.

Patch's Poll: Should the Supreme Court Overturn Obama's Health Care Law?

Court appears poised to reject key provisions, if not the entire package.

If the Supreme Court finds that the individual insurance requirement in President Obama's health care law is unconstitutional — as it appears to be leaning — then the court may throw out the entire 2,700-page law, The Huffington Post reported on Wednesday.

During the last of three days of arguments, the conservative majority of justices seems to have concluded that the central provision of the law — that Americans must buy health insurance or face a penalty — cannot be upheld, according to The Huffington Post.

The question then becomes whether the hundreds of other provisions in the law could be separated out, or whether the entire legislation should be sent back to Congress to start over.

If the law is struck down, certain provisions already in effect — such as coverage for young adults up to age 26 — would also fall. Other provisions yet to be implemented — such as an expansion of Medicaid set to begin in 2014 — would not go into effect unless Congress rewrites and passes new legislation.

Do you think the Supreme Court should overturn the entire law, or should it consider individual parts of the plan? Add your thoughts in the comments.

Howard Smith April 04, 2012 at 09:27 PM
I do not know what gives the Liberals the idea that the federal government can run health care any better than the other programs it runs. Obamacare will evolve to a single payer system rather quickly as the gov't mandates overages without compensation to the insurer and the business becomes unprofitable the privates will abandon the business leaving only the gov't. Talk to your doctor ask him what his future plans for his practice are. Don't be surprised when he says he's getting out. You are going to be granted a right to healthcare by the gov't but if there are not enough doctors to deliver it, you could die waiting. The old Soviet Constitution was chock full of rights to the Soviet citizen that could not be delivered, just words on paper. There are free market solutions to every problem we have in health care but the agenda of the progressive left is not concerned with solutions they are concerned with control. You can also kiss your employer provided health care goodbye as the fine for not providing is so much less than the cost of providing any employer who doesn't dump the burden on the gov't is hurting his bottom line. This law will be ruled unconstitutional because it is. Big government is not your friend and it is not benign once it becomes too powerful, but then it's too late
Kendall Svengalis April 04, 2012 at 09:52 PM
We need to all stop calling Obama a "legal scholar." He was NEVER a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination. He was a part-time instructor at the University of Chicago Law School. Professor Richard Epstein, the noted conservative law professor at that school said Obama never attended faculty meetings and was singularly unengaged in the intellectual life of the law school. Moreover, he produced no scholarly writings. Even his autobiographies were likely produced by someone else--namely, the infamous Bill Ayres, as Jack Cashill has argued quite convincingly. Now, Obama's recent comments call into questions his fundamental grasp of the U.S. Constitution, and the concept of judicial review to declare laws unconstitutional that are in violation of it. That doctrine, as enunciated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), should have been learned in an introductory undergraduate political science class, even before he was admitted to Harvard Law School. To think that Obama was allowed to teach impressionable law students reflects poorly on the hiring standards of the University of Chicago Law School. This is just further indication that the man sitting in the White House is a complete fraud, incompetent, and poseur, effectively the most elaborate scam in the history of American political life. It was such a delight learning on Fox News of Judge Jerry Smith’s calling out the Justice Department to explain Obama’s absurd remarks.
Kendall Svengalis April 04, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Patrick, We are talking at cross purposes. My posting did not directly address health care costs, but the ultimate costs of Obamacare. Obamacare is built on a faulty model which continues to rely on third-party payers, only expanding it by government fiat. The only possible effect will be to drive health costs skyward because it distorts market forces. This problem is exacerbated by the combination of state-mandated plans and the inability of consumers to shop across state lines. For example, a health insurance plan in New Jersey, for example, costs many times what a policy costs in Kentucky because it is too all-embracing. Obamacare would take a government created problem and make it far worse through more government intervention. As Reagan said, government IS the problem. Obamacare is less about health care than it is about controlling our lives. The vast, unelected regulatory regime will see to that. The health insurance mandate is blatantly unconstitutional.
Sam Samuels April 05, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Sort a like Social Security, right? You know, the program we pay ahead all our lives for so we will have it for our retirement. Yeah, that seems to be working out real fine!
Patrick Herring April 05, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Kendall... (I got your name right this time!!!) Sounds like you prefer a single-payer system, which is my choice anyway. The problem with a large democratic country like ours is that we have many interest groups lobbying for their own interest, thus any bill that has a chance to become law must be approved by all, at the end, including lots of compromises. I do not see this law as a perfect one. It is a good start. Unlike you I believe it would work. As a late comer to the party, we can look around and see that other country that have a "mixed" solution like ours work pretty well. The Swiss model comes to my mind, as Switzerland spends about 11 percent of its GDP on health care and the satisfaction of its health care system is quite high. Also, I do not see this law as a way for a government to control our lives. This is a service that only the federal government can provide, and it can only be done at the federal level.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »