The Obama Healthcare Law Will Not Be Repealed

[Missourian]

If it helps you sleep at night to believe that, feel free to.

Lol...I was thinking the same thing about your position.

The Supreme Court Justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president's signature initiative, as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce in some 75 years. Walter Dellinger, a leading scholar and the acting solicitor general under President Clinton, foresees an 8-1 vote, with only arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voting to strike down the new law. Tom Goldstein, another leading Supreme Court litigator, foresees a vote of at least 7-2.
Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Healthcare Reform?
Mandated Health-Care Socialism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty


Some argue that government can't mandate that citizens buy insurance. Both Hawaii and Massachusetts have mandated healthcare insurance. Every state now mandates liability auto insurance. Local government mandates we pay school taxes even though we have no kids in school. Government requires citizens pay for a lot of things that they see no possible benefit.

Mandated Health-Care Socialism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

I can't really answer to Mass. and Hawaii, but as to liability auto...I can choose not to drive, and school taxes is...you guessed it...a tax, not a mandated expenditure to a private company levied solely on the basis of being alive.

I'll do some research on Mass's mandate and get back to you.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Walter Dellinger, a leading scholar and the acting solicitor general under President Clinton, foresees an 8-1 vote, with only arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voting to strike down the new law. Tom Goldstein, another leading Supreme Court litigator, foresees a vote of at least 7-2.
Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Healthcare Reform?
Mandated Health-Care Socialism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Dellinger is gravely mistaken if he thinks for one second that Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are going to conclude that the mandate is an appropriate use of the Commerce Clause. I already stated my case for Kennedy.

Some argue that government can't mandate that citizens buy insurance. Both Hawaii and Massachusetts have mandated health care insurance. Every state now mandates liability auto insurance. Local government mandates we pay school taxes even though we have no kids in school. Government requires citizens pay for a lot of things that they see no possible benefit.

Why is it that people like you who always use these examples can't understand the difference between Federal government and state and local governments? None of those examples, Hawaii & Massachusetts, auto insurance, school taxes, etc. have any relevance to this discussion whatsoever.

 

[Missourian]

Execellent points. We should add though, it is highly unlikely it will pass constitutional muster. The mandate will be thrown out. So a change in the name of the bill would be appropriate.

That's not going to happen either.

I disagree. I think it will get struck down, or at least the mandate part. Justice Kennedy made a comment a few months back that he didn't intend on retiring from the SCOTUS until Obama was out of office because he was disturbed by the direction he has been taking in the White House (not exact words, but more or less what he said). That tells me there is a better than 50/50 probability that Kennedy will vote to strike down the mandate and you know the other four Republicans definitely will.

I agree that it will be struck down, and thanks in no small part to Scott Brown's election...if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional...the entire law must be scrapped, as there is no [FONT=times new roman,times]severance clause include to strip out the mandate.

[/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/obamacares_fatal_flaw_1.html

^^^ Good read if you're interested in how Brown's election provided Obamacare's Achilles heel.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The new Obama healthcare legislation has a number of problems. At the top of list is inadequate Medicaid funding. There are also a number of other problems. Republicans and Teabaggers promise if elected they will repeal the law. This is simply not going to happen. It will be amended, probably more than once either by the Democrats or Republicans but not repealed.

If the Republicans gain control of the House, which is definitely a possible, the Senate, which will probably remain under Democratic control, will block any repeal. Even if Republicans control the Senate, Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill.

To override a presidential veto in the House, Republicans would have to pick up 109 seats. The lowest estimates are around 25 seats. The highest I have seen is a hundred. Most estimates are around 35 to 40. Picking up 109 is extremely unlikely. If a miracle occurred and the Republicans picked up sufficient seats in the House to override a presidential veto, they would still need to pick up 26 Senate seats, which would be nearly impossible. Lowest estimates are 4 to 5. 13 is the highest estimate I have seen, certainly no where near the 26 seats needed to override a veto.

The best hope for a Republican repeal is the election of a Republican president along with a Republican congress. If this happened, the Republican president and Congress would be seated in 2013 only months before the bulk of the healthcare bill would go into effect. With the entire healthcare industry and insurance industry geared up for the change, it would be too late to repeal it.
Congress by the numbers, 111th Congress, 2nd Session. From TheCapitol.Net,
Veto override - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if some of the Democrats agree with them after a major trouncing for their party?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Supreme Court Justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president's signature initiative, as beyond Congress's power to regulate commerce in some 75 years. Walter Dellinger, a leading scholar and the acting solicitor general under President Clinton, foresees an 8-1 vote, with only arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voting to strike down the new law. Tom Goldstein, another leading Supreme Court litigator, foresees a vote of at least 7-2.
Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Healthcare Reform?
Mandated Health-Care Socialism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

First, the reason that SCOTUS doesn't strike down major legislation is because it is extremely rare for an entire bill to be unconstitutional. McCain Feingold was a major piece of bipartisan legislation, and the part of it that was struck down was the part that prohibited political speech. Most of the challenges to the ACA focus on the mandate, not the whole bill, and there are some good arguments for it being unconstitutional, like this one:

SSRN-Commandeering the People: Why the Individual Health Insurance Mandate is Unconstitutional by Randy Barnett

You can quote all the experts that you want, I am sure I could find a bunch of people who will predict the vote just the opposite. The truth is that only 9 people get to actually make that decision, and until they do know one knows what they are going to say.

Some argue that government can't mandate that citizens buy insurance. Both Hawaii and Massachusetts have mandated healthcare insurance. Every state now mandates liability auto insurance. Local government mandates we pay school taxes even though we have no kids in school. Government requires citizens pay for a lot of things that they see no possible benefit.

Mandated Health-Care Socialism | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

The proof that you do not understand what you is that you even posted this argument. States have different constitutions than the United States. Just because a state can do it, does not mean that it will work on a federal level, and vice versa. California actually has more protections for individual rights in its constitution that the US in general does.

Another thing, California does not mandate that you carry liability insurance in order to drive

 

[taichiliberal]

The new Obama healthcare legislation has a number of problems. At the top of list is inadequate Medicaid funding. There are also a number of other problems. Republicans and Teabaggers promise if elected they will repeal the law. This is simply not going to happen. It will be amended, probably more than once either by the Democrats or Republicans but not repealed.

If the Republicans gain control of the House, which is definitely a possible, the Senate, which will probably remain under Democratic control, will block any repeal. Even if Republicans control the Senate, Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill.

To override a presidential veto in the House, Republicans would have to pick up 109 seats. The lowest estimates are around 25 seats. The highest I have seen is a hundred. Most estimates are around 35 to 40. Picking up 109 is extremely unlikely. If a miracle occurred and the Republicans picked up sufficient seats in the House to override a presidential veto, they would still need to pick up 26 Senate seats, which would be nearly impossible. Lowest estimates are 4 to 5. 13 is the highest estimate I have seen, certainly no where near the 26 seats needed to override a veto.

The best hope for a Republican repeal is the election of a Republican president along with a Republican congress. If this happened, the Republican president and Congress would be seated in 2013 only months before the bulk of the healthcare bill would go into effect. With the entire healthcare industry and insurance industry geared up for the change, it would be too late to repeal it.
Congress by the numbers, 111th Congress, 2nd Session. From TheCapitol.Net,
Veto override - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed! The the bitter neocon GOP has been bullhorning through the media that a GOP victory in the upcoming elections is damn near a sure thing.....all the hoopla over some fringe Tea Party candidates winning the GOP nomination to run is hardly a strong indicator for this nonsense....but reality has rarely stopped the neocon propaganda machine.

 

[fyrenza]

You haven't even taken into consideration the fact that he could be impeached,

have you?

Just for shitz and grinz,

ask yourself,

What If.

What If YOU have to bear the responsibility for you and yours?

What If NOTHING is "free?"

EVERYONE pays for it, one way or another?

The receiver becomes a DEPENDENT upon the PROVIDER,

and all of a sudden, the dependents are hearing THESE little Mantras:

MY House? MY RULES!

MY Way, or the Highway.

Ass, Cash or Gas ~ NO ONE gets a Free Ride.

No likeee?

GET A ******* JOB AND A LIFE.

THEN come tell the rest of us to pump off, 'cuz NOW?

YOU get to call the shots.

THAT's how it is, in Real Life.

 

[shintao]

The best hope for a Republican repeal is the election of a Republican president along with a Republican congress. If this happened, the Republican president and Congress would be seated in 2013 only months before the bulk of the healthcare bill would go into effect. With the entire healthcare industry and insurance industry geared up for the change, it would be too late to repeal it.

So you are saying the Republicans are just bullshitting in an attempt to garner votes? They are just lying to their voters, as usual, and the voters are drinking the Koolaid.

 

[R.C. Christian]

No American should face punitive damages from the IRS because he or she chose not to be forced to buy a product. Eliminate this stipulation and affront to core americanism and "Obamacare" becomes more palatable, albeit unsustainable and useless.

 

[Flopper]

It would very interesting situation if the Supreme Court struck down the mandate requiring everyone to have insurance. This would not strike down the law. It would be up to Congress to fix the law or repeal. Assuming there were not enough enough votes to repeal which is likely, then Congress would have to fix it. The most practical fix would be a single payer system which would be ironic. But what would probably emerge would be some weird hybrid system.
What Would Happen if the Supreme Court Struck Down Health Care Reform? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

 

[fyrenza]

Oh, wow.

You offer up yet another quote, with NO personal commentary?

I'm shocked.










Not.

Not even Not in the NOT! sort of way.

 

[Flopper]

If the court struck down the mandate that everyone must have insurance, then all the additional costs that insurance companies have to bear as result of the law would have to be covered by a smaller number of customers so premiums would rise sharply. Couple this with the long term trend of more and more people unable to pay the high cost of health insurance, cost would rise even sharper reducing again the number of people able to pay the premiums. With the government unable to mandate insurance coverage, I can see only two possible outcomes. Healthcare in the US would be available only to the wealth and those on Medicaid or Medicare leaving the middle class with no healthcare or the country would have to go to a single payer system.

In 2000 there were 39.8 million without health insurance. This last year 59 million lacked healthcare. In 10 years, if those rates continue we could be looking at 90 million people without healthcare insurance. Without mandated coverage, the only option would be a single payer system.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20100923/NEWS/309239974

 

[Flopper]

If the court struck down the mandate that everyone must have insurance, then all the additional costs that insurance companies have to bear as result of the law would have to be covered by a smaller number of customers so premiums would rise sharply. Couple this with the long term trend of more and more people unable to pay the high cost of health insurance, cost would rise even sharper reducing again the number of people able to pay the premiums. With the government unable to mandate insurance coverage, I can see only two possible outcomes. Healthcare in the US would be available only to the wealth and those on Medicaid or Medicare leaving the middle class with no healthcare or the country would have to go to a single payer system.

In 2000 there were 39.8 million without health insurance. This last year 59 million lacked healthcare. In 10 years, if those rates continue we could be looking at 90 million people without healthcare insurance. Without mandated coverage, the only option would be a single payer system.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20100923/NEWS/309239974

 

[skookerasbil]

DRUDGE today.....................

The whole damn thing was a scam from the start..................


[Print] 



[B]Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought[/B]
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10OQEIeFD



lmao..........what a fcukking train wreck. Another example of Obama duping the shit out of the public. PS.....there are another dozen bullet gems on this fraudulent bill. The whole damn country wants it burned!!! Even many Dums, and how funny is that???!!!


This shit will be buried after the courts get ahold of it!!!

 

[Flopper]

DRUDGE today.....................

The whole damn thing was a scam from the start..................


[Print] 



[B]Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought[/B]
Examiner Editorial
September 22, 2010
Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)

Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10OQEIeFD



lmao..........what a fcukking train wreck. Another example of Obama duping the shit out of the public. PS.....there are another dozen bullet gems on this fraudulent bill. The whole damn country wants it burned!!! Even many Dums, and how funny is that???!!!


This shit will be buried after the courts get ahold of it!!![/quote]
[B]Well everyone is welcome to their own opinion, however that does not make it fact. 59 million people are without health insurance this year. That's an increase of 20 million people over the last 10 years and the Republicans did nothing. The current Republican prescription for healthcare will do little are nothing and will allow the current trend to continue, which is just what they want to happen. [/B]

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Well everyone is welcome to their own opinion, however that does not make it fact. 59 million people are without health insurance this year. That's an increase of 20 million people over the last 10 years and the Republicans did nothing.

1. They don't have to do anything because it's not the government's responsibility to see to it that you have health insurance. That's your responsibility and only you.

2. To say they did nothing is a lie. They offered up several alternative health care proposals and the Democrats wouldn't allow a vote on them.

3. Republicans don't control Congress and haven't for the past three years.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The whole damn thing was a scam from the start..................

Who didn't already know that? (well, except for the loser Obamabots.)

 

[Missourian]

It would very interesting situation if the Supreme Court struck down the mandate requiring everyone to have insurance. This would not strike down the law. It would be up to Congress to fix the law or repeal. Assuming there were not enough enough votes to repeal which is likely, then Congress would have to fix it. The most practical fix would be a single payer system which would be ironic. But what would probably emerge would be some weird hybrid system.
What Would Happen if the Supreme Court Struck Down Health Care Reform? - Megan McArdle - Business - The Atlantic

There is no fixing and not only because there is no severance clause. The case could be made that the severability is implied. But if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, Obamacare cannot function in the manner it was intended. The mandate is integral to funding the exchanges and the larger pool of young people purchasing insurance is requisite to spreading the risk and managing cost.

If the mandate is struck down, the case can be made that the ACA was never intended to be enacted without the mandate...ESPECIALLY due to the lack of a severance clause which would allow the high court to void the entire law.

PLUS...with a new speaker, the lack of a mandate will likely trigger a repeal regardless. The unconstitutionality of the mandate will give the moderate Democrats the cover they need to extract themselves from this albatross around their political necks, and place the blame squarely on deposed Speaker Pelosi and Former Senator Reid.

I can hear it now, it's win/win for them..."I so much wanted to reform healthcare, but this flawed law pushed on us by Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid is not feasible without the mandate...yada, yada, yada..."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SCOTUS will find it unconstitutional 5-4.

Adios

 

[007]

yes it will





that is all

Another stunning logical proof from Infield.

Well... he's right. What more is there to it?