Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare challenge

[alnorth]

Oral argument in March. That the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal is not really a surprise, but what may be a surprise is the amount of time for oral arguments. The Obamacare supreme court oral argument will be 6 hours, which obliterates the modern record for longest oral argument. (in the earliest days of the court they had days of oral argument, but in the last couple generations, oral argument was typically one hour per case. The prior modern record was 4 hours in 2003 for a campaign finance reform law)

The court will hear arguments on four issues.

#1) The constitutionality of the requirement that almost all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014. (2 hours)

#2) If the mandate in #1 is struck down, will the entire law need to be struck down? (90 minutes)

#3) Does the anti-injunction act bar challenges to Obamacare's mandate. (in other words, if the answer to this question is yes, then the court will not answer #1, #2, and probably #4 at this time. The Obamacare challenge would be thrown out and the people who are opposed to the mandate would have to wait until 2014 to re-file the case) (90 minutes)

#4) The constitutionality of the expansion of Medicaid. (1 hour)

The court refused to hear challenges to the new requirements for employers, so that would stand unless the entire law was tossed.

Update:

Oral Argument Schedule:

Monday, March 26: Issue #3 (its probably fitting that this should be heard first)

Neither side wants to argue that the supreme court can't rule until 2015, so the supreme court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument. This is a rare issue where both the feds and the states agree.

Outside attorney: 40 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 20 minutes

Tuesday, March 27: Issue #1

Feds: 1 hour
States: 30 minutes
NFIB: 30 minutes

Wednesday, March 28: Issues #2 and #4

Issue #2:

The states believe if the mandate is struck down, then the whole law must be struck down, and the feds believe if the mandate is struck down, the ban on pre-existing conditions must also be struck down. Neither side believes that only the mandate can be struck down, leaving the rest of the law intact, so the court appointed an outside attorney to make that argument.

Outside attorney: 30 minutes
Feds: 30 minutes
NFIB and states: 30 minutes

Issue #4:

Feds: 30 minutes
States: 30 minutes

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by alnorth

You are simply just dead wrong.

People coming in for stitches that cost a hundred dollars are not causing cancer treatments to run into the millions, and wishing it were so, so you can wave some private account solution magic wand, wont make it so.

However, even if it were so, Obamacare would pretty effectively solve the problem, since now almost everyone has a pool of insurance money available.

A friend of one of my daughters works in the health care industry and her job is to help the poor/uninsured get matched to charitable donors so that their uncovered medical bills can be paid for, She as self described Bra burning liberal has become quite disenchanted with her fellow man. I as a bit of a bleeding heart conservative asked. So doesn’t the few times that you actually get to do something good and help a deserving person make it all worthwhile? I mean how many of us get the chance to have a job helping our fellow man. Her response was… “ No that just never happens”. So it seems to me that we either need to be callous and just not treat those uninsured and or unable to pay ( which we just won’t ever do) or to put into the budget a national system that covers everyone and everyone has to help pay for it. The fairest way would be a small national sales tax so that everyone gets to help pay some. I honestly don’t like the idea but I have not heard anything else that sounds like a real possibility.

[Bo's Pelini]

I haven't been paying attention to this figured the SC wouldn't overturn the mandate. Hows it going?

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini

I haven't been paying attention to this figured the SC wouldn't overturn the mandate. Hows it going?

Rumor has it that things are looking good for America and bad for Obama (unless you listen to the liberal media that says it will be good for Obama if they send it down in flames.)

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

Rumor has it that things are looking good for America and bad for Obama (unless you listen to the liberal media that says it will be good for Obama if they send it down in flames.)

As a lawyer said on another board, just because the justices put hard questions to the lawyers they do that to play devils advocate. I'd wait and hope it, or the mandate, is struck down.

[Iz Zat Chew]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

As a lawyer said on another board, just because the justices put hard questions to the lawyers they do that to play devils advocate. I'd wait and hope it, or the mandate, is struck down.

The country needs Health Care Reform, but not in the manner that the Obama Administration presented it. When they locked out the republicans we all knew it was bound to be a royal piece of shit.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Donger

This is more or less what I was thinking...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...elp-democrats/

(CNN) - While the Obama administration fights to protect the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said a Supreme Court overruling may not be such a bad thing for the president, politically.

"I think this will be the best thing that has ever happened to the Democratic Party," Carville said Tuesday on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."

He added: "You know, what the Democrats are going to say, and it is completely justified, 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'."

Carville, who gained fame working on Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, predicted health care costs will only increase in the future, in which case Republicans will be to blame for leading the drive to expel a federal program designed to help Americans cover those costs.

"Then the Republican Party will own the healthcare system for the foreseeable future. And I really believe that. That is not spin," Carville said.

Republican and RedState.com editor Erik Erikson, meanwhile argued that an overruling would represent more mainstream sentiments than not.

"Both sides, not just the Democrat side, even if the laws were upheld or struck down, there is a 5-4 conservative majority, and historically you see Republicans picking justices who have a greater propensity to gravitate to the left than you see Democrat judges propensity to gravitate to the right," Erikson, also a CNN contributor, said. "This will be an undercurrent issue for both sides, though."

Another interesting thought I heard is that this whole challenge could backfire if dems then say "well we tried it the 1994 republicans' way and the supreme court struck it down. They say the only way we can do this and comply with the constitution is to make it universal single-payer." When the republican alternative is "save up your spare change" or "let them die", then it may become a viable political strategy.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Iz Zat Chew

The country needs Health Care Reform, but not in the manner that the Obama Administration presented it. When they locked out the republicans we all knew it was bound to be a royal piece of shit.

In what manner then?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by banyon

Another interesting thought I heard is that this whole challenge could backfire if dems then say "well we tried it the 1994 republicans' way and the supreme court struck it down. They say the only way we can do this and comply with the constitution is to make it universal single-payer." When the republican alternative is "save up your spare change" or "let them die", then it may become a viable political strategy.

Yep. I agree with what Carville says along with your theory. There will be a time in the foreseeable future that the Dems will again have a Dem POTUS and completely Dem Congress and they will remember the last cluster**** and go for Medicare-for-all\singlepayer.

[Bewbies]

I've heard/read in a few places that some people think if they strike down the mandate but not the whole law we end up with single payer as it will force insurance companies out of business quickly.

That scares the shit out of me personally...

[mlyonsd]

The clip of Pelosi saying they had to pass the bill to see what was in it will be enough for republicans to flash in front of the public to prove how insane the dems really are.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Yep. I agree with what Carville says along with your theory. There will be a time in the foreseeable future that the Dems will again have a Dem POTUS and completely Dem Congress and they will remember the last cluster**** and go for Medicare-for-all\singlepayer.

Let's hope we never have one party rule again. It leads to bad law and/or poorly written law. These things need rigorous debate.

[Lightrise]

I was optimistic this would be preserved, but I've lost all hope. The only answer is single-payer to squeeze the profit of insurance companies out of the equation. That is the only way to cost containment and to get the health care mess out of company matters. Things are different today, ever since companies became 'people' (yes I realize that is absurd), its become obvious that there is no political will to protect consumers or employees anymore. One thing is clear, if the court votes this down republicans will own the entire mess, responsible for pushing 2.5 million people from insurance today, will result in higher premiums for those with insurance, will lead to enormous reductions in available care and it will further complicate the administrative burdens doctors and hospitals already face. Senator McConnell said 2 years ago repeal and replace...but just this week he said they won't do much, if anything....so its replace with nothing...what a fraud of family values the republican party has become.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

I've heard/read in a few places that some people think if they strike down the mandate but not the whole law we end up with single payer as it will force insurance companies out of business quickly.

That scares the shit out of me personally...

I don't know about that. If most these justices felt that was the case, they'd prefer the legislature to re-work it, since they defer to that. I can't speak for the lefties though.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Lightrise

I was optimistic this would be preserved, but I've lost all hope. The only answer is single-payer to squeeze the profit of insurance companies out of the equation. That is the only way to cost containment and to get the health care mess out of company matters. Things are different today, ever since companies became 'people' (yes I realize that is absurd), its become obvious that there is no political will to protect consumers or employees anymore. One thing is clear, if the court votes this down republicans will own the entire mess, responsible for pushing 2.5 million people from insurance today, will result in higher premiums for those with insurance, will lead to enormous reductions in available care and it will further complicate the administrative burdens doctors and hospitals already face. Senator McConnell said 2 years ago repeal and replace...but just this week he said they won't do much, if anything....so its replace with nothing...what a fraud of family values the republican party has become.

When you say "cost containment" in the context of single payer, you mean "death panel", right?

[BucEyedPea]

He can barely defend it.