What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'?

[DaGoose]

1. Health care reform goes back to the drawing board
If the court strikes down the entire law, it will kill a broad new entitlement "before it has a chance to take root" and fulfill its goal of bringing coverage to 30 million people who are currently uninsured

Then what plan would the GOP come up with that doesn't screw the average person?

2. Health care reform is patched back together
The individual mandate — which requires most Americans to purchase insurance — is the most contentious aspect of "Obamacare."

Which was originally a Conservative idea that promoted "personal responsibility". I thought Conservatives were for that or was that just all talk and hypocrisy?

3. Chaos in the health care industry
Insurance companies and hospital chains stand to benefit from the legislation, since it will offer them 30 million new customers. If the individual mandate were repealed, you'd see shares of those companies "drop steeply"

Prepare to see the markets fall and put anpother stumbling block in our slow recovery. Thanks GOP!!

4. Congress' authority is curbed
Striking down the law would be a "grave step" in reorganizing the balance of power between Congress and the Supreme Court, Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, tells The Huffington Post. The court would essentially remove Congress from "the national discourse" on how to solve the problems of health care.

What do we need Congress for? We can just let the SCOTUS write our laws!! I guess this is one area that Conservatives actually FAVOR an "activist court".

What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'? - Yahoo! News

 

[Oddball]

Just because liberoidals steal a stupid idea from repubs, it doesn't cease being a stupid idea.

 

[alan1]

1. Why should the government be involved in health care at all? Besides, the bill is primarily about health insurance, not health care.

If the SCOTUS overturns the bill, it will be the part about requiring people to engage in commerce. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the constitution that allows the government to force people to engage in commerce.

 

[Big Black Dog]

If the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, it will be one of the best things the Supreme Court has done in a long, long time.

 

[Mustang]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

 

[bodecea]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

Not their problem.

 

[DaGoose]

Just because liberoidals steal a stupid idea from repubs, it doesn't cease being a stupid idea.

But the GOP is so full of stupid ideas.....

 

[Mustang]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

Not their problem.

Actually, nobody is guaranteed a lifetime of no serious medical problems.

Now, once you combine the prohibition to preexisting conditions to the mix, along with deductibles, and insurance cos. only paying a percentage of a treatment regime (80% for example), and lifetime caps on treatments toward a particular illness, guess what happens?

Many people who were sailing along pretty well find that they're faced with VERY hard choices. Sell the house to hopefully pay to save your life (or your spouses or child's life) with expensive treatments, OR accept that death is just around the corner. Now, how many people will make the second choice if their child is sick? Or their primary breadwinner? Or the mother of their children?

 

[alan1]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

About 1/2% of people file a personal bankruptcy annually. Those are filed for every reason imaginable. Medical bankruptcies would be a small subset of that number. I see no reason to establish a bullshit law for such a small portion of the population. It is such a minute amount of people, I see no validity to using that as an argument.

 

[Mustang]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

About 1/2% of people file a personal bankruptcy annually. Those are filed for every reason imaginable. Medical bankruptcies would be a small subset of that number. I see no reason to establish a bullshit law for such a small portion of the population. It is such a minute amount of people, I see no validity to using that as an argument.

How many people is that? Not counting their dependents, of course.

 

[alan1]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

About 1/2% of people file a personal bankruptcy annually. Those are filed for every reason imaginable. Medical bankruptcies would be a small subset of that number. I see no reason to establish a bullshit law for such a small portion of the population. It is such a minute amount of people, I see no validity to using that as an argument.

How many people is that? Not counting their dependents, of course.

Do the math yourself if you want to know the answer.
I am merely pointing out that creating a law for a minute (less than 1/2%) of the people is a ridiculous way to argue this.

 

[Mustang]

About 1/2% of people file a personal bankruptcy annually. Those are filed for every reason imaginable. Medical bankruptcies would be a small subset of that number. I see no reason to establish a bullshit law for such a small portion of the population. It is such a minute amount of people, I see no validity to using that as an argument.

How many people is that? Not counting their dependents, of course.

Do the math yourself if you want to know the answer.
I am merely pointing out that creating a law for a minute (less than 1/2%) of the people is a ridiculous way to argue this.

Well, there's OVER 300 million people in this country. So, 1/2% would be 1.5 million people declaring medical bankruptcy. That sounds like a LOT to me.

 

[chikenwing]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

So you think this won't do the same thing??

Forcing someone to pay for something they CAN"T afford whats the difference?

 

[alan1]

About 1/2% of people file a personal bankruptcy annually. Those are filed for every reason imaginable. Medical bankruptcies would be a small subset of that number. I see no reason to establish a bullshit law for such a small portion of the population. It is such a minute amount of people, I see no validity to using that as an argument.

How many people is that? Not counting their dependents, of course.

Do the math yourself if you want to know the answer.
I am merely pointing out that creating a law for a minute (less than 1/2%) of the people is a ridiculous way to argue this.

Well, there's OVER 300 million people in this country. So, 1/2% would be 1.5 million people declaring medical bankruptcy. That sounds like a LOT to me.

About a 1/2% is total bankruptcies, not medical bankruptcies. I already explained that. It sounds like a lot when you don't know what the real number is because it isn't 1.5 million medical caused bankruptcies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court can’t rewrite or repeal legislation, only Congress can do that.

If the IM is struck down, Congress could rewrite or amend the legislation to remove the ‘offensive’ language, per the ruling. See: United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). as an example.

In Lopez, the Court struck down a law banning guns in the vicinity of public schools, stating that the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to do so. Congress simply rewrote the legislation and the law is in effect today.

Congress could also repeal the legislation and enact a new reform law, highly unlikely given these hyper-partisan times.

Although just as highly unlikely and entering uncharted waters, Congress could also ignore the ruling. This would be possible because the Administration would argue that the mandate in fact forces no one to do anything.

In order for the Court to invalidate the IM, the Majority would need to construe the garnishment of one’s income tax refund – or threat of a lawsuit by the IRS if no refund exists – as a ‘punishment’ on the scale as the penalties created in Lopez and Morrison. In the two laws reviewed, Congress authorized either a criminal penalty (Lopez) or a penalty as a result of a civil suit (Morrison).

Neither penalty exists in the ACA, if one refuses to purchase health insurance, he would not be subject to criminal prosecution, nor would he be subject to civil penalties. If one refuses to pay the ‘penalty’ tax (fee), the worst case is his income tax refund will be garnished. A civil suit by the IRS is also possible, but that’s not part of the actual ACA legislation and would be pointless, as the cost of litigation alone would likely exceed any funds recovered.

From Section 1502 of the ACA:

‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to
any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such
failure.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

The authors of the ACA were obviously aware of Lopez/Morrison, and wouldn’t intentionally compose legislation they knew might be struck down by the courts – given a challenge likely in such a charged political climate.

The IM therefore is an ‘economic mandate’; in essence, a bluff – an assumption that a significant number of citizens will want to avoid any Federal entanglements altogether and simply purchase insurance or pay the fee. But no one is ultimately ‘forced’ to buy health insurance. Consequently Lopez/Morrison doesn’t apply, and the IM is Constitutional where the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to implement the ‘requirement’ in its effort to regulate the health insurance industry.

There is also a final action possible by the Court, where it could rule that the Anti-Injunction Act bans challenges to the IM until after it goes into effect and a taxpayer actually pays the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. At which time the taxpayer may file suit in Federal court challenging the constitutionally of the statute.

In the end, conservative opposition to the ACA is purely partisan, not legal, as the conservative argument that the ACA ‘forces’ people to obtain health insurance against their will is clearly untrue and predicated on ignorance, as the Act authorizes no criminal or civil penalties. Their desire is to see only the president humiliated by having his signature legislation struck down, having nothing to do with the facts of the Act, the Constitution, its case law, or a concern for Americans’ civil liberties.

In addition, conservative opposition to the ACA exhibits their hypocrisy with regard to judicial review.

It is a fundamental tenet of conservative jurisprudence that a legislative act – reflecting the will of the people and our democratic process – be overturned only in the rarest of occasions, and only when a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution exists. For conservatives, courts voiding measures enacted by law-making bodies constitutes ‘legislating from the bench’ and ‘judicial activism,’ now we see those very same conservatives advocating the Court ‘legislate from the bench’ and overturn an Act of Congress reflecting the will of the people as expressed through the democratic process.

This hypocrisy is not surprising, of course, but it is telling.

 

[Oddball]

Just because liberoidals steal a stupid idea from repubs, it doesn't cease being a stupid idea.

But the GOP is so full of stupid ideas.....

And the liberoidals have no ideas....That's why they have to steal bad ideas from repubs, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini.....

 

[Mustang]

What happens?

For one thing, medical bankruptcies continue to be a scourge, destroying life savings and lives.

So you think this won't do the same thing??

Forcing someone to pay for something they CAN"T afford whats the difference?

That's a nonsensical statement/question.