SCOTUS Hearing on the ACA (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    GrandAdmiral

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    4,073
    Reaction score
    5,913
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    Is anyone following this this morning? I'm stuck in a webinar so can't listen in but from I'm reading in the captions on TV (which are terrible), it seems from the analysts that as of now, at worse, SCOTUS is leaning to severe the individual mandate while leaving the other facets intact. For those following, is that what you're guessing?
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    Is anyone following this this morning? I'm stuck in a webinar so can't listen in but from I'm reading in the captions on TV (which are terrible), it seems from the analysts that as of now, at worse, SCOTUS is leaning to severe the individual mandate while leaving the other facets intact. For those following, is that what you're guessing?
    Click to expand...

    I'll look for links later, but Kavanagh came right out and told the lawyer for Texas that this is easy and his case is terrible--the mandate is severable and the rest can remain. If Congress had intended for the whole statute to fall if the mandate fell, they could and should have repealed the entire thing instead of just lowering the mandate penalty to zero. I believe Roberts mentioned that he believed it was possible that Congress was hoping that the court would repeal the statute for them but that isn't the job of the courts. Kavanagh, Roberts, plus the three remaining liberals gives it five votes.
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    Is anyone following this this morning? I'm stuck in a webinar so can't listen in but from I'm reading in the captions on TV (which are terrible), it seems from the analysts that as of now, at worse, SCOTUS is leaning to severe the individual mandate while leaving the other facets intact. For those following, is that what you're guessing?
    Click to expand...

    Just from what I'm reading on it, so far that seems to be the consensus view. Fwiw, I really don't think anything happens to ACA because of this case. At worst, the mandate gets struck down and the rest of the ACA provisions remain intact. Gorsuch (correction, Kavanaugh)and Roberts certainly seem to be leaning that direction.
     
    I am curious as to Barrett's opinion on the case. Unfortunately, it's gonna be a while before a ruling is handed down if I understand correctly. Like June of next year. :rant:
     
    DaveXA said:
    I am curious as to Barrett's opinion on the case. Unfortunately, it's gonna be a while before a ruling is handed down if I understand correctly. Like June of next year. :rant:
    Click to expand...
    Only saw one tweet about a question she asked.. I'm providing some context..

    1605034231184.png
     
    The problem with severing the mandate and leaving the rest of the ACA in place (requiring insurers to insure for pre-existing conditions, free birth control, yearly wellness checks, etc. etc.) is that the purpose of the mandate was to keep the costs under control because lots of people who aren't sick and weren't using any healthcare services were going to have to have insurance anyway. For insurance companies to have to provide all of that coverage, they are going to continue charging an arm and a leg and that cost will go up. The ACA without a mandate provides a broken, useless health care system.

    Will Congress finally do anything about it with a bare Democratic majority in the House and a likely bare GOP majority in the Senate? You'd like to think so, but after the last decade I'm not sure that Congress is capable of passing anything at all. If the GOP wasn't willing to pass something when it had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, why would anything change now? Their whole philosophy is to do nothing, let everything fall apart, and then say government is bad because they are bad at governing.
     
    EmBeeFiveOhFour said:
    The problem with severing the mandate and leaving the rest of the ACA in place (requiring insurers to insure for pre-existing conditions, free birth control, yearly wellness checks, etc. etc.) is that the purpose of the mandate was to keep the costs under control because lots of people who aren't sick and weren't using any healthcare services were going to have to have insurance anyway. For insurance companies to have to provide all of that coverage, they are going to continue charging an arm and a leg and that cost will go up. The ACA without a mandate provides a broken, useless health care system.

    Will Congress finally do anything about it with a bare Democratic majority in the House and a likely bare GOP majority in the Senate? You'd like to think so, but after the last decade I'm not sure that Congress is capable of passing anything at all. If the GOP wasn't willing to pass something when it had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, why would anything change now? Their whole philosophy is to do nothing, let everything fall apart, and then say government is bad because they are bad at governing.
    Click to expand...
    But that's what we've had for over 2 years now. So, nothing changes. No further harm.
     
    GrandAdmiral said:
    I missed both but if this is the route the Court seems to be going interesting to see the rationale, especially Roberts' POV, as to how the law can stand considering its current survival was the "tax" it's now severing from the ACA.
    Click to expand...
    I think some of the other arguments are more compelling.. that it's just a $0 fine now, but Congress can always change it. So, do you even need to get rid of it? What's the harm in a non injurious penalty?
     
    wardorican said:
    I think some of the other arguments are more compelling.. that it's just a $0 fine now, but Congress can always change it. So, do you even need to get rid of it? What's the harm in a non injurious penalty?
    Click to expand...

    Agreed. I don't think the conservatives leaning to keep the ACA would sign on considering the comments today though.
     
    EmBeeFiveOhFour said:
    The problem with severing the mandate and leaving the rest of the ACA in place (requiring insurers to insure for pre-existing conditions, free birth control, yearly wellness checks, etc. etc.) is that the purpose of the mandate was to keep the costs under control because lots of people who aren't sick and weren't using any healthcare services were going to have to have insurance anyway. For insurance companies to have to provide all of that coverage, they are going to continue charging an arm and a leg and that cost will go up. The ACA without a mandate provides a broken, useless health care system.

    Will Congress finally do anything about it with a bare Democratic majority in the House and a likely bare GOP majority in the Senate? You'd like to think so, but after the last decade I'm not sure that Congress is capable of passing anything at all. If the GOP wasn't willing to pass something when it had control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, why would anything change now? Their whole philosophy is to do nothing, let everything fall apart, and then say government is bad because they are bad at governing.
    Click to expand...
    If we had a public option the insurers had to compete with, that would keep costs down - albeit the public option would need to be funded through taxes.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom