Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS Tea Leaf Readers: Mandate in Trouble (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, early indications during oral argument... (5+ / 0-)

    ...were of skeptical hostility from Scalia and Kennedy.  Scalia's reactionariness is to be expected--that's why he was put on the court--but Kennedy's is unsettling, as he is the perceived swing vote here.

    I've read that Roberts, and much of the remainder of the Court, is now deeply concerned about the Court's reputation going forward, and how it will be viewed by the public at large.  If the conservative wing prevails, and kills the mandate, and therefore the ACA, it will have shown itself to be nothing but deeply corrupt, and deeply corrupting; a mere muppet of powerful corporate interests and not the august legal body it pretends to be.  It will have shown itself to be a collection not of great legal scholars, but of bagmen.  And it will deserve all of the scorn certain to be heaped upon it.  And yet, the Roberts Court will go down that path because, after all, they are muppets and bagmen, nothing more.

    We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

    by TheOrchid on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

    •  Call 'em puppets. Muppets were the creation of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cedwyn, Cartoon Peril

      Jim Henson, a great man.

      "Soylent Green is a corporation!"--Mitt Romney. Eat the rich.

      by ubertar on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 11:00:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But the mandate is deeply corrupting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib

      I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that.  The mandate is a Republican concept.  The insurance industry loves the idea of having millions of customers forced to buy their product.  I have no doubt that they are all scheming their way towards offering the most junk insurance policies they can get away with.

      So if SCOTUS rules that the mandate simply allows massive insurance fraud and corruption, and they rule against it on those merrits, how does that fit your narrative?

      Killing the ACA does prevent billions of dollars from flowing into a corrupt industry, so it's not so cut and dried as that.

      And you know, Congress can still tax and still set up single payer.  Overthrowing the ACA is probably the biggest step towards single payer.  SCOTUS may do you a favor.

      •  Sounds nice. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark
        And you know, Congress can still tax and still set up single payer. Overthrowing the ACA is probably the biggest step towards single payer.
        Because in the pre-ACA years of 1776-2010, we came oh-so-close to getting single payer?
        •  A mandate wasn't unconstitutional before (0+ / 0-)

          If the ACA is overthrown, that's still progress.  We've moved towards having federal comprehensive care, recognizing that health care doesn't follow normal supply-demand economics.

          If the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, we move forward.  That simply throws out one solution.  If the course remains set, then another solution is needed.  Enter single payer.

          No, the real question is whether the American people will hold the course and elect Dems in Nov, or if they'll vote for more teabaggers.  An unconstitutional mandate says to all Americans - push for single payer, or suffer through private insurance.  It'll be their call to make.

          •  That's assuming that a solution is wanted (0+ / 0-)
            An unconstitutional mandate says to all Americans - push for single payer, or suffer through private insurance.  It'll be their call to make.
            A large majority of Americans are not suffering through private insurance.  Employer sponsored health insurance is usually pretty great, and where most of the resistance to HCR comes from.  That is why Obama had to say over and over again in 2010, "If you like your current insurance, you can keep it."  And healthy people typically don't need much health care to begin with.  So it's mainly the sick and unemployed that are suffering with private insurance.  And those two groups are generally too preoccupied with survival to push for anything.  
          •  Norm, if only most voters were that sophisticated. (0+ / 0-)

            They vote against their own interests so blindly I do not share your faith, although I agree with your assessment.

            2012: the Year of the Voting Woman. And by the way, Republicans ... we're pretty pissed about what you've done to our country.

            by mumtaznepal on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 02:29:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Funny! (0+ / 0-)

        I remember when a big selling point for the ACA was that IT was the stepping stone to single payer.  Now it's vitiation is the stepping stone.  So, which is it?

        We reach for the stars with shaking hands in bare-knuckle times.

        by TheOrchid on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 12:01:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That was a false selling point (0+ / 0-)

          The ACA is designed to get everyone to buy PRIVATE insurance through private for-profit companies.  How is that a path to single payer?  I didn't buy that selling point then and still don't.

          Without the mandate, private insurance is not sustainable, not at these profit levels.  We may see a return of some non-profits, the exchanges still may provide some benefit.  I'm not saying Single Payer is guaranteed, far from it.

          But as other options fall by the wayside, single payer will look better and better.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (78)
  • Baltimore (77)
  • Freddie Gray (57)
  • Bernie Sanders (54)
  • Civil Rights (45)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (34)
  • Media (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (25)
  • Education (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site