Day 2 Of Argument...Not A Good Day For The Mandate

[somarco]

The gov't believes ALL health care is paid for by insurance (including a doctor visit, or prescription). This is the first flaw as it assumes we need insurance to pay for the small stuff.

Truth is, about half the cost of health care is absorbed by taxpayer funded programs, mostly Medicare and Medicaid. There is significantly more cost shifting created by govt programs than deadbeats that do not pay their bills.

My predicted outcome, based on the realization the Supremes get this more than I thought they did......

Don't overlook the fact that Chairman Obama took them to the woodshed during is SOTU address a year ago. I suspect some of them might be holding grudges.

Guaranteed issue is gone. It was based solely on the mandate, you can't do this without a mandate.

I don't believe ME, NY and VT have a mandate.

Subsidies stay (this is the real evil)

Only if there is funding.

If the penalty for non-compliance is negated that makes it even more difficult to find the money for rebates.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Further into the audio - seems Obama simply took a gamble on the tax vs penalty language. If it was called a tax, the chances of it passing went down substantially. However, now that Congress passed it and called it a penalty, the decision may turn out to bite them in the ass.

The justices seem to agree that the government has the power to tax - even stated by one justice that if was simply "you either buy coverage or pay this tax" it "could" be a simple argument for the government.

But the justices clearly don't like the government playing both sides of the fence. The argument now is "it's a tax, we just didn't call it that and since it's a tax, the government can impose it."

Justices rebut with "then why didn't you call it a tax." The reply was a very uncomfortable "because the government would have had a harder time passing it."

 

[FEproducerKen]

"If the government can require that people buy this, what else can it require that people buy" is a question no one can answer.

The justices were dead on with the logic that if a solution to any problem is requiring people to purchase a product, there's, in theory, no end to what we may be required to buy.

You may want to ask the conservative heritage foundation this question since they were one of the first to promote the mandate idea and convinced many conservatives in congress to embrace it. IT was widely supported by conservatives before Obama embraced it. This is not taking up for Obama but empasizing the hypocricy we are now viewing. I have seen many people try and paint the mandate as a liberal idea. It was not. It was a conservative idea.

 

[somarco]

Notes from day 3


Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

 

[taterpeeler]

Notes from day 3


Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law - latimes.com

Yep, I saw that on Drudge..... Seems based on comments by justicies that the gig is up

Where is Al3 when you need him???

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

To sum it up, the majority of the justices feel that if the government is given the power to create commerce to solve a problem, there will be no end to it.

 

[somarco]

Where is Al3 when you need him???

I would respond but see no reason to move this thread to the fight club.

 

[Franz Kafka]

Get the party ready or is that too early?

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I believe I'll use "skeptical optimism." I heard the justices dig into both sides and there was a lot of devil's advocate questions. I believe they want to appear unbiased.

Clearly upon hearing the first two days of audio, they are leaning in favor of striking down the mandate. But what will the actual decision be?

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

"Get the party ready or is that too early?"

Too early. The decision still could go either way. And the issue of Exchanges is still there, which is just as big of a problem.