BIGGER TUESDAY - March 27

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 27, 2012

I think after hearing Anthony Kennedy, the "swing" voter, we can safely assume that Obamacare as we knew it is over.

KRAM1 · March 27, 2012

Quite possible as Kennedy is definitely the swing vote here, but "it ain't over until it's over"...and even if the Court rules against the mandates...which Constitutionally they should in my opinion...the whole Obamacare legislation needs to be repealed ASAP! Travesty of a piece of legislation.....

Keeping my fingers crossed regarding how the Supreme Court will rule, but i am not at all ready to "call the vote" at this point....do hope, however, that you are 100% correct!

Harry · March 27, 2012

The bottomline from today's proceedings: Clement flat outperformed Verrelli. In sports terminology it was a blowout by the end of the 1st quarter.

KRAM1 · March 27, 2012

The bottomline from today's proceedings: Clement flat outperformed Verrelli. In sports terminology it was a blowout by the end of the 1st quarter.

Indeed...a rock star performance by Clement today...near the end even a couple of the "liberal ladies" on the bench were actually trying to help Verrelli out with his argument as he was doing such a poor job. You had the "liberal ladies" trying hard to find a way to support Obamacare as Verrelli was doing such a poor poor job! Amazing, but then again...who picked him for the job?

Wow....great stuff if you are into this sort of thing...I am hoping day three goes as well for Clement.

UNT90 · March 27, 2012

The bottomline from today's proceedings: Clement flat outperformed Verrelli. In sports terminology it was a blowout by the end of the 1st quarter.

Much like football, it comes down to the talent on the field (or, in this case, the constitutionality of the subject matter at hand).

Kinda sad that we are viewing this as a sort of sport, isn't it?

Coffee and TV · March 27, 2012

Kennedy is known for playing devil's advocate and asking tough questions. I wouldn't put too much stock into his actions today.

yyz28 · March 27, 2012

It is going to be 5-4 either way. My gut tells me that the individual mandate will be struck down, and of late the SCOTUS has been easier to read, but Coffee is dead on here - you can't read too much into today.

it'll be interesting to see what happens.

FirefightnRick · March 28, 2012

In listening to the audio of today's arguement's I keep thinking there is going to be this "ah hah!" kind of moment that clearly explains the government's stance on this thing. Instead, Solicitor General Verilli seems to travel in circles about the "Anticipatory participation" argument to explain why there is an active market for health care, but not for food or anything else, and Kennedy and Scalia bring the irrational of his points to light. And even as it is expected that they are in full bore support of the government's stance on this issue, and will no doubt find against the lawsuit, it seemed odd to even hear Ginsbergh and Breyer have to clarify Verilli's points for him when questioning him?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

Rick

Edited March 28, 2012 by FirefightnRick

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 28, 2012

The problem for Verrelli is that he's being asked to defend a concept at a Federal level using a State case as its basis.

It's basically a prayer shot, like a half court shot at the end of a game, this piece of legislation. Kennedy is thought to be the weakest link. Though its difficult for to see even him expanding the Commerce Clause into, basically, infinity.

As Verrelli was forced to say, from the government's standpoint, once you are born you are in a marketplace. Which, of course, is absurd, but he has to argue it nonetheless. Stupid and brazen, but par for the course with anyone appointed by Obama.

Dear Mr. Verrelli, having been a part of either a health plan or being able to pay cash out of pocket on my own, I've never been a burden on the "health care system." Such a give up argument by the government: because you are born, the Commerce Clause says we can tell you how to spend your money and on what; and, if you don't you'll pay a tax penalty that isn't a tax. So dumb.

The problem with people like Barak Obama is that, in their minds, there really is no place for personal responsibility. If you work hard and earn your way, there is never any reward. You must accept a lower standard because there are lazy people out there who want what you have, but won't work for it with equal vigor.

As far as the liberal ladies, they are an embarrassment. Bader Ginsberg is really the only one who belongs up there. Sotomayor is clearly out of her league. And, Kagan...with virtually no courtroom experience as a attorney and zero as a judge, is just ridiculous.

So, of course, veteran civil litigators were running circles around them. How could they not?

FirefightnRick · March 28, 2012

The problem for Verrelli is that he's being asked to defend a concept at a Federal level using a State case as its basis.

It's basically a prayer shot, like a half court shot at the end of a game, this piece of legislation. Kennedy is thought to be the weakest link. Though its difficult for to see even him expanding the Commerce Clause into, basically, infinity.

As Verrelli was forced to say, from the government's standpoint, once you are born you are in a marketplace. Which, of course, is absurd, but he has to argue it nonetheless. Stupid and brazen, but par for the course with anyone appointed by Obama.

Dear Mr. Verrelli, having been a part of either a health plan or being able to pay cash out of pocket on my own, I've never been a burden on the "health care system." Such a give up argument by the government: because you are born, the Commerce Clause says we can tell you how to spend your money and on what; and, if you don't you'll pay a tax penalty that isn't a tax. So dumb.

The problem with people like Barak Obama is that, in their minds, there really is no place for personal responsibility. If you work hard and earn your way, there is never any reward. You must accept a lower standard because there are lazy people out there who want what you have, but won't work for it with equal vigor.

As far as the liberal ladies, they are an embarrassment. Bader Ginsberg is really the only one who belongs up there. Sotomayor is clearly out of her league. And, Kagan...with virtually no courtroom experience as a attorney and zero as a judge, is just ridiculous.

So, of course, veteran civil litigators were running circles around them. How could they not?

Agree.

If the individual mandate were to be upheld, could the rational the government is using be used to invalidate/illegalize abortion? After all, if your pregnant, your now in the childcare market, which is a HUGE market, which abortion stands to destroy the massive commerce it produces every day? Boy the crap would hit the fan there, wouldn't it?

Rick

Edited March 28, 2012 by FirefightnRick

KRAM1 · March 28, 2012

This is really great stuff listening to the court proceedings. One day to go, and then we'll all have to wait until probably June for the decision to be announced. It is obvious to most that the three of the most liberal judges have already made up their minds to support the mandates and Obamacare. No surprise these as there is not much surprise that our more conservative judges seem to favor striking down the mandates. But, it will be a close vote in the end, and as is usually the case Kennedy could (will) be the swing vote. Tough to read him at this point, but he seems to be asking some questions that point to him leaning toward striking the mandates. But...and it is a very big "BUT"...anyone who thinks they can read the case and KNOWS which way it will go at this point is simply guessing! Yes, it appears that Verilli is getting his rear end handed to him, and, has indeed need support from the liberal ladies on the bench to even explain himself at times...but his position is a challenging one at best from a Constitutional standpoint and his arguments clearly reflect that point.

One day left...which ever way it goes it will have major repercussions for this great nation of ours going forward. Truly a historic decision coming regarding the power of the federal government to "compel" its citizens to act in a certain way. If the mandates are upheld, you can bet your rear that in his final four years (should Obama be re-elected) his administration will unleash a torrent of new mandates and regulations as he works hard to increase the power of the federal government over its citizens. If the mandates are stricken, it will be historic to see what happens to the rest of the Obamacare legislation and how the nation moves forward in this health care debate.

WOW...interesting and historic times these.

Coffee and TV · March 28, 2012

The problem with people like Barak Obama is that, in their minds, there really is no place for personal responsibility. If you work hard and earn your way, there is never any reward. You must accept a lower standard because there are lazy people out there who want what you have, but won't work for it with equal vigor.

That's funny. Instead of making the taxpayer foot the bill for someone's emergency room visit because they have no insurance, the mandate actually puts the responsibility on the person to pay up through their insurance. You conservatives should be all over this.

FirefightnRick · March 28, 2012

That's funny. Instead of making the taxpayer foot the bill for someone's emergency room visit because they have no insurance, the mandate actually puts the responsibility on the person to pay up through their insurance. You conservatives should be all over this.

First off, the "Cost Shifting" part that was presented to congress was based on inaccurate numbers. Those with insurance are only paying about $80, or 2% of the cost of others, not $1000's, negating the argument that Obamacare was needed in the first place.

Secondly, I'd rather have everyone a tax payer first before everyone is insured. Since that is never going to happen within the entitlement society that the left(I include Bush) has created, I'd rather just pay that extra $80 than give the government infinite control over my life as is being debated today in the Supreme court.

Rick

Edited March 28, 2012 by FirefightnRick

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 28, 2012

That's funny. Instead of making the taxpayer foot the bill for someone's emergency room visit because they have no insurance, the mandate actually puts the responsibility on the person to pay up through their insurance. You conservatives should be all over this.

Except you skip the part that says we have subsidized them upfront by being forced to pay into the system. If I carry no insurance and can pay cash for my own medical treatment, why should I be forced by the government to buy into a plan...just to make it easier for someone else to buy insurance?

No way.

This bill, nor any other that will ever pass in the history of this country or any, will solve the problem of some people not working as hard as others, yet wanting what the harder workers have. There is an ingrained jealousy in the lazy and unproductive of those who work, create, produce.

Nothing will ever be enough. No tax rate less than 100% will ever do. Insurance plans that gave more benefits to those who could pay more upset the lazy. Nothing will do except to drag by legislation the productive down to the level of the unproductive.

And, that is what this bill does. If I can afford to pay without carrying insurance, too bad. If I can afford to buy a better health insurance policy than most, too bad. Because 20% of the American population finds an excuse to not buy insurance, the government will try to force me to buy into a one-size fits all deal, or they will have the IRS collect a "non-tax penalty" from me.

As I said yesterday, supporters of the bill should simply admit that what they want is socialism. That's all this bill is.

Edited March 28, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

Coffee and TV · March 28, 2012

Except you skip the part that says we have subsidized them upfront by being forced to pay into the system.

If you have insurance, you're already doing this if you're healthy. Anyone that shares your health insurance plan is essentially subsidizing the very sick that are on that plan. This bill only seeks to make sure everyone is covered so more people can share that.

If I carry no insurance and can pay cash for my own medical treatment, why should I be forced by the government to buy into a plan...just to make it easier for someone else to buy insurance?

So its unconstitutional because it doesn't allow millionaires the right to not buy insurance? Boo hoo.

This bill, nor any other that will ever pass in the history of this country or any, will solve the problem of some people not working as hard as others, yet wanting what the harder workers have. There is an ingrained jealousy in the lazy and unproductive of those who work, create, produce.

Nothing will ever be enough. No tax rate less than 100% will ever do. Insurance plans that gave more benefits to those who could pay more upset the lazy. Nothing will do except to drag by legislation the productive down to the level of the unproductive.

And, that is what this bill does. If I can afford to pay without carrying insurance, too bad. If I can afford to buy a better health insurance policy than most, too bad. Because 20% of the American population finds an excuse to not buy insurance, the government will try to force me to buy into a one-size fits all deal, or they will have the IRS collect a "non-tax penalty" from me.

As I said yesterday, supporters of the bill should simply admit that what they want is socialism. That's all this bill is.

Take your angry 1960's re-hashed talking points elsewhere.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 28, 2012

You don't have to be a millionaire to be able to pay for your own health care. You just have to be willing to do it.

Yes, it takes planning and budgeting and stuff that means you'll have to work and use your brain and be thrifty, but it is done by people who are not millionaires.

Although, it is fully recognized that for people who aren't bright enough to pull it off, it's easy just to say "oh, only millionaires can do that." It's an acutely familiar give up line of the lazy and the politicians who strive to keep them lazy.

There's nothing conservative about making one class of people subsidize another class of people. That's socialism and communism. And, that's what this bill is.

Coffee and TV · March 28, 2012

You don't have to be a millionaire to be able to pay for your own health care. You just have to be willing to do it.

Yes, it takes planning and budgeting and stuff that means you'll have to work and use your brain and be thrifty, but it is done by people who are not millionaires.

Although, it is fully recognized that for people who aren't bright enough to pull it off, it's easy just to say "oh, only millionaires can do that." It's an acutely familiar give up line of the lazy and the politicians who strive to keep them lazy.

Right. The average person's salary can cover cancer, heart surgery, or falling off the roof and becoming paralyzed. Yeah. Normal people can afford that without insurance. That's why illness is the number one cause of bankruptcy in America, because we're just lazy and not thrifty.

There's nothing conservative about making one class of people subsidize another class of people.

Of course not. Modern conservatives pretty much live under the motto "f you, got mine".

That's socialism and communism. And, that's what this bill is.

Let me ask you this then: Is a country like Canada either of those things?

Edited March 28, 2012 by Coffee and TV

The Fake Lonnie Finch · March 28, 2012

Not everyone has cancer, heart surgery, or falls off a roof and becomes paralyzed.

I think the motto is: "Get a job and take care of your own business like an adult."

Yes. I would consider Canada socialist. Easily. Without question, Canada is socialist. And, when they can, their citizens come down here for medical care so they don't have to wait for their socialized medicine in Canada.

Coffee and TV · March 28, 2012

Not everyone has cancer, heart surgery, or falls off a roof and becomes paralyzed.

But the average person does. Everyone has a body. Pretty much everyone gets sick, and of course everyone dies. Without the mandate, what if your average Joe who makes $40k chooses not to have it, and then has a heart attack? Are you going to refuse him service at the nearest hospital? Are you going to have the taxpayer pick up the bill?

I think the motto is: "Get a job and take care of your own business like an adult."

Those without jobs and the poor people who do work are already on medicare. This is for everyone else who simply needs insurance to deal with illness, do try and keep up.

Yes. I would consider Canada socialist. Easily. Without question, Canada is socialist.

Wrong answer. So, at least everyone knows where you stand.

And, when they can, their citizens come down here for medical care so they don't have to wait for their socialized medicine in Canada.

A few do, but Canadians overwhelmingly support their health care system. I even heard some disgusted that the family of the snowboarder who died was having to bear the brunt of the very expensive treatment she received in the US.

UNT90 · March 28, 2012

Not everyone has cancer, heart surgery, or falls off a roof and becomes paralyzed.

I think the motto is: "Get a job and take care of your own business like an adult."

Yes. I would consider Canada socialist. Easily. Without question, Canada is socialist. And, when they can, their citizens come down here for medical care so they don't have to wait for their socialized medicine in Canada.

Yep, My best friend from high school lives in Canada. He has back problems and initially like the free health care for maintenance. When the problems got worse, he used his own money to travel back to the U.S. (dual citizenship) and pay for his back procedure so he wouldn't have to wait 6 months for surgery.

Now, he puts aside a certain amount of his salary for his families medical care (HSA anyone?). Oh, they use the socialized health care system (which is exactly what Canadians, well, western Canadians, anyway, call it) for maintenance or minor illnesses, but any major conditions or any type of surgery, they load up and head for the states.

And, if you talk to working class western Canadians, every single one of them gripes about having to pay over half their salary in taxes (after income, sales, gas, etc...).

You should hear them complain about the free ride the government gives the native population.

Edited March 28, 2012 by UNT90

FirefightnRick · March 28, 2012

By the way, just so you can place real people(Mean Green posters who many here know personally) as examples of those mentioned in specialized situations of our health care system who you can ask next fall at the tailgating events about how great our system is compared to where it's headed if the mandate isnt struck down,

SUMG buys his own healthcare insurance, and he's not a millionaire. And PKC 90, 9 days after finding out he had an agressive form of brain cancer, met with three different surgeons to devise a plan of action, picked the one best for him and was under the knife and has been cancer free for three years now.

Within a month after his surgery, one of the moms in our kid's music school was asking me about his situation because her sister, a resident in Alberta Canada, had been diagnosed with a tumor in the same area, but was having to wait 4 weeks to meet with one surgeon about her possible plan of action. I felt so terrible for her that I have never brought it back up to ask how it turned out for her sister.

Rick

FirefightnRick · March 28, 2012

A question being asked, could this whole thing be a plan to intentionally get it to court, then get it thrown out only to pave a way for a single payer system?

Rick

Edited March 28, 2012 by FirefightnRick

CMJ · March 28, 2012

My take is more like this....

(Granted, only from having read summaries and thoughts of other people)

The justices spent most of the day trying to find a way to strike down the mandate but keep most of the rest of the law (about which the constitutionality is less in doubt), then realized how integral it was to the thing, and threw up their hands in frustration. I think it's gonna stand, 5-4, with the four liberal justices upholding it on the Commerce Clause and Kennedy coming up with some reason of their own to uphold it (possibly because he sees the tax penalty as a legitimate lack of coercion).

Edited March 28, 2012 by CMJ

UNTFan23 · March 29, 2012

My take is more like this....

(Granted, only from having read summaries and thoughts of other people)

The justices spent most of the day trying to find a way to strike down the mandate but keep most of the rest of the law (about which the constitutionality is less in doubt), then realized how integral it was to the thing, and threw up their hands in frustration. I think it's gonna stand, 5-4, with the four liberal justices upholding it on the Commerce Clause and Kennedy coming up with some reason of their own to uphold it (possibly because he sees the tax penalty as a legitimate lack of coercion).

Yes there are some parts that can't be sustained without the mandate but to say the entire law can't stand on its own without the mandate is wrong.

As brought up, if the law were allowed to stand, what would limit the federal government from mandating its citizens to buy other products/services in the future?

CMJ · March 29, 2012

Yes there are some parts that can't be sustained without the mandate but to say the entire law can't stand on its own without the mandate is wrong.

As brought up, if the law were allowed to stand, what would limit the federal government from mandating its citizens to buy other products/services in the future?

I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just prognosticating.