PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS to hear healthcare mandate case



BonMallari
11-14-2011, 11:43 AM
in what is shaping up to be the most influential ruling in our current lifetime, the SCOTUS has decided to hear lawsuits brought about by the states challenging the new mandated health care provisions..

This could be a game changer, if the ruling comes down before the election next year, it could affect us for generations to come...might be bigger than Roe vs Wade

How do you think they will rule...

Cody Covey
11-14-2011, 11:51 AM
I think it depends. I have not read anythign about it going to SCOTUS yet but I think it will depend on what is being argued. If they are trying to argue that just the mandate is unconstitutional then I believe the SCOTUS will agree. But if they are trying to say the whole thing is I believe they will have a harder time. Either way it will be a 5-4 decision.

BonMallari
11-14-2011, 12:19 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/supreme-court-will-rule-this-year-on-health-reform-law/

Chris Atkinson
11-14-2011, 12:31 PM
M&K, while you're viewing this thread, how about if you take a look at your private messages sir?

Thanks, Chris

Eric Johnson
11-14-2011, 12:37 PM
The case is to be heard in March (I think it is) with a decision by the end of the Court term.

They have scheduled 5 1/2 hours for arguments. This will be:

* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400]), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.

* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.

* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.) (UPDATE: It appears, on a closer reading of the grants, that the Anti-Injunction Act will be explored as a limitation on challenges to the mandate by either private individuals or states.)

* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400); one hour of oral argument.

(Lyle Denniston, Court sets 5 1/2-hour hearing on health care (FINAL), SCOTUSblog (Nov. 14, 2011, 10:49 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/11/court-sets-5-12-hour-hearing-on-health-care/ )

Cody Covey
11-14-2011, 12:38 PM
Thanks Bon, with what that article states I believe the lower courts decision will be upheld. The real question is whether or not the mandate can be stricken from the bill or if they will have to start over imo. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds because I agree that this decision will be more important than Roe v Wade. If the government can start to mandate that we purchase things what else are they able to mandate.

BrettG
11-14-2011, 12:45 PM
The bad thing is even if it is overturned I don't believe my insurance provider will drop my premiums the 42% it has been increased over the past 2 years. Last year I had to change providers in Dec. due to 33% increase and now next month I get a 9% increase. Do you want to know how many times I've been to the doctor in the last 10 years? Twice!

Socks
11-14-2011, 03:03 PM
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. When I was 16 and a new driver I had insurance because my Mom made me. When I was 17 or so the state mandated that everyone has to have insurance for our well being and it would be cheaper. They passed the bill and shortly thereafter my insurance went up and was never cheaper again. HMM... I wonder why? Oh that's right, because I HAD to buy it.

I see a lot of correlations here.

BonMallari
11-14-2011, 03:23 PM
I've said this before, but I'll say it again. When I was 16 and a new driver I had insurance because my Mom made me. When I was 17 or so the state mandated that everyone has to have insurance for our well being and it would be cheaper. They passed the bill and shortly thereafter my insurance went up and was never cheaper again. HMM... I wonder why? Oh that's right, because I HAD to buy it.

I see a lot of correlations here.

isnt it ironic that you use the car insurance mandate, the reason we all have to carry insurance is for what...to guard and protect us against the non insured

I fear the same will be if the ACA is upheld, we will be forced to carry health insurance which many of us will never use, so that many others will cotinually scam and exploit...all you have to do is spend two hours at any county emergency room if you want to see who you and I are paying for

dixidawg
11-14-2011, 04:01 PM
Car insurance is for the privilege of driving. If you don't want to pay insurance, then don't drive.

Health insurance insurance is mandated for those that breathe. Not a lot of viable options if you don't want to pay health insurance.

M&K's Retrievers
11-14-2011, 04:25 PM
Kagan should recuse herself.

Nor_Cal_Angler
11-14-2011, 08:58 PM
Kagan should recuse herself.

I know why your saying this...and if that is the case so should Justice Thomas

It doesnt matter because I think they cancel each other's votes anyways.

Jake