Will the U.S. Supreme Court rule that Obamacare is unconstitional?
Will the U.S. Supreme Court declare the Health Care (Obamacare) Bill unconstitutional?
Obamacare has gone to the Supreme Court and they estimate that the Supreme Court will make a ruling by June 2012, which way will the Supreme Court rule, any predictions?
If they rule it's unconstitional, will that mean it is really unconstitional? You must remember the Supreme Court makes opinions on laws and do not make the laws itself.
If they rule it's constitional, does it mean it is still law? Once again the opinion factor comes into play here.
If they rule it unconstitional, how will this affect the 2012 election and will President Obama ignore their ruling?
I know it's a loaded question.
Obamacare has gone to the Supreme Court and they estimate that the Supreme Court will make a ruling by June 2012, which way will the Supreme Court rule, any predictions?
If they rule it's unconstitional, will that mean it is really unconstitional? You must remember the Supreme Court makes opinions on laws and do not make the laws itself.
If they rule it's constitional, does it mean it is still law? Once again the opinion factor comes into play here.
If they rule it unconstitional, how will this affect the 2012 election and will President Obama ignore their ruling?
I know it's a loaded question.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
@cars
> You can't force someone, by mere birth, to purchase something. Whether you agree or not, it's not Constitutional <
Car Insurance?
-Muj ;-|
> You can't force someone, by mere birth, to purchase something. Whether you agree or not, it's not Constitutional <
Car Insurance?
-Muj ;-|
Muj,
That's a softball. The 10th amendment states the following:
Therefore, states can require auto insurance, but the federal government can't.
However, driving is not a right, so therefore it's not required by mere birth, as is Obamacare. I can choose to ride a bus, walk, bike it, hop a train and not have to purchase auto insurance.
That's a softball. The 10th amendment states the following:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Therefore, states can require auto insurance, but the federal government can't.
However, driving is not a right, so therefore it's not required by mere birth, as is Obamacare. I can choose to ride a bus, walk, bike it, hop a train and not have to purchase auto insurance.
Now I don't defend it, but Romneycare is completely legal. The state of Massachusetts was well within its right to implement their own mandated health laws, based on what the US Constitution says.
A good line from Jurassic Park:
A good line from Jurassic Park:
Just Because You Can, Doesn't Mean You Should
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>That's a contradiction to your statement.
You'll have to explain how.
>>The point I was making is that if you drive a car, you are forced to have insurance
Again, this is at the STATE level, not the federal level. The federal government, as in Obamacare, can't force you to buy insurance.
You'll have to explain how.
>>The point I was making is that if you drive a car, you are forced to have insurance
Again, this is at the STATE level, not the federal level. The federal government, as in Obamacare, can't force you to buy insurance.
@cars
So what you are saying is that the State government can go against the Constitution but not the Federal one?
-Muj ;-?
So what you are saying is that the State government can go against the Constitution but not the Federal one?
-Muj ;-?
>>So what you are saying is that the State government can go against the Constitution
Not sure where I said that? See 10th amendment to the US Constitution. I posted it above.
Not sure where I said that? See 10th amendment to the US Constitution. I posted it above.
@cars
First you said that the Federal Government cannot Force you to have insurance.
Only State Law can do that? That would mean that State Law can force people to have insurance and be within the Constituation but if the Federal Government does it, it is against the Constitution?
Your confusing me...
-Muj ;-?
First you said that the Federal Government cannot Force you to have insurance.
Only State Law can do that? That would mean that State Law can force people to have insurance and be within the Constituation but if the Federal Government does it, it is against the Constitution?
Your confusing me...
-Muj ;-?
>>Your confusing me...
That's not hard to do.
Research this and you'll understand:
That's not hard to do.
Research this and you'll understand:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>No way will this be favorable to Democrats.
Some argue that it will help Obama if the court rules against Obamacare.
How Obama could win if Obamacare loses
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/how-obama-could-win-if-obamacare-loses
Some argue that it will help Obama if the court rules against Obamacare.
If the court strikes down the plan, then Obama won’t have to defend it in the fall campaign, robbing the Republicans of one of their two lines of attack, the other being the moribund economy.
He could rally his base by arguing that he had pushed through a great “progressive” reform only to be foiled by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. People, like markets, hate uncertainty, and the presumed swing vote by Justice Kennedy could settle the issue.
How Obama could win if Obamacare loses
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/how-obama-could-win-if-obamacare-loses
If the court strikes down the plan, then Obama won’t have to defend it in the fall campaign, robbing the Republicans of one of their two lines of attack, the other being the moribund economy.
Or you can argue that it will demoralize the Progressive movement and invigorate the Right.
Or you can argue that it will demoralize the Progressive movement and invigorate the Right.
Can people really not see the difference between car insurance and the helath care law.
>>Can people really not see the difference between car insurance and the helath care law.
Bergertime, help out our good buddy, Muj. He doesn't understand.
Bergertime, help out our good buddy, Muj. He doesn't understand.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
I'm so tired of people comparing this to car insurance. IT has nothing to do with car insurance or any other insurance for that matter.
Driving is not required. There have been periods in my life I haven't had a car thus haven't had insurance. As has already been mentioned I can always choose to walk, run, bike, scooter, rollerblade, horseback ride, ride the bus, ride the metro, etc. There are endless other ways. In NYC there are a lot of people who do not even have cars because they walk everywhere or use other public transportation. Would it be fair that they had to pay car insurance even if they don't use a car? The same could be asked about health insurance. Why can I not choose to pay doctor bills out of pocket? Since when does congress have the right to say "hey you have to pay us insurance premiums whether you want to or not"? In a lot of state you don't have to pay insurance premiums if you have a certain amount of money in a bank. In AZ last time I checked it was 65k. If you have $65k in the bank then you were not require to have vehicle insurance.
Which goes back to why should I not be able to pay for my medical care on my own? If I can't afford it then sucks to be me.
As far as states vs Federal:
The constitution set the ground rules for the federal government. It allowed certain things and that was it. EVERYTHING ELSE was left to the states, thus why a state can require insurance but not the federal government. This is why a lot of Republicans are always saying certain issues should be handled at the state level, like abortion, gay marriage, etc. The constitution does not give the federal govt the right to do anything dealing with topics like this.
Driving is not required. There have been periods in my life I haven't had a car thus haven't had insurance. As has already been mentioned I can always choose to walk, run, bike, scooter, rollerblade, horseback ride, ride the bus, ride the metro, etc. There are endless other ways. In NYC there are a lot of people who do not even have cars because they walk everywhere or use other public transportation. Would it be fair that they had to pay car insurance even if they don't use a car? The same could be asked about health insurance. Why can I not choose to pay doctor bills out of pocket? Since when does congress have the right to say "hey you have to pay us insurance premiums whether you want to or not"? In a lot of state you don't have to pay insurance premiums if you have a certain amount of money in a bank. In AZ last time I checked it was 65k. If you have $65k in the bank then you were not require to have vehicle insurance.
Which goes back to why should I not be able to pay for my medical care on my own? If I can't afford it then sucks to be me.
As far as states vs Federal:
The constitution set the ground rules for the federal government. It allowed certain things and that was it. EVERYTHING ELSE was left to the states, thus why a state can require insurance but not the federal government. This is why a lot of Republicans are always saying certain issues should be handled at the state level, like abortion, gay marriage, etc. The constitution does not give the federal govt the right to do anything dealing with topics like this.
ASKER
>>I expect portions if not the entire mandate to be overturned by the Supreme Court for no other reason than that the current court is 5-4 leaning Right, and there are many issues which are in question to justify the decision one way or another.
I think Leon is right. I think it will come down to 5-4 vote against the bill. It is unfortunate it will come down to this vote because the Judges will be voting along party lines instead of actually following the Constitution and what it says. If they were to vote following the Constitution, it would be a 9-0 vote against the bill because according to our Constitution you cannot mandate citizens to buy anything, and then penalize them if they don't. If there were more liberal judges than conservatives, they would vote in favor of the bill just because they are following their ideology and once again not the Constitution. The power of the Judicial branch was not supposed to be more powerfull than the other two branches, but in recent decades they have become more powerfull than all three branches put together.
I think Leon is right. I think it will come down to 5-4 vote against the bill. It is unfortunate it will come down to this vote because the Judges will be voting along party lines instead of actually following the Constitution and what it says. If they were to vote following the Constitution, it would be a 9-0 vote against the bill because according to our Constitution you cannot mandate citizens to buy anything, and then penalize them if they don't. If there were more liberal judges than conservatives, they would vote in favor of the bill just because they are following their ideology and once again not the Constitution. The power of the Judicial branch was not supposed to be more powerfull than the other two branches, but in recent decades they have become more powerfull than all three branches put together.
> I'm so tired of people comparing this to car insurance <
I am going to answer all of you at once.
I know having a car is a choice but getting car insurance than becomes mandatory by Law.
Health is not a choice. So why can't that it mandatory that people have health insurance?
I suppose for most of you people are thinking like Ron Paul. That health insurance should be a choice & if you are poor & don't have health insurance. Tough luck is it? You should be left for dead.
-Muj ;-|
I am going to answer all of you at once.
I know having a car is a choice but getting car insurance than becomes mandatory by Law.
Health is not a choice. So why can't that it mandatory that people have health insurance?
I suppose for most of you people are thinking like Ron Paul. That health insurance should be a choice & if you are poor & don't have health insurance. Tough luck is it? You should be left for dead.
-Muj ;-|
>So why can't that it mandatory that people have health insurance?
Because it is unconstitutional. Because as Americans we believe in freedom to decide what is best for us even if it is not.
Because it is unconstitutional. Because as Americans we believe in freedom to decide what is best for us even if it is not.
@Leon
> Because it is unconstitutional. <
So explain this to me:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141357505/a-tale-of-two-health-plans-romney-versus-obama
Both have individual mandates that impose a tax penalty on people who have the financial ability to buy insurance but don't. Federal penalties start at $695 annually, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. In Massachusetts, penalties range from $228 to $1,212, depending on family size and income.
Also from the NY times:
http://nyti.ms/pZ4y7c
It seems the State of Massachusetts had the Law since 2006. No one raised the question of it being unconstitutional.
Why not?
-Muj ;-|
> Because it is unconstitutional. <
So explain this to me:
http://www.npr.org/2011/10/14/141357505/a-tale-of-two-health-plans-romney-versus-obama
Both have individual mandates that impose a tax penalty on people who have the financial ability to buy insurance but don't. Federal penalties start at $695 annually, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. In Massachusetts, penalties range from $228 to $1,212, depending on family size and income.
Also from the NY times:
http://nyti.ms/pZ4y7c
It seems the State of Massachusetts had the Law since 2006. No one raised the question of it being unconstitutional.
Why not?
-Muj ;-|
Can I ask before explainin g the difference here, do you understand the difference in car and health insurance.
How about this news:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44854320/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/white-house-used-mitt-romney-health-care-law-blueprint-federal-law/
Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”
-Muj ;-)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44854320/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/white-house-used-mitt-romney-health-care-law-blueprint-federal-law/
Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”
-Muj ;-)
Muj,
If a state wants to pass a health insurance mandate, it's up to the people of the state. However, the federal government can't do it b/c the US Constitution prohibits it.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
If a state wants to pass a health insurance mandate, it's up to the people of the state. However, the federal government can't do it b/c the US Constitution prohibits it.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
So is that a "yes I now understand the difference.". Or is it "No I still think they are the same."?
Because healthcare is a choice. I can chose to go to the doctor, I can chose alternative medicine, I can choose to accept that as I get older my health will fail regardless of insurance......I have a choice based on what I think is best for myself.
Then you also think that we need federal car insurance law. Right now it's up to the states, but by your post it seems you would prefer it on a federal level and if you don't have it you can be fined by the federal gov't.
Muj Wrote
Health is not a choice. So why can't that it mandatory that people have health insurance?
Health IS a choice. You think people aren't choosing to eat junk food all day instead of eating the nourishing food they should be? You think people aren't choosing to drink 2000 calories worth of soda when their daily recommended caloric intake is probably less than that? You think people aren't choosing to gorge themselves at restaurants and feeling sick because of it? We can choose to take care of ourselves or not. We can choose to stick with natural remedies or manufactured drugs. We can choose to go to whatever doctor we want. We can choose to be healed by a priest or a satanic cult. Our health is OUR choice right now. We can do what we want with our health. The government should not have the right to say I have to purchase insurance and hav eto go to the doctors they say I have to go to.
I suppose for most of you people are thinking like Ron Paul. That health insurance should be a choice & if you are poor & don't have health insurance. Tough luck is it? You should be left for dead.
When was the last time you saw someone left for dead? Charities, community, friends, family, etc have always kicked in when people were in need. If you are poor and decide not to be a part of any sort of community or circle of friends, then yes tough luck. Sounds like you deserve to die in that case. I mean for those who always talk about the betterment of the community, what's the point of keeping a deadbeat around when they don't contribute to society in any ways, right? Everyone should be contributing in some way, because it's all about the community? That's what socialism is all about after all.
Health is not a choice. So why can't that it mandatory that people have health insurance?
Health IS a choice. You think people aren't choosing to eat junk food all day instead of eating the nourishing food they should be? You think people aren't choosing to drink 2000 calories worth of soda when their daily recommended caloric intake is probably less than that? You think people aren't choosing to gorge themselves at restaurants and feeling sick because of it? We can choose to take care of ourselves or not. We can choose to stick with natural remedies or manufactured drugs. We can choose to go to whatever doctor we want. We can choose to be healed by a priest or a satanic cult. Our health is OUR choice right now. We can do what we want with our health. The government should not have the right to say I have to purchase insurance and hav eto go to the doctors they say I have to go to.
I suppose for most of you people are thinking like Ron Paul. That health insurance should be a choice & if you are poor & don't have health insurance. Tough luck is it? You should be left for dead.
When was the last time you saw someone left for dead? Charities, community, friends, family, etc have always kicked in when people were in need. If you are poor and decide not to be a part of any sort of community or circle of friends, then yes tough luck. Sounds like you deserve to die in that case. I mean for those who always talk about the betterment of the community, what's the point of keeping a deadbeat around when they don't contribute to society in any ways, right? Everyone should be contributing in some way, because it's all about the community? That's what socialism is all about after all.
It seems the State of Massachusetts had the Law since 2006. No one raised the question of it being unconstitutional.
As cars pointed out, what the people of the State of Taxachusetts decide to do, is up to them. Any challenge to that law would have to go through to their State Supreme Court. This is why Romney has such a hard time in the primaries at the moment. There is a solid group of Republicans that will vote for any other Republican candidate, but him just on this issue alone.
The Obama Healthcare law has been passed under the Congress' right to regulate Interstate Commerce, which is a hugely broad piece of legislation that has been regulated for a long time, and at various times was expanded or contracted by the Supreme Court. In this case one of the decisions the court will need to make is if the Congress even has the right, under the Interstate Commerce law, to regulate individual healthcare.
As cars pointed out, what the people of the State of Taxachusetts decide to do, is up to them. Any challenge to that law would have to go through to their State Supreme Court. This is why Romney has such a hard time in the primaries at the moment. There is a solid group of Republicans that will vote for any other Republican candidate, but him just on this issue alone.
The Obama Healthcare law has been passed under the Congress' right to regulate Interstate Commerce, which is a hugely broad piece of legislation that has been regulated for a long time, and at various times was expanded or contracted by the Supreme Court. In this case one of the decisions the court will need to make is if the Congress even has the right, under the Interstate Commerce law, to regulate individual healthcare.
ASKER
>>Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”
I question your news source. Most of the health care bill was taken from Hillary care back in 1992.
MSNBC, lol, no wonder you are so ill informed.
I question your news source. Most of the health care bill was taken from Hillary care back in 1992.
MSNBC, lol, no wonder you are so ill informed.
Really we can only hope the Supreme Court rejects Obamascare.
Otherwise, it's over.
Health insurance costs deal blow to Obama
http://citizen-40.tressugar.com/Health-insurance-costs-deal-blow-Obama-19239355
Health premiums now more than a new car
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html
Otherwise, it's over.
The cost of health insurance has surged in the US this year, according to a survey of employers, dealing a blow to claims by the Obama administration that healthcare legislation introduced last year would curb costs.
Health insurance costs deal blow to Obama
http://citizen-40.tressugar.com/Health-insurance-costs-deal-blow-Obama-19239355
Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta.
Health premiums now more than a new car
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html
Why not have food insurance. We can call it ObamaNutrition. Obama can bend the cost curve on this also, last time I saw there were 50 millon people on food stamps. By paying in only a small amount every year you get all the food you think you need. Wouldn't it be wonderful, no more haveing to worry about food. The gov't can just take care of it all. Don't worry about where it comes from, it's the gov't, remeber they have unlimited resources. I think everyone needs food.
@cars and other
> it's up to the people of the state <
People didn't vote on that Law. Now that I read more into it, it seems like the Federal government under President Bush forced the State to have mandatory health insurance because it had too many people uninsured, which of course was costing them too much money.
The question will be that could the Federal Government force States to adopt such a Law, which hence could make it Constitution even if it's coming indirectly?
-Muj ;-|
> it's up to the people of the state <
People didn't vote on that Law. Now that I read more into it, it seems like the Federal government under President Bush forced the State to have mandatory health insurance because it had too many people uninsured, which of course was costing them too much money.
The question will be that could the Federal Government force States to adopt such a Law, which hence could make it Constitution even if it's coming indirectly?
-Muj ;-|
>>Now that I read more into it, it seems like the Federal government under President Bush forced the State to have mandatory health insurance because it had too many people uninsured, which of course was costing them too much money.
Can I have a hit off your doob?
Can I have a hit off your doob?
lol?
> Can I have a hit off your doob? <
Whatever clears your mind.
-Muj ;-D
Whatever clears your mind.
-Muj ;-D
>>Whatever clears your mind.
it's for medicinal purposes. Obamacare should cover the cost.
it's for medicinal purposes. Obamacare should cover the cost.
lol?
Laughing Out Loud
Laughing Out Loud
lol, I know what it means. saying "lol?" is an expression representing whether or not you should laugh at something or not due to the ignorance, stupidity, etc of the subject in question.
ASKER
Thanks for everyones comments on this important topic. I personally think they will rule it unconstitutional. Obama has his lawyers and lobbiests working really hard over at the supreme court trying to get it his way. Don't think for a minute he wants them to rule it unconstitutional. Mark Levin, who has been following this very close, says the left has been fighting this for 80 years and they will never let up, which I agree.
-Muj ;-|