Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'

It is an interesting point (IMO) conceivably the court could rule on a point of law that yields impractical results. What happens if, for example, the court throws out only mandatory coverage as unconstitutional... and leaves the rest of the bill intact.

The mandatory coverage provision was a critical part of the "compromise" with the insurance industry. Without mandatory universal coverage, you are left with a situation where people can remain without coverage until they know they are sick... and then pay no penalty and have guarantees access to insurance coverage. It is like buying car insurance after you have an accident.

In any case, if the court rejects mandatory coverage... then there are two major directions the country could move.... either pass some sort of universal single payer government program (which is unlikely to happen) or return to the prevailing trends of the last few decades.... more an more people with no coverage who ultimately wind up as a burden on the system... which raises the cost of insurance... which make fewer people able to afford insurance. It will be a vicious downward spiral with no plausible good ending. We will have the equivalent of gated medical communities where people inside the walls can afford great medical care... and there is absolute chaos outside the walls.

At least that is what it looks like to me.

I wonder how much money the Koch bros. sent to the wife of Justice THomas? Not that it would influence the way he would vote

In our department, one cafeteria manager told me her net income is $1800/mo. Her portion of health insurance is $700.00 making her "net, net" $1100.00. She said every year her "net, net" is less money than the year before - even with a 1.5% raise - because her shared cost of health insurance goes up higher than her increases in salaries.

Effectively, each year she experiences a net loss due to her portion of health insurance premiums deducted from her check.

At the school district, the union employees contracts are up this year. The union is asking the district to hold the line on employee's portion of premiums and if there is an increase to pick it up themselves. The district said: No way - that's our best and final.

Needless to say, negotiations have gone to impasse and a mediator will resolve the issue.

Normally, I am pretty forgiving of SC Justices' decisions about recusal, but I think Justice Thomas is over the line on this one. I suspect that Justice Kagan might have recused herself, if he had, but hers is not as serious a conflict, in my opinion. It's close, though.

Frankly I think the Solicitor is not stupid, either, and he knows that Justice Scalia is an activist ideologue Justice that likes to toy with petitioners. I am curious how ideologically-driven his decision will be in this case, as from an historical perspective, it is, as most commentators have indicated, not a close call. If the Supreme Court strikes it down, it will be just like being back in 1933, where an ideology-driven court was so opposed to FDR's programs, they struck nearly everything down.

I disagree, Ardy, if this rather cumbersome, patched together, and compromised law is struck down then we will probably see another, probably better insurance reform package put together later in President Obama's second term. If that fails to come about before 2016 then the problem will still exist and possibly as many as a third of Americans will have no insurance. It has become an issue which must be dealt with and which is not going away.

interesting as my recollection is the wh sequestered her from both crafting the legislation and from developing the legal justification for the law ... she would thus be guilty of working in the same building

marriage to a lobbyist who worked against HR 3950 ... does that constitute a conflict of interest? ... does attending a Koch sponsored event by both Scalia and Thomas (not necessarily at the same time) after which Citizens United was upheld which was also sponsored by the Koch Bros, have the patina of potential ethics problems?

am reposting, because I truly believe the point of law regarding the AIA is the heart of the argument.

I believe we have a situation where some very important people have become caught up in a web of technical wording to the degree that they have lost track of the implications that their
decision may/will have on the welfare of the country. Despite the analysis in the media, the political battles that focus on conservative vs. liberal, and the attempts to demonize one or another of the justices... the results of the June decision will
not have to do with the healthcare law, but the interpretation of existing laws based on precedent, and perceived intent.

The word web becomes divorced from reality when attempting to apply laws that were designed for a country less than 1/10 of the size of today's population, with a vastly different social structure.

The strange part about the SCOTUS discussion is that despite the insistence on the letter of the law, the justices seemed to be torn... about the effects of pro/con decisions on the subsequent resulting conflicts that would necessarily ensue with other established decisions.

The coming months will likely see increasing anxiety, and further partisanship, along with a scramble by all affected corporations to cover for possible future losses. Uncertainty almost always results in negative effects on the economy.

Just another argument to prove there is no perfect form of government.

Had the AIA said "tax" instead of "penalty" the law would not be in front of the Supreme Court right now.

Ardy,

Don't know about you, but most folks I associate with evaluate/re-evaluate their medical/dental coverage choices as frequently as their other insurances ! When young and single do you really need more than "catastrophic" health insurance ? With age and changing responsibilities, most alter their coverage, at least to the extent they can afford.

The "OC" plan doesn't - at least to my understanding - afford that option ! Its a "one size fits all" ! IOW, its going to soak the non-load young members to provide minimal care to the older "load" members - and perhaps "trim the load" by denying quality of life-extending care to our older citizens to balance its budget. Seems Ms. Palin was far more right in her assessment than many credited. Or maybe its just another of the reasons the lefties vilified her ? >Mech