If Afforable Care was implemented as Single Payer, would it have found its way to the Supremes?

[Stinky The Clown]

[Luminous Animal]

1. Probably not because it would have been a tax.

[Maven]

2. It would have been litigated but I doubt it would have made it to the SCOTUS.

Too much precedent to support taxation by government for public health benefits.

[killbotfactory]

3. No, because it would have died in congress and never have been made law. nt

[TheKentuckian]

7. Implement would imply it passed. The question wasn't proposed or legislated as

[Dawson Leery]

4. Since single payer would be financed by a tax, likely not.

Medicare and SS are financed the same way.

[Justice wanted]

5. With the way corporations control our laws and branches of government I'd say yes. They would

argue that it was destroying free markets and putting industries out of business. They would also claim socialism and treason going againsts "The founding Father's" vision of America as emcompassed by the constitution.


Heard this arguement from a laywer who is the founder of a Tea Party group in my area.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Maybe, they'd sure try but the power to tax is granted and enumerated so it wouldn't be

on those grounds.

[Canuckistanian]

8. They would have had some way of making this about "state's rights"

They've been itching for this fight ever since Obama got in.

[Yo_Mama]

9. No.

No one disputes Congressional taxing powers. Really, any constitutional questions over that type of scheme were settled long ago over SS/Medicare.

It's possible that there could have been some minor questions raised over particular aspects - such as perhaps may still come before the Court over Medicare if the the independent panel really starts making decisions over denial of care. But nothing could threaten the basic structure of such a scheme. It would be on very solid constitutional ground.

[geek tragedy]

10. Absolutely. Republicans hate any kind of universal coverage

plan. They care about power, not law.

[Volaris]

11. FUCK no.

And over the course of the last three days, basically everyone IN that courtroom has said as much (some while trying to be VERY cagey about how they say it lol).

[JVS]

12. The government is allowed to tax. The government is also allowed to spend as it sees fit.

The problem with ACA is that the government is trying to orchestrate the interaction of many entities.

[BzaDem]

16. Did you hear about the Medicaid argument today? The justices were talking about adding new limits on

the power to tax and spend, that could overrule the 18 million person Medicaid expansion and possibly every Medicaid expansion made since 1965.

Liberals should be very careful before they start embracing the idea of 5 conservatives striking down broad economic legislation that they don't like. Because the next time, it will be broad economic legislation that they do like. And they will say "the government is allowed to..." right up to the moment when the 5 conservatives say that the government is no longer allowed.

[emulatorloo]

13. Yes, because Republicans are against healthcare.

There plan is "Let them die".

They certainly aren't for single payer. This crowd wants to destroy Medicare.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Perhaps but if it was implemented as an expansion of Medicare there would be little to rule on.

[libtodeath]

15. It may have with the right wing activist judges we have in this country.