What will the Supreme Court decide regarding Obamacare?

JerryBobCo

I predict that the high court will rule that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not covered by the commerce clause. I also think that the vote will be 5-4, with the 4 liberal justices (Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan) voting that it is, and the other 5 (Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas) voting it is not. As usual, Kennedy will be the swing vote.

And, since both sides are arguing that the entire law depends on the individual mandate clause and is not severable from the rest of the law, the entire law will be stricken down.

What do you predict, and why?

beartracker

I hope you are right, but not sure of the outcome, not in this day and time, yes, I SURE HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT!!

beartracker

Like I said, I sure hope JerryBobCo is right!!!

JerryBobCo

alphasigmookie wrote: »

I think where Obama and co went wrong in selling this was in insisting that it wasn't a tax for political reasons (no one likes a tax). If they'd just come out from the start and said that they were instituting a tax on anyone without health insurance (or technically a tax on everyone with a tax break for anyone with insurance) to pay for the inevitable costs that uninsured people impose on our healthcare system and to encourage them to get coverage, I think it would have been much easier to justify both constitutionally and politically.

For once you and I agree. When this bill was being debated, the democrats went out of their way to assure everyone that it was not a tax. Now, those who are arguing for it insist that it is. So, is it a tax or a penalty?

My wife has been following this, and I've watched a little of it. Justice Kennedy has made statements comparing this to tort law, and whether or not there is an obligation to do something to prevent someone from harm even though that person is acting on his/her own. The example he used is if you see a blind person walking in front of a bus, are you legally obligated to pull that person from harm's way. The answer to that question is established law, and is no. If the same sort of logic applies to Obamacare, then it would not look good for those in favor of it.

Just Kagan, who, in my opinion, should recuse herself because she argued for this as Obama's solicitor general, has stated that if someone in state A decides not to buy health insurance, and that results in higher premiums for someone in another state, then it does constitute interstate commerce, which the congress can regulate. Again, my interpretation of what she said, not her exact words.

CaliFFL

If you want to see a stretch to the Commerce Clause, read Wickard v. Filburn. Don't forget to check out the subsequent cases decided because of the precedent established.

tv_racin_fan

The people who generally vote for democrats don't want an increase in THEIR taxes. As you may recall the democrats in congress and the president claimed that only those making over $200k/$250k would see a tax increase. IF they had said it was simply a tax they would not have gotten the support of those people and thus the bill would not have passed. They now seem to be trying to claim it is a tax based on the fact that the penalty for noncompliance will be collected by the IRS.

I have pointed out before that I am not totally against a govt (taxpayer) funded healthcare system BUT the people have to understand how much that will cost. According to some research I did back before the bill was passed Canada has a 7% sales tax (in all but one province) that funds a portion of it's healthcare system and the rest of the system is funded thru income taxes.

People point to auto insurance as an instance where the GOVT mandates a product. They seem to forget that auto insurance isn't to protect YOU but to protect the other guy. You need uninsured motorist insurance to protect you and that isn't mandated in every state. They also forget that auto insurance is only mandated if you own an auto and drive on public streets (my wife and I do not have insurance tho we do drive BUT we do not own an auto and the owner of that auto has insurance not us). Also with "Obamacare" your child will be mandated to have "Obamacare" insurance but that child is not mandated to have auto insurance (at least not until it is old enough to drive).

Lawyers arguing the case point to the Militia Act to show that GOVT can and has mandated that the people purchase items before. THAT is indeed the case HOWEVER that case involved national defence AND everyone was not mandated, only those conscripted.

Is this a tax and is it a tax on everyone? IF the democrats are successful in arguing that it is such a tax on EVERYONE I think they are going to have some "splainin to do to their constituency. Personally I think IF I was in a democrat district and that democrat supported the act I would be asking for some "splainin already just because they seem to be arguing that it is a tax.

robert38-55

beartracker wrote: »

I hope you are right, but not sure of the outcome, not in this day and time, yes, I SURE HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT!!

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Airedale

I've said before, our country has spent untold billions in wars in the middle east funded by taxpayers.
To what avail? Iraq is still a mess. Afghanistan is a festering sore, and now it's being reported that suicide vests were stored in the Afghan military headquarters.
But we can't afford decent health care for our most needy.
It's true that the working poor can go to the emergency room in their local hospitals. But that's the most expensive means. We still pay for it in increased costs.
We're required to buy auto insurance. Why? To spread out the cost of claims of the insured. Hell, I've not had a claim for reimbursement in years, but my rates continue to rise.
Y'all tell me what's the difference here?
I'm required to buy auto insurance, that's constitutional, but contributing for health insurance isn't.
Jim

blueslide88

Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. The decision will go the way of Kennedy. It's a classic conservative v. liberal case, similar the the gun decisions. I predict it will be found unconstitutional by a 5 to 4 vote.

Make_My_Day

tv_racin_fan wrote: »

People point to auto insurance as an instance where the GOVT mandates a product. They seem to forget that auto insurance isn't to protect YOU but to protect the other guy. You need uninsured motorist insurance to protect you and that isn't mandated in every state. They also forget that auto insurance is only mandated if you own an auto and drive on public streets (my wife and I do not have insurance tho we do drive BUT we do not own an auto and the owner of that auto has insurance not us). Also with "Obamacare" your child will be mandated to have "Obamacare" insurance but that child is not mandated to have auto insurance (at least not until it is old enough to drive).

Any thinking person would agree with this.
:up: