Thread: Anyone want to predict the outcome of the health care case?

Originally Posted by jviehe

Not that the Justices havent been idiots:

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think that case has any presidence here. Filburn was actually producing a product. I'm not producing anything. I merely sitting on my ass choosing not to engage in commercial activity. To suggest that doing nothing effects the healthcare market because one day I might get ill is simply straining the law to enforce what ever the government wants to enforce. It the same thing as suggesting that because I don't buy snickers candy bars that I'm effecting the candy bar market. It's absurd.

Supreme Court justices challenge Obama administration over health care law | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Kennedy doesn't seem to happy with the mandate if his questioning is any judge. It sure looks like it's going down. And Scalia, once an even bet to rule for the mandate, is definitely ruling against.

Back in the 1790's when the government WAS the founding fathers, they required every adult male to have a musket and ammunition.
And to of course buy one if he didn't have one already.

That was under a different Congressional power, not the commerce clause. The federal government isn't claiming the mandate is for the purpose of organizing a militia.

And consider what happens if it's struck down, this particular law may be polling low, but when the congress was elected in 2008, over 70% of the people polled wanted something to be done about healthcare.

I'm a conservative, and I'd take single payer over this clusterf*k. Besides, I'd much rather have that more straightforward debate. At least with single payer everyone would know what was going to happen, whereas with Obamacare people on both sides could just make stuff up and no one really knew what was going on.

So strike it down and let's have a debate and a vote on single payer.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

I don't think that case has any presidence here. Filburn was actually producing a product. I'm not producing anything. I merely sitting on my ass choosing not to engage in commercial activity. To suggest that doing nothing effects the healthcare market because one day I might get ill is simply straining the law to enforce what ever the government wants to enforce. It the same thing as suggesting that because I don't buy snickers candy bars that I'm effecting the candy bar market. It's absurd.

Its an example of stupid judicial decisions. They decided that the federal govt could prohibit a farmer from growing wheat on his own land, and that destruction and fining was ok when he did.

Originally Posted by adaher

Supreme Court justices challenge Obama administration over health care law | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Kennedy doesn't seem to happy with the mandate if his questioning is any judge. It sure looks like it's going down. And Scalia, once an even bet to rule for the mandate, is definitely ruling against.



That was under a different Congressional power, not the commerce clause. The federal government isn't claiming the mandate is for the purpose of organizing a militia.



I'm a conservative, and I'd take single payer over this clusterf*k. Besides, I'd much rather have that more straightforward debate. At least with single payer everyone would know what was going to happen, whereas with Obamacare people on both sides could just make stuff up and no one really knew what was going on.

So strike it down and let's have a debate and a vote on single payer.

Requiring everyone to have a musket was unconstitutional too.

Originally Posted by goober

The mandate isn't a requirement to buy something, it's a requirement to have something.
Back in the 1790's when the government WAS the founding fathers, they required every adult male to have a musket and ammunition.
And to of course buy one if he didn't have one already.
I'd guess upheld, 8-1 or maybe 7-2


And consider what happens if it's struck down, this particular law may be polling low, but when the congress was elected in 2008, over 70% of the people polled wanted something to be done about healthcare.
If this gets struck down (the favored Republican Plan), it leaves Single Payer and Government run as the two viable options, and the people want something.

Almost guaranteeing the court will strike it down...

Originally Posted by jviehe

Its sad that these judgments can already be predicted with ideology being the factor which will determine someones vote. Shouldnt the court be more blind to ideology?

I dunno about that.

It would appear that Justice Roberts and Kennedy are the swing guys on this one.

Justice Roberts acknowledged the government's position today when he said,"Everybody is in this market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with (the conservative "Broccoli Defense"), and all they're regulating is how you pay for it," Roberts said.

The individual mandate at this point with 2 or more years out before anyone would have to pay a penalty would affect about 2% of the American population at the most.

I just don't see Anthony Kennedy or John Roberts striking down the entire thing over 2% of the population.

Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito and it looks like Scalia are pretty cool with the conservative "slippery slope" argument that says, "If they make us buy health insurance than what's to say they can't force us to buy broccoli!". An argument I kind of find stupid since we are all in the health care market whether we like it or not.

I almost want the mandate to be struck down because it was a Republican idea.

That conservative justices are going to strike it down and liberal ones are going to hold it up means that it's definitely not a partisan vote, imho.

Unsure on this one but I am leaning towards a 5-4 decision that strikes down the mandate but severs out the majority of the rest of "Obamacare." Well, what can be severed assuming the mandate is struck down.

What is good to see are all of the challenges and tough questions the Justices are giving to those arguing the case (on both sides.) There seems to be some good questions being asked by Justices Roberts, Kennedy and Ginsburg. I am sure there were others not reported in the story linked below. I did find the argument related to Social Security and Medicare compelling.

Supreme Court divided over health care mandate - CNN.com

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I just don't see Anthony Kennedy or John Roberts striking down the entire thing over 2% of the population.

I would hope they would strike it down over just one person.

Just because only maybe 2% by your estimate would be affected does not mean it magically becomes OK. The Federal Government has no authority to order an individual to purchase something. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by goober

The mandate isn't a requirement to buy something, it's a requirement to have something...

That does not means what you think it does. The only way to have the "something" in this case is to purchase it (or qualify otherwise in some form of assistance.) Thus it is a requirement, by default if you will, to go out and purchase something. The arguments given today, and the challenges given back by the Justices, pretty much conclude that is the case. Using the IRS to ensure you have it is another argument that could be made this does in fact involve a purchase with proof of that "something." It is a realistic argument to make, even though I am sure you will disagree (as well as some of the Justices,) that this mandate presents a very slippery slope that very much changes the role of federal government in power over the individual.

An interesting idea just came to me and I wonder why this has not yet been addressed....


One of the arguments being used by the US is the mandate is covered under the necessary and proper clause. Another is of course the commerce clause and that Congress has the authority to regulate this as everyone engages in it at some point.

Here's the question: Isn't health insurance currently an inTRAstate issue rather than an inTERstate one?

Sounds to me like the government is saying "Well, ya see, we know this is an area in which we have no legitimate authority, but we want to have the authority and in order to take that authority away from the states, we have to require that individuals pay for it"...

Put in those terms, how exactly does this pass constitutional muster?

This argument that people not having insurance costs others is rediculous becuase its govt that forces health care providers to cover the uninsured. The root cause of any commerce thats generated is the govt. Now they are arguing because the forced commerce, they have the power to regulate it. Its a circular argument, and thus stupid.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

An interesting idea just came to me and I wonder why this has not yet been addressed....


One of the arguments being used by the US is the mandate is covered under the necessary and proper clause. Another is of course the commerce clause and that Congress has the authority to regulate this as everyone engages in it at some point.

Here's the question: Isn't health insurance currently an inTRAstate issue rather than an inTERstate one?

Sounds to me like the government is saying "Well, ya see, we know this is an area in which we have no legitimate authority, but we want to have the authority and in order to take that authority away from the states, we have to require that individuals pay for it"...

Put in those terms, how exactly does this pass constitutional muster?

They interpret 'among the states' as 'within'.

Actually, I don't think that they will find the mandate unconstitutional.

As Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg pointed out in questions to both of the respondents’ lawyers, Social Security forces people to buy old-age and disability insurance, and regulations on emissions reductions for cars force us to buy emissions-reduction equipment whenever we buy a car. Furthermore, all basic taxes that end up supporting private industry (like agriculture subsidies, for example) are essentially purchase mandates; they simply travel through the middle-man of the government instead of going directly from consumers to private parties.

Day 2 analysis: The Supreme Court justices debate the health insurance mandate - Boston Medical News - White Coat Notes - Boston.com

The government forces us to pay taxes, which it then uses to purchase other things with, therefore, they have mandated that we purchase those things. When they require that products meet certain standards, they require us to buy those products instead of the other substitutes.

If the Court were to say that the health-insurance mandate is unconstitutional, how would that not naturally extend to all other things that the government mandates that we buy?

The mandate may be bad policy, but that is not the Court's purview.