Pages

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare May Seem Less Momentous To Judges Than Politicians


Excerpt: "The Supreme Court saved the Affordable Care Act three years ago by upholding the individual mandate. But the legal issues then were about the law's fundamental constitutionality. If the court had ruled against the mandate, it would have dismantled the law. In this case, the justices may be less likely to view their decision as equally dire: they're simply sending the law back to Congress, which would face no constitutional obstacle to changing the law to allow subsidies in all 50 states. When experts survey the court, they see a panel of justices that could react favorably to the textual arguments that the health-law challengers make."

Alan: If the upcoming Supreme Court ruling throws Obamacare back to Congress, Republicans have no plan -- and in light of their ideology cannot have a plan -- to provide universal healthcare since any such plan depends, at minimum, on an individual mandate which is simply not a card in the Republican deck. 

The upside to "throwing Obamacare" back to a crippled (and crippling) Congress is that ensuing healthcare chaos could lead to the election of a Democratic president, along with a Democratic Congress, which, now chastened by the debacle of Obama's willingness-to-compromise when the ACA was originally debated in 2009, will "force" single-payer healthcare "down the nation's throat." 

Take your medicine America!

"The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism"

2009 Harvard Study: 45,000 Americans Die Annually For Lack of Health Insurance

Republican Ruled States That Refuse To Expand Medicaid Are Despicable

GOP's Anti Medicaid Expansion Body Count, By State

GOP Hopping On Medicaid Expansion Bandwagon

"Don't Buy The Hype. American Insurance Companies Think Obamacare Is Going To Be Fine"

Canadian Healthcare: Not Perfect, Just Better. Lots Better

Canadian Healthcare Better Than U.S. 
Bloomberg News Service


Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare May Seem Less Momentous To Judges Than Politicians. "It is the result of the key players working loosely, overcoming lawsuit fatigue in conservative circles, pushing an argument that seems more technical than substantive, and even a bit of luck. ... It took at least four justices to agree to hear the case. It only takes one more to create a majority against the health-care law. The idea of five justices finding the challengers' arguments compelling is well within the realm of reality for most observers." Vox.


No comments:

Post a Comment