How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

radcen said:

How will SCOTUS rule on the Individual Mandate?

Not what you interpret the legality/Constitutionality to be.
Not how you think they should rule.
Not how you want them to rule.

How do you think they actually WILL rule?

Click to expand...

I think that, ultimately, it will be upheld.

Boo Radley said:

They are now. Right now.

Click to expand...

I realize that. So does many Americans receive care (emergency care) without insurance. The difference if the Health Care law stands, Americans will have to participate or face a fine. Illegal aliens will not. Yet, the States get stuck with the bill for the illegal aliens At least before States could get some federal dollars.

mike2810 said:

I realize that. So does many Americans receive care (emergency care) without insurance. The difference if the Health Care law stands, Americans will have to participate or face a fine. Illegal aliens will not. Yet, the States get stuck with the bill for the illegal aliens At least before States could get some federal dollars.

Click to expand...

To deal with illegal alliens will require something different. But to say we can't take of one problem because it doesn't solve another doesn't really work for either.

Kandahar said:

I'd like to believe that it will survive, but it seems unlikely. However, the probability of the individual mandate being struck down is hovering around 60-65% on InTrade, so I am hopeful that I might be wrong.

Ultimately, I don't think that the most telling sign was the barrage of hostile questions that Kennedy/Roberts directed toward the solicitor-general; that's par for the course in a Supreme Court argument and doesn't necessarily have any bearing on their ultimate ruling. I don't even think the most telling sign was the hemming and hawing that Roberts and Kennedy were doing (who knows if it was just to appear like they were carefully weighing the options before striking it down, or if they legitimately had doubts). I think the most telling sign was the fact that the Court appeared to be giving serious consideration to striking down the entire law, and that they even agreed to hear the truly absurd legal argument against the Medicaid provisions. I don't think that they'll actually strike down the entire law or the Medicaid provisions (God help us if they do), but by seriously entertaining these arguments, the conservative justices opened the Overton Window a bit wider. I think this makes it more likely that they'll strike down the individual mandate.

Click to expand...

I am confused what this means for Medicaid too. If they rule the private sector shouldn't be involved in the people having to purchase anything by federal law, then wouldn't that automatically mean that the government itself has to run these types of programs like Social Security and Medicaid are currently?

Conservative judges ruling that it's ok for the federal government to force people to by services from the federal government, and rule in favor of that over the private sector, doesn't seem logical or on par with their values to me...

I am just saying, it seems like attacking Medicaid and Social Security, and the government involvement in forcing people to pay into federal run, government programs would be the next logical step.


I personally don't like the idea of the federal government trying to run a health care system and actually taking over hospitals and the payroll for every doctor, nurse, and healthcare janitor in the country, but the federal government does play a role in health care and they should. The federal government should have a say, and the private sector should have a role in providing such care.

DarkWizard12 said:

So? Other courts with liberal justices have declared unconstitutional, otherwise, why the hell do you think it's worked its way up to the supreme court? I think the score was 2-2, overall, in the lower courts.

and liberals haven't done that? really? Remember FDR when he tried to pack the supreme court?

regardless, the point is moot because these justices were confirmed by a senate that was elected by a majority of voters. If you have a conservative president, obviously he's going to appoint conservative justices. That's just a given, it has nothing to do with partisanship, but the philosophy that they ascribe to. If you don't like that then....

Oh yea, that's write, liberals don't think that conservatism is a viable political philosophy. I forgot.

Click to expand...

Statistically the Supreme Court is more conservative than the general population. The court should be moderate. Nobody far right or left should be appointed.

Kandahar said:

That's the whole reason that the individual mandate was put into the bill, genius. To PREVENT exactly that situation.

Click to expand...

Why was it taken out?

Boo Radley said:

To deal with illegal alliens will require something different. But to say we can't take of one problem because it doesn't solve another doesn't really work for either.

Click to expand...

It is only one of the reasons I do not support the HC law. Do we need reform, yes. This just isn't it.

SheWolf said:

I am confused what this means for Medicaid too. If they rule the private sector shouldn't be involved in the people having to purchase anything by federal law, then wouldn't that automatically mean that the government itself has to run these types of programs like Social Security and Medicaid are currently?

Conservative judges ruling that it's ok for the federal government to force people to by services from the federal government, and rule in favor of that over the private sector, doesn't seem logical or on par with their values to me...

I am just saying, it seems like attacking Medicaid and Social Security, and the government involvement in forcing people to pay into federal run, government programs would be the next logical step.


I personally don't like the idea of the federal government trying to run a health care system and actually taking over hospitals and the payroll for every doctor, nurse, and healthcare janitor in the country, but the federal government does play a role in health care and they should. The federal government should have a say, and the private sector should have a role in providing such care.

Click to expand...

I agree that in the long term, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate it will necessitate much more heavy-handed government interference, like Medicare-for-all. But in the short term, things will basically go back to the way that they were, where health insurers are free to rip people off, kick sick people off their rolls, and deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions...which is exactly what the Republicans want. You're right that it isn't very conservative of them to say that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, but single-payer health care is A-OK (and in fact they weren't making that argument until after the law passed).

I think the conservative challengers to this law are calculating that invalidating this law will cause everything to revert to the status quo, and there will never be enough political support to pass something more heavy-handed like single-payer health care (or if there is, a partisan Supreme Court will find some other bull**** reason to strike it down). Maybe they're right, but I think that's a pretty risky gamble they're taking, if their goal is to minimize the involvement of government in health care. It's hard to predict how the political dynamics will shift if the Supreme Court strikes it down and we revert to the status quo...after a few more years of this terrible health care system, it isn't inconceivable that even some moderate Republicans will be on board with single-payer (or at least a public option).

SheWolf said:

Why was it taken out?

Click to expand...

The individual mandate wasn't taken out; it was part of the Affordable Care Act. Although it now seems likely (but not certain) that the Supreme Court will strike it down.

BTW... I think the argument of "I should have the right to not have health insurance" is a ignorant argument. Who would refuse to buy health insurance? So many people have no health insurance and want it, and need it. I have heard people argue that they don't want or need it, because they are healthy and do nothing that could harm them. lol. Unless a person eats healthier than 90% of the population and lives in an area with no threat of natural disasters, traffic accidents, or germs then chances are that that person is going to be sick and need to visit a doctor. Pig flu, how many people saw that coming?

And such people don't go to the doctors office when they get sick. They go to the ER, and when they don't pay their bill and default on the debt then the prices of healthcare go up for the rest of us.

Outright refusing to participate in health insurance is not a long term plan for everybody in this country. Everybody should be covered and should have the ability to buy coverage.

How do we fix this problem should be discussed and debated, and the Supreme Court should make suggestions if they disagree with Obama. Somebody and some branch of our government should be able to function like adults, find a solution, a constitutional one, and think about what's best for the country for once.

Kandahar said:

The individual mandate wasn't taken out; it was part of the Affordable Care Act. Although it now seems likely (but not certain) that the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Click to expand...

I meant the public option... what happened to it?

SheWolf said:

BTW... I think the argument of "I should have the right to not have health insurance" is a ignorant argument.....

Click to expand...

if you have the right to not have health insurance, then I have the right to not flip the bill for your medical care for your injury/illness when you can't pay the bill and apply for Medicaid...........and I have the right to not have my medical costs increased to cover for the unpaid costs of folks who don't have insurance.

SheWolf said:

I meant the public option... what happened to it?

Click to expand...

it died because the Democrats are a much more ideologically diverse group than the Republicans are.

Kandahar said:

I agree that in the long term, if the Supreme Court strikes down the individual mandate it will necessitate much more heavy-handed government interference, like Medicare-for-all. But in the short term, things will basically go back to the way that they were, where health insurers are free to rip people off, kick sick people off their rolls, and deny coverage to people with preexisting conditions...which is exactly what the Republicans want. You're right that it isn't very conservative of them to say that an individual mandate is unconstitutional, but single-payer health care is A-OK (and in fact they weren't making that argument until after the law passed). I think they are calculating that invalidating this law will cause everything to revert to the status quo, and there will never be enough political support to pass something more heavy-handed like single-payer health care.

Click to expand...

I know what you are saying and suggesting. It's really frustrating to see this. I don't think Obamacare is perfect, neither is Medicaid, but I'd hate to see the Supreme Court make it near impossible for any president to try to offer a solution to our healthcare issues. On the other hand, these justices won't live forever.... so it would be kind of funny and ironic if they pave the way for Medcaid-for-all one day. Hopefully they'll live to see it.

SheWolf said:

I meant the public option... what happened to it?

Click to expand...

There weren't enough votes for it to pass the Senate, so they took it out.

Thunder said:

if you have the right to not have health insurance, then I have the right to not flip the bill for your medical care for your injury/illness when you can't pay the bill and apply for Medicaid...........and I have the right to not have my medical costs increased to cover for the unpaid costs of folks who don't have insurance.

Click to expand...

Actually, the local hospital here is trying to move towards outright refusing to treat the uninsured or people in debt with the hospital. It's tragic to think that that's the direction we could be heading towards as a country... people dying because hospitals refuse care. It's stuff like that that causes other countries to have no admiration for us.

SheWolf said:

Actually, the local hospital here is trying to move towards outright refusing to treat the uninsured or people in debt with the hospital. It's tragic to think that that's the direction we could be heading towards as a country... people dying because hospitals refuse care. It's stuff like that that causes other countries to have no admiration for us.

Click to expand...

1) I really couldn't care less what other countries supposedly think. I hear the anti gun nuts say this sort of crap all the time. Yet those same countries tend to have thousands of their citizens TRYING TO MOVE HERE rather than the other way around

2) Government mandated "charity" has suppressed private charity which often does a far better job in helping people in need rather than merely creating more dependent pawns of the politicians who hand out goodies to the supposed needy.

Considering Citizens v. United and that anti American ruing ... I have little faith in our judicial branch.

I suspect those same anti American justices will strike it down as most likely they would oppose all citizens have the opportunity/ability to buy affordable healthcare coverage and be responsible for themselves should a catastrophic healthcare crisis strike.

SheWolf said:

Actually, the local hospital here is trying to move towards outright refusing to treat the uninsured or people in debt with the hospital. It's tragic to think that that's the direction we could be heading towards as a country... people dying because hospitals refuse care. It's stuff like that that causes other countries to have no admiration for us.

Click to expand...

That is the reason we have public hospitals. They are funded with government funds at various levels, and they provide health care for those who don't have insurance or can't afford the bill.

TurtleDude said:

2) Government mandated "charity" has suppressed private charity which often does a far better job in helping people in need rather than merely creating more dependent pawns of the politicians who hand out goodies to the supposed needy.

Click to expand...

A perfect example is the Shriner's Children's Hopsital in Dallas. They don't take insurance in any form. They take charitable donations, and they own a highly desired piece of property which generates income. They provide top-rate service and care for children who have deformities and chronic illnesses.

TurtleDude said:

1) I really couldn't care less what other countries supposedly think. I hear the anti gun nuts say this sort of crap all the time. Yet those same countries tend to have thousands of their citizens TRYING TO MOVE HERE rather than the other way around

2) Government mandated "charity" has suppressed private charity which often does a far better job in helping people in need rather than merely creating more dependent pawns of the politicians who hand out goodies to the supposed needy.

Click to expand...

You're mistaken TD. Western Europeans and Canadians aren't dying to be Americans. Have you ever been to Europe? If anything, I have seen more Americans move out of America. I know a married couple who moved to Iceland because the living expenses were so much cheaper there and the wife gets to be a stay at home mom. I also know two people who moved to England for various reasons. Some posters here know similar people.

They only people dying to come into this country are the people living in ****holes already, or live near the southern boarder and America is just close.

And btw... nobody said anything about government mandated charity or charity otherwise.

1. Private charity isn't going to fix the health care issue in this country and it hasn't.
2. Stick to the ****ing topic.

lizzie said:

That is the reason we have public hospitals. They are funded with government funds at various levels, and they provide health care for those who don't have insurance or can't afford the bill.

Click to expand...

I checked and the hospital is privately owned, but that still isn't an excuse to refuse treating people. It just shows how terrible our health care system is failing, and how the current system is costing us more and more. This isn't a solution, it should be a national embarrassment and a concern. Local people will die. There isn't another hospital for miles. The nearest public hospital is over two hours away.

lizzie said:

A perfect example is the Shriner's Children's Hopsital in Dallas. They don't take insurance in any form. They take charitable donations, and they own a highly desired piece of property which generates income. They provide top-rate service and care for children who have deformities and chronic illnesses.

Click to expand...

Now if we could just get all hospitals to work that way, the world would be beautiful and nobody would need health insurance. Problem solved, right?

Why can't all hospitals work that way? That's not a rhetorical question either... I'd like to hear you and TD explain why it's so unreasonable and irrational to think or expect private charity to pay for all of our healthcare expenses? I feel that it is not going to happen. Do you think it's possible for private charity to take over the healthcare industry and take care of the uninsured?

SheWolf said:

I checked and the hospital is privately owned, but that still isn't an excuse to refuse treating people. It just shows how terrible our health care system is failing, and how the current system is costing us more and more. This isn't a solution, it should be a national embarrassment and a concern. Local people will die. There isn't another hospital for miles. The nearest public hospital is over two hours away.

Click to expand...

Okay. Look at it this way. If all hospitals are public hospitals, quality of care will decline. There is no doubt about that. I have worked in both public, private, and not-for-profit hospitals. If you need care, and you can't afford it, the public hospital is available for treatment. You may not get the best treatment available, but your immediate needs will be met. As a pediatrician whom I worked with pointed out to me, some 27 years ago, when I worked on the pediatric unit of a public hospital: the wealthy pay with their money, and the poor pay with their time. You aren't going to get fast and easy health care in a public system. That's just the reality of the situation, and it's the same as we see with European nations who have 100% public care. It's inefficient, the waiting periods are long, and you pretty much have to take what you can get. At least it's care, and at least you can receive it regardless of your ability to pay.

SheWolf said:

Now if we could just get all hospitals to work that way, the world would be beautiful and nobody would need health insurance. Problem solved, right?

Why can't all hospitals work that way? That's not a rhetorical question either... I'd like to hear you and TD explain why it's so unreasonable and irrational to think or expect private charity to pay for all of our healthcare expenses? I feel that it is not going to happen. Do you think it's possible for private charity to take over the healthcare industry and take care of the uninsured?

Click to expand...

To the bolded: government regulations. An institution which doesn't rely on outside payor sources can provide care in a more efficient manner, and they aren't bogged down in bureaucratic crap. They provide a service that is focused on the patient, and meeting the patient's needs. I have worked as an RN for 28 years now. The more regulations we have to comply with, the more hours are spent on non-patient care related bull****.