More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. Just 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”Progressives commenting on the article make some good points: much of the 68% that want the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare (at least in part) are primarily upset about the individual mandate, and the rest of the law doesn't make much sense without the individual mandate. But doesn't that suggest that the rest of Obamacare isn't well-designed if it all collapses without the individual mandate? Worse, I understand that the legal wizards of the Democratic Party neglected to include a severability clause, so if the Court finds one part unconstitutional, the whole law (at least, in theory) should be struck down.
Another progressive objection is that much of the 68% that disapproves of Obamacare doesn't really understand it. Doubtless true. And doubtless true of the 24% that approve of it. There is enormous ignorance about the details. I have actually read through about 5% of the pages of this 2800 page montrosity, trying to figure out what all the moving parts do. I am not at all surprised that most Americans don't really understand it. I rather doubt that more than ten people in the whole country fully understand Obamacare in all its complexity. Usually, that's a sign that you made something too complicated. Start over. Do it right this time, picking individual components of the problem, and passing solutions one part at a time.
Worse, I understand that the legal wizards of the Democratic Party neglected to include a severability clause....
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Supremes have established plenty of precedents to ignore the lack of severability clauses....
That said, as I've heard it, this is an artifact of its post-Scott Brown passage. The Senate passed their own initial version and then it should have gone into a conference to reconcile the differences between it and the House version, at which time the usual boilerplate like a severability clause would have been added.
But with Brown enabling a filibuster, the House had to pass the Senate bill as written or they wouldn't have passed anything.
On the other hand, to make guaranteed issue (no preconditions) and community rating (the healthy young pay for the sicker older folks) work you've got to have an individual mandate, otherwise the healthy only sign up when they get sick.
So depending on your opinion as to whether it was ever supposed to work or was a stalking horse for a total government takeover after it failed, the lack of the severability clause could be due to this triad.
Considering what the Supremes have read into various clauses of the constitution over the decades, I fully expect them to be able to read a severability clause into this multi-thousand page bomb before morning coffee, while still in their bathrobes.
ReplyDeleteBut Nancy told us she read, wrote and understood the entire bill!!! HA HA!
ReplyDeleteShe might as well have just came on TV an announced that the American public was a bunch of incestuous and stupid mother f*ckers by presenting it that way! The level of offense was comparable.
No question the over-priced health care and insurance premiums (if one can get a policy) is scr*wing most American's, but the Dems alternative form of scr*wing ain't much of a solution either! Nor does it fix the cost problem one iota.
I'm also speaking as someone over 40 with no health insurance so regardless of what happens if I get sick I'm better off dead.....