While I don’t see how the Court deciding to leave the law in place would rally the Democratic base, there is a very good chance it could rally the Republican base.

That’s what you get when you don’t get buy-in from the people, and let corporations control everything instead. If “the people” were invested in the thing, it would be different.

I think that one if not all of the 3 letter agencies already know the decision and so does O and I am sure a few other politicians too. Why SCOTUS is dragging it out till next week beats me, guess they love the drama

In his book, Scalia has had a change of heart and now see’s the elimination of the Interstate Commerce Clause as appropriate for any judicial activism. If so, this doesn’t pose a problem for any “principled” Democrat.

Today, many national pundits are asking the proverbial question of: “What is the Plan B for Democrats?”

As such, “open access” to Medicare, the VA and Indian Health Services, solves Scalia’s newly arrived outlook. Therefore, the Interstate Commerce Clause has no application and prohibition for “open access” and which should make even the conservative Democrats exceedingly happy, should “principle” still reign supreme.

Jaango

Suppose the whole package is found unconstitutional and Romney wins the election and he performs as expected.

What is now the prospect for a Democrat campaign in 2016 for a single payer system, like Obama should have fought for in the git-go?

I think one of the serious mistakes (and there are others) was allowing this to run to 2014 before the major part is implemented that allows subsidies. That provides an awful lot of time for buyer’s remorse. And there is a lot of that running around.

Good point. I think you mean that Scalia thinks narrowing the commerce clause is appropriate for judicial activism. Because no court can totally eliminate it. Something like that happened in the Northern Securities Co. case in 1904 when the Court applied the Sherman antitrust act to the formation of a holding company, something it had ruled in 1895 as beyond the reach of the commerce clause.

Still, I don’t see this Court hanging its hat on the Commerce Clause. The swing vote is going to be Kennedy and it’s whether it infringes on people’s liberty of contract. There would be a certain symmetry with this because “liberty of contract” arose in the context of the purchase of insurance, something which the Court long held (until 1944) was inherently NOT interstate commerce.

I somewhat disagree with Jon in that I think a win for Obama in this case would play out politically much better than he thinks, because if smart (a big if of course), the Obama campaign could educate he voters about the pluses in this law and also remind people that it’s not in place yet, the benefits are yet to be realized and the work is really not done. Obama is in a better place trying to sell people with his accomplishments rather than trying to convince them it’s someone else’s fault.

I actually think if the Supreme Court just overturns the mandate Democrats will be put in a hugely awkward situation- namely that the big insurance companies will probably force them to revoke guarantied coverage and potentially other parts of the law that are popular. Nothing will kill enthusiasm for voting for Democrats faster than watching them demonstrate how corrupt they have become and who’s interests they really represent.

For the sake of all us non traditional leftists, I hope the Supreme Court rules against it, all of it! The republicans have messaged the Obama Care plan to death, and the dims have put corporate backing over America and its citizens.

If it is struck down, then insurance industry will not be guaranteed millions of enrolled, and the pharma industry will not be gifted with certain dedicated pharma-atics. We tried to tell them, but Rahm told us all to sit down and shut up. Obama Administration did not want to hear from us or our plight against the Cat Food Commission.

That just goes how that the White House’s “Don’t Want HCA To Be An Election Year Issue” excuse doesn’t tread water. I’m convinced that Obama and DNC deliberately made the law so repugnant and fugly by selling out to Big Pharma and lacing it with a roadmap of options and a timetable for SCOTUS and the GOP to have a field day dismantling that when it does blow up in their faces, the DNC will simply play the “We Tried But The Bad Ol’ Republicans/Professional Left” card to filch undue and unwarranted sympathy from the center-fetishists …

If that is their strategy, they must have gone to “duh university”.

You’re assuming they’ll like it when they see it.

I don’t know if that is true. If you’re young, healthy, making 35’000 a year and have to shell out 3’500 for lousy insurance with high deductibles, insurance that you don’t feel you need, that might not endear the law all that much to you. I don’t think many people in that income bracket have that kind of money just lying around…

But they should have front-loaded the Medicaid expansion. A nice and very needed safety net, a nice stimulus to the economy. What’s not to like there?

The funniest/most tragic part of the story is that they back-loaded most of the measures *just* to keep the numbers nice and round. Less than a trillion over 10 years.

*facepalm*

Anyone have any ideas why someone who knows far more benefits HAVE kicked in then costs would write: “… (Democrats) defending a law that is not popular and whose benefits really haven’t kicked in yet….”

I hope it blows up in Obama’s face. While I despise this Court(but remember Dems helped put Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas on the bench), Obama needs his ass kicked for this cynical, pro-corporate, Heritage Foundation piece of shit legislation. He shut out single-payer, Medicare for all and any other healthcare group that even whiffed of universal healthcare advocacy. Screw Obama.

Striking the mandate while leaving in place coverage to age 26, no denial for pre-existing conditions & the rest will actually result in an improved law and take away significant profts from the health insurance industry. This in turn may lead to some form of government plan to emove the bad risks from thier pool of insured.

How Obama (or Romney) fares politically is really of little interest to me anymore.

Lots of variables in this equation. I think event the PTB are divided.

You’re right more often than not.

Very few people can claim that.

Ahhhm I don’t know. Using the word “strategy” in the same sentence as “Democratic party” might be a stretch. I heard rumors that they have a “Ouija Board” and “Magic 8 Ball” in the director’s office. And NOT as decorations.

You nailed it. The bill’s sponsors went out of their way to front-load the goodies, like coverage of dependents to the age of 26 and assurance of coverage for children’s pre-existing conditions. So in what sense are Democrats left “defending a law that is not popular and whose benefits really haven’t kicked in yet”? What they did was front-load the benefits and back-load the costs, partly in order to distort the accounting. And yet even that didn’t win the PR battle. What are these benefits that are supposed to kick in later, anyway? Does anyone really believe this bill could “bend the cost curve down”?

The Obama administration has already said that if the mandate alone is struck down they will move to end the rest of the law. (As that was what the health insurance companies paid them to get passed, not the rest of of the bill.)

“Sliding-scale premium credits will be available to people with incomes up to 400 percent of poverty who purchase health plans through the exchanges. The credits will be tied to the silver plan and will cap premium contributions for individuals and families to about 3 percent of income at just over 133 percent of poverty ($14,404 for a single adult or $29,327 for a family of four) and gradually increase to 9.5 percent at 300 percent to 400 percent of poverty ($43,320 for a single person and $88,200 for a family of four) (Exhibit 1).

In addition, cost-sharing credits and lower annual out-of-pocket limits will limit cost-sharing for low- and middle-income individuals and families. Credits will limit cost-sharing such that the costs covered by the silver plan (70 percent of costs covered) will increase to 94 percent for those with incomes up to 150 percent of poverty, 87 percent up to 200 percent of poverty, and 73 percent up to 250 percent of poverty (Exhibit 1). In addition, out-of-pocket expenses will be capped for families earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of poverty from $1,983 for individuals and $3,967 for families up to $3,967 for individuals and $7,933 for families.”

Found the above here. Also check out exhibit 1.

I would go with the ouija board.

Yup. I was going by that outline of the program. I.e. someone at 300% of poverty.

Here’s the link to the fed poverty levels.

I tend to agree with Jon. This looks like a lose-lose for the dems. But there will be lots of spinning either way. What do you suppose the Rs will propose in its place?

@Bluedot12

Yup. 33’510 annual gross income = 300% of poverty level.

So we agree I’m right.

Great. ;0)

Why would anyone care that any of the three outcomes helps the Democrats and Obama in November? Isn’t it about time we jettisoned partisanship and cared about whether or not the outcome will be the 99% or not? Partisanship, especially in this day and age, is a neurological disorder.

Striking the mandate while leaving in place coverage to age 26, no denial for pre-existing conditions & the rest will actually result in an improved law and take away significant profts from the health insurance industry.

(bolding added)

That’s exactly why I’ll be surprised if this pro-corporate court rules that way.

Katherine

The only serious mistake was Obama’s betrayal of the 99% when he didn’t fight tooth and nail for single payer. If he’d tried to keep the campaign promises he made that would actually benefit Main Street, instead of being a corporate puppet, he’d be re-elected in a landslide, no matter how much money his opponents could raise.

They will propose:

1. Anyone can buy any policy in the country. Think race to the bottom junk insurance that is beyond the laws of each state to enforce denying care.

2.Malpractice reform. Cap awards at a very low figure and starve the Democratic leaning trail lawyers as an added bonus.

3.Shift as much of the cost of insurance to individuals from employers. Well, the benefits to the Republicans are very obvious with that. More campaign contributions (bribes) for them.

I disagree with the idea that arguing against a politicized Republican Court and the failure of Republicans to have even the foggiest idea of how to replace the law is a loser argument. Americans are heavily concerned about health costs and want something better than ACA. Calling the Republican bluff would work (though first you’d have to tie the Court’s ideology with Congressional Republicans–though that shouldn’t be very hard).

This was a lose-lose the day Obama did a deal with the heathcare industrial complex and went with the mandate he campaigned against. Much of Obama’s supposed base doesn’t like it (could be why they voted for him in the primaries) and the Republicans will fight against it tooth and nail even it they individually like it or benefit from it.

Slightly OT but,

Medicare for All? What’s would SCOTUS do? Rule against it and blow up Medicare and programs like it (such as SS)?

Me too. I think they’ll uphold the law, though I’m in the minority.

I don’t think Obama ever campaigned in 08 for single payer, but please correct me if I’m wrong. If single payer had ever been put on the negotiating table in 2010 we would still be debating it. The Blue Dog Dems would have never bought into it. It’s going to take a whole world of hurt and tens of thousands of healthcare insurance and hospital horror stories before the DC pols finally get around to single payer. This will have to be a bottom up proposition. All the GOP has are insurance exchanges, health vouchers and tort reform, all of which are absolutely useless in improving an unsustainable system.
Until there is a serious debate on whether healthcare is a right or just enough profit driven service commodity we will continue to spin our wheels and worry about SC decisions. The current debate in DC is one big f***ing joke.

Unfortunately I agree. It’s a turd sandwich law that will go 5-4 in favor.
It will only delay the necessary single payer system, while the ACA will prove to be a temporary band aid. The Right can bitch all they want about single payer, that “we can’t afford it”, but most of us know that this is a rich country with at least 3 trillion being sat on by the 1%. We just need someone like Teddy Roosevelt who has the balls to take it away from them by galvanizing the public against the “malefactors of great wealth.”

Yes, except a family of four would pay $900 or so at that income I think.

One sleeper comes to mind. Medicaid will expand in 2014 to cover 20.8m people and that is free up to 133% of poverty level. That article suggests that today the parents may not be covered.

I also wonder about people making higher incomes. Many of those are already covered by their employer’s plan. The people this will greatly help are those making up to 133% of poverty level and perhaps the next level up.

Not my health plan but you gotta know someone benefits from it.

you are probabably right.

That sort of scenario would be worse than the ACA.

I must be missing something. What does insurance have to do with health care? Is medicare constitutional? Why don’t we just all have that? It’s health care. That’s what we want, isn’t it? Isn’t medicare just us taking care of each other instead of paying some third party a lot of money to do it? And then not? Insurance? Why are the two things talked about together like they go together or something? They’re as different as ducks and snails. The Dems can clean this up real easily. No back up plan? Medicare for all. Even someone as dumb as me can see that. Oh. And no more wars. They cost us more to patch up the boys and girls than smoking, which is frowned upon in public. So no public wars either then.

That’s their current platform for what they will do to bring down costs of health care.

Poor tea bags buy the line they are going to “get government out of health care” if the repugs get to legislate and occupy the White House.

This is a measure of how sad and crippled the Democratic party has become: a stillborn law that addresses a problem in name only and is a political disaster. There will however be an upside for the progressive movement outside of party politics.

Medicare for All? What’s would SCOTUS do? Rule against it and blow up Medicare and programs like it (such as SS)?

During oral arguments, four justices (Scalia, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Sotomayor) acknowledged Congress’s Tax power to administer social insurance programs like Medicare. Even the anti-Obamacare side conceded the point!

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So the — I — I want to understand the choices you’re saying Congress has. Congress can tax everybody and set up a public healthcare system.
MR. CARVIN: Yes.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That would be okay.
MR. CARVIN: Yes. Tax power is -
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Okay.
MR. CARVIN: I would accept that.

I’d just point out to the Obamabots, using the Tax power to expand Medicare to cover everyone would’ve made it a revenue bill… and that means it could’ve been passed by a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill. Obama needed 60 votes for his corporate welfare bill, but he’d only need 50 votes (plus Biden’s tiebreaking vote) if he’d gone the Medicare for All route.
This whole administration has just been one big unforced error.

Consider yourself corrected because you are wrong in. re. single payer and Obama. Don’t make excuses for the “most powerful man in the world”. Obama sold us out to the Health Insurance Industry, in.re. health care, before he even took office. I actually paid attention to his lies before not voting for him. By the way, lose the partisanship in favor of haves vs. the have- nots, it’s nothing more than a distraction.

The Health Insurance Industry is the profit center that stands in the way of health care for all. Hope that clears it up for you.

This is why for-profit health care can never deliver quality, low-cost care. What it gives to CEOs it take from members’ care.

From Wiki: From 1989 until 2006, McGuire received compensation from UnitedHealth in the form of stock options that eventually became worth around $1.6 billion. However, in the course of the litigations that followed his departure from the company, McGuire was temporarily enjoined from exercising the options. The injunction was later released in late 2008.

This whole administration has just been one big unforced error.

Yes, indeed.

This site:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/

may elucidate Obummer’s views on Single Payer. He was clearly for it at the start of his career, then started adding qualifiers when elected to office.

I know that Hanlon’s Razor tells us to never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. However, D.C. Democrats’ handling of health care legislation has been so blindingly stupid, short-sighted, and plain illogical that it goes beyond mere incompetence.

I’m not trying to make excuses, just wanting to correct the record.
Don’t get me started on the Health Insurance industry because you are preaching to the choir. They are only half the problem. Big pharma and care providers jack up their prices because they can – just too many “friends” in DC to do their bidding. The whole system is corrupted.

As I have posted before,the law will be upheld by a 6-3 vote with CJ Roberts writing the opinion.I realize that the loony left wich seems to dominate this site reallly hates the law and wants single payer,as do I,but single payer is politicaly impossible at this time. We will have single payer in 15-20 years but not now.

Loony left? I suggest you hop in the car and head for the nearest Home Depot, because the brush you’re using is much too broad. You might also want to grab a bucket of paint to replace the tar you’re flinging about.

Is it politically impossible bc the Rs control congress or something more, in your view?

Wow! What a lame excuse. Are you a bought and paid for (s)elected government representative or a shill for the duopoly? Attitudes like yours are what gates in the way of progress. Wouldn’t you be more comfortable at the ExcusesRUs site?

Partisanship, especially in this day and age, is a neurological disorder.

Don’t forget to include bipartisanship in your Physician’s Desk Reference, too.

After breathing the vapors why am I suddenly seeing visions of SCOTUS punting? They’re “not ready yet.” Trust me in this!

Maybe they’ve known that for quite awhile, but delayed saying so to give the impression they’re actually trying. They can’t actually say they’re out of time until they actually are, no?

Time will run out gracefully, and we’ll hear, “see ya next session!”

I think you are onto something.

The Supreme Court is caught between a rock and a hard place. Manly because they don’t want to shatter the illusion that “conservatives” are for “freedom” when in actuality they are only for corporate power.

So, if they say gee, sessions over, the battle will be fought out at the voting booth and there’s a good chance the Republicans will sweep the House, the Senate and the White House and the corporate whores on the Supreme Court are left with their robes intact.