If Obamacare mandate unconst, how do Supremes decide whether to strike the rest?

[Little-Acorn]

I hope they strike the whole thing down. But I have been wondering something. If the Supremes first decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, they then have to decide whether to let the rest of Obamacare stand, or to strike down all of Obamacare.

I've heard three different explanations so far, all different:

1.) If the bill contains language saying "If part of this law is struck down, the rest still stays in effect", then the Supremes might strike down only the mandate and let the rest stand. (Note: Obamacare does NOT contain that language. That's why Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court, struck down the entire thing after finding the mandate unconstitutional)

2.) The Supremes don't so much look for that language. Instead, they try to figure out the following: Would Congress have written the rest of the bill as is, without the mandate, if they had been told that the mandate was definitely not allowable? Or would the absence of a mandate have made Congress write it substantially differently, or possibly not write it at all?

3.) The Supremes would try to decide: Would this bill work without the mandate, about the same as it would work with the mandate?

I understand that when the bill was being written, the Obama lawyers wanted to include that language about leaving the rest in place if part of the law were struck down. But the insurance companies balked - they didn't want to be stuck with paying for millions of people who were sick a LOT, if healthy people didn't have to pay in too. So the language was eventually taken out.

Anybody know what line of inquiry the Supreme Court justices might follow, if at first they decide the mandate must go?

[Lulu]

Any reason why you are constantly compelled to initiate about 5-10 separate threads on the same topic rather than adding to the thread you just started? Just wondering.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Passion can overwhelm good sense.

[Freedom&Liberty]

You're certainly proof of that.

[DngrMse]

Any reason why you are constantly compelled to initiate about 5-10 separate threads on the same topic rather than adding to the thread you just started? Just wondering.

If you don't like it, don't respond, Mrs. Grundy.

[DngrMse]

I hope they strike the whole thing down. But I have been wondering something. If the Supremes first decide that the mandate is unconstitutional, they then have to decide whether to let the rest of Obamacare stand, or to strike down all of Obamacare.

I've heard three different explanations so far, all different:

1.) If the bill contains language saying "If part of this law is struck down, the rest still stays in effect", then the Supremes might strike down only the mandate and let the rest stand. (Note: Obamacare does NOT contain that language. That's why Judge Roger Vinson of the District Court, struck down the entire thing after finding the mandate unconstitutional)

2.) The Supremes don't so much look for that language. Instead, they try to figure out the following: Would Congress have written the rest of the bill as is, without the mandate, if they had been told that the mandate was definitely not allowable? Or would the absence of a mandate have made Congress write it substantially differently, or possibly not write it at all?

3.) The Supremes would try to decide: Would this bill work without the mandate, about the same as it would work with the mandate?

I understand that when the bill was being written, the Obama lawyers wanted to include that language about leaving the rest in place if part of the law were struck down. But the insurance companies balked - they didn't want to be stuck with paying for millions of people who were sick a LOT, if healthy people didn't have to pay in too. So the language was eventually taken out.

Anybody know what line of inquiry the Supreme Court justices might follow, if at first they decide the mandate must go?

The SC can't assume that the lack of a severability clause was an oversight, and rule on the law by simply inventing additional language they believed Congress would have added. It's not there, and from what I know...or suspect, they're not going to dig through 2700 pages of that monstrosity determining the constitutionality of each sentence and paragraph. The mandate is a huge part of it, removing it fundamentally alters the law in ways that Congress did NOT intend. I think it's going to be tossed in it's entirety.

My biggest fear is that they punt....dump the Mandate, and leave the rest of the law standing, which is going to fuck this economy in way's Obismal The Socialist could only dream of.

[garyd]

If you blow up the Mandate, the primary funding mechanism - supposedly - for this monstrosity the rest of it collapses of it's own dead weight. By the way for whatever it's worth the Obama administration is on record as saying that you can't have one without the other.

[DngrMse]

If you blow up the Mandate, the primary funding mechanism - supposedly - for this monstrosity the rest of it collapses of it's own dead weight. By the way for whatever it's worth the Obama administration is on record as saying that you can't have one without the other.

Then Congress will get a chance to fix it....without reading it for the second time.

Instead of approaching this reform the right way, Obama and his lefty pals rammed it through with little more than lobbyist input. Nancy Pelosi admitted she hadn't even read it, while demanding that it be passed immediately. Obama's legacy.

[Little-Acorn]

If you blow up the Mandate, the primary funding mechanism - supposedly - for this monstrosity the rest of it collapses of it's own dead weight.

That was my point.

The problem is, if/when it collapses under its own weight, it will take the entire medical-insurance industry with it, causing huge harm to the country for years until we have a chance to clear out the wreckage.

That's why I hope the Supremes strike the whole thing down, instead of striking down only a part and letting the rest bleed to death.

[Little-Acorn]

That was my point.

The problem is, if/when it collapses under its own weight, it will take the entire medical-insurance industry with it, causing huge harm to the country for years until we have a chance to clear out the wreckage.

That's why I hope the Supremes strike the whole thing down, instead of striking down only a part and letting the rest bleed to death.

BTW, if/when the Supremes strike down the whole thing, I hope they include extra language in their Opinion saying, "One of the reasons we are striking it all down, is because the Constitution give no authority to the Federal government to run medical insurance programs, or insurance programs of any kind that aren't part of explicitly permitted constitutional acivites such as taking care of soldiers wounded in military actions."

And then a year or two later, when somebody sues over a Social Security issue, the decision contains similar language pointing out that Social Security is NOT just a tax, is in fact an unconstitutional retirement-insurance program, and must be devolved to "the States or the People" as the 10th amendment requires.

But I'm probably wishing for far more than I'll get. The rest will probably have to wait.

[Freedom&Liberty]

I like the way you think, LA.

[garyd]

You almost certainly are. Seniors vote in overwhelming numbers. And most will be damned if they are going to pay into a retirement fund their entire lives and then get nothing out of it.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Supreme Court justices aren't elected.

[GanjaFreebird]

If Obamacare mandate unconst, how do Supremes decide whether to strike the rest?

No idea, but I'm sure President Obama enjoys listening their music!!:

[Little-Acorn]

You almost certainly are. Seniors vote in overwhelming numbers. And most will be damned if they are going to pay into a retirement fund their entire lives and then get nothing out of it.

Yep. That was designed exactly to be that way.

Democrats knew that, once people had paid out a lot of money (even if they were forced to), they would insist that the program stay around until they had a chance to get the money back... no matter how illegal and unconstitutional the program was.

Once you prime the pump, people will WANT to remain dependent on Government forever.

[86Dùde]

Good riddens Obamacare.

[Lulu]

I guess this thread is the one to post on now, not the previous one. If they start chipping away at all the hidden taxes in this mess, there's no money to fund it. They should have read the damn thing before implementing it but so typical of politicians.

Republicans in the U.S. House joined with 37 Democrats to pass a bill repealing a medical-device tax, chipping away at the 2010 health-care law in a victory for companies including Medtronic Inc. (MDT) and Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX)

The Republican-led House voted 270-146 yesterday to pass the repeal measure. The 2.3 percent excise tax on sales, estimated to raise $29 billion over the next decade, is due to take effect in 2013. It applies to devices such as hip implants and coronary stents that aren’t sold directly to consumers.

“Plain and simple, this tax hike is a job killer and it must be repealed,” said Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican who heads the House Ways and Means Committee.

The House bill is part of Republicans’ attempts to scale back or repeal the health-care law that passed without a single Republican vote. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on the law’s constitutionality.

In a statement, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the tax would stifle innovation.

“The ill-considered medical device tax is only one of many fatal flaws in Obamacare,” he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ealth-law.html

[garyd]

Romney is correct. One of the primary drivers of health care costs over the last few years is technology. Taxing medical technology will only increase the cost of health care.

[86Dùde]

Mr Fusion center is finally right about something but it doesn't matter. Once elected he'll spit in our faces and act like the subhuman, Mormon dog he is. Wars? Check. Big Government? Check.