The Supreme Court will consider Obamacare's constitutionality — and the outcome could bring 'total chaos'

Yahoo News ^ | March 2, 2020 | Adriana Belmonte

[mo]

its called a “free market” and in its proper functioning will drop healthcare costs by 70-80%-which is precisely the dread of the major insurers and “providers”

[vpintheak]

Roberts will screw America again. I have no confidence in him.

[A Navy Vet]

"Roberts will almost certainly be the deciding vote. Much depends on Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

Please, RBG not ruling against this? She, Roberts. Kagen, WiseLatina, and Breyer will fail again to uphold the intent of our FF's.

Imagine after 1787, the USSC declared all citizens must pay for all Fedgov sanctioned schools or face a penalty. The Fedgov wouldn't even have tried. Remember a certain revolution about tea and guns?

[Pollster1]

I pray that Roberts will do the right thing and vote with the law-abiding Justices to end Obamacare in its entirety. Among many other objections to that evil law, the enumerated powers should mean something.

[spudville]

“There could be essentially total chaos,” Cynthia Cox, director for the Program on the Affordable Care Act.

As opposed to violating the constitution? Let the market handle it. Make govt. stop dictating laws that destroy. Let insurance be sold across state lines. Democrats will fight it. My suggestion would be Republican run states join together and drive the cost down with true capitalist competition and let the Democrat states live in their “total chaos”

[ModelBreaker]

“Much depends on Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Interesting. Why do you say that?

[Gunslingr3]

The law was passed 10 years ago. Has the GOP constructed an alternative proposal?

Yes, and it will become law next year when we take back the house.

Do you have any links where I can read about it? Who are the sponsors?

[1Old Pro]

Yes in #26

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Why should the Democrats be doing anything?

When is that so-great-no-one-can-resist-it plan that Republicans have been promising for years going to come out?

[marktwain]

She may not be alive when this case comes before the court.

[Republican Wildcat]

“There could be essentially total chaos,” Cynthia Cox, director for the Program on the Affordable Care Act at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told Yahoo Finance. “There’s no replacement plan that is ready to go and so essentially what would happen next is possibly over a short period of time, or possibly immediately, we would start seeing the ACA being unwound. And the immediate effect would be that literally tens of millions of people could lose coverage and also even more people could have other changes to their coverage.”

The Court could recognize this and simply issue a stay on the ruling for 2 years to allow for the transition back to constitutionality or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be abrupt chaos if the law is struck down.

[Svartalfiar]

So Roberts would have to rule against himself? Doubt it.

To save it this time, yes. That's the whole point - his convoluted method of saving Obamacare was based on the individual penalty payment (the 'tax'). Now that it's been eliminated (set to '0'), his whole reasoning for saving it from last time is gone, therefore if he sticks to his old reasoning, he'll rule this time against Obamacare. He'd have to rule against his old self to save it this time.

[Svartalfiar]

It always come back to that ambiguous "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution Preamble that the dem/socs use to buy "gimmedat" votes. If only the Founding Fathers could have seen how that clause would be corrupted.

How could they? The Preamble doesn't grant any powers, nor restrict any rights. It is literally an explanation of the purposes of the following document, and maybe the philosophy behind it.

What:
To promote the general Welfare

How:
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
- To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
- To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
- Etc, etc, etc.

[Ohioan]

The "General Welfare" is the opposite of the particular welfare of a special interest group. To understand the once well understood context, look at the prohibition on the misuse of taxation in Article I, Section 9.

To put it simply, the Federal Government was not given the function of social engineering to level or take away the achievements of one group or individual for the benefit of another.

Constitutional Overview

[Svartalfiar]

To put it simply, the Federal Government was not given the function of social engineering to level or take away the achievements of one group or individual for the benefit of another.

Yup. And not just that, but they also didn't include an income tax. The FedGov ran off of tariffs and limited other income. Which, we really need a major budget/spending modification, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[Still Thinking]

Notice how it’s not chaos to enact a law everyone hates and almost every single effect of which is bad, but repealing it is? How stupid / ignorant / inattentive do you ‘think’ we are, Yahoo?

Reminds me of Thomas Sowell asking “If you’re putting out a fire, does anyone ask what you’re going to replace it with?”

[Brilliant]

They will find some excuse to uphold it.

[DoodleDawg]

The Court could recognize this and simply issue a stay on the ruling for 2 years to allow for the transition back to constitutionality or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be abrupt chaos if the law is struck down.

It doesn't work that way. If the Court strikes something down as unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional the moment they issue the ruling. It doesn't become unconstitutional two years down the road. The fallout, if you want to call it that, and dealing with it is the responsibility of the Executive and Legislative branches.

[Still Thinking]

I think he means whether or not RBG is still vertical when this comes before the court.