The SCOTUS has finally agreed to hear the case(s).
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/politics/health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Since there's a bet going on who the next president will be, we might as well start a bet on whether the health care overhaul will survive the various challenges.
Place your bets here.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by wittywonkaMy bet is that it survives mostly intact. But if they nix the individual mandate, they will hold not sever it from the other provisions because the insurance lobby got to the Democrats to make sure that a severability provision did not make it into the law. So the whole thing will come crashing down, and it will be a budgetary and economic disaster at that point.
The SCOTUS has finally agreed to hear the case(s).
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/politics/health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Since there's a bet going on who the next president will be, we might as well start a bet on whether the health care overhaul will survive the various challenges.
Place your bets here.
Originally posted by KunsooOnly one judge of the about two dozen who have ruled on the HCR Act has both found the individual mandate unconstitutional AND non-severable. That result in the SCOTUS is a long shot.
My bet is that it survives mostly intact. But if they nix the individual mandate, they will hold not sever it from the other provisions because the insurance lobby got to the Democrats to make sure that a severability provision did not make it into the law. So the whole thing will come crashing down, and it will be a budgetary and economic disaster at that point.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would serve both parties and the insurance industry if the mandate was stricken and held severable. I think the public option would be inevitable at that point, and probably single payer.
Only one judge of the about two dozen who have ruled on the HCR Act has both found the individual mandate unconstitutional AND non-severable. That result in the SCOTUS is a long shot.
Which is why I'm betting that the more significant provisions are upheld. But who knows?
Originally posted by KunsooThe mandate was placed in the bill at the insistence of the insurance industry. If Obama wanted to be politically brilliant, he'd admit the mandate was a mistake and offer to work with the Republicans to repeal it. They'd of course refuse insisting on dumping the entire HCR, but Obama would get credit for flexibility, reasonableness to compromise and get out from under the one part of the HCR that is massively unpopular.
It would serve both parties and the insurance industry if the mandate was stricken and held severable. I think the public option would be inevitable at that point, and probably single payer.
Which is why I'm betting that the more significant provisions are upheld. But who knows?
Originally posted by wittywonkaThat poll is an outlier and appears to have a built in bias:
CNN released a survey claiming that the U.S. leans 52%-47% in favor of it.
http://tinyurl.com/84z22m8
Polls show that the individual mandate is unpopular. The Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks public opinion on the health measure, reported in March that 74 percent of Americans would keep, rather than repeal, the law’s provision barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. But only 27 percent would keep the mandate. (A CNN poll released Monday found that 52 percent supported the mandate, up from 44 percent in June, though unlike Kaiser, CNN did not explain that failure to comply would result in a fine.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/health/policy/insurance-mandate-may-be-health-bills-undoing.html?pagewanted=all
Ohio just voted against the mandate by 2 to 1.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214771
Originally posted by no1marauderGingrich may have a Romney problem. He used to support the mandate, and even though he's changed his position, his think tank still supports it.
That poll is an outlier and appears to have a built in bias:
Polls show that the individual mandate is unpopular. The Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks public opinion on the health measure, reported in March that 74 percent of Americans would keep, rather than repeal, the law’s provision barring insurers from discriminating against ...[text shortened]... s-undoing.html?pagewanted=all
Ohio just voted against the mandate by 2 to 1.
This is the biggest irony in the whole debate. Like cap and trade, this was originally cooked up by Friedman types as a free-market oriented alternative to single payer or real social medicine. That it has been framed as a left wing idea is again the product of Obama's negotiation skills where he makes concessions before he even starts negotiating. The mandate is their baby, and the industry loves it. It would serve the industry right if they got stuck with the regs sans the guaranteed income, but that's why Obama and Baucus deliberately omitted a non-severability provision (no way can you convince me that it was an error - it's in pretty much every piece of legislation more than a page long).
Originally posted by KunsooOf course it was a drafting error; the lack of a non-severability provision means ANY unconstitutional provision in the 1200+ page bill could lead to its demise by an aggressive SCOTUS led by judges as right wing as Florida's Vinson. If they had meant to merely make the mandate non-severable, they could have drafted wording doing just that. The final bill making in the Senate in December 2009 was chaotic and it was anticipated that the HCR would eventually have to go to a Joint Congressional Committee to iron out its differences with the House bill, but this didn't happen because of Scott Brown's election. I'm sorry, but I don't buy such a silly conspiracy theory; if the joint committee had ever happened, the non-severability provision would have been added (it existed in the House version which included the individual mandate).
Gingrich may have a Romney problem. He used to support the mandate, and even though he's changed his position, his think tank still supports it.
This is the biggest irony in the whole debate. Like cap and trade, this was originally cooked up by Friedman types as a free-market oriented alternative to single payer or real social medicine. That it has been ...[text shortened]... hat it was an error - it's in pretty much every piece of legislation more than a page long).