SCOTUS will issue it ruling on Obamacare this Thursday

18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare on Thursday – and a survey of legal experts by Bloomberg News found that a majority believe that President Obama’s health reform law should be upheld.  However – a minority of those same experts polled said that the high court will actually upheld the law.

That’s because – today’s Supreme Court can no longer be counted on to make decision based on an objective interpretation of the Constitution.  Instead – it makes decisions based on what benefits corporations and the Republican Party the most.  Hence why the Chamber of Commerce has won more cases than any other litigant before the Roberts court.  We’ll see if the court continues its deference to corporations on Thursday. 

Comments

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Republican alternative to

Republican alternative to healthcare act, explained in Palinese. The language of Sarah. The key to Palinese is the focus grouped bullet points that say nothing but sound nice. I wonder if this language is taught in the home school platforms.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The SCOTUS WILL uphold

The SCOTUS WILL uphold obamacare because it DOES benefit hospital corporations, HCA and health insurance corporations!!! It was designed and written by those same beneficiaries and all it does is expand the existing system whereby most of the costs of medical care are paid for by the government (the taxpayers that is), while those same taxpayers have to pay for their won care and face bankruptcy in doing so.

lovecraft
This is another example of

This is another example of the confused American public. A majority don't like Obamacare yet a majority wants affordable healthcare for everyone. They just can't make a connection. With our luck, SCOTUS will give us the worst of all worlds if they strike down the mandate. People will wait until they are sick to buy insurance which will raise premiums for all. Insurance for those with pre-existing conditions will be unaffordable. The system will be even worse for consumers.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
The corporatization of

The corporatization of medical care in America marches on with the continued corporate/government collusion.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
As I said on the other

As I said on the other thread, the confusion seems to be that people allow 'health insurance' to be equated to 'health care'--when it is not the same 'product'.  

Because I also see Obamacare as a boon for the health insurance industry (as it will increase the volume of money involved in applying health care), I see this Supreme Court 'seeing the light' and, in this one particular instance, opting against 'judicial activism'.   I will be surprised if the Supreme Court knocks down any of it.   Or, if it knocks down the individual mandate, it would, also, knock down insurance access to those with pre-existing conditions....and, essentially, we will have what we have now, anyway.....(I think that most of the 'arguments' about what 'the Supreme Court is going to, or should, do' is a 'dog and pony show' for the little people to think that 'our leaders' are considering this 'as responsibly as they should'...).....

For those with 'pre-existing conditions' right now, are they 'denied access to medical/health care' due to it?    No--even if they may be denied 'their own physician' following them through any 'health care issue'.    That's the whole point of EMTALA.   Now, if we can't afford 'universal access' (at the most expensive place to 'offer it'--the ER), why do we have it now?   

The question shouldn't be 'Does everybody have the right to health insurance?'   The question should be 'Does everybody have the right to health care?'   Answer that question first--then, answer how you are going to responsibly address its financing.   More to the point, explain why 'two institutions' would be needed to pay for it--both at the taxpayer's expense--if everyone has the right to health care......

But, again, that may be 'too rational' an approach as some here claim 'we' have 'evolved beyond rationality' in politics, law, economy, and medicine.....

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
As President Obama read

As President Obama read former Aetna CEO Ron Williams’ op-ed in The Wall Street Journal renouncing his support for a key provision of the health care reform law, he must have felt like Julius Caesar when Caesar realized, as he drew his last breath, that his close friend Brutus was in cahoots with his assassins.

Williams’ betrayal appeared in last Monday’s edition of the Journal under the headline, “Why I No Longer Support the Health Insurance Mandate.” The fact that it was published just days before the Supreme Court was expected to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate made it clear that Williams was not the trusted advisor the President thought he was, that, like Brutus, Williams had thrown his lot with those plotting against the commander-in-chief.

The reason why that opinion piece was such a knife in the back was because it was Ron Williams who possibly more than anyone else had persuaded the President to reconsider his campaign pledge to enact reform without making people buy coverage from a private insurer. Candidate Obama’s reform platform differed from those of Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ in only one significant way: both Clinton and Edwards embraced the mandate, which Williams was championing, first behind the scenes and then publicly, on behalf of the insurance industry. Candidate Obama said he didn’t believe it was right for people to be forced to buy something they couldn’t afford.

http://wendellpotter.com/2012/06/flip-flop-on-healh-care-refrom-casts-president-as-modern-day-julius-caesar/

 

stwo
stwo's picture
lovecraft wrote:. People will

lovecraft wrote:
. People will wait until they are sick to buy insurance which will raise premiums for all. Insurance for those with pre-existing conditions will be unaffordable.

Wait...what??

JoyceFinnigan
JoyceFinnigan's picture
Kerry wrote: Because I also

Kerry wrote:

Because I also see Obamacare as a boon for the health insurance industry (as it will increase the volume of money involved in applying health care), I see this Supreme Court 'seeing the light' and, in this one particular instance, opting against 'judicial activism'. 

Can you explain what you consider judicial activism to be please?

Kerry
Kerry's picture
I'm using that term under the

I'm using that term under the common expression that I understand it has been used in political circles, JoyceFinnigan.  And, that being that the Supreme Court takes the opportunity to have its court decisions influence how laws are applied--and, therefore, 'unbalancing' the 'three branches of government' by affecting legislation without the justices, themselves, being elected representatives.   Of course, again, as I understand it, since the primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of any law, it, by such a determination, affects how all such laws are applied.  Hartmann has even gotten on board to claim that the Constitution did not grant the Supreme Court such an authority but the Court declared it for itself in the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison decision.  However, if you read the part of the Constitution that defines the Court's authority, it does say in Article 3, Section 2, this part:  "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity ,arising under this Constitution...' and I think that such an authority could involve determining the Constitutionality that such Cases in Law may or may not contain....if the Supreme Court did not determine the Constitutionality of Laws, it wouldn't have a whole lot to do.... 

Actually, Thom Hartmann has even used the term 'judicial activism' as a condemnation of the present Court's potential of 'knocking down Obamacare as a law passed by duly elected legislators'--thus, being 'judicial activists' (usually being used in its political sense that such 'judicial activism' is being welded by the Court in opposition to whatever way the original law was passed--you know, liberal justices being 'judicial activists' in knocking down 'conservative legislation', and vice versa--and, such as 'conservative justices' removing Obama's so-called 'liberal health care directive' for political, and not judicial, reasons).  

But, I don't see Obamacare as being a 'liberal health care directive'--that would be a single payer initiative claiming all people had the right to health care not the 'right to health care insurance'.   That's why I see a lot of this as just being a 'dog and pony show' for the corporate/government collusion--since I see 'mandating health insurance to all ' (that don't have government already covering for them, anyway--which is most of what is paid for most of the 20% that take up 80% of the health care budget now) being different from 'applying health care as a right to all'.

But, you know, now that I am thinking about it, if this Supreme Court uses the Constitution to knock down most of the significant parts to Obamacare (as individual mandates and access to health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions), I'm wondering what element of the U.S. Constitution that the Supreme Court will use and I suspect that it will bring in 'states rights' and, then, use Article 1, Section 10's claim against any state interfering with contracts just like it did in the First Gilded Age with state laws passed in the interest of worker benefits against their 'corporate contracts' (which the Supreme Court knocked down everyone as being 'Un-Constitutional' in the First Gilded Age of the latter 19th and early 20th century--I think that we are in the Second Gilded Age now).   The pertinent part of that section's Constitutional claim says "No State shall.....pass any....Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts....'--with the claim that both the 'individual mandate to purchase health care insurance' and 'the mandate to include pre-existing conditions in health care insurance policies' is such a 'state mandated interference'--with the Constitutional premise that the federal government has no authority to implement 'health care' since that has traditionally been ascribed to the states (making such things as 'when to declare any interest to intervene on the fetus's behalf' being primarily a 'state interest' and not a 'federal interest' in determining the 'contention of rights' that are involved in elective abortions as Roe vs. Wade described).     

And, Bush_Wacker is noting that one of the big corporate proponents of Obamacare as it has been written, Ron Williams, is backing out of supporting the very legislation that he helped formulate through the Obama Administration--thus, in essence, 'thumbing his nose' at what he has had a big hand in having the Obama Administration write and the Democratic Congress pass (with little support from the Republicans even though they have basically proposed the same thing before).   And, I do agree with Bush_Wacker's connection that that is a tell-tell sign that corporate America no longer supports it--nor supports Obama supporting it (even as corporate America was instrumental in getting Obama's Administration to formulate it in the manner it has been written).   Which does mean that this Supreme Court (whose record shows that it is intent on counting as 'Constitutional' almost anything in the corporate interest) will be less likely to pass it.   Let's see--and let's see what 'Constitutional excuse' they use not to pass (or at least most of) it (a law that initially was endorsed, and now is rejected, by Corporate America).....

In a sense, I don't see it as Thom Hartmann does.   I see all Supreme Court decisions, and most all Congressional legislative decisions, of today being done more in the corporation's interest than in any 'individual right' interest, otherwise.   And, when it comes to the 'two parties in Congress', they are basically the Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum pandering to corporate interests....thus, more of the 'dog and pony show' for the little people.....      

JoyceFinnigan
JoyceFinnigan's picture
Kerry, Thank you for the

Kerry,

Thank you for the thought out post. I meant to give an indepth response to your post, but I have suddenly been hammered with unexpected work. While I would love to give you my theories on the Courts ruling and how I think it will change Constitutional Law, I will be unable to do so untill late tomorrow. Since the SCOTUS decision will be comming out before that time any thing I say will be either moot or redundant.

Skip
Skip's picture
    I have a one person

 

 

I have a one person engineering consulting company.  When I created it in the 90s I discovered that I could get a corporate health insurance plan that would not exclude coverage for preexisting conditions.  I terminated this insurance plan when I decided to become a full time employee at another small company in 2006 since their health plan was completely paid for by that company.  I had to quit in 2011 due to a business slowdown (no COBRA available). When I tried to reinstate my old insurance plan I discovered that my company now had to have 2 employees.  That's probably a concession Obama had to make with the insurance companies and their puppets in the House and Senate in order to get his health plan through.  If the Supreme Court rules Obama's entire health plan unconstitutional I bet that the 2 employee requirement will remain.  If I kept my old plan it would have been grandfathered over.  I told a local contractor, who also runs a one person company, to never terminate her company's health insurance.  She would be in deep dodo with her Multiple Sclerosis.

spicoli
spicoli's picture
I think they are going to

I think they are going to knock down the mandate portion if not all of it.  There were rumors days after the hearing that President Obama was told the outcome of decision.  If those rumors are correct then I think President Obama told us the outcome during the White House Correspondents Dinner. 

Transcript:

Quote:
In my first term, we ended the war in Iraq; in my second term, I will win the war on Christmas.  (Laughter.)  In my first term, we repealed the policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” — (applause) — wait, though; in my second term, we will replace it with a policy known as, it’s raining men.  (Laughter.)  In my first term, we passed health care reform; in my second term, I guess I’ll pass it again.  (Applause.)

I have a feeling this time it will be a single payer system!

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
If Roberts and  Kennedy read

If Roberts and  Kennedy read it they will see it's not a mandate at all, just a suggestion, therefore constitutional. Scalia doesn't read, he calls rush for advice. Thomas does what scalia says. Alito will write some mangled reason to appear as if he read it. I think it will stand in total 6-3.

The whole thing was bipartisan, 161 republican amendments included in the bill. Amendments included to secure their vote. They had no intention of giving him anything from the beginning, even if the result is what people wanted, and what they had previously supported and even sponsored.

They are afraid of a successful plan like SocSec, Medicare, and Medicaid. Success contradicts their mantra that govt is the problem.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
I think it is

I think it is unconstitutional but I have to confess that I hope it is upheld for purely selfish reasons: family members with pre-existing conditions.

mjolnir
mjolnir's picture
Appears to have been upheld

Appears to have been upheld not as an individual mandate but as a tax.

douglaslee
douglaslee's picture
Roberts is against

Roberts is against regulation, and thus against the commerce clause. Taxes are llegal.Roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_

This fits in with being able to control campaign finance through taxing it. Free speech doesn't even come in to play. States can tax anything any way they see fit. Taxing campaign expenditures on products purchased in state, for state,  aired in state, and published in state, distributed in state is legal, and can reduce influence. Raises revenue, too.

Kerry
Kerry's picture
Well, it appears that my

Well, it appears that my original sense on this issue was correct.   I believe that Obamacare is a boon for the medical industry and I believe that this Supreme Court never goes against what is in the interest of 'industry'.   But, I also believe that Obamacare as it has been proposed (by placing the 'corporate middleman' as the insurance industry between the financing and the universal application of medical care) is neither responsibly tenable, nor financially sustainable, as a universal process in applying 'health care to all'--and what the 'corporate middle man' really does for such an universal application of medical care, I still have no earthly idea (even though I do know that health insurance CEO's can be, and are, some of the highest paid in the corporate world--what do they do for the application--especially the universal application--of health care?).   And, I am pretty sure I am not the only one that sees this. 

So, in the meantime, in the typical 'look the other way' and 'bait and switch' fashion that has become such a common tactic in today's political climate (that is able to capitalize on the point that none of this has to make rational sense, anyway--handed to them by the 'new paradigm community interest' clan), already the seeds of 'government ruined it all along' are being planted.....something that can easily be done as long as no one faces the primary point and premise--is health care a right to all or, if not, should it, otherwise, be a bankrupting privileged option to all.   'Splitting the difference' (like what the corporate-government collusion does now by offering it as a right to some as it demands bankrupting possibilities to others) doesn't reach the point--and allows the very 'look the other way' and 'bait and switch' tactics that is actually ruining American medicine--and will eventually ruin the process in applying it.....financially and medically.....

I'm wondering why the Supreme Court doesn't deliberate on the Constitutionality of the EMTALA law to begin with.   I suspect that is because that's too direct a point to have to consider in this 'bait and switch' and 'look the other way' political climate....I mean, as EMTALA implies, does 'universal access' mean 'universal right to health care'?   That's too direct a question for today's Orwellian postulates that would rather claim one thing for another.....like 'access to health insurance' instead of 'access to health care'....

And, I have recently heard Obama himself claim that somewhere in that 2000+ page document that is the Affordable Health Care Act, there is something that prevents those health insurance CEO's from making all those millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars a year off of this 'financial oversight of the "nearly universal" application of health care' (and Obama even claiming that they will give 'some of their money back' to their overpriced policy-holders to boot).   I'm a little skeptical of that--but, then, I think that there is a lot here to be skeptical about.   That's CEO's making millions--to hundreds of millions--of dollars without seeing one patient.....and that's 'health care'?