Discussion: Obamacare SCOTUS Case Puts John Roberts Legacy On The Line Again

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #230559

2

I think “crushing” the ACA would be the worst thing the right could do to themselves. For one thing, the ACA was created by the Heritage foundation, so it’s not exactly a liberal idea. Also, It would guarantee a massive turnout of progressives in 2016 and it’s going to be a bad enough year for them to begin with.

17 Likes
3

Can anyone link me a copy of the Republican’s health care plan they plan to use if the ACA is overturned? Surely they have a plan besides “No!,” don’t they?

18 Likes
4

I think there’s a very good chance they’ll kill the law. And Roberts, in his majority opinion, will snidely note that Congress could pass a simple technical fix bill to change the outcome of the ruling.

9 Likes
5

I do love the rich irony of a court that has been known to change its written opinions ex post facto (looking at you, Fat Tony) deciding this issue of a missing word or letter.

11 Likes
6

I agree. However, I think they’ll punt this time not because they’re afraid of the Great Progressive Turnout (which may or may not happen). I think the health insurance industry is getting very comfortable with having all these new enrollees in the various plans. That’s money that they normally wouldn’t be getting. If the ACA goes away, we go right back to square one. Contrary to what some progressives think, the alternative to the ACA isn’t single payer.

It’s nothing. Again.

21 Likes
7

Although I’m glad they won’t give their “decision” until June, thereby making the ACA a valuable help to more and more people, there is no question in my mind that every Justice knows exactly how they will decide as of this very minute.

And they won’t care about repercussions…the GOP really doesn’t mind cutting off its nose to spite it’s face because they still get elected statewide and also to Congress. As long as they can convince their selfish base that THEY are paying for the health care of lazy good-for-nothings they are safe.

Testimony? Schmestimony. It is decided. The fix is in. So much for the charade of a “Supreme” Court.

11 Likes
8

What is in this story that wasn’t reported weeks ago when the SC agreed to hear the case?

8 Likes
9

The thing you have to understand about Roberts is that he’s a Corporatist first and a Conservative second. As such, there is no way in hell that he’ll rule in favor of the plaintiffs, because to do so would crush the for-profit insurance corporations that have become addicted to ObamaCare’s corporate welfare. It would lead to the destruction of the entire health insurance industry in this country (and not just for “those people” in the “moocher class”, but for everybody) and lead to the one thing Conservatives dread more than an Ebola-infected, gay-marrying, French wine-drinking, illegal alien ISIS terrorist hiding under their bed: Single Payer. Here’s hoping Conservatives get exactly what they wish for…

9 Likes
10

Splitting hairs like this opens the door to other re-examinations. For example, the Second Amendment only protects the right to bear “arms”, not “firearms”.

18 Likes
11

Knew it was a Sahil story even before I felt the presence of pearls being clutched.

7 Likes
12

…and only within the confines of an “organized militia,” but if you think the Supreme Court is going to entertain that idea you probably are smoking the good stuff. Lol

3 Likes
13

“Protective of the Supreme Courts Reputation”. As what, unfeeling assholes?

7 Likes
14

teen: “guarantee a massive turnout of progressives in 2016”

Don’t bet the farm on that one.

5 Likes
15

Well goody! Then we can have the Republican “alternative.” Yes, they have an alternative to replace ‘Obamacare’ and it has never changed at all:

(1) Poor people don’t deserve healthcare and should die if they can’t afford it. It’s what Republican Jesus would want.
(2) Rich people deserve all the healthcare they can afford.
(3) If Gawwd’ had intended for everyone to have healthcare HE would have created more doctors.
(4) NO taxes whatsoever for wealthy people.

7 Likes
16

Here in TPM just a couple weeks ago we read that there would be work-arounds if the SCOTUS ruled against O Care.

If that item was correct, how does it get “crushed”?

2 Likes
17

It’s a Sahil Kapur story—ergo, it is poorly researched, poorly written, and factually shaky.

6 Likes
18

I would hope the SCOTUS would realize that ordinary Americans should be able to have affordable health care and health insurance. While the ACA has faults it’s way better than doing not one goddam thing which is what the GOP wants so insurance companies can make obscene profits.
I’m a cancer survivor. Without the ACA there would be no way I could afford insurance (even if a company world write a policy) let alone pay the medical bills.
Thank God I’m now old enough for Medicare.

9 Likes
19

I predict they will gut the law. These guys are essentially corrupt - they may not be taking paper bags of money, but between the speeches, junkets, friend favors, etc they are truly in the pocket of powerful interests that want this law dead.

Plus I think on some level Roberts truly believes in an plutocracy over common good, and part of that is made possible by weakness and neediness in “lower classes” In his view, society is better off a long line of desperate workers that are ready to take the place of the sick ones, and if you can’t afford health care that is truly a problem of the individual, not the nation. And a big body blow to Obama’s reputation, legacy and general mental well being is a plus to these guys.

So unfortunately with this puppet of corrupt plutocrats running the show, I feel we can kiss the ACA in its current form goodbye.

2 Likes
20

Their plan is to give you a $50 tax credit if you have a preacher pray for you when you’re sick! :wink:

4 Likes