Two Years On: Obamacare

Seems like it would easier to read the transcript to form an opinion.

 

Or understand that the questioning phase of this case is just one part of it and that the justices will ultimately decide based on how they interpret the law. Behind closed doors. Out of the public eye.

Or they'll decide based on their political persuasion. One or the other.

 

Depends who's writing it. From Talking Points Memo, an obviously Democratic but pretty reasonable and well-sourced blog:

In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he’s entertaining the possibility that the health care law’s individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that’s different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/did-john-roberts-throw-a-wrench-in-major-argument-against-obamacare.php

There was a lot of other similar writing and talk to that effect. I can't say I'm reading the transcripts the way you folks are, but I heard discussion yesterday that some of those thought to be on the anti-ACA side -- Scalia in particular -- were thought to be embracing the taxation side of things.

I'm not trying to interpret what the meaning of their questions was or which way they were leaning. I'm just again saying, as most are, that people read way too much into the day-by-day.

 

It's funny, because almost everything I read yesterday said the exact opposite: that the conservative five members seemed to reject the "it's a tax" argument out of hand.

It's all crap.

 

I disagree.

Cautious analysis is useful. You can get a good sense based on questioning. You suggested that analysts said Monday went very well for the government ("180" degree difference). I havent seen that from any reliable source. Today went poorly for the government because it knew the central question would be, "what is the limiting principle," but could only offer a long, somewhat convoluted response. It lacked clarity, which in many ways supports the contentions of the challengers.

Kennedy and Roberts may identify a limiting principle, but the govt didn't do itself any favors. Marjorie Phelps may have won Snyder v Phelps by the way she parried so many questions and showed how limited the ruling could be. Varelli failed pretty badly at that task.

 

I didn't suggest anything of the kind. You're mixing up LTL and I's quotes.

If something is written as analysis, fine. But too many stories that would be considered to be straight news are trying to pass themselves off an analysis. It's stupid and irresponsible.

 

"What the hell's going on out here?"

"Let's see, Clarence is nervous because now everyone notices he doesn't ask questions and because his wife is here. We need a, what was that? A live rooster, to take the curse off Antonin's gavel and nobody here seems to know what to get David and John Paul for retirement gifts? That about sum it up?

"Yeah"

"What we're dealing with here is a lot of shit."

"OK, well, uh, a copy of the U.S. Constitution always makes a fine gift, and uh, maybe we can find out where they're retiring, and maybe a framed copy of the Declaration of Independence perhaps. All right? Let the defense rest."

 

You're right. I was posting from my iPhone and didn't realize it.

 

GENERAL VERRILLI: I -- this is not a purchase mandate. This is a -- this is a law that regulates the method of paying for a service that the class of people to whom it applies are either consuming -

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General -

GENERAL VERRILLI: -- or inevitably will consume.

 

Those aren't mutually exclusive. The best argument Verrilli made yesterday was actually made by Justice Sotomayor:

 

From a moral standpoint, I can see the need to have people pay for health insurance, otherwise, they consume resources and others have to absorb the cost.

Legally, its dicey because people do not view healthcare as a "privilege" like driving an auto. Mandatory auto insurance has been in place for what, at least 20 years in California and there's no constitutional problem.

Why isn't Obamacare analogous?

Probably because health care is viewed as a right, not a privilege. I understand this is a very difficult choice, otherwise people will die/suffer simply because of economics. Is that what we want our country?

Unless the Supreme Court agrees that healthcare is a privilege, you want care? Then you need to pay for it.; I do not think it will be ruled constitutional.

 

Anyways, it's not that health care is a right. It's that doing *anything* in the private sector is a right. Anything or nothing.

Car insurance is difference because car insurance isn't mandatory for acting in the private sector. Car insurance is only mandatory to legally operate on public, government-owned, government-operated roads. It's a barrier to entry for a government service.