The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama's healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it. The court's conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a "wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Since when do courts 'salvage' flawed legislation? Let the legislature write a non-flawed law...
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional. We can only hope it is destroyed in total. A mandate strike off, with the rest surviving leads to single payer since the insurance companies can not operate with those costs. Just as Obama wanted.
Troubling this morning is the Justices discussing the merits of the law, as opposed to the constitutionality. I was shocked and delighted to hear Judge Sotomayor comment that [paraphrasing here] why don't we let the Congress sort it out.
I suspect virtually anything could happen at this point.
I'm still not sure it's good for Obama or not. His signature legislation that stalled the recovery and was unconstitutional. Pretty easy stuff to campaign against. The only fear is tha turnout among anti-Obama folks might drop if this is already gone before Nov but I don't think that will happen.
I feel confident that this president will not be reelected, and the democrates will loose control of both the house and the senate. Of course, that is easy to feel out here in fly over country that gave W 86% of the vote.
Why not call it treatment rationing law? It's more accurate as care and government are an oxymoron. Medicare is no different than Obamacare in this respect, however Medicare has been completely off limits in the current public & judicial discussion.
If it is declared unconstitutional, it would be good for Romney who could say, 'it is a State issue; let each state come up with a way to deal with it and then states will learn which provisions work best and amend their own method'.
If it is not declared unconstitutional, Romney will make the same argument but the press will say, 'why oppose nationally what you agreed to at the state level' and Romney's answer will be lost.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
I don't get why people refer to Medicare as an entitlement. You pay into it your entire life. After retirement you pay Medicare monthly premiums. Additionally, you pay monthly premiums for a supplemental policy to cover what Medicare doesn't cover. The premiums for both increase each year. You pay co-pays for medical services which increase each year. You pay taxes on Medicare benefits. If you are self-employed after retirement you pay up to 13-1/2 percent of income for a self-employment tax which covers Medicare in addition to the fore-mentioned. ObamaCare will cost the taxpayers a great deal. ObamaCare will cause the national debt to skyrocket. ObamaCare was all about Progressive power, government overreach and very little about health care.
Romney's answer will be lost. Only for those too simple-minded to realize there is a difference between how States function & how the United States (is supposed to) function. Romney can simply repeat, "It's an issue for individual states." Etc.
"Only for those too simple-minded to realize there is a difference between how States function & how the United States (is supposed to) function."
That would be all of the Left and half of the rest of the people. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
I don't get why people refer to Medicare as an entitlement.
Medicare taxes don't cover program expenses. Matter of fact, last year (2011) Medicare costs were greater than Social Security costs and growing much faster.
Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085. A SUMMARY OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORTS
Found it extremely interesting on my drive home today ( 5 pm PDT/ 8 PM on the east coast) the local ABC ( KOMO 1000) station at 5:30 and 6:00 had not one word about today's Supreme Court festivities. there was a brief 'political analysis about 3 minutes to the top of the hour that had some syrup to pour over the airwaves for the Seattle libs that needed their hands held; all 'this rejection will be great for Obama' kind of crap. seattle newspaper is also scarce on this.
IIUC, the original hospitalization Medicare, now referred to as "part A", was the only one enacted with its own properly passed tax. The rest of the B-Z alphabet soup is smoke and mirrors, with a mishmash of premium payments and general revenues.