No fat lady yet at SCOTUS. I say Obamacare makes it.

Long busy day, just now getting to my lonely laptop – and only for a moment before I crash – to say:

I think the ACA will be upheld by the Supreme Court, and I think it can be by a stronger majority than usual. I’m guessing 7-2. If Kennedy joins the liberals, I think Roberts might do the same, and encourage the other conservatives to join as well, and make the decision stronger, closer to unanimity, something he’s always desired for major decisions. If the bill is upheld, it’s an historic decision and Roberts will also want to put his name on it.

It wins. 7-2. And Roberts votes with the majority. Holdouts might be Alito and Thomas.

Hey . . . it’s months off. If I’m wrong, nobody will remember.

15 responses to “No fat lady yet at SCOTUS. I say Obamacare makes it.

  1. But you wrote it down here. The ‘net never forgets.

    Like

  2. martynwilsoncopywriter

    I’m a Brit living in France, so I have personal experience of two universal health care systems. The UK’s National Health Service is largely free at the point of delivery, whereas in general, France’s Sécurité Sociale pays the first 65%: this can be raised to 100% by relatively low-cost – often employer funded – insurance called “mutuelle”. The state system also pays 100% for treatment of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and so on.

    What I – and, I suspect, most other Europeans – can’t quite understand is why anyone could argue against something so self-evidently straightforward and beneficial. I’ve said this elsewhere, but it may be worth repeating…When people are ill, they should feel unwell and that someone is going to make them better or, if the illness is chronic or terminal, that someone is going to care for them and stop it hurting too much. That is ALL they should feel.

    They should not feel worried about how they will pay for the care, or if their insurance company will pay up and if so for how long, or if their insurance costs will escalate the following year as a result of their illness. Doesn’t that make sense? Or am I missing something.

    Love the blog by the way.

    Like

    • Marty, great thoughts!

      Like

    • Hey marty, welcome. Brits living in France are expecially welcome of course, because that beats being a Yankee living in Florida (gotta admit though, the weather’s pretty nice).

      You say: “What I – and, I suspect, most other Europeans – can’t quite understand is why anyone could argue against something so self-evidently straightforward and beneficial.”

      I will add that millions of Americans – including me and almost everyone I know – agree with you entirely. There are dozens, multiple dozens of health delivery and payment systems – all universal – around the world that are working very well – covering everyone, lower costs, better outcomes.

      It’s inconceivablt that my country has been trying – and failing – for 100 years to put something in place and still thinks that universal care is a commie plot. A majority of my countrymen refuse to accept the argument that they already pay for the uninsured – with taxes and higher insurance premiums and medicall costs.

      We always talk about how private enterprise does things bettter. Any company worth its salt, would look at the health care mess in the US and say why arent’t these people following best practices and the rules of efficiency and efficacy a business would use.

      It’s all a mystery to me.

      Like

  3. Oh my dear Moe … you are quite bold, but I will not quibble with your insight because I know you don’t fly by the seat of your pants.

    Like

  4. Define “makes it.” The Individual Mandate is done for from the sound of it and yesterday’s arguments were mostly about what bits and pieces, if any, would be legal to salvage.

    Personally, since the bill didn’t have a severability clause, I say the Court should scrap the whole thing and instruct Congress to write something, or some things, that are Constitutional.

    Really! It’s not the SCOTUS’ place to salvage this law. It’s their place to rule on it’s legality under the Constitution. I can’t think of any sane person who would want these nine judges to essentially rewrite it.

    Throw it back to Congress with a court order to redo it. That’ll wake them ALL up and maybe get them to rethink the logic of these omnibus bills.

    Like

    • jonolan, I think that if they don’t uphold it, they’re far more likely to toss the whole thing out rather than rule on aspects. Tossing it right back to Congress.

      I listened to all six hours (get a life Moe) and my sense was that toward the end of day three, they were a little more amenable to addressing what constitutes commerce. And if they say this does, well then it does. Because ruling on what’s Constitutional and what isn’t is their role in the separation of powers.

      Like

  5. don’t say “crash” when talking about your computer.

    Like

  6. Mandate tax/penalty gone….

    The Bill survives by the skin of it’s teeth 5 to 4 is the BEST I would think….

    Like

  7. I agree with the Brit WTF this even before the Supreme’s IS crazy…

    Like

  8. ACTUALLY THE VOTE WILL TAKE PLACE TOMORROW, BUT IT MAY TAKE MONTHS FOR US TO KNOW WHAT WHO WINS….MY TAKE IS THAT THE MANDATE IS DEAD, BUT THE REST WILL BE ALLOWED TO LIVE WITHOUT ITS “HEART” . I WISH YOU WERE RIGHT MO, BUT I THINK YOU ARE SMOKING THAT FUNNY STUFF AGAIN!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s