Looks like the Supreme Court has upheld the majority of the 'Obamacare' Act, with the exception of the use of reducing medicaire funding to States who do not take up the offered funded expansion. The main bone of contention - the individual mandate - is in.

Roberts went with the majority, while Kennedy dissented. Which may surprise many (and will now presumably see Roberts become a hate figure on the right).

I think this will motivate conservatives for November. After all, who better than the guy who introduced a very similar idea as Governor of Mass to repeal it?

danivon wrote:Looks like the Supreme Court has upheld the majority of the 'Obamacare' Act, with the exception of the use of reducing medicaire funding to States who do not take up the offered funded expansion. The main bone of contention - the individual mandate - is in.

Roberts went with the majority, while Kennedy dissented. Which may surprise many (and will now presumably see Roberts become a hate figure on the right).

I think this will motivate conservatives for November. After all, who better than the guy who introduced a very similar idea as Governor of Mass to repeal it?

It's not really similar. States have rights the Federal government is not supposed to have.

What is most interesting is the pretzel the Court tied itself into to justify this. It's a "tax?" What tax only applies if you FAIL to do something? There are "fines" and there are "penalties," but no tax.

The President denied it was a tax. The Congress did not use the word "tax" in 2400 pages. The USSC rules . . . it is a "tax?"

That is judicial activism.

Apparently, Republicans need two judicial appointments to get one conservative. Funny, Democrats can spot a lib a mile away; why can't Republicans?

The facts starring them in the face are that their nominee and their Justice are as much to blame for this as Obama.

Short of Fast & Furious turning into a Watergate type scandal, Romney is dead in the water.

Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

By the way, what does repeal take? Would it need to pass both houses before Presidential assent like any other bill? Can it be blocked in Senate by 41 Democrats?

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

Just heard Romney's response on the radio. The irony is just amazing. Romney did this in Mass, probably the most extensive requirement in the nation, but he just pledged to do everything he can to get rid of it. Politics at it best!

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

By the way, what does repeal take? Would it need to pass both houses before Presidential assent like any other bill? Can it be blocked in Senate by 41 Democrats?

The State vs. Federal distinction is/was a big one. For example, the Federal government cannot/previously could not force someone to buy auto insurance.

Romney, if he won, could grant waivers to all 50 States--just as Obama has been handing them out to his union buddies.

Yes, George, irony abounds. But I suppose Romney feels he must promise it to keep the base whipped up.

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

You can't put the state/federal aside Danivon. That is the entire point of our system. States have a general police power. The Federal Government does not.

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:Steve, the State v Federal distinction aside, Romneycare is not that different in how it works to Obamacare.

Just heard Romney's response on the radio. The irony is just amazing. Romney did this in Mass, probably the most extensive requirement in the nation, but he just pledged to do everything he can to get rid of it. Politics at it best!

For the 1000th time, and I know this is inconvenient, but if Romney had not worked with the legislature, they would have done whatever they wanted. They have since he left office and it's gotten worse.

If you read all of this, you'll find there was real give and take between Romney and the Legislature, which was 85% or so Democratic.

All along, Mr. Romney opposed Democratic proposals to impose fees on businesses that didn't offer health insurance. The idea to publicly name companies apparently came as aides were trying to find other ways to motivate employers to give insurance.

"I know the dems hate this, but we can also [throw] back in the Gov's original notion of having some sort of 'public disclosure' of employers who promote a culture of uninsurance," wrote Cindy Gillespie, a top Romney adviser, to other officials Feb. 13, 2006.

Ms. Gillespie suggested asking companies to provide quarterly reports on their number of uninsured workers and publishing the list as an ad in the Boston Globe. "The Globe would love it and it would keep the issue of the uninsured front and center," she wrote.

Ms. Gillespie, now at a law firm in Washington, said, "it sounds like I had been up all night, making up silly ideas" to make the plan more palatable to Democrats. She said Gov. Romney never authorized proposing the idea to legislators.

Business groups generally opposed similar proposals in other states. In Congress, Democrats and unions have favored public disclosure to prod companies with a high proportion of uninsured employees.

Furthermore, "Romneycare" did not come to be in a vacuum:

Romney was at the forefront of a movement to bring near-universal health insurance coverage to the state, after a business executive told him at the start of his term that doing so would be the best way he could help people[38] and after the federal government, due to the rules of Medicaid funding, threatened to cut $385 million in those payments to Massachusetts if the state did not reduce the number of uninsured recipients of health care services.[4][38][39] Despite not having campaigned on the idea of universal health insurance,[40] Romney decided that because people without insurance still received expensive health care, the money spent by the state for such care could be better used to subsidize insurance for the poor.[41] After positing that any measure adopted not raise taxes and not resemble the previous decade's failed "Hillarycare" proposal, Romney formed a team that beginning in late 2004 came up with a set of proposals more innovative than an incremental one from the Massachusetts Senate and more acceptable to him than one from the Massachusetts House of Representatives that incorporated a new payroll tax

One of his motivations was a federal threat to cut off Medicaid funding.

Doctor Fate wrote:For the 1000th time, and I know this is inconvenient, but if Romney had not worked with the legislature, they would have done whatever they wanted.

Thanks for the link. It was very informative. I would still say that he helped shape the legislation, signed it, and took a great deal of the ownership on what finally happened.

And with the exception of the state/federal argument it isn't that dissimilar to ACA, is it?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:For the 1000th time, and I know this is inconvenient, but if Romney had not worked with the legislature, they would have done whatever they wanted.

Thanks for the link. It was very informative. I would still say that he helped shape the legislation, signed it, and took a great deal of the ownership on what finally happened.

And with the exception of the state/federal argument it isn't that dissimilar to ACA, is it?

There are, of course, massive differences. Notice how the USSC disallowed the Medicare penalty to States? That wasn't in Romneycare.

Cuts in Medicare? Not in Romneycare.

Tell you what, other than the individual mandate, what is the same?

And, if it works as well as Romneycare . . . most insurance companies will go out of business (most don't sell in MA) and the costs will skyrocket.

So, if you liked Romneycare, Obamacare will be even "better."

This is good from Redstate:

Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

That is a silver lining. All we need is the presidency and both houses. It can't be filibustered because it's a tax!

Regarding it being a "tax" instead of a fine: it was sold by Obama as a fine but Republicans complained it was a tax. Now, according to SCOTUSBlog*, we see that in addition to arguing about the Commerce Clause, the administration offered an "alternative argument" calling the erstwhile "fine" a "tax" (just as the GOP always said it was but Obama denied). By accepting that argument, Roberts has IMHO saved the Commerce Clause from a rude abuse, just as his conservative cohorts on the bench argued in their dissent. Roberts was joined in his opinion by four liberals, but all four of them DISAGREE with Roberts and would have accepted the administration's Commerce Clause argument. So Roberts, in effect, was both part of a conservative 5-4 vote to save the Commerce Clause from wild expansion, and part of a liberal 5-4 vote to uphold the ACA. He's all alone in accepting the government's assertion that the fine=tax=fine=penalty=tax, but I find it hard to cast aspersions on that semantic decision. After all, it was the GOP who were loudly proclaiming it to be a tax all the time it was being considered by Congress.

I've not yet read the full decision and dissents, and reserve the right to alter my opinion of this once I do, but it seems to me Roberts has forged an acceptably low-pain way to resolve this dispute.

* http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/the-mandate-is-constitutional-in-plain-english/

Judicial activism? Yeah... kind of.

archduke

You can't put the state/federal aside Danivon. That is the entire point of our system. States have a general police power. The Federal Government does not.

They both have the power to tax, right?
Making Roberts interpretation of the penalty in ACAas a tax on those who do not insure themselves ... key.
Archduke, do you consider this ruling to be consistent with the judges known "judicial ideologies"? (Thinking back to the discussion we had on "percieved to be politicized - by the public" nature of the SCOTUS.)


fate

For example, the Federal government cannot/previously could not force someone to buy auto insurance.

They aren't forced to buy health insurance eitther. They are taxed to cover the potential costs of their failure to insure...

One thing about this ruling is that it will now be easier to sell the package during the election, because the ruling provides Obama with legitimate rebuttal to arguements like "forced to buy"...
Still, having to deal with constant misinformation like "beauracrats between your doctor and you", and "death panels" will continue.
He is on a winning streak though.... And the latest polls in the swing states reflect that...