Obama warns Supreme Court not to overturn his health reform law

The Republicans are foaming at the mouth. They all say the world is going to end because of this law. More stinky from the land of the fee.

Nobody is saying the world is going to end. There are questions though as to how the U.S. can afford it.

Apart from me being personally against this law it appears the online betting circles have done a complete 180. I put a hundred dollars on an overturn back when it was 56% likely to be upheld, now its pacing at about 67% to be overturned. Based on statments made by Justice Kennedy, the swing vote in this, I'd say the vote will go 5-4 to overturn.

Having this overturned would make me very happy on two accounts. First it would make my petty little libertarian heart happy for the momentary victory. Second, it would set precedent making any future mandate on virtually anything dead in the water.

National health works for Japan and many rich countries in Europe. Why is the Supreme Court unable to envision the future benefits of such a system in the US? America is beginning to look like it deserves it's current decline; it's citizens appear uneducated and suffer from terminal dreams of entitlement. They consume but fail to produce.

Time to move for impeachment.

Lieberman - "Time to move for impeachment."

What for? Just because you and some others don't like a law?

How weak and pathetic is that?

How weak and pathetic is that?

Very, but very typical for the crazy right wingers in America whose deep, visceral loathing for Obama knows no bounds.

Time to move for impeachment.

Don't you normally need some sort of "High Crime and/or Misdemeanor" for that sort of thing, Lieberman?

How weak and pathetic is that?

The United States Government was divided into three branches; the legislative, executive, and judicial. A checks and balances system where one branch does not have too much power. The government is to uphold the Constitution.

"U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law."

LOL. Obama, who we are constantly told is the smartest president evah! has apparently forgotten that he appointed two of the nine judges now on the court. Have to pity any of the students who took the Con Law classes he taught in what we all now know whas a purely political appointment from on high while he was in Chicago.

Obama on Monday challenged the "unelected" Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary" and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

They're appointed for life so they are not subject to political threats from people like Obama while reaching decisions. Heh, you'd think a someone who taught Constitutional Law would know that.

RR

What the case boils down to is whether the government has the ability to require the purchase of an item. For example, precedent has allowed government capable of requiring purchases of items deemed essential to safety such as seat belts in cars. The counterargument is that those opposed to such requirement are able to avoid it by forgoing the purchase altogether, whereas the insurance mandate is required for simply living. Interestingly, this is also the pro-argument: the maintenance of life will inevitably require health expenses, and thus it is not unreasonable to require all living to adequately prepare for such, and also interestingly, this proposition has been supported by both liberals and conservatives alike. The only realistic alternative aside from the free ride is that we allow people to die, and even die-hard conservatives only support that obliquely.

A subcategory of this argument is that, in this mandate, government is requiring transactions amongst citizens and private corporations, and this is where irony rears its ugly head: this problem exists precisely because conservatives disallowed the "public option" - that citizens would be able to look to their government for the supply of such a necessity and avoid the requirement to transact with private entities. Should the Supreme Court strike down the law, be sure that a renewed push for the public option will energize progressives in the upcoming elections.

A second subcategory of argument is whether the government has the ability to penalize people financially for not engaging in a socially desired action. Again, precedent has allowed the government to tax people to achieve the same aims, so this is a distinction without a difference; in fact, if the Court rules against Obamacare, it will further tie the hands of government to seek private-sector solutions to public problems.

So, good luck with this, conservatives! If you win, you still lose.

They're appointed for life so they are not subject to political threats from people like Obama while reaching decisions. Heh, you'd think a someone who taught Constitutional Law would know that.

Apparently someone here hasn't heard of the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine."

(Though something tells me Romeo is unlikely to be a New Deal admirer...)

The Supreme Court is now Obama's new boogeyman.

Too funny!!!

RR

The Supreme Court is now Obama's new boogeyman. Too funny!!!

Ha ha, RR - yes, people who don't think much would find this hilarious, I suppose. Let's say the Supremes strike down the law not only due to the requirement to transact with private entities but also with the understanding that government mandates for individual maintenance in general are unconstitutional. This would make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid mandates equally unconstitutional. I can see where you find the humor in that. Ha ha!

Can you explain to me the broccoli principle? It's a side-splitter as well.

It's funny how the rightwingers who are always whining about activist judges are now crossing their fingers and praying for some judicial activism.

Should the Supreme Court strike down the law, be sure that a renewed push for the public option will energize progressives in the upcoming elections.

The public option would be better anyways.

It's funny how the rightwingers who are always whining about activist judges are now crossing their fingers and praying for some judicial activism

. The majority of the US public opposes ObamaCare. Whats funny is how far gone the left is - anyone less than effusive about Obama's failed presidency is a "rightwinger."

This would make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid mandates equally unconstitutional

Can't find a single case that was presented before the SCOTUS concerning any of the programs you write of.

Please provide a link indicating such.

Happy hunting.

RR

Obama challenged the Supreme Court not to take the "extraordinary"and "unprecedented" step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

How did this guy get through Harvard or Columbia or even his comm. college/party school Occidental? It is high time the public be allowed to see how he got into the schools he attended, who paid, what courses he took and how he performed.

Scotus has, since 1803, struck down over a thousand laws.

more demagoguery from the Divider in Chief.

SCOTUS is charged with deciding the constitutionality of laws written by Congress and State legislatures (as they pertain to federal jurisdiction). They can't look the other way when 28 states have filed lawsuits to revoke Obamacare. I suspect the vote will be 6-3 or 7-2 to repeal.

RR

I suspect the vote will be 6-3 or 7-2 to repeal.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "Broccoli principle" and all, I'd say the vote will be 5-4 or 6-3 to uphold. Conservative justices are just posturing now (too bad that's required, but hey - you've got the tea party to placate), but they are not so stupid as to be ignorant of what precedents they would unleash by squashing this.

The decision was made last Friday. The justices are now writing the majority and minority opinions on the case. Kraken probably spilled the beans to Obama. He's now declared an ill-advised war on SCOTUS as a way of preparing himself for a post-Obamacare world this summer.

RR

Though Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law, the centerpiece of his political legacy, he appeared to be previewing campaign trail arguments should the nine justices strike the legislation down.

Has this information been transmitted to Vladimir ?

Obama said he was confident the court would uphold the law

Heh, this coming from the guy who knows the Constitution about as well as he knows transparency.

RR

Of course he does not want them to overturn his law. On the other hand if they overturned a law he does not like, he would not have a problem with the that.

What is really dishonest is his claim that the law "was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress". Anybody who followed the news knows that that is a flat-out lie. The law was by the narrowest of margins, in a extremely partisan vote, and with all sorts of legal trickery. "Strong majority"?? Only in tjhe world of political rethoric.

Stranger strange land:

" t's funny how the rightwingers who are always whining about activist judges are now crossing their fingers and praying for some judicial activism. "

....except they are not. They are simply hoping the court follows the constitution.

Stranger strange land:

" t's funny how the rightwingers who are always whining about activist judges are now crossing their fingers and praying for some judicial activism. "

....except they are not. They are simply hoping the court follows the constitution.

The majority of the US public opposes ObamaCare. Whats funny is how far gone the left is - anyone less than effusive about Obama's failed presidency is a "rightwinger."

Wha'ts funny is how far to the right the republican party has gone and yet they still think they represent the majority of Americans. If the health care law has some problems it's because the party of No wouldn't pass it until they had totally messed it up.

The majority of Americans maybe want the thing tweaked a little bit, doesn't mean they don't want affordable health for everyone. Personally, I'm against the individual mandate (which was originally a repub idea, btw) and think a public option is a much better idea.

They are simply hoping the court follows the constitution.

Right. It's following the constitution when it goes your way, and judicial activism when it goes the other way.

Got it.

“I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden with the leaders of Canada and Mexico in his first comments on last week’s hearings

American taxpayers dont give a damn what Mexicans and Canadians think about health care in the US. Does this egomaniac never stop with the demagoguery and the contempt of his own country ?

Stranger-strange-land:

" The majority of Americans maybe want the thing tweaked a little bit, doesn't mean they don't want affordable health for everyone. "

Contradiction in terms right there. When you let the government run something, it does not become "affordable", it becomes bloated with bureaucracy, inefficient and expensive. Think post office, think military,

I am quite open to the argument that healthcare should be nationalized for reasons of fairness. But to claim that you can nationalize it and at the same time make it cheaper is simply incredibly naive. (Or dishonest; if you sound off the rethoric for political reaons.)

If you want cheaper health care, how addressing the insane amounts that US health providers have to pay to the lawyers? The Republicans, which you lambast in every message, have suggested that for ages. Of course, your lawyer-funded Democrat party wants to hear none of that....

Tossing out entire thing would be the best thing for Obama's re-election chances. This was the absolute worse piece of legislation ever written. A 2000 plus page regulatory mess on top of an already badly broken system that needs reform that drive costs down not reform that drives costs up adds regulations that no one can really understand and distorts the entire system. Unemployment has remained stuck at over 8 percent and a huge reason for that is directly related to passage of this horrid law. Directly from the U.S Chamber of Commerce 4th quarter report 2011.

What is the impact of regulation and the new health care law? Fewer jobs. 78% of small businesses surveyed report the taxation, regulation and legislation from Washington make it harder for their business to hire more employees. And, 74% say the recent health care law makes it harder for their business to hire more employees.

Small business want to hire right now but they wont due because this law makes the price to high to hire future employees. This has resulted in the anemic economic growth we've had since the economy started to recover and the stubborn high unemployment rate.

Tossing this out because its unconstitutional will do two immediate things. It will reassure small business, the very drivers of our economy that Washington can't ever go that route again in reforming the health care system. Washington will have to try a different approach that is more free market orientated instead of centralized bloated bureaucratic technocrat oversight.

This will go a long way to jump starting small businesses to start hiring en mass again. The effects of repeal will be immediate. Unemployment and job growth will expand dramatically. President Obama will get credit for turning around the economy after all if he is smart enough downplay the repeal on the grounds that he tried to reform the system for the good of the American people. He can then take credit for the recovery by claiming his economic policies have finally worked (ignoring that has been smothered by the passage of this law in the first place but the Supreme Court will give him political cover after all) but there is his path to get re-elected. He's in the envious position of being able to take credit for an economic recovery that he actually didn't do and made worse and he can't be blamed for not trying to reform the health care in the first place.

I am quite open to the argument that healthcare should be nationalized for reasons of fairness. But to claim that you can nationalize it and at the same time make it cheaper is simply incredibly naive.

Lol. It couldn't possibly get any more expensive than it already is. Try comparing the prices for different treatment in the US with those of other countries, nationalized health care or not. Prices in the US are through the roof.

Nationalized healthcare, public option, and price caps is the way to go.

How dare the court even thinks about overturning Obamacare! Just because it's unconstitutional, that doesn't mean Obama doesn't know what's best for this country, lol.

Stranger in strange land:

" Try comparing the prices for different treatment in the US with those of other countries, nationalized health care or not. "

If you want to compare you´d also have to add quality and availability. (Check out the waiting list in NHC countries.)

" Prices in the US are through the roof. "

And how much of those are caused by the insane amounts health providers need to protect themselves from lawsuits? Try to make millions with frivolous law suits in NHC countries.

I simply pointed out some obvious facts. Your dogmatism is not an answer.

If you want to compare you´d also have to add quality and availability. (Check out the waiting list in NHC countries.)

The same lame excuses get trotted out every time, but I'm the one being dogmatic. People in countries with affordable health care aren't clamoring to change over to the American system. Why do you suppose that is?

Quality and availability is an invented issue afaic, and if it's too expensive to afford what difference does it make?

To get the U.S healthcare system under control we need to tackle the root of the problem. We start here first, tackling defensive medicine. Our system should always be on offense in providing care and never on defense.

In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.

Liability reform has been estimated to result in anywhere from a 5 percent to a 34 percent reduction in medical expenditures by reducing defensive medicine practices, with estimates of savings from $54 billion to $650 billion.

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/dec10/advocacy2.asp

Even at the low ball estimate of 54 billion in savings if you couple that with tackling the estimated 50 to 60 billion in fraud each year in Medicare payments and ring that out of the system you've reduced overall costs 100 billion right of the bat. We can bend down the cost curve by being smart in reducing the care that we really don't need and is in fact just wasted actually just to prevent lawsuits. Providing the care that is actually needed instead. Secondly allowing portability of insurance and the ability to shop for policies across state lines to keep the competitive market pressure on insurance providers to provide the best bang for the buck insurance policies.

Once we get to the point of the real cost of health care without the defensive care distortions already in place prior to Obama's reform. We can then as a Nation tackle the uninsured. The best way to do that is get health care costs down in the first place starting with the above so if we do as a nation decide to subsidize coverage for the uninsured it is actually going to be affordable to do it.

Sailwind: Agreed. My sister is an anesthesiologist and pays well over $50,000 per year in insurance fees and has never had a lawsuit leveled against her. Outrageous or not? This is just to cover the probability of a lawsuit...

The big problem is that most Americans were pretty satisfied with their health care BEFORE this law was passed. Obama spent 2 years and a pile of political capital trying to fix a problem that didn't exist.

For the US, the big problem is health care being tied to employment. It really ties people to their jobs. Free up the system, allow flexible coverage, allow companies to sell their policies between states, and it will become cheaper.

Obama's law is terrible. It forces the public into the hands of the insurance companies. Basically, it is demanding that private ctizens buy a product from a private company. This is what distinguishes it from Social Security or Medicare. The idea that the government can legislate citizens to make a purchace is dangerous.

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator You have hit the nail right on the head - You are 100% right and with that "Nuff said" !!!

Funny how so many can comment on the subject of the Supreme Court without touching on the concept of constitutionality. Agreed, the law as written has wrinkles and warts aplenty (due to both sides), but none of this will matter if it is tossed out. The question is whether it is constitutional, and if not, why.

Also funny how lightly some posters call the law "unconstitutional." On what basis this claim is made is not stated, and that basis is the key, for it may well affect not only Obamacare but the fate of many existing laws.

For the conservative Supremes, this is no replay of "Bush vs. Gore," when they cowardly (and many would say negligently) specifically stated that their decision was not to serve as precedent. This decision most certainly will, and that is why I predict it will be found constitutional: Nuts like Ryan are able to present a nutty budget with the understanding that they will never have to face the consequences of its enactment, but the Supremes do not have that luxury.

Very, but very typical for the crazy right wingers in America whose deep, visceral loathing for Obama knows no bounds.

Its like they are blindly copying the left during the time of GWB...with the notable exception that the left had far more compelling reasons for their loathing.

This would make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid mandates equally unconstitutional.

I don't see the problem with that. All of those programs require a significant winding down anyway. A good way to start would be allowing opt outs (with barriers to re-entry) and setting a date at which future recipients will not recieve benefits or that they will be drastically reduced (like anybody born after 1980 will see reduced benefits and anybody born after 2015 will recieve none).

Allowing for more dynamic options one interstate insurance plans would help a lot to, and removing requirments for certain types of care. I always found it odd that I was paying for acupuncture and hysterectomy coverage despite the fact I don't use acupuncture and I lack ovaries. Customizable plans over a broader geographic area would be a wonderful first step in tangible cost reduction.

@MustardKing "the left had far more compelling reasons"

Yeah, let me jog my memory. Years of fiction about WMDs in Iraq vs. everyone getting access to health care. Funny how the two major American political parties inspire the frothing hardliners to act bipolar.

Besides Dick Cheney, how many Americans can get a heart transplant on a whim?

If it gets struck down I'm going to cancel my health insurance. If I ever need urgent care I'll show them my US funds only and say I can't pay. Then I'll stick everyone else with th bill with a nice note going to Republicans thanking the for defending my choice.

National health works for Japan and many rich countries in Europe. Why is the Supreme Court unable to envision the future benefits of such a system in the US? America is beginning to look like it deserves it's current decline; it's citizens appear uneducated and suffer from terminal dreams of entitlement. They consume but fail to produce.

So true, one American on this site even said that producing was 'the work of peasants'. They really don't get it. America decided to forsake manufacturing to focus on 'services' and the fruits of that disastrous policy is finally coming into play. The current account deficit is shocking, trade surpluses haven't been seen in decades, Dick Cheney proudly stated 'trade deficits don't matter' back in 2002 - the inmates have been running this asylum for years. It'll take many years to clean up this mess, and Americans will continue to carry their guns because it's their 'right' all the while angrily calling universal health care 'communism'. You're right, maybe it does deserves its current decline. The same country that heaped scorn on Japan after its 80s bubble burst and advised it to reform its economy along American lines was also unaware of the economic catastrophe brewing in their homeland all the time..

Mandatory Health care! As I understand, in 2014 a person can be fined for not having a health care policy! How can someone with little or no income buy insurance? And how will the fine be collected if that person goes into a hospital? I need to see how national health care is structured for Japan!

oginome

So true, one American on this site even said that producing was 'the work of peasants'.

I'm guessing it was a young "progresssive." The entitlement mentality does that.

They really don't get it. America decided to forsake manufacturing to focus on 'services' and the fruits of that disastrous policy is finally coming into play.

We still manufacture a lot; the decline is there but it as much a problem of education as it anything else. We neeed to get past the pernicious idea ( promulgated by lefties, the bureaucrats who run the public schools and the DoE) that going to trade or technical schools is somehow not fitting for any member of a society that likes to believe we are all equal and therefore can and must all become white collar professionals.A lot of employers in the US complain that workers lack the skills for many of the manufacturing jobs that go wanting.

The current account deficit is shocking, trade surpluses haven't been seen in decades,

There is a link between that fact and the Fed's policy thru the 90s and noughts and how the Aveerage American believeing his/her house was an ATM could give rise to the bloated service economy you mention above.That could never have happened in Ireland , eh?

Dick Cheney proudly stated 'trade deficits don't matter' back in 2002 -

No, he didn't. He alledgedly said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." And he wasnt refering to the trade deficit.

Americans will continue to carry their guns because it's their 'right' all the while angrily calling universal health care 'communism'

An honest debater in this argument, who truly had the best in mind for the American Republic and had bothered to educate himself on the matters at hand, would come here not with silly sweeping generalizations but with a recommendation that on both guns and health insurance the individual states be allowed to find solutions, as was the intent of the framers of the US Constitution.

You're right, maybe it does deserves its current decline.

Coming from a European this, to me, always seems like punching yourself in the nose to spite your face.

The same country that heaped scorn on Japan after its 80s bubble burst

I was between Japan and the US for the period you speak of. I dont recall the US "heaping scorn" on Japan. I recall that as with Greece today people in the States looked around, wondering if and when we will hit the same wall.

Good to see there is pushback against the Obama regime on this

(CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

How embarrassing that such a question even needs to be asked of a sitting president, and one who graduated from Harvard Law no less.

We still manufacture a lot; the decline is there but it as much a problem of education as it anything else. We neeed to get past the pernicious idea ( promulgated by lefties, the bureaucrats who run the public schools and the DoE) that going to trade or technical schools is somehow not fitting for any member of a society that likes to believe we are all equal and therefore can and must all become white collar professionals.A lot of employers in the US complain that workers lack the skills for many of the manufacturing jobs that go wanting.

It was Reagonomics which led to the destruction of your manufacturing industry and the greater focus on 'services'. It was under his administration that trade and current account surpluses disappeared. Reagan actively encouraged America's transition from a net creditor to net debtor nation. Oops.

There is a link between that fact and the Fed's policy thru the 90s and noughts and how the Aveerage American believeing his/her house was an ATM could give rise to the bloated service economy you mention above.That could never have happened in Ireland , eh?

And there is a link between what happened in the 90s and the policies which were set in place by the Reagan administration in the 80s. And I never defended Ireland, I'm fully aware what a basket case it is, doesn't change that America is also another basket case.

No, he didn't. He alledgedly said that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." And he wasnt refering to the trade deficit.

Curren account deficits are closely related to trade deficits, in fact, they are a more telling indicator of a nation's wealth. The fact is that the current account deficit has continued to rise and rise to unbelievably disastrous proportions for over twenty years now, and in the middle of it all we had Cheney stating that Reagan 'proved' they don't matter, speaks volumes about the idioicy rampant in the land of the free.

Coming from a European this, to me, always seems like punching yourself in the nose to spite your face.

Not really, what Europe is going through doesn't change the fact that America's own mess was also and still is self-inflicted, and the fact that so many call for tax cuts in a country which already has notoriously low taxes, doesn't bode well.

I was between Japan and the US for the period you speak of. I dont recall the US "heaping scorn" on Japan. I recall that as with Greece today people in the States looked around, wondering if and when we will hit the same wall.

There was definitely scorn and lots of barely hidden glee that the Japanese model had somehow 'failed' and this somehow vindicated the American model. There are many articles online, go look them up. I read a book last year that wasn't specifically about Japan's economy, but still ended up with the author prescribing American economic 'remedies' to sort out Japan's mess - the book was published in 2007.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Reagan proved that deficits only matter if you're not in power.

Obama continues to prove he isn't up to the job he was hired to do.

RR

The only thing “unprecedented” are Obama's remarks toward SCOTUS prior to them rendering an official decision.

RR

When I heard his unprecedented comments, my own thought was, there is a significant difference between activist judges writing law, which is what Republicans oppose, and striking down a law as unconstitutional. For someone who is supposed to be so intelligent and smart, its rather amazing that he doesn't understand something so simple. Perhaps Obama isn't as versed in the constitution as he would like us to believe. Certainly these comments do not inspire confidence in either his knowledge, or his intelligence.

Based on the comments of the Justices, I wouldn't be surprised to see it overturned on a 5-4, or 7-3 decision.

ObamaCare's coercive individual mandate will be overturned 6 to 3. The Federal government cannot make someone buy a product or service. You have to wonder if the President has ever read the Constitution? How could such an ideologically dense person ever be put in a position to teach Constitutional law at an American university? The Federal government has specific powers. All other powers are left to the State's or the people. You don't have to be the editor of the Harvard Review to know that the central government does not have this power. This is why RomneyCare is legal and ObamaCare is not. It's ironic that then Senator Obama kept slamming his 2008 primary opponent Hillary Clinton for having a plan that mandated coverage. Hillary is going to burst out in laughter when she hears that the court has struck down ObamaCare.

The one way that Obama could have created a Constitutional universal health insurance scheme would have been by creating a tax that all Americans would have to pay (like Medicare and Medicaid). However, he was unwilling to do so because he would not have been able to get enough Democrat support. He knew that it would not have passed even on a party-line vote in Congress. As a result, he went with the individual mandate instead. He should have known better but was so desperate to force a new entitlement program on the people that he went for it as a last resort. So in the end he will have wasted 3.5 years arguing over an un-Constitutional health care scheme when he should have been focused like a laser on the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. President Obama is the worst president in American history.