In case you have not yet heard, the Supreme Court is going to decide Obamacare.
From Fox News:
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.
The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance.
The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care.
The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.
The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.
Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product. Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.
According to the National Journal there are four specific areas that will be examined:
The individual mandate. The law's requirement that every individual purchase health insurance is at the heart of the many challenges to the law. The challengers contend that such a requirement is not permissible under the Constitution, because the commerce clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce should not able to compel individuals to purchase a product they do not want.
So far, two appellate courts have rejected this argument, ruling that the mandate is acceptable. One court has sided with the challengers, overturning the mandate.
Severability. When the law was passed, members of Congress said the mandate was essential to make other insurance reforms in the law work. If the justices strike down the mandate, they will have to decide whether that means the law can stand without it, or the whole law must fall.
The one court to overturn the mandate, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, found that the mandate cannot be separated from the rest of the law, and it ruled the whole law should be overturned.
Medicaid expansion: The health care law requires the states to expand eligibility for their Medicaid programs by offering coverage to anyone earning less than 133 percent of the federal poverty limit. Critics have said it is an unconstitutional imposition on the states.
Jurisdiction. Judges in two appellate courts have argued that the time is not right for the courts to even consider whether the law is constitutional. They have cited an 18th-century law that prevents individuals from challenging their taxes until after they've been assessed and paid.
Obama and his team might be secretly hoping that the Supremes take Obamacare down. That way, one of the hot button issues for the GOP is gone.
Of course, the liberals on the Supreme Court maybe looking at the idea of lack of jurisdiction as a way to keep Obamacare alive until it becomes law and then the theory is it will be so popular no one will want it abolished.
As with many other cases, the Supremes will be split 4-4 with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. Even though he was appointed by Reagan, that does not make me comfortable with the outcome.
The Supremes have set out five and a half hours for oral argument on this case.
The future of America rides on this case. If Obamacare is allowed to stand, it will do what socialized medicine has done everywhere. It will bankrupt the nation and destroy our healthcare system.
Make no mistake about this! This is not about Obamacare, which a high-schooler could determine is un-constitutional, but rather about whether our Supreme Court has become a socialistic tool of politics.
You are 100% correct!
And, we have already seen a case where the Supreme Court gave up following the Constitution and went "Activist" on us.
Remember the case of Kelo vs City of New London?
The case involved the taking of property, by the City of New London, from one private party and giving it to another private party, a shopping center developer who justified the action by stating that taxes from the development's stores would be beneficial to the City of New London.
Whereas Eminent Domain laws were intended to give power to government to take land for "public use" (roads, etc.), the Supreme Court agreed with the developer that the possibility of taxes to the city was a "public use".
Of course, the original owner could not take part in the profits from the development. He got screwed out of his investment in the land, and the developer gets all the profits. Is that the original intent of the Power of Eminent Domain? Of course not!
And, what if the whole development goes broke? Where is all that beautiful tax revenue then?
We have seen our lower courts going to hell in a handbasket.
The US Supreme Court is no better!
Private property is a cornerstone of a free country Sooner or later, someone is going to have to make a stand or knee down.
OK. You have to buy a new corvette every month for the rest of your life. Get the picture
No surprise there.
You don't need a law degree to know it's unconstitutional, just study the Founding Fathers and the Federalist papers. Also know the fact that they gave us a Constitutional Republic...not a socialist one, then use some common sense....the founders did not want or make an over powerful central government.
You have to also remember Obama made several on the Supreme court mad with I believe it was his first State of the Union address. That may come back to haunt Obama as well....
Here is another question. Is it moral to force someone to pay another's bills? Is that not theft to forcefully take property from someone?
Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is allow to regulate hospitals, regulate health care, doctors or really anything medical. It doesn't and any so called law that does is just theft and illegal.
There is a process to change the Constitution. It is called amending the Constitution and if anyone feel that others should pay their bills, then, they can make the theft legal by getting an amendment pass allowing such theft.
Cory if doctors would go back to taking and honoring the hippocratic oath they would not turn away anyone not matter what the could pay. You would not need a law saying they could not. You see there is already a law saying hospitals can not turn you away if you can not pay. By law they must. You are confusing health care with health insurance. The former is the service you get to make you well. The later is a means (a product) to help you pay. All insurances do is say we will pay you such and such to a health care provider for their client's procedure. While the insurance bills the client monthly premiums so they can negotiated the cost of the health care with the health care provider on behalf of their client. Therefore, in part it is the mere face we have health insurance that has contributed to the rising cost of health care. Many people prefer negotiating the cost of their own health care with the health care provider themselves. They cut out the middle man (insurance) that way. Obamacare is not about health care it is about health insurance. So, please stopping drinking the progressive cool-aid and spouting their lying talking points. I have seen people be turned away from hospitals but it was not due to them not being able to pay, it was because either they were a drug seeker or a there for the up-tenth time in that day or week with nothing wrong with them. The person turned away may say it is because they could not pay, but it was something else. Other times hospitals turn people away is because the insurance has reached it cap. Again that is not a health care issue, that is an insurance issues. Including, very few, I mean very few people will ever reach their "insurance cap".
They aren't allowed to do that now, by law.
Tell me what is wrong with States and local communities making those decisions, Corey? Medical care does not absolutely require federalization. It is already a local law in most states and communities that hospitals cannot turn away patients that cannot pay. In fact for years now, Southern California hospitals and physicians have made it their policy to provide medical services to illegal aliens for free and just pass along those costs to those patients who can pay, So, your question is a "straw man" argument. You know what that is, don't you? It's a favorite of Liberals.
Free care until the patient is "stabilized" has been a Federal law since 1986.
Google Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).