Healthcare Reform Act Prediction Market

An anonymous reader writes "The Wisconsin School of Business is running a prediction market study on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Healthcare Reform Act. By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."

Comments

Sooo... basically, nothing.

[girlintraining]

By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."

So basically, participating gets me bragging rights. But who would I brag to? In any case, I think this study is a simple 'wisdom of the crowds' experiment and they should just come out and say it. "helping university students" is a poor reason to participate. Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Chris Burke]

Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?

Um... the Supreme Court? Guess correctly and you can take home your very own Justice!

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Hatta]

Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[rhook]

It would be a better deal if they let you fire an activist Justice.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[geekoid]

There is no such thing.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Chris Burke]

Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.

It was "Judicial Activism" when the court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to Teh Gays, and it'll be the same if they rule that the Commerce Clause can't be used to justify literally anything.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[mrmeval]

When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.

When a judge writes laws from the bench it's judicial activism.

You will usually hear cries of judicial activism when the supCt rules against someones sacred cow. The 14th is a good example. It freed everyone from some state tyranny not just them Negroes and boy does it still burn some.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[lightknight]

Hmm. How about an option-> fire 2 Justices, or add 1 of your own.

Should make it entertaining.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[lightknight]

Yeah, but look what they have gotten away with thus far. No way they'll ever actually roll back that Commerce Clause interpretation. It's the equivalent of asking them if they want to be political scapegoats for the rest of their lives.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[JesseMcDonald]

Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.

Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.

Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[cpu6502]

They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.

If James Madison (author) and the rest of them had intended the Congress to have power to regulate all commerce, then he would have written that in the document. But instead he specifically carved-out an exemption: commerce among the states. That means commerce inside the states is the purview of the People and their State legislature. Exclusively. (Which is why unpasteurized milk is legal inside the state border, but you can't ship it among other states... the Congress, via the FDA, outlawed it.)

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Qzukk]

They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.

And then they went and blew whatever gains they had made by declaring that pot grown in your own backyard for your own personal use is interstate commerce.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[cpu6502]

Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.

BTW I think the Supreme Court's questions about what ELSE Congress could mandate, like purchasing solar panels on roofs, or hybrid cars, or Bluray players (to support the music business & discourage piracy), and on and on..... indicate they are against the idea.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[NeutronCowboy]

In the US system, judges are guaranteed to write laws from the bench. That's how judicial precedent works. Either go to a common law based system (the French have that, so that means it's a commie-coward approach to writing law), or suck it up.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Garridan]

If it were an opinion poll, I'd cry foul over the options: 2 "against" and 1 "for", thus diluting (or, here on /., dilluting) the "against" stats.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[tomhath]

If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC

Nope. If the law should never have been passed in the first place the court should strike it down. Checks and balances, you can look it up.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Intrade internalizes the cost of being ideological. I'm not sure why this school of business didn't just go to intrade rather than create its own project.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually this may not be a bad option. The nine member make up of SCOTUS is not set in stone, nor even in the Constitution.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.", U.S. Constitution.
In other words the make up of the supreme Court and the U.S. Court system is at the pleasure of Congress.
Could be reduced to 7 members or increased to as many as Congress so decides.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.

What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act, despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.

Republicans will cheer for this, despite the fact that they looked the other way every other time the SCOTUS has used some weaselly "jurisprudence" excuse like whining about standing (because destroying the Constitution doesn't injure me one bit) or declaring an issue moot to avoid making a hard decision like "what to do about an american citizen held by the Bush administration without charge for two years" or "what to do when the Bush administration steals the evidence of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens after it has been presented to the court".

The saddest thing is that the entire law was the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The right answer to the wrong problem would have been repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay, then everyone will be lining up for insurance or dying in a ditch. The right problem is why the fuck I need insurance to not go bankrupt if I break my arm. And no, the answer to that one isn't tort reform (seriously, read the article if you think it is.) I don't know what it is, but nobody on either side of the aisle is even bothering to look.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[philip.paradis]

Man, I've gotta say, you may have labelled me as a "foe" here, but holy crap I agree with you 100% here. Speaking as someone who considers himself a "moderate leaning Libertarian" (yeah, I know, it's hard to pin any such things down, it's always case by case) in many areas, I've taken a lot of crap from various associates for agreeing with the kind of position you just outlined. Oh well, I'll keep taking the crap whenever it's offered, and rebutting their arguments that make zero sense on a national scale.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[JesseMcDonald]

Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.

I'm not disputing any of that at this point, though the relationship between the civil law and the will of the People is problematical at best. However, people depend on the stability of the law, including its interpretation. The inertia of precedent aids that stability. Reinterpreting the law and overturning precedent amounts to declaring that the prior rulings were flawed, a claim which requires substantial public justification.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't be reduced, you can't fire them. You could decide not to replace one the retires or dies. The more likely aspect is to load the court with more members that are pawns; the president has used that threat before.

Right now, though, it would be political suicide. The supreme court is the only part of the government that people halfway respect.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Joe_Dragon]

Getting rid of haveing ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay will not help the people to sick to get insurance or people with insurance that get sick and get dropped or the insurance comes up a BS way to get out paying. Also it may even lead to people going to jail just to get to a ER.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[517714]

21,000 people have pre-existing condition insurance as a result of the bill, Obama said it would be 375,000 in the first year alone. When the creator of the bill was off by more than an order of magnitude, do you really want the rest of the bill to go into effect? I do not consider a failure of that magnitude to be "doing just fine." I predict that they will not find the individual mandate unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has a vested interest in Federalism.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[jfengel]

The way I think it will go is not at all the way I want it to go. I'll be stunned if I'm wrong, but I would place very large bets that I'm not.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[DesScorp]

What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act

Huh? You do realize that SCOTUS isn't just ruling on the mandate, but on several issues concerning the whole legislation, right? While the mandate is being considered on it's own, they reason they might toss the whole act is because of something called "severability". In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing. The bills authors did this for a reason; they gambled that if the bill was written this way, future Congresses wouldn't have the balls to repeal it. It apparently never, ever occurred to them that the act could wind up at SCOTUS, and if the mandate was overturned, it would logically follow that the whole bill would be. SCOTUS is voting on whether the severability language in the bill is indeed binding. Even people that support the mandate think it is. Thus, if the mandate goes, the whole bill goes. But that's up to SCOTUS. As for the Constitutional argument, did you read or listen to any of the oral arguments? Constitutionality is the question on the mandate issue.

despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.

That's simply not true. Very little of the bill has gone into effect, and the meat of it depends on the mandate to produce the necessary funds via forced participation in the program. If people don't have to participate, poof, the whole funding mechanism falls apart like a house of cards. In short, no mandate, no money.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[DesScorp]

An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.

Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.

I wouldn't call that an activist judge as long as the judge is well and truly ruling according to the spirit and letter of the Constitution. I would say that activist judges are those that rule deliberately in spite of the wording of the Constitution. Finding a new new right not mentioned in the Constitution is a good example of this. I wholeheartedly agree that overturning precedent should never be taken lightly, but no matter how many years a precedent has, if it's in opposition to the Constitution, send it to the fire where it belongs. There are times when it's necessary to ignore Stare Decisis if the issue was settled in such a way that violates the Constitution. Remember, Dred Scott was precedent at one time too.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[compro01]

You can fire them, if you can find sufficient cause for impeachment. AFAIK, it's only been tried on a supreme court justice once, and he was acquitted.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[flyneye]

Dunno, Ginsberg shows signs of "Social Conscience" and seems happy projecting it on the populace. Seems to distract her from constitutional matters, that's so important at her advanced age and dementia.
I doubt they're any more activist than their benefactors told them to be.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Gr8Apes]

The saddest thing is that the entire law was the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The right answer to the wrong problem would have been repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay, then everyone will be lining up for insurance or dying in a ditch. The right problem is why the fuck I need insurance to not go bankrupt if I break my arm. And no, the answer to that one isn't tort reform (seriously, read the article if you think it is.) I don't know what it is, but nobody on either side of the aisle is even bothering to look.

Actually, that is the root point: do you let people die on an ER's doorstep? What if they were in a bad accident, and their insurance papers couldn't be found, say they were in a wallet crammed in a glovebox in a burning car? Who pays then? (If you're going to decide that people aren't helped when they should be, then someone will be liable for that decision.) And therein lies the crux of the matter. Since we can't reliably determine who should be helped, and almost no one says that they shouldn't have been helped after being helped, we wind up with only a single logical conclusion: everyone must pay into the insurance fund because the current system of some pay some don't but everyone gets helped has already been proven unsustainable.

Ron Paul has not addressed this point at all.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Gr8Apes]

21,000 people have pre-existing condition insurance as a result of the bill, Obama said it would be 375,000 in the first year alone. When the creator of the bill was off by more than an order of magnitude, do you really want the rest of the bill to go into effect?

At least it was an order of magnitude less which makes the impact less than some feared. This would be a "good" thing. If the number was an order of magnitude more, you might have a point about the impact on insurers being understated, but that would probably be countered by "look, more people are being helped". I'd also like to know whether those with pre-existing condition insurance are paying the same rates as others or if price is affecting the total number being helped.

FYI: Obama was not the creator of the bill.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Gr8Apes]

BTW I think the Supreme Court's questions about what ELSE Congress could mandate, like purchasing solar panels on roofs, or hybrid cars, or Bluray players (to support the music business & discourage piracy), and on and on..... indicate they are against the idea.

But the people in general already pay for such services if they use them, thus your point there is flawed. This is more like requiring drivers to have driver's insurance, if you don't drive, you don't have to have it. Health insurance applies to everyone, since it's difficult to live without some kind of health.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct in technical terms. The justices that over turned the notion that "separate but equal is okay" were activist justices. And most of us not ideologically aligned with, for example, certain secret organizations that like to wear sheets think that was a good ruling.
However, like the common misunderstanding of the concept of scientific theory, the Ditto-head/Conservative/Faux News crowd has been led to a different definition of activist judge. Their definition is the GP position that an activist judge gives a ruling that they don't like. There is an intersection between the correct usage of activist judge and the common usage but the two usages do not always overlap.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[CrimsonAvenger]

And then they went and blew whatever gains they had made by declaring that pot grown in your own backyard for your own personal use is interstate commerce.

Alas for pot growers everywhere, there has long been precedent for this.

Specifically, Wickard v. Filburn, back in WW2 (when the feds really got into this "we control everything" phase they've been in all our lives), which dealt with a man growing his own wheat to feed his own chickens.

The Feds managed to convince the then Supremes (those were still the guys that Roosevelt had threatened with adding more Supremes to the Court till they agreed with him on everything) that the guy growing his own wheat affected interstate commerce because then he wouldn't BUY wheat, which would lower demand for wheat, driving prices down.

Note that since then, the rules have been changed, limiting the Supremes to nine justices. Now the President can't just fill it with yes-men (though they still try to pick yes-men for the Court whenever possible).

Which means that the Court can, if it wishes, overturn precedent without fear of retaliation. Or not.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[tomhath]

The more likely aspect is to load the court with more members that are pawns; the president has used that threat before.

Which is why an appointee has to be approved by the Senate. And getting pawns appointed is very difficult even when the President's party has a super majority (as we have seen recently). Just adding more justices is not an option, FDR tried that and got slapped down.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The justification there was that it would have an effect on the interstate (white, gray, or black) market and thus they could regulate it. This ruling wasn't that much different from the Wickard v. Filburn case in 1942 where the US government had established limits on the amount of wheat a farmer could grow but Filburn was growing more. He argued that the additional wheat he was growing was for his own use on his farm and thus was not entering the interstate wheat market thus could not be regulated. The court found that even if that is the case the excess wheat that was for his own consumption still had an effect on the interstate wheat market thus could be regulated. The case you are referring to is probably the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Bob the Super Hamste]

The precedent of judicial review was something that the US Supreme Court created for its self in 1803 in the Marbury v. Madison case. Before this there was a fair amount of debate amongst the framers of the constitution as to whether this right should be granted to the court, but it was not one of the powers given to the US Supreme Court. One of the lesser known clauses in the constitution is that the congress has the ability to regulate the US Supreme court so it congress wanted they could in theory pass a bill that prevents the US Supreme Court for hearing it, and possibly even regulating how the court could rule on the law. This is spelled out in Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution. The specific line states:

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[chihowa]

Wickard v. Filburn represents the beginning of the "commerce clause means we can do anything" justification. And really, the Filburn justification isn't any more of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic than the Gun Free School Zones Act logic was.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

...isn't any less of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic...

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Something is definately going on here which is deeper than the skin. Something isn't right. Exclussion based on pre-existing condition is an extremely common rejection cause from the insurance companies. In ONLY 21,000 people now qualify, its extremely unlikely the system isn't being gamed. Basically, someone is doing something to manipulate the system such that the numbers are artificially deflated.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument at all. There is good reason the projections where an order of magnitude more for the first year. The fact its not even close more strongly suggests someone is manipulating the system rather than the law is broken.

Now then, I'm not saying its impossible the law is broken, but given we're talking about major players here, statistically, there's no comparison. Its just far, far more likely the insurance companies are rigging/gaming the system rather than the bill is that broken considering we know factually there is high demand for that specific need.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[ai4px]

Say what? The POTUS yesterday went on a rant that accused the Supremes of being activist is they shot down Obamacare. The dittohead/fox news crowd does NOT think this. What I find amazing is the fact that the president is a)so immature as to be upset that someone may strike down a law he really likes, b)does not seem to understand the system of checks and balances we have in the USA.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[cayenne8]

Health insurance applies to everyone, since it's difficult to live without some kind of health.

Hmm..so, how did people ever survive before the concept of health insurance came into being?

I was under the concept that health insurance was a fairly modern thing.

Actually...best thing to do, is make people more responsible for their own care. Make it easier to set up HSA (Health Savings Accounts) which are not use it or lose it, like FSA's are....and let people sock away money pre-tax, to be used on routine care, and meds.

This combined with what used to be called "major medical" insurance, something to cover the emergencies (heart attack ,car wreck)...would take care of things. With a reasonably high deductible, like $1200...premiums are very reasonable.

These would be modern tools, that would allow people to have health care, and not be a burden on everyone else.

You have to set aside money for food, shelter, etc....why should you not also have to set aside some for your health care? It is YOUR health, why should you not be somewhat responsible for it? It isn't the governments constitutionally mandated responsibility.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[LoyalOpposition]

In English, Congress wrote the bill explicitly so that it's not severable, i.e. if you void one part you have to void the whole thing.

That's not correct. In fact, the default for a law is that it is not severable. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court won't declare a portion of a law unconstitutional, because the remaining result would be a law that congress never voted for. Imagine, for example, that the social security tax were declared unconstitutional, but that the social security benefits weren't. It's unlikely that congress would ever pass such a law. Or imagine the reverse with the benefits being unconstitutional, but the tax passing muster. It's unlikely that congress would pass that law.

However, when congress passes a law with a severability clause, they state that this section remains in effect even if other sections are declared unconstitutional. The best you could say about the health care law is that Congress wrote it implicitly so that it's not severable.

The bills authors did this for a reason; they gambled that if the bill was written this way, future Congresses wouldn't have the balls to repeal it.

Severability has nothing to do with future congresses and changes they might make to the law. It only applies to the Supreme Court and the chance they might find a portion of the law unconstitutional.

It apparently never, ever occurred to them that the act could wind up at SCOTUS, and if the mandate was overturned, it would logically follow that the whole bill would be.

Oh, I doubt that!

That's simply not true. Very little of the bill has gone into effect, and the meat of it depends on the mandate to produce the necessary funds via forced participation in the program.

How can you say that it's not true! Anonymous Coward said that several parts of the bill have already gone into effect, and you deny that by claiming very little of the bill has gone into effect. What is the distinction between those two statements!

~Loyal

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Feyshtey]

FYI: Obama was not the creator of the bill.

Correct. It's the policy of his administration to produce very little themselves, and instead condemn the GOP for not rubber-stamping the bloated political mishmash of doublespeak produced by the Dems in Congress.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[cpu6502]

>>>This is more like requiring drivers to have driver's insurance,

Congress has no such power. Never has. That's why the insurance mandate will be struck down.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Feyshtey]

Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.

This makes the assumption that a group of justices can never make a mistake or be forced to judge incorrectly because a complaintant poorly articulates his case. It also assumes that new information or circumstances cannot present themselves which alter the perceptions of a law. And it precludes the possibility that manipulative people (whether they be lower judges, politicians, or even law enforcement) could use a law in a way in which it was never intended for illigitimate purposes.

I would argue that a court would be negligent, and quite possibly activist if it were to default to a denial to hear a case simply because someone else already heard it.

A precedent is not an obligation to later judgement. It is a verifiable expample upon which the court can refer in order to assist in making a judgement.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[hoggoth]

This!

This would go a long way towards fixing the whole mess we are in.
I currently have a high deductible medical insurance plan ($6,000 deductible) and a Health Savings Account. My premiums SAVE ME MORE THAN $6,000 in a year over a traditional plan, so in essence I can't lose.I've become a very careful consumer of health care and bargain down the price of all of my health care (as much as possible). I am forced to understand what is being recommended and I take a very active role in choosing what will be done.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[JesseMcDonald]

This makes the assumption that a group of justices can never make a mistake or be forced to judge incorrectly because a complaintant poorly articulates his case.

You should read past the first paragraph before replying:

Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly.

If the former precedent was flawed, then it should be overturned. I'm not disputing that. There is such a thing as justified judicial activism. However, the "justified" part is crucial. If you're going to advance a brand-new interpretation of the law which is incompatible with prior rulings, you'd better be able to explain why the previous interpretation was wrong—and why your own interpretation is less likely to be overturned by a future court.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wickard v. Filburn represents the beginning of the "commerce clause means we can do anything" justification. And really, the Filburn justification isn't any more of a convoluted and twisted bit of logic than the Gun Free School Zones Act logic was.

I am saddened that people don't actually read the Constitution. The power granted to government wasn't "interstate" commerce; it was only commerce between foreign nations, states, and indian tribes. It does not grant the federal government any power to regulate the commercial activity of individuals at all. If such a power were granted, it would make the rest of Article 1, Section 8 (where the powers of Congress are explicitly enumerated, those excluded being the powers of the states or retained by the people) meaningless and absurd.

Of course, this clear meaning is ignored, because most people want to be slaves to their government god (or, as is more often the case, they wish to use the power of government to impose their will upon other people. This is why democracy doesn't work; most people are wannabe tyrants).

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Feyshtey]

There is such a thing as justified judicial activism.

No, there isn't. There's judicial activism (passing judgement based on personal ideology rather than law), and there's just doing the job and being a judge.

If we're at a point where you have to coin a new phrase to descibe a judge doing his job correctly then we're all fucked.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[JesseMcDonald]

There's judicial activism (passing judgement based on personal ideology rather than law), and there's just doing the job and being a judge.

If you disagreed with the definition I gave you should have said so up front. There is no profit in arguing over semantics. That said, all interpretations of the law are founded in some ideology or another. Your definition amounts to "passing judgment based on an interpretation of the law which differs from my own", which brings us full-circle: that is the meaningless definition I was arguing against in the first place.

I defined "judicial activism" as overturning prior precedents. Using that definition, either there is such a thing as "justified judicial activism", or precedent is absolute—and we've already agreed that there are times when precedent should be overruled. We are thus in agreement so far as the substance of the argument is concerned; only the terms are in dispute. I have no interest in arguing semantics, but I do think that a term for rulings which alter established precedent is far more useful than another way of saying "I disagree".

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Feyshtey]

Ok, so I needed to preface my post with "Your definition of activist judges is flawed because..."?

You base your definition of activism on precedence. You suggest that it would be acitivism to defy precedence. My argument simply points out that just because there is a precedent it doesnt mean that it was correct according to law. It's not activism to point out that someone else upheld a clearly unconstitutional law.

Defining activism as overturning precedent is pretty narrow minded regardless. A judge upholding precedent or creating the first precedent on a law can just as easily be activism if that precedent is based on ideology over constitutionality.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[Gr8Apes]

Health insurance applies to everyone, since it's difficult to live without some kind of health.

Hmm..so, how did people ever survive before the concept of health insurance came into being?

Many didn't, if they needed care. People's life expectancy in the US didn't just miraculously universally increase more than the world average in the past 100+ years. It was partly from near universal vaccinations, and partly from effective universal health care, even if we don't call it that. Arriving at an ER with life threatening conditions did not first require you to provide proof of financial responsibility, you were helped.

Actually...best thing to do, is make people more responsible for their own care. Make it easier to set up HSA (Health Savings Accounts) which are not use it or lose it, like FSA's are....and let people sock away money pre-tax, to be used on routine care, and meds.

This combined with what used to be called "major medical" insurance, something to cover the emergencies (heart attack ,car wreck)...would take care of things. With a reasonably high deductible, like $1200...premiums are very reasonable.

These would be modern tools, that would allow people to have health care, and not be a burden on everyone else.

You have to set aside money for food, shelter, etc....why should you not also have to set aside some for your health care? It is YOUR health, why should you not be somewhat responsible for it? It isn't the governments constitutionally mandated responsibility.

So essentially you're advocating another form of the current scenario - where people still choose to be self insured, without addressing the issue of emergency response which is at the core of the current health problems. So, you have a heart attack, an ambulance is called and whisks you away in seconds to treatment at an ER with emergency surgery that saves your life. Had they checked for insurance or ability to pay upon arriving, you'd be dead whether you had insurance or not. Had they checked at the ER before treating you, same outcome. Only after 50+K of treatment was rendered could they take enough time to start the verification process, and it can take a while, like not until you've recovered, at an additional cost of $8-20K a day, depending upon where you are. None of this is addressed by your proposal. People using ER's for regular health care is a different issue and not the overwhelming cost issue that some try to make it out to be. 1 heart attack victim runs anywhere on average between 2-250K, escalating on ambulance, ER, OR, and complications/days in hospital to recover as needed to treat the heart attack. Those that don't need anything other than the ambulance to arrive and evaluate the victim are cheapest, with costs rapidly rising afterwards. (And yes, I have seen bills for emergency hospital surgery, although thankfully not my own. They are an eye opening experience, especially when you compare the "billed" cost to the actual "payment" if you have insurance)

Your proposal is a potential option for providing yourself health care, but that's all it is. It does not address the larger problem. I'll be happy to entertain anything you'd like to present as a solution for society.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[randyleepublic]

I was just diagnosed with cancer and am about to get laid off. Not because I am a bad worker, but because my company is going broke. If you get your way, I won't be able to buy insurance. Who's going to hire a guy in his late 50's with cancer? Thanks, you fucking asshole!

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing.

[rhook]

You do not have to disclose that you have cancer and it is illegal for an employer to ask.

My prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.

Re:My prediction

[Black Parrot]

Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.

Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.

Re:My prediction

[geekoid]

He as busy mowing my lawn.

Re:My prediction

[Black Parrot]

Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.

He as busy mowing my lawn.

That's what happens why your dad cuts off your allowance.

Though I'm kind of surprised... usually he's just busy rigging the results of a ball game or making sure it doesn't rain on someone's picnic.

Great. I'll give it a try, BUT...

[amunds0n]

Judging from the results of my recent final 4 picks I am not too optimistic now about my ability to predict what the court will find!

Markets aren't any good at prediction

[martin-boundary]

If they were, we wouldn't have recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall Street.

/Enough said.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[martin-boundary]

The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Black Parrot]

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation).

Yes, of course. Nothing ever goes wrong without meddling by the big wicked gummit, especially when money is involved.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

You shouldn't have.

You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Chris Burke]

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[geekoid]

"You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based "
yes, you do. In the case of Tulips it was the exchange markets that where the central authority.

Somewhere then need to be a central place for mass trading.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

I guess the Government was involved in all teh booms and busts that occured in the unregulated banking markets prior to the great depression huh?

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn down the liquor store!

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[martin-boundary]

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

Is that so? You are saying anybody could grow valuable tulips in the 17th century? How'd they get the seeds and offsets? How'd they control the patterns? How'd they speed up the 10 year growing time?

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Interesting, you're blaming market participants for the failures of markets. How does that advance the claim that markets are good at prediction? Would it help if markets didn't allow people to join? Maybe someone should do a study on that.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

Yeah, great, except that the option contract was fucked by a GOVERNMENT DECREE that ALLOWED (by decree of the government) to get out of it with only a 3.5% loss.

That's right, a government decree that said that CONTRACTS DO NOT HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING is somehow a 'free market failure'?

Well, if this posts (I am probably at limit of my 'karma'), don't take it personally if I don't reply under my name to any of your further ignorant statements.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Black Parrot]

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.

The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.

You shouldn't have.

You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).

Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

I said you don't have to have central monetary authority if everybody has their own printing press.

However the tulips were a futures market, people were trading options, you are right. What you don't know (it looks like by the comments) is that the government passed a law saying that ANY options contract can be declared void and only 3.5% of value has to be paid back based on that void contract.

So in fact even with the paper tulip standard (and god knows, government propagated 80 year war did NOT help the economies of the time) the government can come up with another asinine idea on how to create even more inflation under those conditions and how to screw up the market with insane regulations.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.

Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?

By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Nicely done.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Black Parrot]

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...

Current Slashdot cookie:

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- "Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Chris Burke]

That happened after the bubble had already formed and then burst, you idiot. The free market did not prevent the bubble from forming, it did not prevent it bursting. People who aren't ideologically blind call that a failure of the free market, yes.

This obviously isn't you. You don't appear to realize that having an ideology does not free you from the constraints of reality. As long as you can't separate the two then you're just crazy and there is no point to anything you say except for some measure of amusement. So please don't reply with this or any sock puppet account you may have unless you're going to be either sane, or funny.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Free markets had short booms and busts, but it took government to create a great depression.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[martin-boundary]

First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.

Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.

Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?

If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?

By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.

Off topic, but quite simple really. In the 17th century, most soldiers were mercenaries, whose motivation was money and pillage. Fighting wars was a career choice, basically, and soldiers frequently switched sides whenever their current employer was defeated, lost interest or didn't pay enough. It's best to think of them as criminal gangs terrorizing large parts of Europe.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly, if you blame the government for the larger and more interconnected global society that developed.

Then again, you might as well blame them for plagues.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as GP is concerned, the Gilded Age was a shining example of the success of the free market, rather than an epic fail of deregulation (just wait, he'll reply himself to confirm this). So don't bother arguing, logic and reason need not apply here.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[strat]

Don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. "nevermind those underwriting standards").

Markets aren't good at prediction, any more than anything else is. What they are excellent at (and in fact the best tool known to man) is identifying a legitimate price between buyers of a particular product at a particular point in time.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.

Money in the federal reserve system is borrowed into existence. When you create an avalanche of 'free' dollars (like say >1 trillion of them in a few years) they'll find a way into something and a bubble will form pretty much every time. Last time in the US it was subprime mortgages, previously it was internet stocks. This happens in free markets and restricted ones, US, European, Asian markets, take your pick.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Svartormr]

Was that before or after the Lupin craze? >:)

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[DarkOx]

The great depression happened AFTER the creation of the FED. Prior to the FED the American economy was characterized by booms and busts. The thing was they were short and shallow. 2-5 years up than two down. Post FED you have first the GD and lately these 10-20 year cycles that ruin the entire productive period of some citizens lives. Government intervention thru the creation of the FED has been harmful to the generational equality of the nation and that is before you even start to discuss the national debt.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Uberbah]

Don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act

Don't forget what the CRA actually does: prevent discrimination via redlining where banks would deny you loans based not on how much money you make, but by where you live.

It does not and never has forced banks to 'ignore underwriting standards', which is bullshit Republican propaganda.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[TheSync]

The great depression happened AFTER the creation of the FED.

And specifically the Federal Reserve acted to try to "pop the asset bubble" and its actions created the deepest part of the Depression, as explained by Ben Bernancke:

early in 1928, and the Fed passed into the control of a coterie of aggressive bubble-poppers, of whom the most determined was probably Board Governor Adolph Miller... in 1928, in a situation in which the inflation rate was actually slightly negative and the economy was only barely emerging from a mild recession, the Fed began to raise interest rates...For short periods the rates on these loans sometimes spiked above 20 percent.

The popular view is that the market crash was the harbinger of the Great Depression. In fact, the weight of historical research has shown that this interpretation gets the causality largely backward. The economy was already slowing by the fall of 1929 (the NBER peak, marking the beginning of the Depression cycle, was in August 1929), largely as a result of monetary tightness.

The correct interpretation of the 1920s, then, is not the popular one--that the stock market got overvalued, crashed, and caused a Great Depression. The true story is that monetary policy tried overzealously to stop the rise in stock prices. But the main effect of the tight monetary policy, as Benjamin Strong had predicted, was to slow the economy--both domestically and, through the workings of the gold standard, abroad. The slowing economy, together with rising interest rates, was in turn a major factor in precipitating the stock market crash. This interpretation of the events of the late 1920s is shared by the most knowledgeable students of the period, including Keynes, Friedman and Schwartz, and other leading scholars of both the Depression era and today.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Chris Burke]

No, he'll just say that all the failings were because of the government and none of them would have happened if not for that.

It's great, because since there's always a government around he can always blame it for anything that happens. "Oh, it wasn't a real free market." It's the same excuse used by communists.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the intent was to prevent redlining. I think in the final analysis, and based on results, it's fair to say that the mechanism they chose largely amounted to an unwillingness to observe a number of traditional, prudent practices out of an overabundance of caution.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction

[roman_mir]

Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.

- nothing breaks down, it's a supply demand question, and given more demand, more supply is created.

If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?

- this 'law' came into effect when the market was already filled with contracts, so this is pure nonsense out of you.

prediction

[roman_mir]

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them, but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum

At most, companies with 60 people might, MIGHT be willing to cut 10 people.

For the most part, I doubt it. It's a severe pain in the ass to do work while understaffed, and if you were already able to do work with less than 50 people, you would've had less than 50 people.

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying that companies up to 100 people will lose people until they are under the 50 employee maximum?

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

Without a doubt.

Re:prediction

[BStroms]

I don't think they'll delay it, as that would be a bit too irresponsible. The individual mandate goes into effect in 2014, and the longer businesses are unsure of which way it will go, the worse off we are. Uncertainty is almost never good for encouraging businesses to hire. The court wants to make their decision and give congress and the president as much time as possible to try to pass new laws to save the bill.

I do find it interesting that they could have crafted it to have almost the same effect while having almost no chance of being declared unconstitutional. Raise taxes on everyone by the amount the fee for not buying health insurance would have been. Anyone who buys health insurance gets a credit on their taxes equal to that amount. Those with earnings low enough that they would have avoided the mandate also avoid the tax in this scenario.

The effect is virtually identical, but it's clearly within congress's power. Of course they took the path they did because raising taxes on the middle class is all but political suicide so it was unlikely to have made it through congress. So they picked their path, and now they have to deal with a congress even less likely to pass a tax increase than the one back when they first made the choice.

PS - My prediction is that the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional. They'll also decide that the parts requiring insurance companies to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and charge the same amount will be struck as not being able to stand without the mandate. The rest of the law will be left as is.

Re:prediction

[Daniel Dvorkin]

My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.

My prediction is that any company which lays off half or more of its employees at one go, for any reason, is not long for the world, and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative. I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them

OTOH, some of them will see it as a way to strike a blow against the evil Democratic Administration.

but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.

And those pwners kind of screwed up, because their real base - rich people - *want* the mandate, because it will drive up the net worth of the health insurance industry. They just don't want the consumer protections in the bill.

But a more important prediction: [...]

My prediction: SCOTUS will castrate the law, and as an unintended side effect we'll have a single-payer system within a decade. I.e., the worst possible outcome for the class that five members of the court think they were born to take care of.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Most companies are hellish places to work, without regard to this issue.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Massachusetts. Based on when Romney-care went into effect, you're 100% correct.

I personally know people who were forced out of the state because their employer simply couldn't afford to buy them health care, and they couldn't afford to buy it on their current salary.

End result: they're out a job, and were forced to move to a state with sane laws.

Oh, and other fun factoids from Romneycare: when it went into effect, emergency room care skyrocketed, and the number of people able to see their doctors (and, therefore, receive preventative care) plummeted. It had exactly the opposite of the intended effect. I think 2011 was the first year since Romneycare that the number of people being treated by the emergency room stayed STABLE, let alone dropped. However, even so, the number of doctors in the state has fallen as they've fled the results of state-run health care.

Now I should give Romney partial credit: Romneycare, as implemented, isn't his plan. It's his plan after being butchered the Democrat party. Plus, when he originally proposed it, it hadn't been tried and proven to fail before. By the time Obama copy-pasted it, Massachusetts had already proven it to be a horrible idea. And that's ignoring things like the Massachusetts law being Constitutional while Obama thinks of the Constitution as "mere words."

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about
the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.

Mandating insurance coverage is a dumb as mandating homeless people buy houses. Its a bad idea and won't work. - Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.

Re:prediction

[CrAlt]

and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative.

The problem is that in many area's there is NO alternative so people stick with a crappy job out of necessity.

Work still needs to get done so MY prediction is that alot of companies will lay off down to 50.Then give the people let go the option of becoming "contractors".

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

My lovely karma is not going to let me post much longer, but I'll take this opportunity to explain something about constitutionality of the taxes in this case.

You see, Obama promised NOT to raise taxes, so when he was arguing for this health insurance act he was very specifically saying that it is NOT a tax, but it most certainly is, and now the gov't is arguing in front of SCOTUS, saying that it is constitutional BECAUSE it is a tax.

But WHAT kind of tax is it?

There are 2 types of taxes that are Constitutional:

1. Excise tax. This must be uniform.
2. Direct tax. This must be apportioned.

Excise tax must be on sale of a product, but not on not buying a product.

Direct tax, like capitation tax must be apportioned, but they absolutely cannot apportion this among states so that states can pay their share based on their population.

So it's not being levied on anything, not excise.
It's not a direct, it can't be apportioned.

It's not a legal tax.

My prediction is that EVENTUALLY they will declare this unconstitutional (and hopefully so), but my feeling is that they will not do this right now, right now they will delay their decision, I believe Obama has enough pressure points to ensure this during his re-election year.

Re:prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

So you are saying companies of up to 100 people are currently working in a very inefficient way that wastes a lot more money than they need to?

Re:prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

stop astro-turffing.

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that small/medium sized companies are on razor thin margins and the gov't doesn't give a shit, of-course the big companies will either get exemptions or will be bailed out, the small ones will have to lay people off.

That, by the way, is not inefficient, that is just very dangerous in terms of being able to absorb huge blows, and this is going to be another huge blow by the government, as if all the other stuff, including inflation and real taxes (spending and interest on that) wasn't enough.

Re:prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

if a company can't afford to take this kind of blow, then they are over extending themselves in the first place.

Ever hear of the cure of Home Depot install contracts? a small 5 man operation signs up with HD for install contracts thinking it will make a nice easy income stream... then HD starts sending you more work than you can handle so you grow fast....but your growth is not organic and your costs start going crasy and your QA sucks because you have to sub out so much work that you cannot vet everyone.... then HD drops you for customer complaints...then you go out of business.

Re:prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

That should be curse....not cure

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

The Surpreme Court will not consider Obama's wishes in the least. You all are forgetting Obama blasting the justices in his first State Of the Union speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc

You all may have forgotten this, but they have not. They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.

Re:prediction

[zippthorne]

Hahahah, "unintended" side effect.

Single payer is the goal, and severing the individual mandate is part of that. The only question is why severability wasn't expressly part of the law, since the outcome of severing the individual mandate would collapse the insurance industry inside of a year - if they are mandated to cover "pre-existing" conditions, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy insurance before they are diagnosed with one.

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

Of course, the premiums would have to rise to the point that it doesn't make sense to bother buying insurance even then. Then, NO ONE will have insurance, so we'll have to do something, and single payer is something, so we'll have to do that.

By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.

Did Obama ask them to delay it? I would think it's to his best political advantage if they strike it down and announce that a few months before the election.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.

What makes you think I give a shit, or even listen, when Obama says something?

Not everyone in this country has joined a political party and guzzled the cool-aid.

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business.

Makes sense, with this type of government: hey, there is a business that's still running somehow after everything we've thrown at it, and the kitchen sink. It's not one of our preferred monopolies that we keep bailing out and 'stimulating' etc., so let's crash it, especially since modman0f2sdfhsflabl approves.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Or... they could split into two companies. Or three. One administrating, under contract, the businesses of the other two halves of the productive part of the previously one business.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, two types?

The 16th AMENDMENT is quite valid, your ignorance of it, does discredit your analysis.

Re:prediction

[damn_registrars]

And I predict that none of what you predicted will happen.

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them

Really? What ways in particular? How is the president able to force the scotus not to act? Are you aware of how the three branches of government work in the US? Do you have any idea what you're talking about in general?

Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate

Which they came up with...

being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

Newsflash, dippy. The scotus exists for the very purpose of deciding the constitutionality of laws (as well as some other key functions). Thankfully you are not on the court.

But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about. You might as well predict an invading herd of chupacabra to lay siege to Washington DC.

Re:prediction

[slater.jay]

It's a good thing you posted AC. I'd hate for the mods to try the mental contortions required to call the individual mandate a tax on income, realize it's not possible, and blow your karma out of the water.

Re:prediction

[roman_mir]

Can't reply as myself anymore, but income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally.

The amendment is vague in many respects, it talks about 'income' without defining what that is (and people don't have income, only corporations do). In this case SCOTUS declared that income tax was unconstitutional (and that's what prompted Congress to seek the amendment) what the amendment had to do was define excise tax as income or to change the rule on apportioning direct taxes.

That amendment needs to be repealed, and in any case, gov't never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

Hahahah, "unintended" side effect. [...] By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.

OK, maybe it was intended... though I'm reluctant to credit the Democrats with that much savvy.

Re:prediction

[Qzukk]

Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business

You've got the right to run whatever business you want. You also have the right to run it out of business through malfeasance (throwing a temper tantrum and destroying the company so you can "show them"). We have the right to point and laugh.

Re:prediction

[udachny]

Malfeasance is on the part of the government that puts barriers to doing business while talking about lack of jobs.

Re:prediction

[Qzukk]

never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation

They didn't have to. Corporations are people too.

Re:prediction

[Qzukk]

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

Why try for a better job when you can't afford to give up the health insurance?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

If the damn government wouldn't require people to be compensated everyone could have a job! If your business isn't making it, run a better business. Well run businesses alre!ady provide health insurance, if the cheapstakes who can only compete by screwing over their employees are driven out of the market they will take over their base and that will be that.

Re:prediction

[zippthorne]

What kind of "better job" neither offers a health care benefit, nor pays enough more than your current job that you can pay for your insurance individually?

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Individual Mandate's not relevant to the subject at hand, which was refuting roman_mir's inaccurate representations of the lawful taxes that the Constitution allows to the federal government.

Since the 16th Amendment, it explicitly allows an income tax. I'm sure you see how roman_mir concocted a reason why that amendment was illegal, but as I said, his legal analysis lacks any credibility.

Too blinded by his own fanaticism to even offer a constructive dialogue. Monomaniacal is the best way to describe him and his trolling.
 

Re:prediction

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If they can. We're talking about 51-100 employee companies here, not IBM spinning off Lenovo.

And again, any company that would do this to avoid complying with the (very reasonable) requirements of the PPACA is run by idiots or ideologues, which means that (a) it probably won't last very long anyway, and (b) will be a distinctly unpleasant place to work during the time it has left. If you work for such a company, you should start looking for a new job ASAP.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, feeding a troll but here goes anyway...

Regardless of what happens, SCOTUS won't delay the decision. That's just nuts. They have no reason to do that.

If the law is upheld, companies will not suddenly fire a bunch of people. Instead they'll make a decision based on numbers. They'll do that because most of them are not ideologicly bent. OK, maybe one guy with some gun stores in Montana has 60 employees and will fire 10 of them to prove a point. That's about it.

As for what SCOTUS will actually decide, HTF should I know? Obama has said a lot of things to piss them off but I'd like to think they're above that. If they had consistantly argued that the mandate was a tax they wouldn't be having a Constitutional problem. Taxes are Constitutional. If the court rules it's a tax then it seems likely the law will be upheld. I haven't read the transcripts so I don't know if they were leaning in that direction.

The idea that we can be ordered to make payments to corporations who hold the lobbying purse strings has an appeal to the fascists on the court (Alito, Thomas) but I wonder if they would actually want to go that far. Surely even they must have some sense of what they're doing to the Republic. OTOH if they rule it's a tax then the specter of Il Duce is less apparent...

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

cofan_Mir, your predilection for being self-referential is not going to disguise the disingenuous nature of your arguments. As expected, you skip past your ignorance and declare something else to be the problem. After all, if you deny something, it can't be valid.

Your denial is as frivolous as the other arguments made against the Amendment, and would be just as quickly tossed out of court. Which admittedly did take years, but never with substance.

An amendment does not require an exhaustive definition of the words used in it. Nor does the constitution. Why? Because the definition of a word can be understood from the appropriate references. I could respect a desire for more clarity in it as a whole, but reaching all the way to making income taxes out to be illegal is going past the realm of sanity. You'd have to toss the whole thing if that was your standard. Which I'm sure you wouldn't mind, but try to be a little more direct and honest about it.

And I certainly cannot support your application of income to corporations to the exclusion of people.

You didn't even bother to offer an argument for that one. I think you're just fabricating another story to justify your rhetoric. Or is there some explanation to be proffered? Besides some pedantic reference to one tax somewhere that had nothing to do with the Amendment or federal tax law.

Which does define income, if you'd bother to read it. And no arguing that allows them to define anything as income won't work. You could apply that to any number of things.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well predict an invading herd of chupacabra to lay siege to Washington DC.

They do. Each and every morning. Damn blood suckers are everywhere in that city.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

All of that is nice and stuff, except of-course income tax cannot be used to argue for legality of health insurance tax.

There are 2 types of taxes: direct and indirect, as I said, that they must fit this health insurance tax into and none of them apply, but income tax provision in 16 amendment cannot even begin to apply.

It's interesting to see how you are going to twist the argument to say that health care tax somehow is equivalent to income tax, do, try.

Re:prediction

[modmans2ndcoming]

Try posting with an ID and I will believe you are not an astro turfer.

Re:prediction

[Black Parrot]

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

Sometimes it costs a lot of money to get diagnosed. Sometimes you get whisked away to the hospital for an injury, and spend all the money before you're patched up enough to apply for insurance.

There may be some point to what you say, but it doesn't seem to be certain.

Re:prediction

[Qzukk]

What kind of "better job" neither offers a health care benefit

The one where insurance doesn't kick in until three months later (i.e. all of them), and it takes you more than three months to find (in this economy...).

The government currently only forces insurance companies to cover you if you had coverage within the last 6 months. Otherwise, everything is a pre-existing condition.

Re:prediction

[CrimsonAvenger]

Work still needs to get done so MY prediction is that alot of companies will lay off down to 50.Then give the people let go the option of becoming "contractors".

They can also reduce people to part-time status. Apparently, the 50 limit only applies to full-time workers, so 50 full-time and 60 part-time can replace 100 full-time, and keep you out of that game.

Alternately, if you really don't want to play, there's always pay the penalty. Currently, the penalty is pretty close to the cost of health insurance, but at current rates of health insurance cost increases, by 2016, it'll be cheaper to pay the penalty than to provide the health insurance.

Especially given that the penalties are imposed based on "affordable" health insurance, and "affordable" hasn't been defined. Too easy under current law to pay for health insurance, and still have to pay the penalty because the health insurance you pay for isn't "affordable".

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Which they came up with...

Go read the 100 page or so one the 'republicans' came up with. Then go read the 2700 page one that passed. Now which one does what? The 2700 page one is nothing more than a power grab money in our country. Look how it was setup. It is an insurance mandate. The republican one was similar but more like medicare where you dont have to have it and the gov offers the 'insurance'.

Want reasonably priced healthcare? Here is an easy way to do it. Dont have insurance. People have been finding if they have high deductibles and/or no insurance. They are getting rates that are not out of this world. Have insurance and suddenly the cost goes up by 3-10x. The hospitals have no reason to submit unreasonable claims. They may just get it...

Re:prediction

[stdarg]

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

That's no different than the current situation when people wait until they need emergency treatment, then don't pay for it. SOMEONE still pays for it.

Of course, the premiums would have to rise to the point that it doesn't make sense to bother buying insurance even then. Then, NO ONE will have insurance, so we'll have to do something, and single payer is something, so we'll have to do that.

Single payer isn't the only way to address the cost of health care, and it has a lot of problems too. A lot of people just don't want the government to have that kind of power. Imagine if instead of giving everybody Social Security checks, the government never sent you money but let you select products and services from a catalog that they controlled. That would be insane, and that's what single payer health care does -- even less because you'll have to demonstrate need for the product or service.

Why is single payer better than, say, a voucher? That would make it exactly like SS.

Then the next step is controlling the cost of health care. Guess what, spreading around the burden with this individual mandate, or by having single payer with universal coverage, does not automatically lower costs. In fact either approach would probably cause health care costs to skyrocket since there's more money in the system, and absolutely nothing being done to control costs. (Or do you really think the Democrats will start rationing health care for women, minorities, the poor, the elderly, children, etc in order to save money? Hah!)

But the thing is, everything that will realistically control costs (not rationing since that will not happen) can be done *without* universal coverage. Number one thing: increase the supply of doctors. Does that need universal coverage? No. Allow imports of drugs. Does that require universal coverage? No. Tort reform (though I don't support that): No universal coverage needed.

Name one thing that requires universal coverage to noticeably lower total cost of health care. And don't bother naming universal preventive care before citing conclusive evidence that it does in fact noticeably lower cost, because the New England Journal of Medicine says "Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.

That doesn't make sense. The people who failed to make it severable are the same people who want single-payer care, so if that's really the grand plan why are you calling it an unnecessary risk?

Re:prediction

[TheSync]

The court wants to make their decision and give congress and the president as much time as possible to try to pass new laws to save the bill.

The US Supreme Court is made up on unelected individuals appointed for a lifetime. I believe they care about the interpretation of the Constitution. I'm not sure they care about anything else, which is probably how it should be.

Re:prediction

[Shotgun]

You haven't got a clue, and have obviously never run a business.

You will keep the workers around your companies core competency, and contract out everything else. You'll bring in a cleaning company and fire the janitor. You'll hire an accounting firm, fire the girl that was keeping the books in the back room. You'll hire a local mover to do your shipping. You'll "sell" off part of the company, creating an engineering company and a manufacturing company.

And it is not the cost of PPACA itself. It is the cost of compliance. I know you bureau-philes don't like to admit it, but proving compliance with the deluge of regulations spit out by Federal Agencies every year is ridiculously expensive.

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

So, get your been employer to kick in a signing bonus to cover COBRA premiums until the new job's benefits kick in. That's what my gf just did last month. Now no preexisting conditions issues to worry about.

Bonus: due to insane government logic in the COBRA law, you are allowed to retroactively pay your COBRA premiums at any time you are eligible and the insurer is forced to cover you as if there were no gaps. So, wait to pay any of your COBRA premiums (ie. wait to elect COBRA) until you are in the ER. Then you can call up your COBRA administrator to elect COBRA coverage: they will cover your present injury/illness/cancer/transplant without batting an eye, though you might have to pay a few months of retroactive premiums. Yep, COBRA allows you to buy insurance coverage for *something that has already happened*.

And people wonder why health insurance is so expensive...

Re:prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

And it is not the cost of PPACA itself. It is the cost of compliance. I know you bureau-philes don't like to admit it, but proving compliance with the deluge of regulations spit out by Federal Agencies every year is ridiculously expensive.

Well, then apply the same strategy you said: contract it out! Fire some people and they'll create a new company that specializes in compliance! ;p

Why reinvent the wheel?

[Jazari]

InTrade already has a market running on this issue, where you can bet real money: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745353

Re:Why reinvent the wheel?

[slater.jay]

More interestingly, intrade (where there's skin in the game) is sitting at ~60% unconstitutional. The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.

Re:Why reinvent the wheel?

[Black Parrot]

The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.

Without skin in the game, that market is going to reflect which political sites link to it and how many zealous readers they have.

Re:Why reinvent the wheel?

[pablodiazgutierrez]

The UWisconsin market has a great record of predicting US elections to greater accuracy than published surveys. I wouldn't discount it.

Re:Why reinvent the wheel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few quick comments for the parent poster.

The University of Iowa does a similar market with elections and FRB decisions, though I find the real-money aspect at Iowa a sign of greater seriousness, both academically and predictively. One observation about its "accuracy" is the same one you'd encounter with a stock market: what's the real value supposed to be? The trading value at noon before election day? A week before? Right before polls close? The 2004 election was a particularly hard one on the Iowa Electronic Markets- the contracts for Kerry and the D's gaining ground in the House and Senate reached their highest value in at least a month at about 10PM CST election night- and each of those contracts paid $0 by morning. Go back to October 30 2004, though, and the values look fairly well in line with what actually happened.

I'll also add that these types of markets require broad participation to be effective models, and at least Iowa's has been steadily declining for years. Too bad, too, given its 20-plus-year existence.

Invalid

[Anonymous Coward]

By showing on the home page how the results are trending, they've already skewed their results! Y'all should read Predictably Irrational. Sheesh.

Ohhh.... Slashdot has been heard....

[modmans2ndcoming]

When I first went on 20 minutes ago, it was showing that it would be found constitutional....now...there is a huge surge to unconstitutional....

Markets suck when emotions involved

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of those topics you'll have a strong opinion one way or the other. I'm sure most folks are saying what they "want", not what they logically think will happen. Even those who try to separate the 2 probably can't, due to moral compass skew.

As much as I want to promote my Alma Mater...

[r_jensen11]

The site seems to be a waste of energy when alternative sources exist with a much greater volume of activity. The prime example that comes to my mind is the Iowa Electronic Markets. I understand the Big Ten rivalry, but why reinvent the wheel? Do they honestly expect to get valuable commentary in conjunction with the votes?

iPredict

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to earn money off market predictions, then try iPredict:
https://www.ipredict.co.nz

Only place worth 'expressing my opinion' is Vegas

[fustakrakich]

And I'm placing odds it'll stand.

The French don't use Common Law.

[rjh]

Either go to a common law based system (the French have that...)

The French do not use the Common Law system. They use the Civil Law system, which is derived from the Napoleonic Code, which is derived from the Code of Justinian, which actually dates from well before the fall of the Roman Empire.

The United Kingdom uses the Common Law system.

The United States uses both. The federal system uses Common Law, as do most of the states: but Louisiana in particular uses a Civil Law-based system, in keeping with its heavily French heritage.

I don't see that either one is clearly superior. If you take a look at what comes out of Louisiana state courts, you'll see they're just as crazy as any other system. It's just crazy of a slightly different flavor. You might think that flavor tastes better, but I don't.

Re:The French don't use Common Law.

[DesScorp]

The United States uses both. The federal system uses Common Law, as do most of the states

Actually, it's debatable whether SCOTUS is a common law court. Everything in the federal court system below SCOTUS is certainly common law, with the wide lattitude and power that those judges have. But SCOTUS is somewhat different. Scalia argues that the court is not really common law in practice, as when a case comes before the US high court, the only standard is "does this contradict our written Constitution?". If it does, even if it has a basis in common law, then the justices are supposed to toss it. SCOTUS judges are more or less supposed to be umpires, calling "balls and strikes" on legislation (unless the issue is one of the few original jurisdiction issues that SCOTUS has). So SCOTUS, it could be argued, is itself a kind of hybrid court, drawing on common law traditions, but ultimately ruling in a civil law manner. At least that's the way it's supposed to work. Roe v. Wade, for instance, was very much a common law kind of ruling, as the majority literally found the right to abortion within another right to privacy that itself isn't explicity written in the Constitution. This is one of the arguments that the "living constitution" advocates make... judges should be able to make law from the bench to "suit the times". But this was clearly not the intent of the founders, as they made a mechanism to change the constitution... the amendment process... and intentionally made it so that it was hard to change the Constitution. Why do so if you wanted judges to change it on their own authority?

Re:The French don't use Common Law.

[Qzukk]

this was clearly not the intent of the founders

The intent of the founders was to have a rainbow and unicorn filled utopia where bunnies hopped gaily through the meadows and nobody would ever so much as think of violating the supreme law of the land, as evidenced by the fact that there is absolutely no mechanism in the consitution to punish or even fix violations of it, and the SCOTUS had to take over that last part on their own.

the majority literally found the right to abortion within another right to privacy that itself isn't explicity written in the Constitution

Except for the amendment that says there are other rights not explicitly written in the Constitution. The founders clearly did not intend there to be a master list of rights, but they neglected to bother to specify how one decides what is and isn't a right. So the SCOTUS took over that too.

Re:The French don't use Common Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh... No.

It says that there are other rights that are not explicitly written into the Constitution and those are reserved for the States...

which be where the Roe V Wade decision was broken.

Re:The French don't use Common Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

reserved for the States respectively, or the People

When you're quoting the constitution, don't "..." when the text starts saying things you don't like.

Re:The French don't use Common Law.

[Anonymous Coward]

The United Kingdom uses the Common Law system.

Nope. England & Wales use common law. Scotland uses civil law.

wikipedia says you are wrong,

[pigwiggle]

and slashdot says you are a troll. I think right on both counts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism#Origins_of_the_term

Most accurate prediction?

[damn_registrars]

There aren't that many possibilities, really. The scotus can toss it out entirely, let it stand, or remove just some parts of it. They aren't going to rewrite it (that's not their job). Similarly they can't just make their own law in its place. Any other proposed solution is likely even further from the realistic possible outcomes.

Hence the notion of "most accurate prediction" is rather absurd in this case. You get it right, or you don't. The options essentially boil down to A, B, and C. If you answer F, 7, or blue, you likely have no idea what's going on.

I have of people with good health care benefits

[Joe_Dragon]

I have of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.

and yes it's was a cop or fireman plan.

Re:I have of people with good health care benefits

[Black Parrot]

I [hear] of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.

I've had some medical adventures lately, and my insurance has tried several times to get out of paying as much as they are supposed to. Some auditor half-way across the country will decide that your doctor kept you in the hospital longer than necessary, or they'll send you a "this sounds like an injury" letter, full of questions about who was responsible, did it happen at work, etc. ... even when the problem is something that couldn't possibly be the result of an injury.

killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side

[Joe_Dragon]

killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.

City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)

workers comp, unemployment.

and other stuff

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[jfengel]

Taxes are taxes, and I doubt the Court is going to challenge that.

They may, however, decided that since the mandate isn't a tax, and it's only justified under the Commerce Clause, that we've been misinterpreting the Commerce Clause for a few decades. THAT would enable them to chuck... well, practically every piece of legislation for the last 50 years, including the Civil Rights Act.

My Two Cents

[glorybe]

I think the Healthcare laws will pass the Supreme Court as written or very close to as written. The reason I think that is that insurance companies and hospitals are probably already deeply invested in all that must be changed in a few months. To go back would be a huge expense. Then we would see our very expensive congress tied up for a year or two hashing out the same material. I would also think that many doctors have changed the way their practice works or hired new help or partners in planning for the change. The insurance companies must be thrilled at the prospect of millions of new policies being sold. There are a lot of forces at work that would tend to push the process along. The right wing would also take a huge hit if health care was delayed. I see no way for a political candidate to advance without being very much in favor of universal health coverage.

Re:My Two Cents

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I doubt that the cost will come into consideration. The case wasn't argued on the cost basis to insurance companies or doctors/providers. If it were up held because of cost concerns to change the regulation that would set a very bad precedent because then anything rule or regulation change that incurs a cost to an individual business or person could then be struck down.

repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat

[Brannon]

That is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time; and keep in mind that there's been a Republican primary underway for quite a while.

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[Anonymous Coward]

killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.

City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)

workers comp, unemployment.

and other stuff

Those fees/taxes are all state and local - so no worries; commerce clause doesn't apply. And "all taxes" gets tried every year all the time - it never makes it out of local or district court.

Homeowners insurance is mandated by your mortgage, not a law (in some areas). If your house is paid off you can live dangerously if you want. You can smoke 2 packs a day too. They're equally good ideas.

----
Re the bill:
I think this gets killed entirely. There's no severability clause, so one part being unconstitutional kills the whole thing by default in those cases. And in this particular case killing just the mandate breaks the insurance industry in half. Honestly that might not be a bad thing, they're all crooks of the highest order. And the biggest of the crooks is Medicare... they are the undisputed champions of not paying Dr.s for services...

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[DesScorp]

killing the mandating part may lead stuff out side health care being challenged in the courts. Like maybe like SOME to ALL taxes, homeowners and auto insurance.

City water and sewer fees (why can't I do it on my own and not be forced to pay)

workers comp, unemployment.

and other stuff

No, this is a pretty empty argument. Congress clearly has taxing power, and that power is itself limited clearly in the Constitution (in short... Congress just can't lay taxes for anything they please). Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties. To glean this power from the commerce clause would be to make the commerce clause supreme over the rest of the Constitution as a whole . What's funny is that If Congress had simply passed a new tax to pay for universal coverage, they'd have been fully in their authority to do so (provided they taxed related services, like your Blue Cross plan). But that's not what this bill did. It assessed a penalty for non-particiapation, regardless of the choice of individuals.

And the homeowners/auto insurance argument really doesn't fly either. The government can't penalize you for not buying a house or a car by hitting you with a fine for refusing to buy. "Obamacare" did precisely that with medical insurance. It was effectively a tax on being alive. You don't have to buy a car.

There is a better market out there than this one..

[lord_mike]

It's called Fantasy Scotus:

http://www.fantasyscotus.net/healthcare-case-predictions/

These guys have been doing this for years, and it's meant for lawyers and other legal eagles to participate. They have a very good success rate and have markets for all the cases that are being heard. The participants are people in the know, which makes their predictions more reliable than a typical political prediction site.

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[compro01]

Nowhere in the Constitution, however, is there the power for Congress to make you buy goods or services from third parties

The 2nd congress and president Washington evidently had a different idea about that, at least regarding firearms and associated equipment.

"That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder

Though as far as I can determine, any penalty for not following that directive is not specified in the law.

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[will_die]

No side is saying the mandate it is a tax there are other portions of the law that are taxes and also raise existing taxes.
If it was a tax you would not have this situation.
When it is struck down it will be written up as a "special case" and use other terms that were given as a reason somthing this major takeover should be allowed. If by some reason it is allowed they will also use the same term to place some limit on why the federal government now does not have the abaility to dictate everything you buy.

wrong again you are

[Anonymous Coward]

and now the gov't is arguing in front of SCOTUS, saying that it is constitutional BECAUSE it is a tax.

did you sleep through the first day's arguments in front of the scotus? the obama administration very flatly argued that the mandate and the penalty for non-compliance is not a tax. both the obama administration and the conservative ags took that stance; the counter had to be made by a court appointed solicitor in order to move on to days 2 and 3.

Re:killing the mandating part may lead stuff out s

[Anonymous Coward]

And the homeowners/auto insurance argument really doesn't fly either. The government can't penalize you for not buying a house or a car by hitting you with a fine for refusing to buy. "Obamacare" did precisely that with medical insurance. It was effectively a tax on being alive. You don't have to buy a car.

In addition the Federal government does not make the car insurance mandate - the states do (this is also why Massachusetts health care is constitutional). The 10th Amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Re:There is a better market out there than this on

[domatic]

I looked. The Trillion Dollar Question is the poll on the Individual Mandate. The panel there is pretty much split 50/50 which means even those in the know don't know how this is going to turn out.

Need?

[assertation]

There are 9 Supreme Court Justices, 5 appointed by Republican Presidents. Is there enough doubt that they will vote the law down to justify this prediction effort?

Upside Down

[assertation]

The Healthcare reform law will probably be voted as unconstitutional while the Patriot Act will continue to exist. How upside down is that?

Can State Laws Be Unconstitutional?

[assertation]

To my understanding, the Supreme Court is involved because it may be unconstitutional to require citizens to buy anything.

Yet, I was required to buy auto insurance by every state I lived in.

Do state laws not need to be constitutional ?

Re:Can State Laws Be Unconstitutional?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet, I was required to buy auto insurance by every state I lived in.

You have lived in some weird states. In my state, I only have to buy auto insurance if I own an auto and drive it on the public roads; it's a quid-pro-quo thing where if I want to use their road, I have to satisfy a condition.

Back when I didn't have a car, they never made me buy auto insurance; if you didn't opt-in then that law didn't apply to you. You should be infuriated that your state's laws are so much less fair than mine.

Re:Can State Laws Be Unconstitutional?

[TheSync]

Yet, I was required to buy auto insurance by every state I lived in

The US Federal Government has the power under the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

The legal argument is that "regulate commerce among states" does not mean "can make every American purchase something they do not want".

States do not have this limitation under the US Constitution. In fact, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Furthermore, auto insurance is only required by state law to be purchased if you wish the privilege of operating a vehicle on public roads. The health insurance purchase requirement applies to all Americans under all circumstances.

Re:Can State Laws Be Unconstitutional?

[Shotgun]

The state laws have to follow their own Constitutions, and generally abide by or at least not conflict with Federal laws. For instance, that whole thing about the Congress being forbidden to pass laws abridging religion or the free exercise thereof. That was mainly because each state had their own official religion, and the framers very judiciously removed themselves from creating a religious civil war. A federal law saying you had to be Anglican to be in Congress would be unconstitutional. A Virginia law saying a Catholic could not sit in the Virginia legislature was not (unless the Virginia constitution has some provision, which I have no desire to research).

Re:Only place worth 'expressing my opinion' is Veg

[Bob the Super Hamste]

What are the odds and do the offer a odds on the split (5-4 constitutional, 5-4 unconstitutional, 6-3 constitutional, etc)?