Weiner Says SCOTUS Will Rule Against Health Care Law, Paving Way For Public Option

[sasha031]

This is more in the spirit of partypooping than of celebration. But on the first anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, one of the law's most dogged defenders, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), admitted he thinks the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate. It's not that he thinks the mandate is unconstitutional, but that the court has become so partisan, that its conservative justices will rule against President Obama in a 5-4 decision. He wasn't glum about it, though -- if the mandate goes he said it will pave the way for Congress to pass the public option.

"If lightning strikes, and it turns out that as many of us believe, the Supreme Court turns out to be a third political branch of government and they strike down the mandate -- big deal," Weiner said, expressing a 'so what?!' sentiment. "Big deal!"

His take is politically at odds with most elected Democrats, who tend to express confidence that the Court will rule in the Obama administration's favor. Weiner has been applying consistent public pressure on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from a future health care reform lawsuit because of money his wife, Ginni Thomas, has been paid by reform foes. That probably won't happen, though.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/weiner-says-scotus-will-rule-against-health-care-law-paving-way-for-public-option.php

[Bandit]

1. While I agree with him that the Extreme Court would likely strike it down

I don't see how a Republican controlled House would ever vote for a Public Option or anything for that matter that would aid the everyday common person in America.. If it isn't for the corporations or the military it won't pass...Here's a new phrase for him..."The votes are not there"

[sasha031]

4. I know, the only way i see health care making any progress

If states start following Vermont's lead.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

2. the Law will stand. sorry, Anthony.

[BzaDem]

3. Weiner doesn't know what he's talking about. A ruling against the mandate couldn't be fixed with a

public option.

If there is a public option but no mandate, the same problems will happen that would occur without a public option -- to be solvent, rates for the public option (and private insurance) would have to be so high as to be unaffordable for almost everyone.

Single payer would work (since that is a mandate), but not a public option without a mandate.

[Blue Meany]

7. On the contrary, Congress may not be able to force you to buy

private insurance but they certainly can tax you pay for healthcare whether you use it or not.

[BzaDem]

13. Yes, they can. That's Single Payer, which I said would work.

A public option, on the other hand, without a mandate, would not charge people if they don't use it. People could still avoid signing up until they need it, and premiums would therefore unaffordable to all but the rich.

[Modern_Matthew]

5. What will pave the way for single payer? nt

[Ozymanithrax]

6. If revoked we go back to what we had before...worrse than nothing

Because the make up of the House and Senate at this time make passing a Public Option impossible.

Weiner is wrong.

[sasha031]

8. how I hope your right

[Enthusiast]

9. Any way you look at it

we must have a viable public option or single payer of some sort. The costs will dictate reform no matter how strongly health care associated corporations resist it. But to achieve REAL health care reform we will first have to have real campaign finance reform and standards for media fairness. This has got to happen and the sooner the better.

Wishy washy Democratic legislators had better figure out which side they are on and quickly. Are they on the side of profits over health care or are they for the health of the people? If they resist single payer or a viable public option they are simply not on the side of human beings. They should then be deemed unfit to serve as Democrats. No wiggle room, none.

[Scuba]

10. Scuba says SCOTUS will split 5-4 on next 10 decisions. Takers?

[MisterP]

11. "severability" is also important when making amicus curiae briefs

so the good stuff (really just a cover for the mandate) can be disentangled; the ruling would be without prejudice to the rest of the bill

also, we can't be afraid of calling blatant fascism what it is because it might hurt "the party" in its content-free horse races

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Under which Congress could any meaningful health care bill be passed? Certainly not this one

and we saw what happened with a Democratic led House and Senate.....