Obamacare to be fast-tracked?

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Aug 7, 2009
3,640
1,150
743
Oklahoma City
#1
Election-year ruling looms for health overhaul


By MARK SHERMAN

Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul appears headed for a Supreme Court ruling as the presidential election season hits full stride in the coming year.
The health care law affecting virtually every American is sure to figure prominently in President Barack Obama's campaign for re-election. Republican contenders are already assailing it in virtually every debate and speech.

The administration on Wednesday formally appealed a ruling by the federal appeals court in Atlanta that struck down the law's core requirement that Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty beginning in 2014. The administration said the appeals court decision declaring the law's central provision unconstitutional was "fundamentally flawed."

At the same time, however, the winners in that appellate case, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, also asked for high court review Wednesday, saying the entire law, and not just the individual insurance mandate, should be struck down.
The Supreme Court almost always weighs in when a lower court has struck down all or part of a federal law, to say nothing of one that aims to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans.

The bigger question had been the timing.

The administration's filing makes it more likely that the case will be heard and decided in the term that begins next week. Repeating arguments it has made in courts across the country in response to many challenges to the law, the administration said Congress was well within its constitutional power to enact the insurance requirement.

Disagreeing with that, the 26 states and the business group said in their filings that the justices should act before the 2012 presidential election because of uncertainty over costs and requirements.
On the issue of timing, their cause got an unexpected boost from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who said voters would be better off if they knew the law's fate before casting their ballots next year.

The 91-year-old Stevens said in an Associated Press interview that the justices would not shy away from deciding the case in the middle of a presidential campaign and would be doing the country a service. "It would be better to have that known about than be speculated as a part of the political argument," Stevens said in his Supreme Court office overlooking the Capitol.

Though the Atlanta appeals court struck down the individual insurance requirement, it upheld the rest of the law. The states and the business group say that would still impose huge new costs.
In another challenge to the same law, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati sided with the administration.

In a separate Supreme Court filing Tuesday night, the Obama administration said it does not appear necessary to grant review of the Cincinnati case, adding that consolidating the two cases could complicate the presentation of arguments "without a sufficient corresponding benefit."

The law would extend health coverage mainly through subsidies to purchase private insurance and an expansion of Medicaid. The states object to the Medicaid expansion and a provision forcing them to cover their employees' health care at a level set by the government.

The individual insurance mandate "indisputably served as the centerpiece of the delicate compromise that produced" the law, according to the states, with Florida taking the lead.
 
Aug 7, 2009
3,640
1,150
743
Oklahoma City
#3
Pretty interesting. The administration had been slow-playing this in the courts. Maybe some of our attorneys here can weigh in on the change in strategy.
The administration has been applying the political "Chinese water treatment" to this issue. I theorize they know they are in trouble with the SC but during the meantime they seek to implement this program "one drop at a time," while concentrating on implementation of segments that are hard to overturn.

I doubt that at the least, forcing citizens to purchase insurance or penalizing them if they do not, will not stand muster in the SCOTUS. And this is one leg of the proverbial 3-legged stool of ObamaCare so to speak. In addition, most reliable experts I have read, i.e. Larry Sabato & Real Politics predict that the Senate is more likely than not to change hands in 2012, and given a GOP president in addition, ObamaCare is in deep trouble.

Some portions of ObamaCare are OK but I am vehemently opposed to a government one-payer system, what the socialist nuts have in mind eventually IMO.
 

OSU Sig

Federal Marshal
Jan 28, 2005
15,939
3,111
1,743
65
Edmond
#4
I'm sure they believe they have a strategy to blunt any Supreme Court slap down the law may suffer. it will be interesting to watch how this plays out in the campaign...and it will play out in the campaign.
 

Cowboy2U

Federal Marshal
Mar 31, 2008
11,272
1,678
1,743
#8
The administration has been applying the political "Chinese water treatment" to this issue. I theorize they know they are in trouble with the SC but during the meantime they seek to implement this program "one drop at a time," while concentrating on implementation of segments that are hard to overturn.

I doubt that at the least, forcing citizens to purchase insurance or penalizing them if they do not, will not stand muster in the SCOTUS. And this is one leg of the proverbial 3-legged stool of ObamaCare so to speak. In addition, most reliable experts I have read, i.e. Larry Sabato & Real Politics predict that the Senate is more likely than not to change hands in 2012, and given a GOP president in addition, ObamaCare is in deep trouble.

Some portions of ObamaCare are OK but I am vehemently opposed to a government one-payer system, what the socialist nuts have in mind eventually IMO.
Holy mother of God let this be so.
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
28,910
13,931
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#11
And cue the incoherent rant about Rx being petty.


Wait! Not now, I mean at about 3 when townie gets out of school.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,319
41,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#13
Please don't be wrong. It is true that Medicare is a one payer system. Of course, you may be serious about desiring to be petty.
No, it isn't. In a one party system the government owns the hospitals and employs the physicians. In a third party system, like Medicare, physicians and hospitals bill the third party payer. You do not know what you are talking about.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
71,319
41,073
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#16
And cue the incoherent rant about Rx being petty.

Wait! Not now, I mean at about 3 when townie gets out of school.
Looks like he got out an hour early today... but you were essentially correct with your prognostication. Next he'll post something about how it's really still a single payer system in 3... 2... 1...
 

Duke Silver

Find safe haven in a warm bathtub full of my jazz.
A/V Subscriber
Sep 17, 2004
28,910
13,931
1,743
Cozy's Bar
#17
Looks like he got out an hour early today... but you were essentially correct with your prognostication. Next he'll post something about how it's really still a single payer system in 3... 2... 1...
Also something about having something to add.
 

bleedinorange

Federal Marshal
Jan 11, 2010
12,539
16,443
1,743
In Pokey's head
#20
This ruling by SCOTUS will gut Obamacare. I would bet the farm that the mandate forcing Americans to purchase Obamascare will be found unconstitutional. That is the sole source for funding this abortion on bread and will leave it lifeless. The greatest effort to re-distribute wealth in our nation's history will follow all the rest of the big Zero's policies in failure.

Any bets from the Barry O supporters on how SCOTUS will rule?