Discussion: Study: 9.6 Million People Would Lose Insurance If SCOTUS Guts O-Care

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #231793

2

SCOTUS will kick it back to congress for needless “clarification.” In exchange for the obvious language repair, the GOP Congress/Senate will want goodies:
medical device tax is gone
employer mandate is gone
80/20 is gone
more death panels
etc…
All fixed! Yay OBAMACARE has been replaced with Bohner-Care!

2 Likes
3

I admit to having a bit of a ghoulish interest in what decision comes down on this case. The matter before them is so incredibly small and mundane, and trivial to fix, that I have a hard time seeing them breaking precedent and taking the case before the lower court held its en banc ruling.

And if they are looking to expand beyond the matters in the case, that indicates a bit of a rebellion against Roberts is going on, since he already had the clearest and best opportunity to kill it and chose not to.

2 Likes
4

I have a hard time seeing them breaking precedent and taking the case before the lower court held its en banc ruling.

But they did take it, correct? so there will be a SCOTUS ruling of some sort, won’t there?

2 Likes
5

Yes they did. My point is they they did it in a very eyebrow raising method. And given that they could have just let the lower Court give its en banc ruling, which in all likelihood would have ended the suit once and for all, there is obviously an interest in doing something…and most likely something expansive and well beyond the limited issue raised in the case.

2 Likes
6

Hmmmm…SCOTUS-CARE?

1 Like
7

The biggest reason I can see why the SCOTUS might dispense with the subsidies is that they KNOW that it will force people off of the coverage they now have under the ACA plans, coupled with the fact that it will start an actuarial ‘death spiral’ which will kill the rest of the law off.

One wonders how long it might be before other legislation passed prior to the 2010 elections will end up being brought before them. The law that created the CFPB, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Dodd-Frank (especially if it can’t be legislatively dealt with). I feel it’s only a matter of time, if only due to the conservative members of the SCOTUS wanting to erase any of the good that this President has done, all so the wealthy continue to benefit at the rest of the nation’s expense.

2 Likes
8

Not exactly a big deal to people who think those 9.6M are subhumans who don’t deserve to be insured in the first place.

4 Likes
9

All of which I think Obama can safely threaten to veto while saying “bullshit…this is a semantic drafting error that can be fixed without any bargaining whatsoever and I’m not going to play any fucking games over it. Period. Get it done or explain to 10M people why you played selfish agenda games and caused them to lose their insurance.”

4 Likes
10

Faux Noise, the GOTP, Glenn Beck, Rush Limpbag, Dick Lickerson and Wasilla Kardashian will refer to it as 9.6M people being liberated from the clutches of socialism

5 Likes
11

First you assuming that the 5 conservatives SC judges actually care about 9+ million people who getting healthcare. All you have to do is look at what they’re trying to do in the new senate & House of 2015 (& that incl. the Dems.).

12

Haha! True enough. You spelled it wrong though…I believe it’s “soshulizm.” lol

1 Like
13

If Scalia & Co knew that a decision against the ACA would put the health, say, of 3 or 6 or 10 million children in jeopardy, they would not give a shit.
Perfect example of ideology driving action and damn the consequences in human suffering.
The head of Cambodian torture and genocide was a PhD.

4 Likes
14

The truly evil people of history tend to be very intelligent.

Dumb brutes can only go so far.

3 Likes
15

That generally has been their strategy. I do not see the GOP congress doing anything though. Not until there is any sort of backlash. Even then, maybe not.

1 Like
16

Uhh, that’s a non-starter for sure.

Kick it back so it knocks 40 Million off health insurance.

Now we’re talking!

1 Like
17

The SCOTUS frustrated Roosevelt by striking down numerous New Deal programs. But Social Security is still here. Why? because it was The right thing to do. Medicare and Medicaid are still here too. Now the Republicans act like they invented them in spite of the fact that they pretty much fought them every step of the way. I think Obamacare will end up much the same way. Roberts is a movement conservative, but he is also vain and has to be looking at the legacy of the Roberts Court. I’m pretty sure that’s why he ruled the way he did the first time around. He will probably find some work-around like allowing the states to “opt out” of the Federal Exchange if they do not wish to designate it as having been “established by the state.” What sane politician at the local level is going to want to do that if it means throwing thousands of constituents off of their newly acquired insurance policies? It would be a classic Solomon splitting the baby move by Roberts.

1 Like
18

That sounds reasonable, although, I for one could care less, those states elected republicans, let them drown in them. The rest of the law ain’t goin’ nowhwere, there’s enough people here in California alone to prevent the “death spiral” the republicans can’t shut up about.

19

Just takes four votes to grant cert. Whether there were actually four or whether there were five is the real, critical question.

1 Like
20

I would cheer the President if/when it came to that…BUT…

Few citizens would get the context of Obama’s veto (the dumb fux) and it would be played by the MSM as Obama refusing to cooperate with congress thus ending their health coverage. Your average Jane or Joe has no idea what’s going on except that whatever it is, it’s Obama’s fault!

I swear to friggin’ God that Boehner, McConnell et. al. could murder someone on national television and successfully pin it on Obama.

Elizabeth Warren is shouting FIRE in a crowded theater because there really is a fire but the audience is only interested in seeing the end of the movie!

LD

3 Likes