Poll Position: If Obamacare mandate falls, what goes with it?
During three days of oral arguments about Obamacare at the Supreme Court this week, legal analysts were at pains to predict which way each justice was leaning based on his or her line of questioning. For all but the most experienced court watchers, this seems like an exercise in futility: Justices may be just as likely to question an attorney’s point in the hopes of eliciting a stronger case for it as they are to seek to poke holes in it. I’ll just stick to the prediction I, like many others, made when the first legal challenges were filed: This case will come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, in what most likely will be a 5-4 decision.
If the mandate is struck down, how much of the rest of Obamacare should go with it?
- All of it (232 Votes)
- Nothing else (109 Votes)
- Only those parts the administration argued for (e.g., community rating and pre-existing conditions) (28 Votes)
Total Voters: 369
Loading ...Much of the analysis during Wednesday’s arguments focused on the justices’ debate about “severability”: how much of the law ought to survive if the individual mandate is struck down. The 11th Circuit here in Atlanta decided to strike down only the mandate and keep all else intact. Attorneys for the states challenging the law argued none of the law can stand if the mandate falls, because it was the central component of the law: The other provisions don’t work without he mandate, and Congress wouldn’t have passed the law without it. The government’s attorneys argued that only a couple of other provisions — chiefly, the ones covering pre-existing conditions and “community rating,” which holds that insurers can’t charge different premiums based on certain behaviors — should fall in that case because they would severely distort the insurance market absent the mandate, while the rest should stand. (Neither side took the 11th Circuit’s position, so the Supreme Court had to assign another attorney to argue that position.)
Some analysts seemed to think the line of questioning itself, predicated on the dismissal of the mandate, indicated the mandate was in trouble. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case: The only way to argue about severability is to assume the mandate is struck down. If it’s not, the point is moot, but the justices had to hear arguments about what to do in the event they do strike it down.
An interesting argument centered on the idea of judicial restraint: Does it indicate more restraint to leave as much of the law intact as possible, as the liberal justices argued? Or would the court display more restraint to strike it down in total — thereby avoiding potentially changing Congress’ intent — and let Congress start over with a blank canvas, as the conservative justices argued?
That’s a philosophical point, and there are practical considerations here as well. Would Obamacare minus only the mandate be workable? Even if community rating and pre-existing conditions provisions also fall, would other elements of the law such as the exchanges and the Medicaid expansion still make sense? Is Congress more likely to act if it has to try to fix a broken law, or if it gets to start over?
So, here’s this week’s Poll Position: If the mandate is struck down, how much of the rest of Obamacare should the justices throw out with it? Note that I am not asking you to predict what the court will do, but rather what you think should be done.
See the choices and vote in the nearby poll and explain your thoughts in the comments thread.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
171 comments Add your comment
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
6:17 pm
Rafe Hollister @6:00 pm
As I expected, you are full of hot air and no substance. You wrote: “No, he is not saying there are no exceptions, he would say “he expected a certain minimum intelligence on the part of the readers” His argument was clear to me.” His argument was clear to you. The argument he, 1961_Xer made, and which you claimed was clear to you. But now you are weaseling and unable to answer. Pathetic.
Just saying..
March 30th, 2012
6:22 pm
If the mandate goes, would prefer to see a single payer proposal vs whatever the GOP puts up.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
6:24 pm
Dusty @ 5:46 pm
“You do know Cuba is a communist country with the kind of healthcare you seem to favor. That is why it was mentioned. You muist remember your connotations are almost as good as simple facts from which to draw conclusions.”
Dusty,
Are you even distantly aware of the fact that there are many, many non-communist countries in the world that provide universal health care? I doubt that you even know what healthcare Cuba provides, and you most certainly do not know what I favor, other than that it should be universally affordable.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
March 30th, 2012
6:26 pm
This is pretty sick but what else do you expect from PMSNBC-
In the NBC segment, Zimmerman says: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
The full version, though, unfolds like this:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
911 operator: “Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
Ted
March 30th, 2012
6:34 pm
Rafe, Linda, and Dusty, you’re fine examples of the ignorant people that I was talking about.
“The Heritage Foundation & Republicans might have considered the individual mandate 25 years ago.”
No, actually they considered it up until the President was elected and it was on the table with health reform. Stop trying to rewrite history.
MarkV
March 30th, 2012
6:36 pm
Dusty @6:00 pm
“First sentence: Hospitals are managing their business ALREADY.. They have markups like any institution to make ends meet. That is what management means”
That is not the first sentence I asked about, and it definitely is not an answer to what I wrote about the hospitals.
“Second sentence: We already have a fine healthcare system in place considered the best in the world.”
Actually, this is about the first sentence I asked about, which was “But, with all the help that is available in this country, we now MUST have better healthcare when we already have the best in the world.” Which still does not make sense. But if you want to replace it with the above, I must remind you that our healthcare system is considered the best in the world only by some Americans. A case of a fox praising his tail.
I won’t even try to decipher your last paragraph. I can only accuse you by you being in a hurry to prepare dinner.
Hillbilly D
March 30th, 2012
6:38 pm
This case will come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy,
The most powerful person in U. S. government. With this and several other things, the law is whatever he wants it to be.
tiredofIT
March 30th, 2012
6:41 pm
Heath insurance companies are just middle men making ridiculous profits and not really very good at what they do. I am sure there are many cheaper ways to perform their function.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
6:45 pm
Rafe, It’s apparent to the conservatives on this blob exactly who is full of hot air, no substance, a weasel & pathetic, & it ain’t you.
Some people have absolutely no problem celebrating fool’s day.
@@
March 30th, 2012
6:54 pm
If Obamacare mandate falls, what goes with it?
Everything but the single-license approach.
State regulation of insurance companies has been criticized for many years because of the burden imposed on insurers by having to comply with the laws of many jurisdictions. These higher costs are passed on to consumers. The problems with the current regulatory structure are prompting calls for increased federal regulation of insurance. However, all proposals to federalize insurance regulation create opportunities for abuse at the hands of the federal government and fail to utilize the benefits of a federal system. This article shows how many of the problems of the current system can be addressed without resorting to a large scale intrusion of federal regulators into
insurance markets. The proposed solution calls for minimal federal intervention to provide for jurisdictional competition between states that would be allowed to charter insurers that could operate nationally with only the single license granted by the charter. This single-license approach addresses the most salient concerns of proponents of federal
optional chartering. It also has the potential for triggering competition and innovation in insurance products and rates while preserving a meaningful role for state regulation.
Oh wait…that wasn’t in there. Had it been, the state’s would have held creative license.
If the justices choose to sever the mandate only, give the 2700 page monstrosity to Kagan to figure out. She knows what’s in there.
schnirt
Hillbilly:
Check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3qbB4Kq3Y0
Looks like Mama got everyone ‘cept the oldest to slick their hair down.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
7:17 pm
Ted@6:34, Gentleman don’t disrespect ladies. You do know the difference between ladies & women, don’t you? You do know the difference between gentlemen & males, don’t you? Only foul-mouthed liberals find the need to try to intimidate women when they can’t argue the truth of points being discussed. What liberals have never understood is that conservative women are the strongest women in America & are actually emboldened by attempts at intimidation by the liberal left. Only orphans have understandable excuses for such language.
In spite of the fact that I was raised as a Democrat in a Dem. household in a Dem. town & am still registered as a Dem., my husband married me anyway. History is still being rewritten.
The progressive movement has 2 classifications of people: those in the loop & those in the soup. How dare you call Dusty & I ignorant when it’s minions like you who are in the soup pot.
One needs to merely access the Heritage Foundation website to observe their negative opinions of Obamacare.
Rafe Hollister
March 30th, 2012
7:32 pm
Linda, thanks for watching my back there. I need to follow LBB’s advice and just step over it.
Ted, your arguments about the GOP being for it before they were against it, is lame. The Dems have been for many things before being against them. I can think of several by just Oblamer alone. He voted for the tax breaks for the oil companies while in the Senate and now he thanks that this is almost criminal.
Oblamer campaigned against Hillary and made fun of her desire for a mandate. He said the problem, with Healthcare was cost and not participation. He said he was going to lower cost and then more people would want to participate. Guess he changed his mind. Actually plenty of times. I could go on and on.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
7:36 pm
The reason the fed. tax code allows taxpayers to deduct mortgage interest is to motivate taxpayers to invest in home ownership. Is Obamacare the first bill in the history of our country that uses coercion, rather than motivation, to force taxpayers to act? Is that one of the reasons Obamacare is so unpopular?
@@
March 30th, 2012
7:42 pm
Ted:
First of all Kyle, it’s called The Affordable Care Act. I wonder why people can’t ever call it by its real name.
Actually, it’s The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But what’s in a dropped word or four?
It neither protects the patient or is affordable.
Obamacare(s) not that it does neither. The dems call it his signature healthcare plan. His name will forever be tied to another failed attempt at universal healthcare. Everytime it’s been promoted, the citizens have rejected it. The first effort was launched in 1912.
md
March 30th, 2012
8:15 pm
Since we are still on the ACA, thought I’d re-post these quotes for those that may have forgotten:
“You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating it is, to make sure that there’s a broad consensus before the country moves forward,”
and
“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended,”
Both comments in reference to the “system/process”……..yet, exactly how the dems crammed through the bill.
md
March 30th, 2012
8:16 pm
Oops……forgot to mention that the quotes came from our current President……….
Rick
March 30th, 2012
8:25 pm
Linda, you declared yourself a lady, and stated you abhorred name calling. Wow, what happened to you? (@6:45 PM)
You say “Rafe, It’s apparent to the conservatives on this blob exactly who is full of hot air, no substance, a weasel & pathetic, & it ain’t you.
Some people have absolutely no problem celebrating fool’s day.”
You really need to get away from this blog for a bit, find your former self, maybe spend some quality time with family this holy season coming up. Happy Holiday, to you and yours.
Linda
March 30th, 2012
9:04 pm
Rick@8:25, If you actually read the comments on this blog, you would see that the mentions of “hot air,” “no substance,” “a weasel” & “pathetic” were used by one of your liberal cohorts.
What I do with my time is absolutely none of your business. The fact of the matter is that I make my income on the internet & there are times that I cannot leave the computer to “find my former self or spend quality time with my family” while I am “at work” on the computer.
What you really want me to do is to divert my attention away from the Obama agenda, which I refuse to do.
Happy Holiday to you & yours, too.
Why Penalizing People Who Don’t Buy Health Insurance Is a Cherished American … – Slate Magazine | tgfmPress
March 30th, 2012
10:36 pm
[...] doctor knows about ObamaCareFox NewsYes Virginia, Health Insurance Is Different From BroccoliForbesPoll Position: If Obamacare mandate falls, what goes with it?Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)Chicago Tribune -Standard Speaker -USA TODAYall 15,325 [...]
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
March 30th, 2012
11:07 pm
If Obamacare mandate falls, what goes with it?
8:51 am March 30, 2012, by Kyle Wingfield
—————————-
What’s left of the failed Obozo regime. The loser spent two years jamming Americans with his unconstitutional sham instead of focusing on jobs and the economy.
Fail.
UGA 1999
April 2nd, 2012
2:13 pm
If it fails is it because it is unconstitutional.