Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
Sun Mar 25, 2012, 02:20 PM Mar 2012

Supreme Court poised to strike down PPACA [View all]

After Bush v. Gore, no one can suggest that the Supreme Court is an impartial, apolitical body. That case had everything that the literature on the Court would suggest would lead to the case not being heard, except for one thing: the Court cared a great deal that a Democrat not occupy the White House.

And so we go through a farce this week, with the Supreme Court hearing arguments about the PPACA. They will strike down the whole thing, not matter what is said. We've spent most of my lifetime dealing with this issue politically, and yet, here, when we find a political solution has been arrived at, the Supreme Court is set to strike down the whole thing and return to the status quo ante.

I had heard a supporter of the PPACA on the radio this week asked about portability, about how it would be that a provider in one state would be able to get paid by an insurer in another. His answer was that he didn't know, but that "I'm sure they thought of that." Folks, no one ought to make this argument either. The PPACA has no severability provision in it. Imagine that. How can that be? That's lawmaking 101: this is a big, important piece of legislation, one sure to go before the Cort at some point, and yet the severability clause was somehow left out in reconciling the House and Senate bills. We're supposed to buy that? Here it is, the most important health care legislation this country has ever seen, and severability was left out "by mistake?"

It's enough to make one paranoid. It's as though the whole thing has been a delay so that insurance companies can continue to ratchet up premiums and copays so that they can make ever more money. Its as if the same folks who made sure that the most important provisions wouldn't take effect until 2014 also knew that the court would strike it down before then, and so omitted a severability clause.

After the Supreme Court strikes down the PPACA, we need to make this a campaign issue. We have tried working with insurers, to the point of passing, under Democratic control, a proposal first outlined by the Heritage Foundation in 1989. If an insurance-run health care scheme is unconstitutional, then it's time for Medicare for all.

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Actually, ProSense Mar 2012 #1
Thanks, Pro. elleng Mar 2012 #3
That is just wishful thinking and everyone here is clutching to it as fact joeglow3 Mar 2012 #29
It is the studied opinion of 2 experts, elleng Mar 2012 #30
I hope you're right Alcibiades Mar 2012 #4
Try understanding how they approach making decisions, elleng Mar 2012 #2
I understand quite well Alcibiades Mar 2012 #5
I'm an attorney, elleng Mar 2012 #7
Students of judicial politics Alcibiades Mar 2012 #18
Who are the 6 votes to uphold? Owlet Mar 2012 #6
Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy, Scalia. elleng Mar 2012 #8
I think you're right jehop61 Mar 2012 #9
And he upheld an important principle here, elleng Mar 2012 #10
I'm certainy no constitutional scholar Owlet Mar 2012 #11
Underlying assumption doesn't work, elleng Mar 2012 #12
Wouldn't Roberts be likely to side with the majority to protect "his"court from claims of excessive Rowdyboy Mar 2012 #13
Possible; was listing mandatory and likely minimum. elleng Mar 2012 #14
So, after hearing the oral arguments Alcibiades Mar 2012 #22
'AFTER hearing the oral arguments?' elleng Mar 2012 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author Alcibiades Mar 2012 #24
The oral arguments on the individual mandate Alcibiades Mar 2012 #25
Yes, and it takes a while to listen to them, doesn't it? elleng Mar 2012 #26
Here's an exerpt: Alcibiades Mar 2012 #28
It was written by the insurance companies and intended to fail. JDPriestly Mar 2012 #15
The mandate was a planned bonanza for the one percent, woo me with science Mar 2012 #16
Why would they strike it down when it saved Big Insurance who were about to go bankrupt? sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #17
Because Rmoney says it's unconstitutional Alcibiades Mar 2012 #19
I disagree. It's laughable for Romney to trash a bill that is so similar to the one he sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #20
What they want is for the Republicans to win Alcibiades Mar 2012 #21
Medicare For All kenny blankenship Mar 2012 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Supreme Court poised to s...