Supreme Court hears arguments on new healthcare law

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by kavika411, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #1
    I am quite excited about the upcoming Supreme Court oral arguments concerning the new healthcare law. While the outcome obviously affects the future of healthcare in the United States, what I find more interesting is how the outcome will affect the relationship between federal and state government.

    I grabbed the Politico article below for no particular reason other than it seems to lay out nicely some things to watch for over the next few days. I wish we could watch the arguments live on C-SPAN, or at least have live audio. Nina Totenberg will no doubt give the play-by-play on NPR's All Things Considered at the end of each day. She generally does a good job. I thought Brit Hume did a good job yesterday on FoxNews Sunday giving an overview. His main point was that he is astonished by anyone on either side of the debate who thinks their side is a slam dunk in front of the court. (Link - about halfway through, at the beginning of the panel discussion)

    Anyway, I'm interested if there are any particular questions/issues for which you'll be listening, any justices to whom you will be paying particular attention, any demonstrations outside the court that have caught your attention, etc.

    from Politico:

     
  2. WestonHarvey1 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #2
    I don't predict you'll get a lot of meaningful replies to this thread. Most MR readers are pro universal healthcare, and most people in general care more about outcomes than constitutionality.

    It's rare you'll find a person that will admit "I want this healthcare reform, but I don't believe it is constitutional, so we should not have this law until an appropriate constitutional amendment can be ratified."
     
  3. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #3
    It was always destined for for the Supreme Court.

    Let them decide.

    And live with it.
     
  4. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #4
    We need UHC, not health insurance mandates. Most likely the law won't hold up, IMO.
     
  5. MorphingDragon macrumors 603

    MorphingDragon

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    The World Inbetween
    #5
    Not just UHC, also Dentistry. New Zealand's got some fun stuff going on with the hidden cost of dental biting us in the arse ATM.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    The SCOTUS is allowing the release of the audio recordings of the daily arguments on a daily basis. XM/Sirius has a 9pm show dedicated to the oral arguments each day on the POTUS channel. The same-day release is historical as well.
     
  7. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #7
    Yes we do. Problem is getting that threw the senate where they will filibuster it.
     
  8. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #8
    I think the most likely outcome is the individual mandate will be declared unconstitutional but the rest of the law will be left alone.

    This will cause an immediate large scale freak-out by health insurance companies who see their business model crashing in flames as healthy people drop coverage safe in the knowledge that they can't be refused later when they get sick.

    It ought to be quite a right mess.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    A mess that will hopefully lead to UHC.
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    Well hopefully if just the individual mandate gets struck down but the rest of it stays it'll scare the senate into acting and actually giving us Universal Healthcare.
     
  11. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #11
    This, I would like to see UHC, however I think the way this was presented and other items that were put into the bill don't mix very well.
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    the only hope in hell of that ever happening it would require dems to get a super majority again.
     
  13. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    I pay just over $20,000 a year for my family and the couple people I employ. My premiums were going up before this hullabaloo about Obamacare started flaring up, now the insurance companies tell me the premiums are going up because of Obamacare. I'm starting to get irritated. I want something done, yes, but the issue seems too huge and daunting for me, and I can't get my head around a way to fix it.
     
  14. mrkramer, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012

    mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    You're probably right. But the insurance companies can't really survive if they can't reject people for preexisting conditions and if the mandate is gone, only sick people will buy insurance, so they might be scared enough that they'll pressure the Republicans into going along with a constitutional amendment that will allow congress to put it back in place. And if we're really lucky the amendment would be worded loosely enough to allow real UHC once the Dems have a better majority.
     
  15. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #15
    There is only one way. Private industry sucks up an enormous amount of healthcare spending in CEO pay, dividends, and the truly phenomenal amount of money spent trying to deny claims. It's been proved again and again that Medicare and Medicaid have lower costs because they're not trying to appease shareholders and egotistical CEOs.

    Personally, I don't want England's NHS or even Canada's system, rather one like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, etc. Private for the 1% and public for the 99%.
     
  16. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #16
    First off your insurance company is lieing to you and making up an new excuse to raise your rates. Obamacare is not the reason. If anything Obamacare will lower your rates NOT increase them due to having a larger pool.

    Also Obamacare has some other nice little parts in it that put a max amount of P&O the insurance companies can take. Anything over that limit must me refunded to you.

    The biggest problem with the mess is the GOP blocked some major issues in healthcare that would of help solved it and that part is the run away cost.
     
  17. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #17
    I think you are kidding yourself to think that the insurance companies would push for that law change. If anything they would push to have the part on prexisting part rejected.

    Personally I think they should no be able to charge people difference rates. The only thing they could even use in my book is Male, female, and age. So a 26 year old healthy guy, would pay the same as a 26 year old guy who has some pretty big pre existing. The dems should of gotten that part into it as well.
     
  18. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    Good post, kavika. Clear, thought out, no spin from any source (not accusing you of spin here).

    In fact, Nina Totenburg hit on your last question already this morning. She called it the most boring and mundane question, but honestly, I would think it would be the most important. Also, it happens to be the first question they argue in the case.

    Think about it this way; if the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 prevents SCOTUS from hearing this case for three more years, this coming POTUS election just became the the biggest election of this millennium. With some justices contemplating retirement, the next set to be brought on could make this whole entire plan a game changer; and I want to say that it is some of the swing voters that would be coming up for retirement, and those being Conservative justices.

    Changing the entire playing field changes everything on the case, so the most boring and mundane question actually has the biggest implications.

    BL.
     
  19. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    The alternative is that churches start doing their job and teaching people that it was God's will that we care for the needy, the poor and the infirm. It's a God damn shame that the churches who are supposed to teach God's word are too busy teaching the word of insurance companies and mega corporations to do what they are supposed to do.

    Do you believe that insurance premiums are going up because of Obamacare or because they have an excuse to raise your premiums? If you believe that it is Obamacare, exactly what part of Obamacare is causing insurance companies to need additional resources? My guess is that if you look closely, you will see the answer is profit margin.

    If there is a mandate, only everyone will buy insurance. Not just sick people. That's the whole point! Good God, are people really this naive?
     
  20. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #20
    It's interesting that the Court itself seems to be who's pushing for reviewing the tax/not-a-tax issue.
     
  21. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #21
    Actually I did ask and they said it because they have to cover more people without disqualification for pre-existing conditions that is making the premiums go up.
     
  22. kavika411, Mar 26, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012

    kavika411 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #22
    I heard that this morning, too, and had the same thought as you - that it is perhaps the most important question, even if seemingly boring. My guess is that (1) given they have set aside such a massive amount of time for all the areas of the law, and (2) given that they could have quite easily pushed all of this off at least a little longer, that they will not now use the Anti-injunction Act to punt. At least I hope they don't. That would be quite lame.

    Thanks for injecting apparent church hypocrisy.

    Really.
     
  23. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #23
    Obviously if there is a mandate everyone will buy insurance, look at what I said again. I was talking about how there would be a problem if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate but leaves the rest of the law. In that case insurance companies would be required to insure people with pre-existing conditions, but healthy people wouldn't be required to buy insurance since the Supreme Court struck down the mandate, and that would cause problems.
     
  24. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    in order for the Anti-injuction Act to come into the picture, it would seem the judges would have to decide that in dealing with Obamacare they're dealing with what's really a tax issue. That would seem to be pretty damaging to those challenging the constitutionality of the law
     
  25. kavika411 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #25
    True. Frankly, I've gone as far as I can with what little I remember about the Anti-injunction Act from law school. That said, I hold out hope that they don't duck pieces, big or small, of the law because of procedural issues. Likewise, I'm less interested in which "side" they come down on as long as they are clear and full in their decision.
     

Share This Page