I reckon this is big enough to deserve its own thread as whatever the decision, there are going to be strong opinions. Also, the political fallout and spin will be massive, no matter the ruling.

My current prediction is that they will NOT trash the entire bill. But beyond that, can't say the specifics or whether they'll trash the mandate.

Well, the Supreme Court upheld today parts of the Arizona immigration law and the Obama Admin will ignore it all the same. Now, I AM NOT TRYING TO START A DISCUSSION ON IMMIGRATION so please don't use this thread to argue that issue. I'm posting this link to illustrate how the Obama Admin deals with Supreme Court rulings it disagrees with.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally. That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/

So IF the SCOTUS rules parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, will the Admin accept it? Or will they figure another way to ignore the Court?

The question is, will people accept the ruling or fight like cat and dog about it? If parts are held to be unconstitutional then that's it. I'm going to get my popcorn and watch this one.

By the way, I worked with the US forces in Germany for 5 years, that's why I'm a little bit more attuned than the average Brit to matters political in the US. Interesting stuff.

Well, the Supreme Court upheld today parts of the Arizona immigration law and the Obama Admin will ignore it all the same. Now, I AM NOT TRYING TO START A DISCUSSION ON IMMIGRATION so please don't use this thread to argue that issue. I'm posting this link to illustrate how the Obama Admin deals with Supreme Court rulings it disagrees with.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally. That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/

So IF the SCOTUS rules parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, will the Admin accept it? Or will they figure another way to ignore the Court?

You were posting that while I was replying Koheesti.......this is the issue I find most fascinating about US politics, the Constitution, it really is fascinating for me, however I don't want to derail the thread. I think JT is right, this issue deserves a thread all of it's own, so I will retire now and watch.

So IF the SCOTUS rules parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, will the Admin accept it? Or will they figure another way to ignore the Court?

I doubt if they strike the entire law that the law can stand. Let's see the ruling first, OK? If they only strike the mandate, yes, of course there will be an effort to make the law work without the mandate.

The general consensus seems to be that the mandate will be found unconstitutional and a lot of pundits say that the law can not work without it. I just wish that so much money had not been wasted on something that seems obviously illegal to me.

The general consensus seems to be that the mandate will be found unconstitutional and a lot of pundits say that the law can not work without it. I just wish that so much money had not been wasted on something that seems obviously illegal to me.

Not to mention wasting 1-2 years of Congress' time during the "worst economic crisis since The Great Depression".

And the reputation of Congress suffered even further (if possiible) by all the backdoor dealing that went on that everyone could see ('bribes" to Louisiana and Nebraska).

And the wasted Super Majority that the Dems had for two years. During that time they sould have been able to accomplish anything - and they chose to force through something that (maybe) the Supreme Court will strike down?

In any case, I'd bet that the SCOTUS rules some parts fine, and other parts not. In the end, each side will be able to spin it as some kind of victory.

The general consensus seems to be that the mandate will be found unconstitutional and a lot of pundits say that the law can not work without it. I just wish that so much money had not been wasted on something that seems obviously illegal to me.

Funny, it didn't see all that obviously illegal to most. Romney who was the father of the entire concept of MANDATES (and made it happen in Massachusetts) and formerly favored MANDATES at the federal level must have not thought MANDATES were illegal either. Funny. Of course universal health care coverage through the TAX system, which is the way we should have done like almost all other civilized nations, is 100 percent legal with no ambiguity whatsoever. To be clear, I have always been a single payer universal advocate and always will be. I think the insurance companies have no business in health care. Period. Radical? No, for the civilized world -- NORMAL.

Y'all seem to like the Moonie newspaper so much, so here goes:

http://www.washingto...-stances/print/

In the television appearance he spoke favorably of a bill sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, and then-Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, that included such a mandate. In the USA Today column, he urged Mr. Obama to use Massachusetts as a model for a national plan.

Talk-show host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, said the revelations mean Mr. Romney "lied" when he said he supported a mandate only in Massachusetts but not nationwide.

The question is, will people accept the ruling or fight like cat and dog about it? If parts are held to be unconstitutional then that's it. I'm going to get my popcorn and watch this one.

Oh they'll accept the ruling alright and the only fighting that will be done is on internet forums like this one.

This president is in the pocket of every single special interest and he let an historic opportunity slip by to start universal health care in America .. The special interest rather than the citizenry are always the chief beneficiaries of any legislation his administration proposes. And let's face it, some parts of it ARE unconstitutional. America is a nation of states.. All powers not assigned to the Federal government in the constitution are the purview of the states. He overreached there, but even then it might have been OK if this new mandate came with a means to pay for it, but it didn't. The Amateur indeed.

Anyway, the consequences of the SC decision today,either way won't bring down a nation. Unlike the horrendous 2010 SC decision in "Citizens United vs, The F.E.C", which was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. Dred Scott led to the blodiest war in America's history, Citizen's United signaled the end of democracy in America. I wonder what that will lead to?

Jingthing, what Romney did was legal for a state, but not for the whole country.

Oh they'll accept the ruling alright and the only fighting that will be done is on internet forums like this one.

This president is in the pocket of every single special interest and he let an historic opportunity slip by to start universal health care in America .. The special interest rather than the citizenry are always the chief beneficiaries of any legislation his administration proposes. And let's face it, some parts of it ARE unconstitutional. America is a nation of states.. All powers not assigned to the Federal government in the constitution are the purview of the states. He overreached there, but even then it might have been OK if this new mandate came with a means to pay for it, but it didn't. The Amateur indeed.

Anyway, the consequences of the SC decision today,either way won't bring down a nation. Unlike the horrendous 2010 SC decision in "Citizens United vs, The F.E.C", which was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. Dred Scott led to the blodiest war in America's history, Citizen's United signaled the end of democracy in America. I wonder what that will lead to?

Could Obama or anyone have passed universal health care? You seem to think so. I have strong doubts. Of course Obama ideologically wanted universal health care and that was his original position. He moderated his position to be very similar to, very ironically, his opponent, Romney, who now runs from his previous pro mandate position. I sure hope he would at least tried harder to the do the right thing, universal health care, but he gave that up before the fight even began. I don't know that anyone really knows what would have happened if he had indeed fought for universal.

How the different factions reaction still depends on exactly what the ruling is. For example, if the law is totally upheld, there is NO WAY the republicans will "accept" that, who are you kidding? They will say now you must elect Romney and we will kill the bill if you elect us.

Jingthing, what Romney did was legal for a state, but not for the whole country.

That's Romney's current position. But his previous position, which he is hiding from now, was to favor his mandate concept for the nation, with Massachusetts as the model. We'll see how the court rules. Neither of us knows if the mandate or indeed any of the bill be struck down yet.

My feeling is if the bill stands and the mandate is struck down, there ARE ways to preserve the bill. I know the common belief is the bill can't stand without the mandate, but they are wrong. There are thousands of links on how it can still work without the mandate because yes there are OTHER methods to encourage wider participation WITHOUT the mandate. Again, to be clear, lipstick on a pig, I want universal.

Oh they'll accept the ruling alright and the only fighting that will be done is on internet forums like this one.

This president is in the pocket of every single special interest and he let an historic opportunity slip by to start universal health care in America .. The special interest rather than the citizenry are always the chief beneficiaries of any legislation his administration proposes. And let's face it, some parts of it ARE unconstitutional. America is a nation of states.. All powers not assigned to the Federal government in the constitution are the purview of the states. He overreached there, but even then it might have been OK if this new mandate came with a means to pay for it, but it didn't. The Amateur indeed.

Anyway, the consequences of the SC decision today,either way won't bring down a nation. Unlike the horrendous 2010 SC decision in "Citizens United vs, The F.E.C", which was the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott. Dred Scott led to the blodiest war in America's history, Citizen's United signaled the end of democracy in America. I wonder what that will lead to?

Could Obama or anyone have passed universal health care? You seem to think so. I have strong doubts. Of course Obama ideologically wanted universal health care and that was his original position. He moderated his position to be very similar to, very ironically, his opponent, Romney, who now runs from his previous pro mandate position. I sure hope he would at least tried harder to the do the right thing, universal health care, but he gave that up before the fight even began. I don't know that anyone really knows what would have happened if he had indeed fought for universal.

How the different factions reaction still depends on exactly what the ruling is. For example, if the law is totally upheld, there is NO WAY the republicans will "accept" that, who are you kidding? They will say now you must elect Romney and we will kill the bill if you elect us.

Leaders lead. Can you imagine if a paper cutout president like Obama was charged to fill Andrea Merkel's shoes these past few years? Europe would be on fire. He's a high fivin', fist bumping, teleprompting , cartoon figure of of a leader. A once great nation deserves more, and no, I'm not a Romney supporter.

Leaders lead. Can you imagine if a paper cutout president like Obama was charged to fill Andrea Merkel's shoes these past few years? Europe would be on fire. He's a high fivin', fist bumping, teleprompting , cartoon figure of of a leader. A once great nation deserves more, and no, I'm not a Romney supporter.

I am with you in wishing he had shown more balls in the health care fight. Obamacare is a mess, but I am one who thinks it is a better mess than the status quo before Obamacare. It's going to be a classic negative election. I can't imagine disliking Obama so much that Romney seems palatable, but obviously plenty of people can.

Thinking about this, it seems pretty certain there will be a news item about this when the ruling comes in that will posted in the wider forum. So not sure this thread will be needed at that time, but for now, maybe it can be seen as a warm up.

For example, if the law is totally upheld, there is NO WAY the republicans will "accept" that, who are you kidding? They will say now you must elect Romney and we will kill the bill if you elect us.

Look what Obama just did about the heart of the Arizona immigration bill that the Supreme Court just upheld. He is trying to circumvent another law. What is good for the goose...

For example, if the law is totally upheld, there is NO WAY the republicans will "accept" that, who are you kidding? They will say now you must elect Romney and we will kill the bill if you elect us.

Look what Obama just did about the heart of the Arizona immigration bill that the Supreme Court just upheld. He is trying to circumvent another law. What is good for the goose...

Not exactly. The court ruled non-immigration police in states could check IDs for immigration status. They did NOT mandate the federal government to ACT on their findings. I see no comparison to what I mentioned about the predictable republican reaction to Obamacare being upheld, IF it is upheld. Also, I see it is perfectly legit for the republicans to TRY to overturn Obamacare through the legitimate legislative process. Good luck to them though as some parts of it are VERY POPULAR. The truth is as far from ideal as Obamacare is, the republicans have nothing decent to REPLACE it.

Obama cicumvented the law once again and the American people hate Obamacare. If Romney kills the bill, he would be totally justified.

Obama cicumvented the law once again and the American people hate Obamacare. If Romney kills the bill, he would be totally justified.

If he wins the power and can manage it, he is justified because he is running on killing the bill, if there is still a bill then to be killed. You say Americans hate Obamacare but fail to realize a large percentage hate it because it isn't universal single payer, and that also the majority love important parts of it, such as full access for those with preexisting conditions. They hate the mandate. That's what they hate.

Personally, I would be all for universal single payer if we could afford it, but we can't.

Personally, I would be all for universal single payer if we could afford it, but we can't.

I beg to differ. We can't afford NOT to have it. Canadians spend much less per head for health care and they cover everyone! Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

Personally, I would be all for universal single payer if we could afford it, but we can't.

Sure we can. A nation needs to set it's priorities. Adopt Simpson-Bowles. Add a national sales tax that is exclusionary of food and has an exemption up to about 20k/family (or whatever's appropriate). If unemployment continues to go in the wrong direction start a massive WPA style works program for public works project, setting aside the Davis-Bacon Act. Now that wasn't too hard was it?

That's the biggest problem with Obamacare as LB alluded to, is that it caved to the big health money corporate interests and did very little about cost issues. Only universal single payer is really capable of seriously addressing BOTH cost and full access issues. The USA can learn from so many other countries who cover all at much less per head than the US.

That's the biggest problem with Obamacare as LB alluded to, is that it caved to the big health money corporate interests and did very little about cost issues. Only universal single payer is really capable of seriously addressing BOTH cost and full access issues. The USA can learn from so many other countries who cover all at much less per head than the US.

The biggest bubble on Earth is the spiraling cost of US healthcare. I was just back in the states to visit a long ago girlfriend of mine. Diagnosed with malignant tumors of the sinuses. A single day of operation at UCSF Medical Cemter on Parnassus St. cost over $250k. Her expenses are into seven figures now. She spent 2 weeks in ICU that's well over 10k/day. A total of imonth in hospital She's been an outpatient receiving radiation and chemo services almost daily but she doesn't live in SF. It's not the cheapest city in the world to visit in. No insurance covers that. My suggestion to her, though insurance has covered the bulk of expenses (not without a fight each time) so far, is that she shelter her assets, take out loans and later declare bankruptcy. What a sad state of affairs. Oh, and she may not live.

Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

The Canadian economy is kicking butt - ours is not.

Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

The Canadian economy is kicking butt - ours is not.

Lame excuse. Their system is part of their CULTURE, bad times and good.

Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

The Canadian economy is kicking butt - ours is not.

Lame excuse. Their system is part of their CULTURE, bad times and good.

As little culture as there is in the US, there's even less in Canada, unless you include hockey. 30 years on what you'll see there and to a lesser extent in the US is the re-emergence of the power of the indigenous peoples. They've got the resources and a license to print money.

Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

The Canadian economy is kicking butt - ours is not.

Lame excuse. Their system is part of their CULTURE, bad times and good.

As little culture as ther is in the US, there's even less in Canada, unless you include hockey. #o years on what you'll see there and to a lesser extent in the US is the re-emergence of the powerof the indigenous peoples. They've got the resources and a license to print money.

Canada is doing very well now but that is rather recent. Their universal health care system is not at all new and Canadians would never give it up! It could be argued that this health care security has greatly enhanced their quality of life.

The Canadian economy is kicking butt - ours is not.

Lame excuse. Their system is part of their CULTURE, bad times and good.

As little culture as ther is in the US, there's even less in Canada, unless you include hockey. #o years on what you'll see there and to a lesser extent in the US is the re-emergence of the powerof the indigenous peoples. They've got the resources and a license to print money.

Canada is doing very well now but that is rather recent. Their universal health care system is not at all new and Canadians would never give it up! It could be argued that this health care security has greatly enhanced their quality of life.

I used to be a PR of Canada and was eligible for it's health care system as well really cheap pharmaceuticals. The system has it's pluses and minuses. Pluses include rapid care for emergant injuries though IMO their emergency centers well lag those of the US. CHEAP PHARMACEUTICALS. Any major problems that are not emergant are poorly addressed by the system. There used to be an auxilliary insurance you could buy or it was part of the Visa Gold program that would allow Canadians to travel to the US for care, rather than waiting on treatment whenever the government saw fit. I think that program's gone now. Lomg Long waiting lists for things requiring rather immediate care. The doctors there are extremely unhappy with the system and many have opted out out of the system or emigrated to the US. It ain't perfect, but still it's better than what the US has now. That said, the ex-girlfriend I mentioned in another post would likely be dead already under the Canadian system.

Personally, I would be all for universal single payer if we could afford it, but we can't.

I beg to differ. We can't afford NOT to have it. Canadians spend much less per head for health care and they cover everyone! Are you saying Canadians are that much more capable than Americans?

the pop of canada is less than california and that is the issue 300 plus million people is a different story no matter how good a plan.