Have any of you thought about the different scenarios that might unfold depending on how the Supreme Court rules on the Affordable Care Act? I listened to the oral arguments again last night and I can’t say that the experience was too helpful in predicting what will happen. It seems likely that Scalia will not be interested in spiking the mandate and keeping the rest of the law. He seems inclined to either uphold the law or kill it in its entirety. But he doesn’t necessarily have the support of Justices Roberts and Kennedy for killing the whole bill.
What do your tea leaves tell you? Or, since this is medical debate, perhaps you should consult some entrails.
I’ll go with, “strike down the good stuff and leave the shitty stuff in place.” Anything to cripple this president.
What would that look like?
Keep the mandate, to continue to send money to insurance companies, but strike down covering for 26 and under, previous conditions, etc.
And the requirement to spend 80% (or is it 85%?) for actual claims. That is what the Insurance companies don’t like most of all.
This is a legacy vote for not just Roberts but for the whole Court. So, if they are reading their own tea leaves and allowing political bent to enter the process they must acknowledge that obstruction won’t play well for their masters in the long run.
If that’s true .. they’ll hear the Montana case .. and reverse Citizens United .. I’m not holding my breath .. not since Anthony Kennedy showed himself to be as stupid as any Teahadist
Alot has changed in the mood of the Country in the 18 mos since Obama’s SOTU exchange on Citizen’s United. Billionaire money influence is now a common talking point. Everyday it underscores the poor judgment of political activism of the decision.
Today even the most vocal of foes (well except Palin who isn’t reading even her memoes nowadays) are conceding that there are parts of the Bill that they’d like to cherry pick in…that’s a big change and one that should be even on Scalia or Kennedy’s radar.
Unfortunately, to hear Ginsberg comment on the divisiveness of the Court this year doesn’t bode well for a keepher decision.
I’ve not thought about various scenarios.
I’m still thinking about whether the SCOTUS, typically pro-corporate, is going to strike down any portion of this law– since it so obviously helps big, profitable insurance companies.
Yes, but you have to remember one other thing. If Roberts, or any of the other Rightists on the Court, uphold this, they’ll be cut off from wingnut welfare, if they were ever to leave the Court before their death.
I honestly don’t know what to expect. I really don’t.
They may keep the mandate in place and jettison the good stuff, as one commenter suggested. That would certainly be in line with the “corporations uber alles” mentality of the conservatives.
Or they might throw the whole thing out, just to fuck with the president during the re-election. That would be a disaster for everyone, including the health insurance industry.
or they might uphold the whole thing. Who fuckin’ knows at this point. I’m basically expecting the worst.
Got to agree with the others who have posted before me. On legal grounds I would expect them to throw out the mandate and keep the rest. The argument that that makes the program unworkable does not matter. Courts rarely rule on practicality.
But I agree with the others above. The ruling will be politically based, not legally based. I don’t expect the law to be untouched, unless the corporations want it that way.
I expect them to act in a strictly partisan manner, making a mess of the law by striking parts of it down. This will make things difficult for Obama and provide Republicans with more reasons to call the President on his ‘unconstitutional power grabs’.
Are they secure enough in their majority yet, to overturn New Deal era interpretations of the role of the Federal government? Probably not. I’d expect them to wait until they have a solid 6-to-7-seat majority before overturning 80 years of case law. Citizens United pretty much assures that will happen within the next decade. They’re playing the long game.
I have another question: how does Obama react to the ruling? Obviously if the decision comes out in his favor, he’ll praise it as a triumph for the rule of law and for average people etc. etc. But if not? My feeling is that the Supreme Court has done so much damage to its public image that Obama would actually be in a position to blast them loudly and repeatedly without getting too much flak for “politicizing the courts”. The majority of the American public already thinks the justices are partisan actors and that the decision will be less about the law than it is about politics. I think Obama has been setting himself up for just such a fight.
I believe the correct line is to hope the Court does the right thing for the wrong reasons, and kills it altogether.
Because the mandate is one thing true progressives and conservatives agree on, though for opposite reasons. They bot consider it an unacceptable and unprecedented exercise in government coercion.
Elefino
.
Upcoming Supreme Court Health Care Decision: IU Experts Available to Comment
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."An excellent article about physician-owned hospitals. I agree they have a strong potential for abuse.
A very good article indeed. An aside, the Samuel R. Rosen Professorship mentioned was named for our county’s circuit judge who was more famous in these parts for his knowledge of mushrooms than his legal acumen. I had the privilege of working for Judge Rosen several times before his death in 1997. He was quite a character and fun to work for.
I’m clearly in the minority here but I still think they are going to uphold the entire law. I also think it will be 8-1, 7-2, or 6-3 at the worst.
I too believe they will uphold the law, but by what margin, I don’t care. Maybe I’m just overly optimistic about the Court not following Citizens United with a strike against HCR, especially when so many constitutional lawyers were consulted and agreed that the mandate was constitutional. The risk for the Supreme Court is not only the appearance of, but the fact of partisanship.
I don’t know, but I tend to agree. To mess with it would be just too messy at this point. It would have too many unpredictable consequences –legal, political, economic, and for the reputation of the various justices. Somebody said above that the court will do what the corporations want, but I’m not convinced there is general consensus even among the corporations. The examples of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United should give pause, at least to enough of them.
Well, if it is upheld, the resultant wingnut meltdowns should be vastly entertaining.
They won’t be as vocal, but there’ll be meltdowns on the left, too.
This is the last chance to stop a massive bail-out for health insurance companies, and we can’t be too choosy about the tools used.
Kill the Bill — I assume it’s still good policy and the correct position.
The outlook for upholding the ACA on Intrade is still quite favorable.