If the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Two Questions.

[SoutherDem]

Will it hurt Obama or empower him?

What should the next step be?

[abelenkpe]

1. 3. What will happen to HC in Mass? nt

[SoutherDem]

3. Good point, I didn't think of that.

n/t

[kelly1mm]

6. Nothing. The constitutional basis for the attacks on the ACA are based on the Federal

government being one of enumerated powers and the limitations of the commerce clause. There are no such limitations of the States. Classic Federalism argument.

[cbayer]

2. I think it can both hurt him and empower him.

Many of the changes are already in place or well into being fully developed.

As I see it, if they strike it down, this may be a golden opportunity to move forward to a single payer, universal system. Medicare is already markedly improved due to this bill and much closer to being adequate to act as the single payer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Absolutely true but I think he'll need a surrogate to make that case on his behalf

When someone makes an unpopular, divisive decision that flops they seldom have enough credibility to come back and say they have a better idea they should have run-with the first time.

Politically, optically, it's easier to appoint a surrogate to float the idea then act as if you're adopting it because it's such an awesome idea. A sort of "Why didn't I think of that?" mea culpa. Good leaders don't have to come up with all the good ideaas themselves, they can be just as admired -- if not moreso -- for having the talent for spotting talent in others. He won't get as much credit up front but once the idea proves out on practical grounds the public comes around.

As a plus, whoever the "heir apparent" should be in 2016 can play the role as the surrogate to bolster their resume.

[UTUSN]

4. Brace, all: News tickers are saying the UNsupreme Court might rule by Monday

Plus, the Arizona anti-Southern Border (not anti-Northern Border) ruling should be following apace.

Yaaas, it will be the UNsupreme Court’s political statement for the campaign. Anthony KENNEDY is on Time Magazine’s cover as “The Decider.” ROBERTS is somehow portrayed as a “maybe” (if ever), but this would be the jerk who ON PURPOSE messed up the presidential oath just to distract from the President’s moment. And let’s see whether ALITO claims “Not so” with pursed lips when he votes Against the way he will. Oh, and how many years of SILENCE has it been for Uncle Clarence?! And Satan SCALIA flips the bird and says, “Get over it!” While SCALIA takes cash from the pharmo-med complex.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. The 15th is the last day dissents can be sent around for approval

The 1st was the last day the majority opinion could be.

So there's a good chance it could be released tomorrow, but I'm now betting on the end of this month. I found all this out when I bit on Robert Reich's tweet that it might have come two weeks ago. I now think they are going to take all the time they can to write their opinions the best they can.

[badtoworse]

5. It will hurt him and Democrats generally.

People have a right to expect legislation that survives constitutional scrutiny. If you don't get it right, it reflects badly on you.

Obama won't get away with blaming a RW court if the ruling goes against ACA. The makeup of the court was known when the legislation was drafted and if anything, is more liberal now than when it was passed.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. SCOTUS with a 44% approval and the majority of Americans believe it's very partisan

I'm not as cynical or negative as you are that it will hurt the Democrats or President Obama. And yes,, President Obama will definitely get away with blaming the Rightwing Corporate Lackeys on the SCOTUS.

What on god's green earth makes you even think SCOTUS is "more liberal now than when it passed"?? That's a bunch of baloney. They're THE MOST CONservative than any time in history!

[badtoworse]

10. I believe Kagan is more liberal than Stevens

As far as how it plays with the public, I doubt that many will look at it and say, "it really was constitutional, but the SCOTUS just didn't want to give it Obama." If the court takes the position that the government does not have the power to force you into buying certain products (and I believe they will do just that), it should play well with the public. I don't like anyone telling me I have to do something - I'd rather make the decision myself. I think most people would agree with that.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. Yeah, because what you propose worked out soooo well in the past.

Jesus, people really need to learn to see the bigger picture. They just can't stand it when help is being given to them. And NO ONE is forced to buy anything. That's another well-propagated LIE by the Right, and it's sad to see you're falling for it.

Fact of the matter is, if you choose NOT to buy health insurance then that's your choice. Don't. But you'll only have to pay a nominal amount when you file your taxes. This helps pay for those people who don't want to buy health insurance and like getting it for free. Free, as in for themselves, because everyone who has insurance are already paying for those without. You didn't think, all this time, hospitals and doctors worked for free, did you?

[badtoworse]

20. I've always had health insurance, even when I had to pay for it myself.

That isn't the point, at least not for me. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortalble with the amount of power we are willing to give to the federal government.

[Son of Gob]

26. Why should you have to pay for someone else's health insurance?

People should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We need smaller gubment, am I right?

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Yep. That's what he believes.

But that's not a Democratic member's belief.

[Son of Gob]

29. Uh-huh

[BlueCaliDem]

28. No. You're willing to give that power to minimum wage "analysts"

working for corporate health insurance companies who get bonuses to deny people health care coverage. Republicans share your belief, btw.

[Ikonoklast]

33. Nice sidestep, Skippy. You didn't know that the Fed will not 'force' you to buy anything, did you?

That is the Right Wing Meme and a total lie, and you repesated it here.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Btw, it doesn't matter how liberal Kagan is as opposed to Stevens.

It's about the decisions that the majority make, like CU. You can't convince anyone with more than half a working brain that the Roberts' court is more liberal than any other SCOTUS in the history. That's just silly talk.

[badtoworse]

19. I'm only looking at the pre-Kagan court compared to the current court.

IMO, the makeup of the court and how a constitutional challenge would be viewed should have been a consideration in drafting the legislation. I don't believe that was the case.

[TheKentuckian]

23. How is the court more liberal than when the legislation passed?

Souter was probably more liberal than Sotomayer or a wash at best and I see no plausible argument that Kagen is more liberal than Stevens.

Are you claiming the fascists have mellowed?

[badtoworse]

30. The ACA was passed after Sotomayer became a SCOTUS justice

I think we'll have to see about Kagan. Let's say the court is about the same, then.

[edhopper]

8. If those SCOTUS Bastards strike it down

it will be another 20 years before someone tries for universal Health Care again.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. very bad only.

[annabanana]

11. Thomas's wife has a vote on the court

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/21/nation/la-na-virginia-thomas-20101021

Justice Thomas' wife says healthcare law is unconstitutional

Virginia Thomas is working to repeal the law through Liberty Central, a conservative group she founded. Her husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, could provide a key vote to strike down the law.


Reporting from Washington — Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is working to repeal what she believes is President Obama's "unconstitutional law" regulating health insurance, an issue likely to be decided by the high court.

"With the U.S. Constitution on our side and the hearts and minds of the American people with us, freedom will prevail," says a position paper posted on the website of Liberty Central, the group formed by Virginia Thomas this year to advance conservative principles and candidates.

Don't look for Thomas to recuse himself. He hasn't the scruples of Kagan..

[SoutherDem]

12. Thomas should be removed from the court.

His wife is a big push for conservative issues. He should recuse himself from many cases but never does. Plus he is a tax cheat. He should be disbarred, but who has the power to do so?

[ctaylors6]

14. I think it especially depends on court split

If it's overturned in whole or in significant part (eg individual mandate), I think that it will look at least somewhat bad for Obama. Romney can start really singing the praises of RomneyCare AND criticize Obama for not understanding constitutional limits on doing similar/same thing on federal level. If it's overturned 6-3 or even less split, then I think it will be really bad for Obama because then it takes away the argument that it's just the court being political/partisan.

I have no idea what the next step would be. At least a few of the most popular (ie do well in polls) provisions were in some to many GOP proposals over the years, so they should stay. For example, extending coverage of children under parents' policy until mid-20s, high-risk pools, etc.

Insurance companies will hate the overturning of the individual mandate the most of anyone I think. Even some GOP people have called for end to pre-existing conditions. Without the individual mandate, that's a huge cost hit to the ins cos.

As a side note, I think the GOP would have a hard time repealing the provision prohibiting no pre-existing conditions limit for minors no matter what happens with SCOTUS. That will continue to help many kids. Although not ALL kids, of course, since without the limit on pre-existing coniditions for adults, it can be prohibitively expensive anyway for families in many states. About 15-20 states now won't write any kid-only policies. So they turn down parents for pre-existing conditions, won't write policy for kid(s) alone, and kids still end up either in state or federal high-risk pool or uninsured.

I personally think that worst case scenario is that the individual mandate is overturned by a lopsided margin, but most of the other provisions are upheld.

[kudzu22]

15. I think it's only bad, politically

It's Obama's signature legislation -- what he planned to make his legacy. In hindsight, it was probably not a good idea to delegate the drafting of it to Congress. The monstrosity they came up with is a monster nobody likes. If it's overturned, what is his argument for reelecting him? To give it another try? Maybe he could argue that he should get to put more justices on the high court, but very few voters consider such things when choosing a candidate.

Next step is to wait another generation or two for the same kind of huge majority the Dems had in congress and try again.

[rug]

21. Hurt.

Universal health care.

[yewberry]

22. Torches and pitchforks?

Seriously, it's hard for me to accept the idea that ACA could be ruled unconstitutional.

In 1790, Congress instituted an employer mandate for insurance of seamen, and then instituted an individual mandate for those seamen to maintain insurance for hospital stays (which weren't covered by the employers). 1790--we're talking George Washington, John Adams, *those* guys.

How can anyone argue that ACA is unconstitutional with a straight face?

[boxman15]

24. It will hurt him in the short term, but might help him in the long term.

The Supreme Court is the most unpopular its ever been and is seen as a purely partisan and political institution now. Obama might be able to rally support behind his now-extinct Affordable Care Act by reminding the people of all of its popular provisions and how the SC struck it down for political reasons. Combined with his campaign against a Do-Nothing Congress, he could potentially turn what would seem to be a negative into a positive.

[ErikJ]

25. Help him. The T-Baggers wont have it to use anymore.

[pampango]

31. There will be no replacement for ACA before the election. Afterwards, it's a high-risk/high-reward

situation in that it depends on how the election goes. If republicans maintain a House majority and/or gain a Senate majoirty, the odds of any real reform (other than some republican form of privatization or liability reform) are pretty much out the window.

I think Obama could benefit from a ruling that ACA is unconstitutional, though. Parts of it are quite popular. If Obama can use that to generate electoral support for for a new, more liberal HCR it might work out for the best, but it is a very high risk-high reward scenario. Since republicans would have to lose the house, senate and presidential races for any good to come out of an adverse Supreme Court ruling, it is not a very hopeful scenario and another 20 years before anyone is foolish enough to attempt any kind of civilized health care system.

[meaculpa2011]

32. Single provider is the only sensible...

solution. ACA leaves the current corrupt system in place. In fact, it entrenches it more firmly. Single payer leaves most of the current corrupt system in place.

[pampango]

34. Single provider is the UK's National Health Service, right? If so, I agree but

most on the left are reluctant to push for a UK-style health care system where the government to be sole provider of health care. The preference seems to be for government to be the sole insurer.