« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Delayed Obamacare Ruling Indicates the Court is Striking Down Multiple Parts?

By: ehud (Diary)  |  June 25th, 2012 at 10:39 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Obamacare ruling is taking a long time to be delivered. Many people were expecting it today. I haven’t heard this anywhere, but I was just thinking that perhaps the delay in issuing the ruling is partly due to the fact that they are striking down large parts of the law and therefore it is a long and complicated opinion to write. If you recall, during oral arguments Scalia was joking about how much work it would be for his clerks to go through the law and determine which parts to keep and which to throw out.

I’m no Supreme Court expert, but a delayed ruling would seem to increase the chances that it is partially overturned. I also noticed that the Intrade odds in favor of overturning have been going up as we wait longer and longer for the ruling.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • zachv

    I’m more-so certain that the Justices just want to release their decision and then get out of Dodge. If the decision wasn’t the last one handed out, they’d probably be overwhelmed with questions/comments about Obamacare while they were trying to release their other decisions.

  • tnguy

    “Would the States have even entered into the Union if the Constitution contained the Court’s holding?”

    We’re a nation stumbling towards revolution.

    But take heart, we’ve got a candidate like Mitt Romney, who, if he wins, will appoint men like John Roberts to the scotus….

  • littlehouse18

    to prevent a 4-4 tie? That would leave the previous ruling in place, which was worse than this, if I understand this correctly.

    Now, they aren’t supposed to do that, so probably not.

  • APA Guy

    …the ability of parents to carry grown adult children up to age 25 on insurance plans and the part about pre-existing conditions.

    As for the rest, I think it’s sunk. Once the mandate is struck down, the funding mechanism is sunk right along with it. It’s impossible to fund socialized medicine without siphoning the money from hard-working Americans or another act of congress.

  • exitsfunnel

    Striking down the mandate but keeping the requirement that insurers accept patients with preexisting conditions would effectively bankrupt the insurers so I don’t see how that is a possible outcome.

    I really think that if they strike down the mandate, they strike down the whole law.

    -exits

  • norris

    there are too many hidden problems that will surface as it is enacted. I would be agreeable to a high deductible for preexisting conditions. Adults twenty and older can get insurance at school ,work or on their own.

  • Viet71

    Today:

    – Kagan gets to legislate from the bench re 14-year-olds who commit murder.

    – Kennedy, with Roberts in tow, hauls out pre-emption to strike down the
    Arizona immigration law, pretty much.

    – Rather quietly, but 5-4, the Court says Citizens United applies to Montana.

    Meanwhile, the biggie so far is Knox v. SEIU, a First Amendment case dealing with public employee unions. 7-2 for the good guys.

    IMO, all this is setting us up for a 6-3 or 7-2, or better, win on Thursday.

  • acat

    is that the court do something like setting limits and a timer – “Such pieces of Obamacare that have been implemented shall remain in place pending below. No further pieces of Obamacare shall progress pending below.. The Congress shall have until April 1 2013 to amend or replace Obamacare in its’ entirety to correct the following defects….. {insert laundry list here}”.

    In short, the “SCOTUS punt”.

    Mew

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    folks carrying insurance. The companies would factor the additional cost into pricing. Responsible people who carry insurance would carry the burden, not the insurance companies.

  • exitsfunnel

    for something like that? What happens when the congress doesn’t resolve the issue? (obviously they won’t) Honestly, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

    -exits

  • exitsfunnel

    Under this scenario, for the people whose health insurance isn’t subsidized by their employer and who don’t currently have some serious condition, it wouldn’t be responsible to have insurance. It would be irrational.

    People are never going to pay large premiums today when they can just wait until they’ve been diagnosed with something expensive and purchase insurance then. It would just be so much more rational to pay out of pocket for routine care rather than pay the high premium costs. I don’t believe that it’s possible to require insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions without the extra revenue generated by the individual mandate.

    I really hope that they strike down the whole thing.

    -exits