Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

With a Supreme Court decision looming on health care, both sides prepare their spin

By Capitol Hill Blue
June 18, 2012

With a ruling by the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s so-called “health care reform” law expected as early as today, both sides of the contentious debate are waiting, spin-sheets in hand, for a decision that could frame the election this year.

Both proponents and opponents have prepared contingency plans for dealing for what could either be a devastating blow to the plan or an endorsement of quasi-reform legislation that defined much of Obama’s first term.

Some legal watchers feel the high court will — at least — declare the mandate forcing purchase of health insurance invalid or perhaps scrap the entire law.

Stay tuned.  It’s about to get interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

2 Responses to With a Supreme Court decision looming on health care, both sides prepare their spin

  1. Jon

    June 18, 2012 at 10:54 pm

    Personally, although I’m, politically, a “Technocratic Socialist”, I’d love to see this entire half-baked miscegenation of a law entirely struck down, and we can start over without giving away the farm to the insurance companies.

    Extend Medicare to everyone. Extend Medicaid to everyone. That’s easy. Off we go.

    Jon

    PS – Yeah, they have their problems. But so do your children. Do you just line them up and shoot them they first time they get caught starting a fight? Baby, meet bathwater. J.

  2. tabonsell

    June 21, 2012 at 2:02 am

    The logical action by the court will be one the judges refuse to take.

    Since 1923 SCOTUS has maintained that a plaintiff in any action bought before the courts needs to show that he/she has suffered some adverse damage from the law being challenged. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance case just a couple of years ago. This very same court threw out the case because the man suing did not have primary custody of his daughter after his divorce, therefore compelling her to pay homage to a God did not involve the father. No harm, no case, so no right to sue.

    Now we have a collection of state attorneys generals bringing the case presently before the court. These state employees have suffred no adverse affects from the health-insurance law they question; they have gold-plated health insurance for themselves, curtesy of state taxpayers. Where is their damage?

    State attorneys general do not represent individuals in court and they do not represent business or other organizations. Their only clients are the states in which they serve. No state has suffered damage from the law, and no state ever will suffer damage from the law. All the state employees are covered by state-supplied health insurance, so they suffer naught from the law.

    If we had a court that cared about law and Constitution, this noncase would be dismissed because of a lack of standing on part of the attorneys generals. Odds are the conservative judges of today will thumb their noses at the law established by the very-conservative court in the Mellon cases of 1923.