Obamacare in the Supreme Court today

[UsualName]

Reading the live reporting, it’s looking like standing is a major issue for some of the conservative justices. Granted I haven’t given good attention to this matter because of obvious other reasons, it’s a good question.

How are the states harmed by there being a mandate without a tangible penalty?

I thought this case would go in the direction of is $0 a tax? Doesn’t even look like that’s being explored.

The case is still being argued and other avenues of questioning could bring about the “what is a tax” question.

 

[Tony Stark]

Definitely gives the 2 Georgia Dems something to run on.

 

[UsualName]

Definitely gives the 2 Georgia Dems something to run on.

I don’t know about what impact this will have. I think the two republicans in Georgia made a big mistake attacking the sitting Republican Secretary of State though. A fair amount of republicans are not ok with the aftermath of this election and that might depress some Republican voters.

 

[UsualName]

Kavanaugh questioning implies he thinks the mandate is severable.

Big shifts happening in the court, looking more and more like the Roberts/Kavanaugh Court everyday.

Still, so far so good for ACA holding up based on arguments made today. Still going...


Mind you, today’s argument do not always mean tomorrow’s rulings.

 

[Overnight]

This fucking mandate is utter fuck-all. You cannot force someone to buy health care they cannot afford, and then charge them money for not having it.

End of Line.

P.S. Wait a minute, yes you can. They call it "Medicare."

 

[newwurldmn]

This fucking mandate is utter fuck-all. You cannot force someone to buy health care they cannot afford, and then charge them money for not having it.

End of Line.

If they don’t have income then they can get Medicaid.

 

[Overnight]

If they don’t have income then they can get Medicaid.

FALSE!


Citizens of a state without income tax, like Florida, don't have that luxury. At least, that is how it was when I was living there 6 years ago. Unless you have lots of kids.

Welfare babies they are called.

 

[Wallet]

Medicare, Medicaid. All I’ve heard Biden say, he wants to expand Medicaid or allow Medicaid participants to enroll in Medicare, everything breaks for people who can’t afford to pay.

Nothing for the working class, the self-employed who don’t qualify for government assistance, who foot the bill for their own overpriced healthcare and premiums plus paying for the above mentioned.

Insurance is an abysmal joke snd neither party has a viable answer.

 

[UsualName]

Medicare, Medicaid. All I’ve heard Biden say, he wants to expand Medicaid or allow Medicaid participants to enroll in Medicare, everything breaks for people who can’t afford to pay.

Nothing for the working class, the self-employed who don’t qualify for government assistance, who foot the bill for their own overpriced healthcare and premiums plus paying for the above mentioned.

Insurance is an abysmal joke snd neither party has a viable answer.

Might I suggest you take a look at the Israeli system. It’s a nice mix of base government coverage, provided by private insurers that can be upgraded through employers or individually. It rewards success but leaves no one in the cold.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Still, so far so good for ACA holding up based on arguments made today. Still going...

On the issue of severability before the court, ACA will prevail, has never been otherwise. Amy Barrett will vote with the liberals and moderates as well. Never has been otherwise.

As discussed, this business of ACA being eliminated if Amy Barrett were to be confirmed was just political fearmongering for the election. And as I said, the lefties will say she has gone to lib side if she rules to support severability, but no, deference to the legislative branch to max possible is also a conservative principle so she will concur with the libs by being on the same side of the ruling but based on a different reasoning.

This is not to say that she would have sided with the lib justices on the first obamacare case with tax/mandate issue. That presented a constitutional issue versus just a legal issue as this case does and I don't think she would have been more than lukewarm on the mandate hiding as a tax argument.