Decision on health-care law means Supreme Court will likely determine constitutionality next summer

[tawadi]

Source: washingtonpost.com

Decision on health-care law means Supreme Court will likely determine constitutionality next summer

By Robert Barnes, Published: September 26

The constitutionality of the 2010 health-care law could be determined by the Supreme Court this term, with a decision coming next summer in the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign.

The Justice Department said Monday evening that it had decided not to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta to take up the case. A three-member panel of the court last month decided 2 to 1 that Congress overstepped its authority in passing the Affordable Care Act, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-clears-the-way-for-a-faster-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/2011/09/26/gIQAzSg3zK_story.html

---

"The Justice Department said Monday evening that it had decided not to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta to take up the case.." Not sure how many hours ago this came out. Mods, if this is not considered Late Breaking, please feel free to move it.

[SoapBox]

1. All I can say is...yikes.

I have great fear, what the Five Activist Judges will say.

Get ready to Just Die Quickly, America.

[asjr]

2. They obviously have no fear of

ruling on it to our detriment. The Felonious Five rule us.

[Hoyt]

3. That will be great -- ruling comes just a few months before elections. Can you imagine the spin?

[digitaln3rd]

5. Are you surprised?

How convenient that it will happen right before the elections.

[AndyTiedye]

4. So the USSC Gets to Overturn Health Care Reform In the Middle of the Election Campaign

This cannot be good.

I think I would have favored the "foot dragging" approach instead.

[tawadi]

6. It is a no-win situation

Now we'll have to wait and see.

[Volaris]

10. except if they do indeed overturn it,

it will be because of the individual mandate, and then forever and all time, we get to say that the REPUBLICAN solution to the problem of inadequate access to health care in America was voted unconstitutional by the SC. It makes the argument for universal single-payer that much stronger, since their alternative was tried and found to be (legally at least) lacking. If its played right, the other side is fucked no matter WHAT the SC decides.
If it stands, The Pres. gets a "win".
If not, then its just more proof that they couldn't legislate their way out of a clear plastic bag, and that they are out of functional ideas.

[AndyTiedye]

12. The Media Will Report it as "Obamacare" being Unconstitutional

We don't get a do-over on this. We haven't got the votes for single-payer and we won't have in 2013 either,
as it would be almost mathematically impossible for Democrats to take that many seats in the Senate next year.

It will be a tough election next year even if everything goes our way. If HCR dies in the Supreme Court,
2012 could go very badly for us.

[customerserviceguy]

7. Frankly

if the SCOTUS declares the ACA unconstitutional, it takes the wind out of a lot of Repuke sails. I still think the state of the economy will determine the outcome of the fall elections, but when Congress goes to refigure health care reform (and they will have to) it can no longer be said that "Obamacare is standing in the way of economic recovery".

As you can tell, I feel that the monstrosity that we called HCR is too little, too complex, and doesn't do anything for either side. The mandate sealed its fate, and that fate will be known next summer. If Romney is the GOP nominee (I don't think it will happen, but I've been wrong before) it means that the discussion during the rest of the campaign will be, "What will we replace it with?" It gives the President the chance to really make the case for single payer, and a Congress that will enact it.

[Marthe48]

8. Can we take the corporations who reneged on employee benefits?

Bet we don't see any lawsuits against those bastards, ever. Any young workers left out there? Get your raises in cash, do not take promises of future benefits--it's all lies.

[loyalsister]

9. I think this is a good thing

They won't be able to strike down the whole law, and there are some things people like. If the mandate is struck down, they can recover and campaign on a solution. People are going to want to keep the good stuff they have, so they will be open to that change.
If it is not struck down, conservatives didn't beat us on this one.

[AndyTiedye]

11. The Mandate on the Insurance Companies to Accept Everyone Would be Thrown Out Too

HCR will require the insurance companies to insure everyone, even if they have pre-existing conditions.
With no individual mandate, that is no longer viable, so the insurance companies would be allowed to
revert to their prior business model of insuring healthy people and finding some way to deny coverage
when they get sick.

It would be a disastrous defeat for Obama and the Democrats, and health care would once again become
"radioactive", not to be touched again for at least a couple of decades if not longer.

Freed of any fear of effective regulation, the insurers would raise their rates even faster than before.
(Just as the rate of increase in insurance prices went way up after the failure of health care reform in 1994).

[loyalsister]

13. hmmm

Can you explain exactly why and how the regulations would not be viable?

[AndyTiedye]

14. People Would Wait Until They Got Sick to Get Insurance

That is why the individual mandate is there. Insurance doesn't really work if the only ones paying in are generating claims for far more than they are paying.

Single payer would have a "mandate" as well, since (like Medicare) it would be paid for by taxes, and there is certainly a "mandate" to pay your taxes.

[loyalsister]

15. I get that

I was referring to the requirement of ins. companies to cover pre-existing conditions. Could the supreme court strike that down as an extraneous ruling?
As far as the mandate, what you are talking about is the current state of insurance. If that requirement were struck down it just would not go in to effect in 2014.
I know that everyone has to be in for it to work.
My point was that the currently designed individual mandate is not the only way to accomplish reform. As a matter of fact, there are much better ways. I think that may be possible.

[AndyTiedye]

16. We Know there are Better Ways. This Was the Only One the Repigs Didn't Filibuster

We didn't have the votes to get anything better through Congress, nor will we anytime soon.
It is not until 2016 that a large number of Republicans are up for re-election in the Senate,
so it is likely that they will continue to block everything Obama tries to do even if he
does win a second term.

If the individual mandate is struck down, the insurance companies will
argue that any mandate on them must fall as well. The courts would
almost certainly agree, since not to do so would create a nonviable
situation for the insurers.

[loyalsister]

17. I am well aware of the problems with congress

I'm just saying it is better to have this out of the way before the election. Win or lose they can spin it. The solutions are for later and I see no point in speculating about that battle.

"If the individual mandate is struck down, the insurance companies will argue that any mandate on them must fall as well."

That's a different lawsuit. This one was not brought by insurance. It is in their best interest to keep the mandate.