SCOTUS Affordable Care Act Arguments

Day 2:

The 4 liberal justices appear to be a lock for upholding the mandate. A 5th has not been found. Justice Kennedy (the swing vote) has sounded very skeptical of the mandate in his questions to Verrilli (Solicitor General). He mentioned that the government has an "enormous burden" to prove that federal powers will not overreach healthcare. Called the individual mandate "unprecedented."

Looking really good for the mandate being struck down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

Awesome... great news!

http://soundcloud.com/yahoonews/oral...h-care-tuesday

The audio is riveting. I wish I could have witnessed these arguments. If you are bored, listen to it.

The best counter argument made, by one of the Justices, is the example of burial insurance. Bingo! nailed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

The best counter argument made, by one of the Justices, is the example of burial insurance. Bingo! nailed it.

---

I think he just gave Obama an idea.

"...So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services..."

I like this guy. lol

This was the highlight of the audio to me: I backed up and listened to it twice. It's why I think this thing is going to be overturned:

Justice Kennedy: Perhaps the most important paragraph of the morning: Kennedy's objections in a nutshell.



"The reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LATechBanjo

This was the highlight of the audio to me: I backed up and listened to it twice. It's why I think this thing is going to be overturned:

Justice Kennedy: Perhaps the most important paragraph of the morning: Kennedy's objections in a nutshell.



"The reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way."

---

Bingo!

Holy crap. The Plaintiff's lawyer Clement knocked it out of the park.

The pro-obummercare mandate argument comes down to this: there are 40 million Americans who presently do not have health insurance. Of course, that means that 300+ million do. That begs the obvious question, how is it that 300mm can manage to get it, but only 40mm can not? Out of those 40mm, how many CHOOSE not to have it, but could really afford it? I saw that number placed at 25mm some months back. So, that really means there are maybe 15mm people who can not access health insurance. BUT! those 15mm can access basic/emergency healthcare, via hospitals and local clinics. So, in reality, no one is denied access to healthcare services.

Is the final "stake in the ground" then that those 15mm can not afford to get a heart transplant or some other expensive procedure? There are limitations on those for everyone. It took 2 years for former VP (and multi-millionaire) Dick Cheney to qualify for a heart transplant. Surely, he already has everything, and more, that obummercare will "guarantee" everyone. Meaning, there are some healthcare issues that simply can NOT be legislated. Period. Given that fact, a movement to "guarantee" equal outcomes for everyone, re: the healthcare industry, is simply impossible. Given that, the market is the best vehicle whereby the overall best outcome for everyone is delivered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

The pro-obummercare mandate argument comes down to this: there are 40 million Americans who presently do not have health insurance. Of course, that means that 300+ million do. That begs the obvious question, how is it that 300mm can manage to get it, but only 40mm can not? Out of those 40mm, how many CHOOSE not to have it, but could really afford it? I saw that number placed at 25mm some months back. So, that really means there are maybe 15mm people who can not access health insurance. BUT! those 15mm can access basic/emergency healthcare, via hospitals and local clinics. So, in reality, no one is denied access to healthcare services.

---

Technically the part of Obamacare that is being challenged - the individual mandate -is more about regulating those that choose not to buy health insurance. The individual mandate is the "fix" that Obama uses to make sure that healthy people are included in the risk pool that now will include people with pre-existing conditions or who have otherwise neared/reached their policy max. If healthy people that choose not to pay the ridiculous costs of health care insurance were to opt out, then the premiums would go up (to cover the pre-existing ill and the heavy consumers that have been cut off). This could result in self perpetuating death spiral, where insurance gets more expensive, so people with good (but not great) health start to opt out, and so on. At the end of the day, the healthy are gonna pay for the sick, because that is what Americans have ordained....until the house of cards collapses.

Is this not a "regressive" act? I mean, is it not true that the majority of those 40mm are the "working poor?" Yet, obummercare wants to mandate they buy insurance. How about they be left to allocate their financial resources as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dawg80

Is this not a "regressive" act? I mean, is it not true that the majority of those 40mm are the "working poor?" Yet, obummercare wants to mandate they buy insurance. How about they be left to allocate their financial resources as they see fit.

---

That will be phase 2 of Obamacare, to be rolled out in his second term. The government will guarantee cheaper insurance (a public option) if you cannot afford what the privates are offering. Slowly everyone will move to the public option because it is cheapest (and subsidized by tax dollars).

.....oh, that's not good. I think obummer should be denied a 2nd term. What say thee!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LATechBanjo

http://soundcloud.com/yahoonews/oral...h-care-tuesday

The audio is riveting. I wish I could have witnessed these arguments. If you are bored, listen to it.

---

Nice work Banjo.