2/3 say ditch individual health care mandate

[koshergrl]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

Which brings up the age-old question as to how susceptible the Supreme Court is to this kind of pressure....

 

[gallantwarrior]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

Ain't it the truth.....

 

[JohnA]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

examples please

 

[g5000]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.

No. They did not. There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, has said the following:

Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases.

Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


Consider this proposition: when Congress passes a law, it is assumed that the members have viewed same as constitutional.
The same for he Executive when he signs same.
So, what a Supreme Court Justice should do is give credence to a law being constitutional, unless it can be clearly shown that the language of the Constitution shows it to be unconstitutional....

...in a perfect world.

 

[g5000]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:

The constitutionality of a law is not determined by a popular vote.

 

[koshergrl]

I know.

 

[koshergrl]

though I have some question over whether or not we should have laws leveled against us if the majority doesn't want it.

 

[pete]

More than 2/3rds didnt want it when it was shoved up our ass!!

 

[The Rabbi]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.

No. They did not. There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.

Actually they failed to include a severability clause. Such a clause would mean the rest of the legislation is Constitutional even if one part is found unconstitutional. Congress didnt put that in.
They could still decide that Congress meant to put it in and declare it severable.
Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is not dependent legally on the mandate. As policy it might. But as policy it sucks anyway.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable. Given that, if the individual mandate fails, the whole thing should be scrapped.
Unfortunately, too many of the Justices are activists who have demonstrated their willingness to subvert the Constitution in favor of their concept of social justice.

Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic Magazine Legal Affairs Editor, has said the following:

Pro-Business Conservatives: represented by policies of the US Chamber of Commerce, strongly represented on the Roberts’ Court, where they won some 13 of 18 cases in which they filed a brief. Most business cases are unanimous or 7-2 decisions, vs those cases that deal with culture war issues. These conservatives favored TARP, and he use of federal pre-emption (federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law) for farm subsidies, healthcare cases.

Based on this sentiment, a court which has embraced a broad vision of federal power, as found in regulation of medical marijuana, expect the Roberts Court to reject the pro-states rights view that would lead to the invalidation of the healthcare case.


Consider this proposition: when Congress passes a law, it is assumed that the members have viewed same as constitutional.
The same for he Executive when he signs same.
So, what a Supreme Court Justice should do is give credence to a law being constitutional, unless it can be clearly shown that the language of the Constitution shows it to be unconstitutional....

...in a perfect world.

[highlights added for emphasis] Considering that most Congressional representatives have implied, even outright admitted, that they failed to completely and comprehensively read this legislation prior to passing it, and we can safely assume that the Chief Executive views this legislation as his legacy, there is little reason to assume that the Constitutionality of this law has been properly determined. That leaves it to the Court to interpret whether the law meets Constitutional standards.
Last time I looked, there was no language in the Constitution that gave government the power to 1) force an individual to purchase and product or service, or 2) to punish any individual who declines to comply with an otherwise unconstitutional requirement to make such a purchase.

 

[gallantwarrior]

The Court should consider the Constitutionality of the Health Care mandate. I believe that Congress passed the law with a rider that makes it inseverable.

No. They did not. There is no such rider and the question of severability is therefore debatable.

The ACA is certainly unworkable without it, though.

If the mandate falls, ObamaCare falls with it, since the alleged zero cost to the federal budget of the ACA all hinges on the mandate.

It would be interesting to see a poll that asks people if they would still like to see the mandate eliminated if it means all of ObamaCare goes with it.

Actually they failed to include a severability clause. Such a clause would mean the rest of the legislation is Constitutional even if one part is found unconstitutional. Congress didnt put that in.
They could still decide that Congress meant to put it in and declare it severable.
Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

Obamacare is not dependent legally on the mandate. As policy it might. But as policy it sucks anyway.

A better representation, indeed. They failed to include a severability clause, as opposed to my expression of including a rider. Thanks for clarifying. Personally, the omission was entirely intentional because they did not want their opus picked apart piecemeal, knowing that there would be enough to entice many that revoking the entire mess would be most difficult.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:

The constitutionality of a law is not determined by a popular vote.

Thankfully not!

 

[LoneLaugher]

The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.

 

[Clementine]

Hope our politicians and the supreme court are listening:
"
Two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.
This ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either ditch the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage."

The people never wanted it. This is a travesty like the abortion *law*. Nobody ever wanted it in the first place.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ches-two-thirds-say-ditch-individual-mandate/

Which brings up the age-old question as to how susceptible the Supreme Court is to this kind of pressure....

The Supreme court isn't supposed to be susceptible to pressure from anywhere. They need to strictly adhere to the constitution and if they do that, they'll strike the health care reform down. The Obama administration is stretching the commerce clause to force people to purchase something from a third party against our will. We are protected from that. Once the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, the rest of the bill goes away. It's an all or nothing deal.

 

[Listening]

The ACA is law and will remain so. Until we get single payer, that is.

You sit on the SCOTUS ?

Or maybe you should call them and tell them what your findings are. I am sure they will listen to you.

 

[Seawytch]

Sure...if you replace it with a Public Option.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure...if you replace it with a Public Option.

I like the public option. ANy member of the public has the option of buying health insurance with his own money. No employer contribution. No gov't subsidy. No gov't control over pricing.
That's a real public option.
What you want is the pubic option.