Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind; 17th Miss Regt; Alamo-Girl; Antoninus; Art in Idaho; arthurus; balls; bboop; ...
>>So, what would be the final state of Obamacare if the SCOTUS refuses to take it up?

My understanding is that Judge Vinson originally gave the strongest smack-down of ObamaCare, by ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional AND the law was not 'severable' so the entire law had to be struck down.

The 11th Circuit decision said Vinson was only HALF RIGHT. The individual mandate was still unconstitutional, but the huge power grab of one-sixth of the US economy by the federal government could remain intact.

IMO, Obama still wins if SCOTUS lets the 11th Circuit ruling remain as-is, because more than anything Obama wants his federal power-grab to stay in place. He will demand more taxes 'on the rich' to replace the lost funding. He might even prefer that, in order to shield 'his voters' from paying their fair share of health care costs. He could even sound like a hero, trying to 'balance the budget'.
Plus, he could at the same time, use the IRS and other agencies to punish and harass those who won't comply.

Also, Obama does not seem to care much if he trashes our national debt; He could default on that if/when necessary.

Ultimate power is Obama's greater goal.

89 posted on 09/28/2011 1:39:34 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


ObamaCare granted SO MANY NEW HIDDEN POWERS to the various cabinet 'secretaries' (who all report to the president), that we will essentially have a dictatorship at that point.
90 posted on 09/28/2011 1:48:11 AM PDT by Future Useless Eater (Chicago politics = corrupted capitalism = takeover by COMMUNity-ISM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater
I think we need to know WHY the SCOTUS refused cert (if the ABC report is right).

I think Mariner @57 is correct. The FULL 11th Circuit has not ruled on it -- only a 3-judge panel. It is STILL destined to go to SCOTUS if the FULL 11th Circuit rules ObamaCare fully or partially constitutional.

The main thrust of the article is that Obama & Co. are afraid that if the full 11th has to hear it, then it won't be argued to SCOTUS until after the 2012 election. Then, if Obama loses re-election; the next Administration will be the one to defend ObamaCare before the Supremes. A Republican Admin could make an intentionally weak defense, thus (possibly) ensuring that SCOTUS will rule AGAINST ObamaCare; OR, the next Admin could follow Obama precedent and simply refuse to defend the law at all.

I think that what they're thinking is what you wrote -- i.e., that if they got SCOTUS to rule NOW, everything BUT the "Individual Mandate" might be ruled Constitutional. From their perspective, that's better than nothing. If the FULL 11th hears it, that would double the chances that the entire thing could be found UNconstitutional.

Obama & Co. might also think that if ONLY the "Individual Mandate" is tossed out, they might have the opportunity to hide the "Individual Mandate" inside another otherwise nondescript bill, and rush it through Congress before the 2012 elections, and have the "Mandate" take effect immediately. By the time anyone figures it out, and it gets to SCOTUS (again), would take years ... years of FULL implementation of ObamaCare, and possible changes on the Supreme Court before it's heard again.

98 posted on 09/28/2011 6:03:50 AM PDT by PENANCE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater

I think that the key thing that 0bama wants is a collapse of private health care (employer and individual market). This creates the vacuum needed for a single payer system.
If we want to promote free market medical care we must create the conditions for it to take root and thrive.
1. Prevent the federal government from establishing rules and regulations for the practice of medicine and health insurance. This task must be reserved for the states. Therefore, we must oppose insurance sales across state line so that we can prevent the federal government from having the authority to establish all the rules. This prevents IPAB over-reach into private plans, electronic record mandates, and coverage mandates that increase costs and reduce access.
2. States need to have regulation regarding insurance, but they need to refrain from too many coverage mandates. This increases choice and competition.
3. Better insurance disclosure laws are needed for consumers. Menu pricing required for hospitals and providers. Health savings accounts, tax deduction for individual medical plans.


100 posted on 09/28/2011 6:16:13 AM PDT by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater

Obama”care” was robo-signed by Congress, and is therefore illegal.

Obama”care” reduces competition, and therefore is illegal by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law.

Obama”care” also is illegal according to the US Constitution.

Will THE NINE SUPREMES notice any of these three violations? I seriously doubt it.


102 posted on 09/28/2011 7:38:09 AM PDT by Graewoulf ( obama"care" violates the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND is illegal by the U.S. Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater

Thank you for sharing your insights!


104 posted on 09/28/2011 7:45:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater
Obama still wins if SCOTUS lets the 11th Circuit ruling remain as-is, ........Also, Obama does not seem to care much if he trashes our national debt; He could default on that if/when necessary.

I agree.

105 posted on 09/28/2011 7:47:51 AM PDT by dragonblustar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater
The 11th Circuit decision said Vinson was only HALF RIGHT. The individual mandate was still unconstitutional, but the huge power grab of one-sixth of the US economy by the federal government could remain intact.

It's surprising how few recognize how damaging the decision of the 3 judge panel was. What they did was sever the rest of the law from the mandate. In effect what will happen in fairly short order will the bankruptcy of private insurance. At that point we will end up with single payer govt run health care.

The reason this is the logical end is people don't understand secondary consequences so they love things like "no pre-existing conditions". It sounds great, but why buy insurance until your sick if the company can not turn you down and hospitals have to treat you no matter what.

As long as the mandate is severed obama can't lose. The question will be whether the SCOTUS sides with the 3 judge panel, or the original judge that threw out the entire law. If it's the latter we will probably lose the war because it will be impossible to repeal the non-budget parts do to a Senate filibuster.

108 posted on 09/28/2011 8:29:12 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater
The 11th Circuit decision said Vinson was only HALF RIGHT. The individual mandate was still unconstitutional, but the huge power grab of one-sixth of the US economy by the federal government could remain intact.

It's surprising how few recognize how damaging the decision of the 3 judge panel was. What they did was sever the rest of the law from the mandate. In effect what will happen in fairly short order will the bankruptcy of private insurance. At that point we will end up with single payer govt run health care.

The reason this is the logical end is people don't understand secondary consequences so they love things like "no pre-existing conditions". It sounds great, but why buy insurance until your sick if the company can not turn you down and hospitals have to treat you no matter what.

As long as the mandate is severed obama can't lose. The question will be whether the SCOTUS sides with the 3 judge panel, or the original judge that threw out the entire law. If it's the latter we will probably lose the war because it will be impossible to repeal the non-budget parts do to a Senate filibuster.

109 posted on 09/28/2011 8:30:36 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater
IMO, Obama still wins if SCOTUS lets the 11th Circuit ruling remain as-is...

Agreed.

113 posted on 09/28/2011 3:02:36 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

To: Future Useless Eater

Debasing currency is the goal of countries all over the world. Obama will win. He can spend as much as he wants on whatever he wants with executive orders and secret Fed bank accounts. In the end he’ll give the poor saps 100% healthcare coverage without a premium. Just like our country does with food, shelter, cell phones and walking money. He’ll come through with his promises of jobs for everyone when we’re all making shoes and Happy Meal toys for the Chinese. And we’ll eat peas for every meal.


115 posted on 09/29/2011 3:17:02 PM PDT by ExxonPatrolUs (Gov The People, Buy The People, Bore The People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson