If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...

[Person Man]

What makes anyone think that there isn't a way to overrule Single Payer?

[LastVoter]

What makes anyone think that there isn't a way to overrule Single Payer?

If we get a president that can pass Single Payer, he will make sure to stack the court in his favor.

[anvi]

jmfcst,

The 2009 town hall demonstrations against the health care bill were Dick Army-land organized astroturf bs.  A significant proportion of the opposition to the health care law registering in the polls is from lefties who don't think the law went far enough, so the opposition showing up there is not uniform.  Many of the essentials of the current law are either actual or functional replicas of the '94 Senate Republican health care bill too, and several of the major GOP candidates for the presidency were supporters of individual mandates until as recently as 2009.  American politics now, on both sides of the aisle, is about little more than campaigning for power, winning, and then taking credit so one can keep power.  That's why the Dem caucus didn't negotiate with the GOP enough over the bill, and that's why opponents organized demonstrations with people carrying signs portraying the president as Hitler.  The Obama people did a crappy job shepherding this bill through its own young-eating caucus on the Hill, defending it with the public, and defending it in the courts, and that's why they're in this predicament.  I mean, seriously, I'm not a lawyer, and am probably not smart enough to be a lawyer, but I'll bet you every last dollar in my checking account that I could have done a better job than Verrilli did up there on day 2 of oral arguments.    As much as I hate it, the Obama people, and the president himself, deserve the pickle they're in.

Joementum,

SCOTUS doesn't need credibility with the public.  They have a unique form of authority that requires no credibility.  They're not elected officials. They are the ones who call the final pitch at the plate, and no matter how much they might hate this decision or that decision, the American public largely accepts that fact.  SCOTUS needs to offer no more justification than saying: "the Constitution gives us this authority, and this is how it's going to be with this law because we said so."  All they need to do is say "unconstitutional," and the GOP campaign, with that single word, will do the rest.  Really, you have not seen this play out in a campaign before, but you're going to get to see how effective it's going to be if Kennedy comes down on the side of "no dice."

You guys might not believe me, and frankly, at this point, I don't give a crap whether you do or not.  The truth is that I'm really not in the tank for anyone anymore, I literally have no candidate--anywhere--that I think is worth two shakes of a rat's ass.  All I know is that American politics has now descended into absolutely bottom-of-the-barrell bullsh**t--it has left us absolutely incapable of solving any of our most pressing problems, and as much as all of us would like to claim otherwise, the fact of the matter is that most of us are so wrapped up in the game of defending out own teams, our own versions of ideological purity, and so unthinkingly buy into political packaging that we actually don't really have any interest in supporting anyone who might have both feet on the ground, and who might tell us that some of our cherished idols are just not working anymore.  And we will continue to be that way right up until the moment that the car tips over the cliff's edge.

And, with that ugly little speech, I shall sign off, I really don't have anything to say anymore.  I'm not a fan of futility, and me sounding off like this is just that--futility.  

Farewell, enjoy and sincerely best wishes to all.
Doug  

          

[Devils30]

The best way to campaign on a single payer platform would be "expand Medicare" to everyone. No backroom deals and all the bs that went into ACA.

[muon2]

What makes anyone think that there isn't a way to overrule Single Payer?

The best way to campaign on a single payer platform would be "expand Medicare" to everyone. No backroom deals and all the bs that went into ACA.

All one has to do is expand the payroll tax to fund Medicare for all. I see little chance of that being overturned. The catch would be to campaign on that tax hike. ACA was constructed to avoid any overt tax hikes, to the extent of the confusion in court this week as to its status as a tax vs a penalty.

[Beet]

The way Congress works now and has worked forever you can't get anything done without backroom deals. Even if you tried to pass Medicare for all, you'd need backroom deals to get it done.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Everything looks shiny from a distance. Try actually doing it and see where it gets you. ACA is our best shot. It took our political system 100 years to produce this. 100 years. To have it struck down by five unelected, partisan men would be a travesty.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The best way to campaign on a single payer platform would be "expand Medicare" to everyone. No backroom deals and all the bs that went into ACA.

But what would the "Guvmint out of my Medicare" people say?

[Frodo]

The way Congress works now and has worked forever you can't get anything done without backroom deals. Even if you tried to pass Medicare for all, you'd need backroom deals to get it done.

The grass is always greener on the other side. Everything looks shiny from a distance. Try actually doing it and see where it gets you. ACA is our best shot. It took our political system 100 years to produce this. 100 years. To have it struck down by five unelected, partisan men would be a travesty.

No, actually the ACA was our best shot at achieving universal health care while maintaining a predominately private insurance market.  With the individual mandate gone, that will leave only one alternative to bring health care costs under control (and they have to be, one way or another): single-payer.  

[morgieb]

When's the verdict out?

In all honesty, not sure what will happen when the SC strikes the law down. On one hand, it will fire up Obama's base to a big extent, and will move the focus of the election from the economy to the SC. On the other hand, the Republicans will attack Obama for being unconstitutional. It could hurt Obama big time if he tries to pass dodgy health care laws.

[Eraserhead]

No. If it's ruled unconstitutional, it'll actually be a small plus for him politically (in the short term).

[Torie]

It puts pressure on the Pubs to offer reasoned alternatives rather than just rant against Obamacare.  Most Pubs are not as into explicating alternative policies in some detail as perhaps this particular Pub is. I could hop into the race right now, because I basically have my entire agenda worked out in my head.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The 2009 town hall demonstrations against the health care bill were Dick Army-land organized astroturf bs.

were the 2010 midterms also?

the majority of the Dem losses of 1994 and 2010 were a direct result of health care reform efforts.  Large scale Reforms to the health care system are going to be politically damaging, at least in the short term, regardless if its the Reps or Dems doing the reforms.

if you don't realize that, then this conversation is pointless.

[Sbane]

Look, I cannot guarantee that Obama will not get hurt or benefit from this, since it makes him look incompetent. But I think it will help Democrats, if not in 2012 then definitely in 2014. It doesn't have to be that way. The Republicans could offer and pass an alternative that covers people with pre-existing conditions and helps out the poor and young. This would neutralize any Democratic advantage and might help Republicans. But considering the Republican base, is that really possible?

[minionofmidas]

The 2009 town hall demonstrations against the health care bill were Dick Army-land organized astroturf bs.

were the 2010 midterms also?

the majority of the Dem losses of 1994 and 2010 were a direct result of health care reform efforts.  Large scale Reforms to the health care system are going to be politically damaging, at least in the short term, regardless if its the Reps or Dems doing the reforms.

Reps here includes SCOTUS. Probably.

[TheGlobalizer]

When's the verdict out?

IIRC, June.

Single payor would survive a constitutional challenge, at least under post-New Deal jurisprudence.  The right would call it socialism (this time, they'd be right) and the downstream effects in reducing access and quality would be significant, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.  A tax-funded program is different than a mandate to purchase something.

Anyone who thinks the government could do a better job of managing the cost of health care while maintaining quality and access is simply not aware of the realities insurers operate under.  I've been in the industry for over a decade and it's a fcking miracle that insurers even make the little money that they do.  Look at Medicaid network access and the VA system if you want to see what single payor looks like.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The truth is that nobody knows what impact it might have. The only other remotely similar situation was in 1936 when the conservatives in SCOTUS had struck down a number of FDR's New Deal laws.

Everything depends on who wins the message war. At another time, running against SCOTUS would have been political suicide. But nowadays, after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc., 75% of Americans believe that the Justices decide more on partisan basis rather than legal one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/supreme-court-seen-influenced-by-politics-in-health-care-ruling.html). So there is fertile ground there for Obama and the Democrats to run against a Supreme Court that has essentially become an unofficial branch of the Republican party.    

[minionofmidas]

Everything depends on who wins the message war.

Which isn't exactly cause for optimism.

[TheGlobalizer]

The truth is that nobody knows what impact it might have. The only other remotely similar situation was in 1936 when the conservatives in SCOTUS had struck down a number of FDR's New Deal laws.

Everything depends on who wins the message war. At another time, running against SCOTUS would have been political suicide. But nowadays, after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc., 75% of Americans believe that the Justices decide more on partisan basis rather than legal one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/supreme-court-seen-influenced-by-politics-in-health-care-ruling.html). So there is fertile ground there for Obama and the Democrats to run against a Supreme Court that has essentially become an unofficial branch of the Republican party.    

They can run on it but who are they going to win?  With a roughly 35-25-40 split in this country, politically (left-center-right), I don't see how running against a conservative court wins elections.  I think folks on the left continually overestimate the power of the left's message.  Without translating it into something meaningful, it's just politics and most people tune that sht out.  I think a lot of people will be thanking SCOTUS for striking it down.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't see that significantly more people would be thanking SCOTUS for striking it down than damning SCOTUS for striking it down. Despite the split that you articulate PPACA has when polled been very slightly more popular among 'moderates' than not. This would relieve the right and anger the left and large segments of the center; what's as yet unclear is whether it would anger them against the Court for what, if it happens, promises to be blatantly partisan on its face or against Obama and Congress for passing a poorly-written law.

What this might force Republicans to do is articulate some sort of credible alternative (i.e., as you said, translate it into something meaningful), and I'm not convinced they can do that on the subject of health care.

I'm also not convinced that Scalia (and possibly Thomas, who's unreadable on this particular subject at the moment because of how profound his dereliction of duty habit gets during oral argument) won't find that the Anti-Injunction Act applies.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The truth is that nobody knows what impact it might have. The only other remotely similar situation was in 1936 when the conservatives in SCOTUS had struck down a number of FDR's New Deal laws.

Everything depends on who wins the message war. At another time, running against SCOTUS would have been political suicide. But nowadays, after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc., 75% of Americans believe that the Justices decide more on partisan basis rather than legal one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/supreme-court-seen-influenced-by-politics-in-health-care-ruling.html). So there is fertile ground there for Obama and the Democrats to run against a Supreme Court that has essentially become an unofficial branch of the Republican party.    

They can run on it but who are they going to win?  With a roughly 35-25-40 split in this country, politically (left-center-right), I don't see how running against a conservative court wins elections.  I think folks on the left continually overestimate the power of the left's message.  Without translating it into something meaningful, it's just politics and most people tune that sht out.  I think a lot of people will be thanking SCOTUS for striking it down.

Independents hold in even lower regard SCOTUS than Democrats in the poll I linked.

And I don't think that the parents who will see their kids kicked out of their insurance or the seniors who will fall again in the donut hole will be especially thankful towards the court, regardless the ideology.

[TheGlobalizer]

The truth is that nobody knows what impact it might have. The only other remotely similar situation was in 1936 when the conservatives in SCOTUS had struck down a number of FDR's New Deal laws.

Everything depends on who wins the message war. At another time, running against SCOTUS would have been political suicide. But nowadays, after Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc., 75% of Americans believe that the Justices decide more on partisan basis rather than legal one (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-15/supreme-court-seen-influenced-by-politics-in-health-care-ruling.html). So there is fertile ground there for Obama and the Democrats to run against a Supreme Court that has essentially become an unofficial branch of the Republican party.    

They can run on it but who are they going to win?  With a roughly 35-25-40 split in this country, politically (left-center-right), I don't see how running against a conservative court wins elections.  I think folks on the left continually overestimate the power of the left's message.  Without translating it into something meaningful, it's just politics and most people tune that sht out.  I think a lot of people will be thanking SCOTUS for striking it down.

Independents hold in even lower regard SCOTUS than Democrats in the poll I linked.

And I don't think that the parents who will see their kids kicked out of their insurance or the seniors who will fall again in the donut hole will be especially thankful towards the court, regardless the ideology.

Kids won't be kicked off of insurance.  The age 26 thing is actually a net win for insurers, as those are healthy bodies.

Independents hold government in general in low regard, and are even in their distribution of the blame.  Just because a few court followers consider SCOTUS to be a 5-4 conservative court right now (a fair but overly simple analysis) doesn't mean that all independents who think SCOTUS is too political are blaming Republicans for it, and it doesn't mean that it's an important issue for them, either.

[J. J.]

I'm also not convinced that Scalia (and possibly Thomas, who's unreadable on this particular subject at the moment because of how profound his dereliction of duty habit gets during oral argument) won't find that the Anti-Injunction Act applies.

If I understand correctly, there are three issues:

1.  They can't sue until the paying the penalty.

2.  The mandate is unconstitutional.

3.  The whole act is unconstitutional.

There might be a "moving majority" on all these issues.

For example:

#1. 1-8, with Thomas in the minority.

#2. 6-3, with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the minority.

#3.  5-4, as Stevens casting the deciding vote.

I could easily see something like this (though not necessarily voting this way).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Surely Kennedy or Roberts, not Stevens, as the deciding vote in issue 3?

[Bull Moose Base]

If the whole law is struck down, some things voters get reminded of 4 months before Election Day:

*The Supreme Court votes along partisan lines so who is president to pick new ones matters.

*Republican justices are responsible for 10s of millions of Americans being denied healthcare.

*Republican justices voted that corporations have rights of people.

*Romney cited the justices who voted that way as his model picks.

*Romney said corporations are people.  Literally, Biden will point out, he said that.

*The unconstitutional mandate was a conservative idea (undermining GOP's accusations of radicalism levied at Obama to the audience of moderates)

*Republicans did zero about healthcare when they ran Washington.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Surely Kennedy or Roberts, not Stevens, as the deciding vote in issue 3?

isn't Stevens retired?!