Health Reform Bill & Supreme Court
- Thread starter dave74
- Start date
- 14,808
Not likely.
- 9,744
SCOTUS has been trampling the Constitution for many decades, so there's no reason to believe that they would do the right thing now.
- 2,908
Not really. Mandate is the only piece that bumps up against the constitution hard. However, there is enormous political mileage from having a pantload of states sign up to challenge it. It gives legitimacy to those who argue that it is anti-American and that is not to be understimated with an election coming up.
But then again, if a constituitional amendment is passed limiting some of this then what is unconstitutional changes. There will be movement toward that. It won't fly but it puts Obama over on the ropes while he is trying to put carriers and the industry and the GOP over on the ropes.
Last edited:
- 14,808
There is no mandate to buy insurance. Anyone can opt out. If they do, Congress has the authority to impose a tax. That's why the Supreme Court won't strike this down.
MA. courts won't even hear the case and several suits have been filed over the exact same thing; "You can't require that I purchase insurance or incur a state tax fine." The courts? Yes they can.
MA. courts won't even hear the case and several suits have been filed over the exact same thing; "You can't require that I purchase insurance or incur a state tax fine." The courts? Yes they can.
- 7,790
Not a chance.
- 10,830
And many people will opt out, businesses too. Its cheaper!
- Thread starter
- #8
Physician's group is also filing a suit against the health bill.
Insurance News - Physicians' Group Files Suit Seeking to Overturn New US Health Reform Law
Insurance News - Physicians' Group Files Suit Seeking to Overturn New US Health Reform Law
- 2,908
It is not as simple as you propose. Saying that there is no mandate except you can be fined is what is called a legal requirement. You are buying into the Obama rhetoric that it is a "tax". That is what Obama hopes it will be called but there is credible argument to be made to the contrary and those arguments are about to be filed.
Second, and of considerable importance, is the fact that no one is arguing that the states do not have the power to pass a mandate. States have different powers under the Constitution than the feds do and vice versa. Powers not specifically granted to the national government are reserved to the states. So arguments about massachusetts laws under the massachusetts constitution are not applicable. The feds are trying to backdoor their way in through the interstate commerce clause etc. Not constitutionally pretty.
Note that I did not say in the previous post that the constitutional challenges would necessarily prevail. What I said was that it is not a slam dunk for Obama and that the constitutionality is sufficiently messy to do some damage to his cause. Having a bunch of states join for a challenge in areas where he might squeak by but is on thin ice is not good politics for him, particularly since he is dependent on those states to help implement.
Don't assume that the Southern states feel that they are bound by the Massachusetts courts, Massachusetts laws, or the Massachusetts constitution. Although as a northerner I will not be so foolish as to speak for them, I am going to take a wild and crazy guess that they don't.
Last edited:
- 14,808
The main arguments that will be made to the Supreme Court will follow this logic:
"Then it stands to reason that the government could mandate that everyone join a gym and exercise 5 hours a week minimum. Gyms will report to the government and anyone failing to workout the required hours will incur an IRS fine. This is a necessary move for the health of the country."
"Then it stands to reason that the government could mandate that everyone join a gym and exercise 5 hours a week minimum. Gyms will report to the government and anyone failing to workout the required hours will incur an IRS fine. This is a necessary move for the health of the country."
Similar threads
