Puts more heat on me!
Posted on 08/12/2011 10:43:48 AM PDT by americanophile
Kewl.
Unless, God forbid, he should drop dead between now and then, leaving Obama with a key appointment
Or, for that matter, any of the conservative SCJs!
I think you’re one of the few who recognize how meager these court victories really are.
They don’t have to lift the whole body of liberty up and hack it apart limb by limb.
They just feed her skirt into the machine and let the gears do their work.
I don’t think that the “presumption of severability” will hold water at the SC level.
The law requires insurers to accept people with preexisting conditions...
Without the mandate... everyone would just cancel their insurance until they got sick or injured and THEN go get insurance to pay for their “preexisting” condition! Since no one will have paid them a dime before they got sick, the only way the insurance company could make money at that point would be to charge MORE than just paying in cash directly to the doctor. Likewise once people have healed they will promptly cancel their policy again until something else happens.
So you can see clearly that without the mandate the whole thing wont work, can't work, and will have to be repealed.
It's that simple, it doesn't matter if the court throws the whole thing out or not, in the end without the mandate Obamacare is dead.
using that logic, all restraunts should be required to give free food to the homeless, because the first homeless dude that drops dead outside a diner from hunger will be all over the news.
If you had read my posts you would know I am not in favor of the mandate.
But unfortunately you are correct, health care providers MUST provide care to patients irrespective of ability to pay. So the choice is some sort of mandated shared cost approach or deny this service.
You cannot have it both ways, make your choice.
sschu
They’re not going to stop implementing it, so this means nothing. :(:(:(:(:(
Of course. But the reality is we know what will happen, poor grandma is denied care by the rich hospitals, details at 10PM.
Until we have an adult conversation, we will be faced by this no win situation and like SS, we will be bankrupt.
Such is the culture we have created.
schu
The petty dictators who make up the Democratic Party won’t relent. It’s their way or the highway.
This is great news. Now the courts just need to strike down Social Security and Medicare as well. Let’s get rid of all these unconstitutional programs.
SS and Medicare are not products (ie insurance) that we are forced to buy they are taxes and the acts which implemented them state that they are taxes. There is nothing in the acts guaranteeing that we will get those funds back in any manner.
Not according to SCOTUS:
"i]n the absence of a severability clause, . . . Congress' silence is just that—silence—and does not raise a presumption against severability." New York v. United States, et al, 107 S.Ct., at 1481.
Not according to SCOTUS:
"i]n the absence of a severability clause, . . . Congress' silence is just that—silence—and does not raise a presumption against severability." New York v. United States, et al, 107 S.Ct., at 1481.
You’re right. However, in this law Congress wasn’t silent. They had a severability clause in the law but took it out before passing the law.
Congress acted affirmatively to remove the clause. In New York v United States the clause was never in the bill. Also, the administration has already argued that without the mandate the whole law is nonfunctional. They would have to argue that their earlier argument was false.
Now, one never knows how the Court will rule. They are under no obligation to be either consistent or rational. However, the fact that Congress specifically acted to remove the severability clause before passing the law is a strong argument that they intended for the law to stand or fall as a whole.
I am glad I an an Engineer where we speak the language of the Universe: mathematics. Its less open to “interpretation”.
They could rule this way as it is a general part of our government that persons in the judicial system are infallible as to the public, not necessarily to any higher court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.