Non severable.

The deeming of HCR as unconstitutional falls to one point. The non severability of the individual mandate. This, obviously was due to thinking that ins. cos. would collapse if they had to fulfill the bills consumer protections without the overarching structure of having a bigger pie. There is nowhere that says what Congress comes up with has to more profitable. Therefore, non severability is not a true issue.

So, the ins cos. faced with having to cover pre existing conditions, carry children till 25 on parents ins and no ad hoc rescission will have the ins cos. screaming communism, and off with Republican heads. It would be tempting to go that route.

It seems to me, that the judicial overreach involved here, is to gain PR momentum for political posturing.

On a side note, all Dems and many others will get the stakes we all face, when we witness the partisan to a fault supreme court, go nucular activist.

Far from feeling anxious, the fact that the entire thing was deemed uncon. is heartening. That point can easily be fought. And the Rethugs using all their political capital to do so. Putting the head supreme court jester on notice will also be a nice touch.

While initially, I fought the insinuation, now would be the time to ram this law down their teabagging throats. Dangle/bobbing it as we go.

Lets smash some mean spirited intention, yo.

It's also because the legislative intent seems to indicate that's what Congress wanted.

They had severability language in the bill and then intentionally removed it. When courts look at legislative intent, they could easily determine that Congress intended the mandate to be non-severable.

Making it even more clear. There were loads of indications that the mandate would be constitutionally questionable. It was the authors of the legislation that felt that, absent the mandate, this couldn't work.

If you require insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, you have to mandate that everyone buy insurance because otherwise no one would buy insurance until they got sick. That would drive up premiums to the point that they would cost as much as the average hospital bill, and that defeats the point of there even being insurance. If you drop the mandate, you have to drop the pre-existing coverage, and then it's not universal anymore.

That's why it's not severable.

Or are mandatory premiums more constitutional if required by a public insurer?

There could be a government-run plan and we'd still have the same problem -- you have to force healthy people to buy into it or it falls apart, and there's no precedent for forcing people to buy anything. The medicare premiums are a tax on the activity of you earning a paycheck. You don't have to work, so you don't have to participate. If you enact a medicare-for-all type arrangement, you'd have to find a way to A) force people to buy into the program, and B) collect the premiums from them.

If something is in a bill and they intentionally take it out (it didn't slip and fall on the floor, did it?)... how is that not evidence that they didn't intend for it to be there?

Courts have certainly ruled this way in the past.

Even many good ones we would desire. They could be too exp, politically unfeaseable, or many other reasons not having to do with believing that they wouldnt work.

Obviously, the judge believes that congress is not able to enact consumer protections. Because that is what you are left with, if you scrub the mandate. Then, it is a fight against socalled federally unfunded mandate. And that fight is mostly, if not all court of public opinion, and legislative action.

Even many good ones we would desire

Who is "we" here? If it was something that a clear majority of Congress wanted... why wouldn't it be in there?

They could be too exp, politically unfeaseable, or many other reasons not having to do with believing that they wouldnt work.

I think you're confusing "sounds nice, but can't work" with legislative intent. If they choose to not include a provision because it's "politically unfeaseable"... then that's the intent (that it not be in the bill).

is not mandate? I think that is the real reason it was put in the law.

The rich wouldn't be paying much higher premiums and there aren't enough of them to make much of a difference.

It's the millions of healthy people who don't see the value of paying premiums for services that they don't expect to use.

by the Family Research Council. The term "legislating from the bench for political reasons" comes to mind.

Heck... Rahm Emmanuel's appeal was "heard" without even getting new briefs.

Were the judge to rule without briefs from the government as well, that would be a problem... but that isn't what happened.

Are there any facts in dispute? Did either of the judges who ruled that it is constitutional hold full in-person arguments?