Will the Supreme Court uphold or overturn Heathcare

[CarsonPalmer]

This could be a vey dangerous election for the Republicans. If they go all in on attacking health care but Obama is re-elected, or even if the Democrats hold the Senate and the bill survives...what happens when the thing becomes effective and people's health care gets better, and the apocalypse doesn't come?

I've never bought the permanent Democratic or Republican majority bullshit, but there could be a backlash against the GOP similar to what happened when social security started working in the 1930's.

[Mr Bean]

This could be a vey dangerous election for the Republicans. If they go all in on attacking health care but Obama is re-elected, or even if the Democrats hold the Senate and the bill survives...what happens when the thing becomes effective and people's health care gets better, and the apocalypse doesn't come?

I've never bought the permanent Democratic or Republican majority bullshit, but there could be a backlash against the GOP similar to what happened when social security started working in the 1930's.

We Americans have very short attention spans. No one for example in the public remembers that after eight years of Republican policies of De-regulation the economy went tits up as every single business started taking insane risks and out and out gambling with investor money. Now three years later we did nothing to fix the problem but hand out large piles of cash to all those responsible and both parties intend to keep in control those who blew up the economy to begin with. The only difference is Obama will do nothing to fix the problem and Romney will De-regulate even more.

There's no such thing as a permanent anything since Americans just can' remember more than what happened about two years ago.

[Blayne]

I went and checked in with our Honorable resident Embittered Old Men and Nihilistic Synchophants and dug up this gem:

Legally, the big Federal stick over the states - ability to pull existing funding to make the states bend to their will - is gone. Kaput. Verboten. You may condition new money, but you cannot put new stings on existing money to force the states to do as you wish. With a 7-2 majority, the states now have carte blanche from the liberal wing to tell the Feds to shove it if the Feds do something they don't like. The Tenth Amendment reached up and just ripped the heart out of Big Government right there.

Truthfully speaking I didn't read past this to see if they ever corrected themselves, but I must say this is the first I have seen of this argument being made and hadn't seen it here or at SA, is this "golden trim on the flag=Military court" humbugery or is there anything at all to it? I know some states are hoping to go to the Nullification Route, are they related?

[TimothyC]

Truthfully speaking I didn't read past this to see if they ever corrected themselves, but I must say this is the first I have seen of this argument being made and hadn't seen it here or at SA, is this "golden trim on the flag=Military court" humbugery or is there anything at all to it? I know some states are hoping to go to the Nullification Route, are they related?

I'm not 100% sold on the total analysis, but the core of the statement - that the Feds can not condition existing money on new requirements* - is solid. It does mean that the Feds have to start issuing new funds to entice states to do what the feds want - they can't threaten to cut the states off. Predicting what the long term effects of this are is above my paygrade.

*This is how we got 21 as the drinking age nationally - the Feds tied highway funds to the states making that the drinking age.

As one final aside, I know the person who typed that - and while I have not finished reading the nearly 200 page decision, I'm certain that he has.

Edit: There is another argument to be made now - for some people it may actually be cheaper to avoid paying for insurance (and pay the tax) until they get sick. Once sick, they can buy insurance without being denied for a preexisting condition, and because insurance premiums and co-pays are going to be capped at a percentage of your income, pay it until you're better, then let it laps.

Yes, under the new law, for certain people, the economic benefit might be for them to cheat the system.

[Blayne]

So he's correct in his legal interpretation but wrong on his more colourful interpretation as to what it means for the future? I.e; sure the States can't get existing funding cut, but look at all of this money over here we would have given you? Ain't it a shame we have to burn it give it to china now? Am I reading this right?

As for cheating the system... well, I'm not complaining. American healthcare is so fundamentally and systematically broken with this being a temporary fix at best that I outright encourage it. The top income earners have a dissaproportionate ability to cheat the tax code as it is so why not poor people?

At least this way I can have my Accelerationism cake and eat it to, people get relief in the meantime and the system still breaks in a way that forces meanningful reform, but without anyone dying in the meantime.

[TimothyC]

So he's correct in his legal interpretation but wrong on his more colourful interpretation as to what it means for the future?

Correct on the first, wrong on the second.

I'll try to make it more clear for you.

The long term effects of the Medicare Ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius are above your (and as I said before, my) paygrade. The quote you posted here may be a correct analysis, and it may not be a correct analysis. We won't know until it happens.

At this point, the case does reinforce the trend post-Lopez that the Interstate Commerce Clause does have limits, and that the 10th Amendment does in fact say what it means.

Will this be the poison pill that some on the right think? Maybe, part of me strongly doubts it but again*, the question is above my paygrade, and there is a non-zero chance that the 'colorful interpretation' is correct.

*Such things seldom are what they look like. I do strongly think this is not the massive victory that some on the left seemed to think it was right off the bat.

[TimothyC]

Post Window Edit:

The Medicare ruling is also seen under Florida v. H.H.S.

[Simon_Jester]

The massive victory is, well, that Obamacare remains in place and people aren't going to die because of it not being in place.

If I wanted sweeping, glorious reform from the Supreme Court, I'd spend a lot more time ranting about Citizens United.