|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 4, 2012 11:44:19 GMT -5
Three more weeks on the clock for the Supreme Court's decision. The passage of time points to a brokered 5-4 split in my opinion (and a Kennedy opinion). Then again, it might just take this long to produce an opinion on this case.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 4, 2012 12:43:47 GMT -5
I think the administration already knows the decision.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 4, 2012 13:33:24 GMT -5
Three more weeks on the clock for the Supreme Court's decision. The passage of time points to a brokered 5-4 split in my opinion (and a Kennedy opinion). Then again, it might just take this long to produce an opinion on this case. Confused. Are they taking any longer than was originally indicated?? I thought it was pretty much conventional wisdom, if not overtly and explicitly stated, that a decision should be expected sometime in June. I'm certainly no SCOTUS expert though, so I don't know if this is considered a particularly long time for them. I'm sure some here know a lot more than I with respect to that. Either way, probably a good thing they're taking a few months. People tend to get upset when they issue decisions quickly. (cough--BushvGore -- cough)
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 4, 2012 13:54:12 GMT -5
Well, there is never really any official guidance on when a merits decision is to come, but my sense has always been that "noncontroversial" cases clear earlier than the 5-4 kinds of things, unless some other timing issue presents itself. I think if you look at the 5-4 cases, you'd find that it often takes some time to produce an opinion. With Obamacare, the timing is crunched because it was heard fairly late in the spring.
Since the Obamacare argument, there has been one case both argued and decided (with the vote breakdown): Radlax Gateway Hotel (8-0), Argued on 4/23, Decided on 5/29.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 4, 2012 14:21:15 GMT -5
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2012 18:16:34 GMT -5
In what has become a loud echo chamber, the NY Times put out this morning one of the better pieces on the health care reform decision that I have seen in a while - www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/business/how-broccoli-became-a-symbol-in-the-health-care-debate.html?_r=1. To me, this broccoli focus presents a critical question that has not been a focus of the debate - what exactly is being regulated or mandated here and what is the proper emphasis for Commerce Clause purposes (and, more importantly, what is the standard for determining what exactly the focus is for Commerce Clause analysis). The broccoli focus is interesting in light of other Commerce Clause "food" cases - like ones where it was held within the Commerce Clause to regulate local restaurants where their aggregate activity had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And, oh yes, Congress could force such restaurants to sell to particular customers (when no market existed there before because of segregation). More interesting though is why opponents of the law focus so keenly on something so specific like broccoli. Could it be that something like supermarkets can be regulated or that the failure to buy food can be penalized in certain circumstances? What confuses me is how broccoli is more analogous to a healthcare insurance exchange than a supermarket or farmer's market is. I'm also confused as to how the law requires you to select from more limited options than exist in the market generally for you under the HCR law. Surely, the more narrowly you describe any commercial item, the more likely it would be taken out of an interstate commerce discussion. As it happens, we might get a lot of broccoli from Mexico, so no problem, but to describe a product like your local ice cream store or local bakery seems to beg the question - when there clearly are at least regional markets for same (your Breyer's, for example), and no responsible economist would argue otherwise. So, if the Court is going to turn HCR into broccoli, perhaps it would do well to tell us why it is broccoli and not ice cream. Anyway, food for thought...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 14, 2012 19:00:25 GMT -5
To semi-quote a former POTUS: I hate broccoli. My mother made me eat broccoli but now I am the President of the United States and I don't have to eat broccoli.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2012 19:19:36 GMT -5
To semi-quote a former POTUS: I hate broccoli. My mother made me eat broccoli but now I am the President of the United States and I don't have to eat broccoli. That this argument has been widely accepted is no small feat of politics. Indeed, such "forcing" is no stranger to those who seek to pig out at the expense of many a taxpayer. That we may be forced to marry (under penalty of not receiving a marital deduction), buy certain homesteads, buy those hippie cars that run on vegetable oil, or the like is certainly no less oppressive and intrusive. Were one to ask what would happen if H.W. shunned food generally, you might have a different answer, but I think most appreciate the consequences (or value) of not extending the argument that far.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 14, 2012 20:36:20 GMT -5
To semi-quote a former POTUS: I hate broccoli. My mother made me eat broccoli but now I am the President of the United States and I don't have to eat broccoli. That this argument has been widely accepted is no small feat of politics. Indeed, such "forcing" is no stranger to those who seek to pig out at the expense of many a taxpayer. That we may be forced to marry (under penalty of not receiving a marital deduction), buy certain homesteads, buy those hippie cars that run on vegetable oil, or the like is certainly no less oppressive and intrusive. Were one to ask what would happen if H.W. shunned food generally, you might have a different answer, but I think most appreciate the consequences (or value) of not extending the argument that far. Forced to marry? Who's forced to marry?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 14, 2012 20:41:54 GMT -5
Exactly right - but if you don't marry, you pay more in taxes. You aren't forced to do it any more than you are forced to buy health insurance under the health care reform law.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 15, 2012 8:29:46 GMT -5
Ambassador, sometimes I'm not sure what the heck you are saying and I don't think it's senility.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 15, 2012 8:37:30 GMT -5
Ambassador, sometimes I'm not sure what the heck you are saying and I don't think it's senility. Do you have a counterargument or mere ad hominems? Already, we have some sense for who has been right on this bill - unseen have been the so-called death panels that were once thought realistic. The mandate issue is no small one, but repeal of Obamacare and any extension of this broccoli argument has deep consequences for our government's ability to incentivize economic activity.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 15, 2012 8:52:30 GMT -5
Exactly right - but if you don't marry, you pay more in taxes. You aren't forced to do it any more than you are forced to buy health insurance under the health care reform law. I'm with Ed. What the hell are you talking about? lic and his bananas make more sense than you and your broccoli.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 15, 2012 9:08:58 GMT -5
If Jersey is making the point that the government should not be involved in the marriage business whatsoever, then for the first time in I think...ever, he and I are in total agreement.
Except I don't really think that's what he's aiming at. (Unless his Hoyatalk account has been hacked by jgalt.)
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 15, 2012 9:22:26 GMT -5
I think he's saying that the effect of the health care law's "penalty" can be looked at the same as not getting married is a "penalty."
That is, if you get married, you qualify for additional tax credits. If you have health insurance, you qualify for additional tax credits (i.e. not paying the penalty).
Nobody forces you to get married even though you'd then pay less taxes. Nobody forces you to get health insurance, even though you'd then pay less taxes.
Not saying I agree or disagree with the logic, but as a constitutional matter I can see the court ruling either way in this line of reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 15, 2012 9:39:09 GMT -5
I think he's saying that the effect of the health care law's "penalty" can be looked at the same as not getting married is a "penalty." That is, if you get married, you qualify for additional tax credits. If you have health insurance, you qualify for additional tax credits (i.e. not paying the penalty). Nobody forces you to get married even though you'd then pay less taxes. Nobody forces you to get health insurance, even though you'd then pay less taxes. Not saying I agree or disagree with the logic, but as a constitutional matter I can see the court ruling either way in this line of reasoning. Bingo, and I could see the Court going either way on it too, but I'm not sure that the proconservative position on this has been fully vetted in terms of its ramifications. Sure, you won't be "forced" to buy health insurance, whatever that means in this context, but what then can the government do and not do under the Commerce Clause? Whatever it can do now, but it cannot compel compliance with other regulations? We'll know it when we see it? I just have a sense about this law? As far as I've been able to tell, government regulations generally require you to undertake some economic activity as a practical matter - you have to buy different hormones for your cows, a new valve for some smokestack, or whatever it is. Indeed, there may not be much of a choice in certain circumstances - you might get shut down or have to pay a penalty, etc. I don't recall much of a rush to the courts as to the constitutionality of these (or at least a serious one). Now, we can debate whether this is wise as a matter of policy, but that's what we have Congress for.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 18, 2012 16:40:28 GMT -5
I think the administration already knows the decision. The walls of secrecy in the Supreme Court are well-known, and any leaks would be career suicide for the people involved. Calls to the litigants are placed after decisions are announced. I suspect the Administration reads tea leaves as much as the next person. That being said, the current Court seems struck by all-too-frequent public appearances, writings, and the like that inevitably touch on matters before the Court. The weekend brought two more instances - revelations in an advanced copy of Justice Scalia's book (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-scalias-new-book-hints-of-health-ruling.html) that are on point to the HCR case and naturally speak to his approach and its shortcomings. The other are comments made by Justice Ginsburg at a public gathering that speak to where the justices are in their current term. Eariier in the term, we had revelations about meetings between some justices and special interests sponsored by Koch Industries. Doubtful that anything improper occurred, but I doubt it helps someone like Justice Scalia become a more talented jurist. I may be in the minority given the times, but what's wrong with having nine justices whose sole professional contact with the public is through whatever is produced and heard at 1 First Street?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,562
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 22, 2013 9:57:02 GMT -5
Obamacare not working so well for the Ohio Clinic touted by the President as an example of how it could succeed. Just goes to show that if all you do is insurance reform (which is most of what this bill does) and expect the rest to magically fall in line, you've not solved the problem at all. "Putting the patient first" and altruism only goes so far when those people/organizations providing the care can't afford to keep the lights on or pay the benefits for those doing the work. If the Cleveland Clinic can't make it work, imagine how easy this will be for the majority of providers of health care in America who work in small to medium-sized groups....
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 22, 2013 18:14:18 GMT -5
Obamacare is doing precisely what it was designed to do: destroy the private health insurance system and then collapse under its own weight, leaving no alternative but the Single payer system its architects favored all along.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Sept 22, 2013 20:42:16 GMT -5
Obamacare is doing precisely what it was designed to do: destroy the private health insurance system and then collapse under its own weight, leaving no alternative but the Single payer system its architects favored all along. Gotta start somewhere if you want to destroy america...
|
|