Skip to comments.'single payer' health care <snip> more vulnerable to the court than the Affordable Health Care Act?
Posted on 06/13/2012 11:17:13 AM PDT by andyk
If the Supreme Court does decide to strike down any or all of the Affordable Health Care Act, the implications will range from the political to the medical to the economic. For me, such a decision will take its place among the more supremely ironic of unintended consequences
Welcome to the wonderful world of constitutional interpretation. Lets begin by imagining that Congress and the president decided to adopt a genuinely radical health care plan
Put aside the question of whether this is a good idea, or an economically sustainable notion. The question is: would such a law be constitutional? The answer, unquestionably, is yes. In fact, it would be the simplest law in the world to enact. All the Congress would need to do is to take the Medicare law and strike out the words over 65. Why is it constitutional? For the same reason Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So what was the point of the article, other than to meet some deadline to submit something?
This is the third or fourth story I have read that is preparing the public for an Obamacare strike down. I wouldn’t be surprised if the decision was leaked weeks ago.
Does anyone know what day the decision is going to be handed down? I feel like a lot of business and hiring have slowed to a crawl while waiting on the news.
BTW, didn’t the crafters of the act slit their own throats by including a passage that the bill could not be broken up into bits - that it had to be accepted as all or none? I thought that was one issue that came up during oral arguments. SCOTUS isn’t supposed to keep parts and drop others.
“Does anyone know what day the decision is going to be handed down?”
Sorry, I meant week of June 25, likely Monday June 25.
You’re on the right track as to the built-in problem with the bill, but it’s the reverse of their having put something in...it’s what they left out that’s their problem.
The final version failed to include a Severability Clause which would have stated that the bill doesn’t fall if a part of it falls.
An earlier version did include that.
Absent that, precedent says that striking down part of the law strikes down the whole law.
If one wants to dig deeper, there’s differing views on whether the Dems left severability out accidently or on purpose, and what their intention or motive was if on purpose.
From what I know of the bill’s deliberate complexity, coupled with the HHS Secretary’s virtual blank check to write rules and regs, I don’t see how it works to strike down parts and leave other parts, severability or no.
What you would get then bears little resemblance to anything ANYBODY would want or could manage.
Speaking of which, we are coming upon the middle of June? When is the decsion going to be announced? Anyone have any idea. I thought it was to be this month.
Thank you all for your answers. Yes, I was thinking of the severability clause.
I’m hoping the whole thing gets struck down because it will never pass again as long as the GOP controls either the House, the Senate or the presidency (although parts may come back).
I’m noticing the economy just seems dead right now and I’m seeing far fewer job ads, even here in Texas. I think a lot of businesses are just putting all personnel decisions on hold until this decision is handed down. I can’t say I blame them.
June 24th is a Sunday. Do they announce decisions on a Sunday???
And I’ve also heard, that lots of businesses are putting decisions on hold, until we see what happens on Nov. 6, 2012, election day.
“Why is it constitutional? For the same reason Medicare and Social Security are: the taxing power.”
No, that doesn’t make them Constitutional. They can do the taxing part, but the part where they take my money and spend it on other people isn’t ion the Constitution and is not among their powers. The power to tax is not the power to spend what you taxed any which way you want.
“the so-called constitutionality of social security and medicare”
I’ve heard the “taxing power” argument before. But was ever SS etc. actually tested for constitutionality? And is that how the court answered? Because that’s a supremely weak answer. The payroll tax et. al. may be perfectly constitutional but that has nothing in particular to do with the social welfare programs. They don’t even spend the money raised in their name, but rather out of the general fund. So I don’t see how their spending is justified by the tax power.
Moreover, taxing is not spending. What you do with the money once it’s in Washington has to be empowered by the Constitution. You can’t for instance federal daycare service just because you instituted the Daycare Tax. Which is not to say the feds couldn’t nationalize daycare, because they can do nearly anything they want, and there’s no one to stand in their way unless they overreach as obviously as they apparently have with Obamacare.
The conspiracy theory out there is that the severability clause was removed by insurance company lobbyists. That way if the mandate were struck down they would not be on the hook for the rest of the crap sandwich without the 30 million new unwilling customers.
If SCOTUS pulls an audible at the line of scrimmage and allows severability anyway there will not be enough popcorn on this continent for the result. You’ll see a billion dollars spent on a repeal campaign in thirty days. Those Harry and Louise ads will seem like Romper Room by comparison.
Simply strike out the “at age 65” part and everyone has medicare/single payer. Bzzzzzzzzz!!!!
FYI to the moochers: We’re broke! Well....as if that’s gonna stop ‘em.
” Do they announce decisions on a Sunday???”
As I said in my follow-up, “Sorry, I meant week of June 25, likely Monday June 25”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.