Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:00 PM Mar 2012

Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical of mandate's constitutional basis

... so the GOPer judges are ready to find the mandate does not have a constitutional basis.

That's fine. It is therefor unconstitutional to mandate that I shall pay for the medical care of those who do not have insurance and can't pay for their health care. It is clear then, that I cannot be taxed to fund the Government's Disproportionate Share Hospital program - which compensates hospitals for providing care for those who cannot pay for it.

Those who didn't want to be part of their community, who wanted to 'go it alone' with regard to medical insurance and who did not want to be 'forced' to get health insurance - they can live (or die) with their decision. That is, if they show up at a hospital in a few years needing medical attention - they will have to pay cash - up front, for their medical care. They wouldn't want the community they didn't want to be a part of, to help them out then would they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-considers-main-constitutional-question-in-health-care-law/2012/03/26/gIQAkyKWdS_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics



The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical that the Constitution gives Congress the power to compel Americans to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, as the court completed two hours of debate Tuesday on the key component of the nation’s health-care overhaul law.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, traditionally the justice most likely to side with the court’s liberals, suggested that the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act invoked a power “beyond what our cases allow” the Congress to wield in regulating interstate commerce.

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” he asked.

The arguments revealed a familiar alignment of the court. Its four liberal justices, appointed by Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, supported the government’s argument. But one of the five conservatives appointed by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would be needed to uphold the act, and all at some point resisted the government’s position. Their sharp questioning raised doubts about whether the individual insurance mandate could survive the Supreme Court’s historic review.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court’s conservative justices appeared deeply skeptical of mandate's constitutional basis (Original Post) Bill USA Mar 2012 OP
Shocking I say! Lint Head Mar 2012 #1
Congress *could* have passed a *tax* Loudly Mar 2012 #2
Obama in trying to get universal health care (sortof) and preserve the health insurance industry to Bill USA Mar 2012 #3
And didn't get a single Republican vote as far as I recall. Loudly Mar 2012 #5
No, They Couldn't. AndyTiedye Mar 2012 #4
The Dems never had 60 votes in the Senate. The most they ever had was about 58. Bill USA Mar 2012 #6
there goes medicaid and medicare if the supreme court rules against obama`s plan madrchsod Mar 2012 #7
oh yes...obama`s plan is basically richard nixons plan madrchsod Mar 2012 #8
the real death panels Gabby Hayes Mar 2012 #9
Refusing care for anyone who can't pay up front is a wonderful idea! Kablooie Mar 2012 #10
 

Loudly

(2,436 posts)
2. Congress *could* have passed a *tax*
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:12 PM
Mar 2012

and expanded Medicare eligibility.

No constitutional problem with that.

But they didn't have the political will to do it.

Their cowardice and corruption will now be invalidated by the Court.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
3. Obama in trying to get universal health care (sortof) and preserve the health insurance industry to
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:36 PM
Mar 2012

win Republican votes - used the individual mandate, first proposed by Republicans in the Clinton administration. If you are going to keep for profit insurance companies involved and you prohibit denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions you must have everybody in the pool.

so much for trying to please everybody at the same time.


AndyTiedye

(23,500 posts)
4. No, They Couldn't.
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 08:37 PM
Mar 2012

Our 60th vote was LIEberman (D?, Insurance State). There is nothing that could possibly make LIEberman vote against the insurance industry.

madrchsod

(58,162 posts)
7. there goes medicaid and medicare if the supreme court rules against obama`s plan
Tue Mar 27, 2012, 10:00 PM
Mar 2012

the government makes me pay for my medicare...

Gabby Hayes

(289 posts)
9. the real death panels
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 07:41 AM
Mar 2012

In anticipation of a favorable Supreme Court ruling and subsequent rise in hospital district taxes, Governor Perry is floating ideas aimed at doing away with laws prohibiting patient dumping and refusal of emergency care for the uninsured. It's long been said that Perry's TeaBum supporters are dumb enough to sign their own execution order into law.......

Kablooie

(18,641 posts)
10. Refusing care for anyone who can't pay up front is a wonderful idea!
Wed Mar 28, 2012, 12:18 PM
Mar 2012

Insurance will provide guaranteed payment so it will be accepted.

Let all the riff-raff die if they don't have thousands sitting in the bank, I say!
That will clear our streets of all the bums, construction workers, sales clerks, fast food employees and anyone else who isn't born with a tidy nest egg in the bank!

Of course if you are rich enough to pay but come in unconscious and lost your credit cards you will be denied service and die but that's your own fault. You shouldn't have become unconscious in the first place.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Supreme Court’s conservat...