Yeah I hope people in this thread are willing to shed that overblown piece of pride and simply give a yea or nay as to whether they think it'll pass. I'm tired of always seeing people spray their bullshit after the fact by claiming "I knew this would happen!" when they never voiced said knowledge before the fact.
So, to not be a hypocrite: I say no. It will not be overturned. I can say this because I'm not placing money on it and it's not a worthy amount of face I'd lose to be proven wrong.
Post by cookiemdough on Jun 27, 2012 21:10:53 GMT -5
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
and to take a step further back, I really think the mandate is a tax penalty and if that is the case there is no standing to sue, yet. I'm really surprised both sides glossed over this issue.
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
This is exactly how I feel. I don't really like Obamacare but I think not having it is a lot worse.
Post by EllieArroway on Jun 27, 2012 21:26:30 GMT -5
If they rule that the individual mandate is a tax law, that means that nothing will really be decided until it goes into effect, right? I think they will rule that it is a tax law.
I don't have any idea what they will do with the medicare expansion part.
Post by ChillyMcFreeze on Jun 27, 2012 22:00:12 GMT -5
In an attempt to foster good juju, I'm predicting an overturn of the mandate* with the rest standing. Positive thinking yields positive results. Ohm...
I think the mandate gets overturned 5-4 and the rest stays.
This. I also think this is the right decision.
If I had to bet, I agree this is what will probably happen, although thinking about the mandate as a tax penalty as mentioned by PP above is interesting, and I could see them throwing that out due to the standing issue.
I even agree the mandate is probably unconstitutional. As a commie-loving liberal I am annoyed about that, not because I love the mandate (because I really don't, actually), but because I agree that forcing people to buy private health insurance is probably unconstitutional and I wish that a public option or universal single-payer had been pushed harder since it doesn't face the same constitutional issue as the mandate does. :-|
But I don't bet on the Supreme Court. Especially not this Court.
I tend to think the mandate will be struck down, mostly because it should be.
What strikes me is how the conventional wisdom about the Court's ruling has changed over exactly zero new information. The same bloggers and pundits who were positive the mandate would be struck down are suddenly backtracking. Maybe they think Alito's pissy demeanor on Monday was actually secret code for "these assholes voted to keep the mandate, and boy am I mad!"
I tend to think the mandate will be struck down, mostly because it should be.
What strikes me is how the conventional wisdom about the Court's ruling has changed over exactly zero new information. The same bloggers and pundits who were positive the mandate would be struck down are suddenly backtracking. Maybe they think Alito's pissy demeanor on Monday was actually secret code for "these assholes voted to keep the mandate, and boy am I mad!"
what about Scalia's little outburst on Monday too... that the 13 colonies didn't intend for the feds to control immigration
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
To me, the entire point is cost control, so I don't really see this as a workable option. I actually worry that if this is upheld in its entirety, we will have the illusion of cost control reform and no one will bother pursuing real reform.
I really don't know squat, but I will lean towards overruled.
They are all 50+, so I wonder whether they are all AARP members....which means there is always potential that they will obviously rule incorrectly because old folks suck. ;-)
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
To me, the entire point is cost control, so I don't really see this as a workable option. I actually worry that if this is upheld in its entirety, we will have the illusion of cost control reform and no one will bother pursuing real reform.
This is probably true, but if it were overturned in its entirety I still don't think real reform will be pursued. It will be like social security where people think too much political capital is at stake in reforming healthcare and no one will want to do anything meaningful.
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
As much as I complained about how he kind of wimped out and didn't adequately address the issue of constraining costs, I still think we are better off with this law than without. I just don't have faith in the alternative.
To me, the entire point is cost control, so I don't really see this as a workable option. I actually worry that if this is upheld in its entirety, we will have the illusion of cost control reform and no one will bother pursuing real reform.
See I am worried if this gets overturned, people will say "oh well we tried" and no one will touch it for another 20 years.