What are the odds the Supreme Court sides with Obama and allows the individual mandate to stand?

[dkf]

If it doesn't is that part invalidated but the rest of it stands?

[MineralMan]

1. What case are you talking about?

[dkf]

3. They are saying on MSNBC that they think the HCR individual mandate will probably go to the Supreme

Court. There is already one judge who has ruled it unconstitutional and there may be another from Florida. But seriously can you imagine Scalia voting for the individual mandate? Or is he so corporate that he would? They just seem so partisan.

[MineralMan]

5. Oh, OK. I don't know how the court would rule on that one.

It's an Obama bill, so Scalia will be against it, regardless of the constitutional issues.

[BlueDemKev]

8. Consider this....

...IF the Supreme Court strikes down the so-called "individual mandate" and kills the Affordable Care Act in the process, the next time there's a health care reform effort (probably in about 10-20 years), it will most likely be to set up either a gov't single-payer system OR a gov't public insurance option, both of which are WELL WITHIN the constitutional realm of the federal govt's authority (i.e.--the gov't may impose taxes & other fees).

As I've told other righties who are screaming for this repeal of the ACA, watch what you wish for, you MIGHT get it.

[onehandle]

2. I think pretty good, since it benefits their corporate masters. nt

[dkf]

4. And we thought they stood for states rights til they got to Bush v Gore.

[hughee99]

6. I'd say Zero.

Aside from the other issues, it's the federal government requiring people to purchase a product with their own money from private industry. From a strictly legal standpoint, I'm not sure I'd even side with Obama on this, so his chances of swinging Fat Tony and his crowd are zero.

[BlueDemKev]

7. Don't be so sure....

...it's true the five conservatives may band together because of their political views, but take a look at Scalia's own opinion in the Gonzalez vs. Raich case in 2005:

"The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power."

Remember, NOT buying insurance coverage has a HUGE impact on commerce. Doctors are forced to perform services for which they are not paid, hospitals lose significant revenue (and some have even gone bankrupt as a result), and ultimately the rest of us end up having to pay our own money to offset the cost of uninsured people receiving medical care. This is a very tough case.

[hughee99]

9. While you certainly make a valid argument...

I don't think this is going to be one that sways the conservatives. Repukes will frame the issue like this "So after the government is done taking whatever taxes it's decided you should pay, it's then going to tell you how to spend what you have left". As opposed to just making this an issue on health insurance, they'll make it a "slippery-slope" issue of the government telling you how you have to spend your money. I suspect Scalia is more comfortable being creative when it comes to federally criminalizing marijuana then when it comes to the government telling you what you HAVE to buy.

[qazplm]

10. Scalia doesn't matter

Kennedy does. So we'd be better served looking at his history in this area.

[KansDem]

11. The problem is that health care has become a marketing issue...

...rather than a national security concern.

Now, good health, like expensive cars and vacations to the Bahamas, will be made available only to those who can afford it.

If the idea that health care, like energy, education, and the environment, were hammered into people as national security issues, then we wouldn't have discussions about turning them completely over to the private sector to be marketed like deodorant, pizzas, and running shoes...

[BlueDemKev]

13. Yes, that's possible....

...but will that relatively closed-minded argument hold up with ALL five (5) of the conservative justices? I'm not sure. Especially considering they must be smart enough to realize that if this reform law (which is purely market-based) is thrown out, the next time the Democrats get a solid majorities in Congress and the White House, they will enact a FAR more liberal health care law, like single-payer or a public option. They may not want to see that happen.

[hughee99]

15. If the argument is pushed that

this isn't really about health care, but about giving the federal government the power to mandate what people buy, I think they'd still take their chances with congress enacting such laws. Even in the previous congress with a very solid majority, they couldn't get the single payer or public option passed.

Sadly, I think they're going to get their 5 votes on this, but on the upside, it provides us the opportunity to go back and redo this at a future date, and then, they won't be able to compromise away single payer or public option in this manner.

[mdmc]

12. very good odds, imho

corporations profit, individual don't..

[GeorgeGist]

14. You mean the Private Mandate

as opposed to the Public Option.

[dkf]

16. Yes. Private insurance.