and pay as they go.

Deacon, Do you think that if they allow open borders, which I am in favor of, that it could lend more teeth to the Commerce Clause?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

This segment covers the severability argument, i.e., if the mandate is struck down, the remaining portions of Obamacare will be unable to function properly and should then be invalidated.

Transcript:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...pts/11-393.pdf

Great closing argument by Clement - Pgs. 82-83. He did a fine job.

Mr. Clement: Now, in getting back to the -- an inquiry that I think this Court actually can approach, is to look at what Congress was trying to do, you need look no further than look than the title of this statute: Patient Protection and Affordable Care. I agree with Mr. Farr that community rating and guaranteed-issue were the crown jewels of this Act. They were what was trying to provide patient protection. And what made it affordable? The individual mandate. If you strike down guaranteed-issue, community rating and the individual mandate, there is nothing left to the heart of the Act.

And that takes me to my last point, which is simply this Court in Buckley created a halfway house, and it took Congress 40 years to try to deal with the situation, when contrary to any time of their intent, they had to try to figure out what are we going to do when we are stuck with this ban on contributions, but we can't get at expenditures because the Court told us we couldn't. And for -- for 40 years they worked in that halfway house.

Why make them do that in health care? The choice is to give Congress the task of fixing this statute, the residuum of this statute after some of it is struck down, or giving them the task of simply fixing the problem on a clean slate. I don't think that is a close choice. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act should fall.

[Pressing-On]

Clements closing argument, on the severability, with the reference to Buckley is explained more fully on Page 22.


Mr. Clement: And if I could make the broader point, I mean, I think the reason it makes sense in the democracy with separation of powers to in some cases sever the whole thing is because sometimes a half a loaf is worse. And a great example, if I dare say so, is Buckley. In Buckley this Court looked at a statute that tried to, in a coherent way, strike down limits on contributions and closely related expenditures.

This Court struck down the ban on expenditures, left the contribution ban in place, and for 4 decades Congress has tried to fix what's left of the statute, largely unsuccessfully, whereas it would have I think worked much better from a democratic and separation of powers standpoint if the Court would have said: Look, expenditures are -- you can't limit expenditures under the Constitution; the contribution provision is joined at the hip. Give Congress a chance to actually fix the problem.

[Dedicated Mind]

PO, why exactly are you against Obamacare? Obamacare is good for insurance companies. If obamacare fails, democrats will begin to push for a single payer system with the expansion of medicare, medicaid and chip. there is a single payer system in vermont and legislation in california and massachusetts. republicans should be supporting obamacare because if it fails democrats will get what they really want, a single payer system. win win for democrats. insurance companies will lose big. democrats passed the conservative option. The liberal option will be what is left if obamacare fails. there will be huge support for the liberal option. You are so partisan, you oppose obamacare for partisan reasons and don't realize that it is the conservative option. republicans are on the wrong side of history.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

PO, why exactly are you against Obamacare? Obamacare is good for insurance companies. If obamacare fails, democrats will begin to push for a single payer system with the expansion of medicare, medicaid and chip. there is a single payer system in vermont and legislation in california and massachusetts. republicans should be supporting obamacare because if it fails democrats will get what they really want, a single payer system. win win for democrats. insurance companies will lose big. democrats passed the conservative option. The liberal option will be what is left if obamacare fails. there will be huge support for the liberal option. You are so partisan, you oppose obamacare for partisan reasons and don't realize that it is the conservative option. republicans are on the wrong side of history.

A Federal Mandate is not conservative policy. I am for Free Market solutions. I am for consumer-based medicine, consumer-based patient centered healthcare reform.