Nancy Pelosi: Supreme Court Will Uphold Health Care Law

[onehandle]

WASHINGTON -- House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi predicted the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the health care law by a 6-3 vote.

Pelosi didn't say how she thought individual justices would vote in her appearance Friday on "CBS This Morning."

But the California Democrat said her party is "prepared for any eventuality," including the possibility the high court may overturn some or all of the law that critics have labeled "Obamacare."

Pelosi said "we're ironclad on the constitutionality" and the public already is taking advantage of some features, including allowing young people up to age 26 to be covered on their parents' policies and prohibiting discrimination against the young based on pre-existing conditions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/15/nancy-pelosi-supreme-court-health-care-law_n_1599424.html

[WI_DEM]

1. I hope so, but if I were her I wouldn't have made any prediction.

[Puzzledtraveller]

2. It will be overturned and rightly so, it's a non stop handout to the insurance industry.

And all who stand to gain from a mandate to purchase a product from private entities. Those who support this are either unbelievably partisan so much that they will accept anything as long as it's done by their side, or afraid that this is it, there is nothing after this.

[Hoyt]

3. Return to former laws/rules is a bigger handout, unfortunately.

And leaves a bunch of folks without any coverage.

Clearly there are better approaches than what passed, but we won't get anything for another 20 years at best if that is overturned. Reforms were better than status quo.

[Marr]

4. I agree.

If a Republican had passed it... well, one did... who was that again...

Anyway, the mandate was completely unacceptable to Democrats until Obama did it. Then it suddenly became "pragmatic".

I won't shed any tears if the health insurance bailout act is pronounced unconstitutional, but I sort of doubt that it will be. If this Supreme Court has to choose between partisan maneuvering and huge money for big corporate interests, I expect they'll choose the latter.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Sadly, I think you're right...

If this Supreme Court has to choose between partisan maneuvering and huge money for big corporate interests, I expect they'll choose the latter.

While I support the ACA with lukewarm fervor, I think they kind of put the corporatists on the court in a bind here. That pig has a lot of warts, but it might be a path to states going single payer, which would be a good thing IMHO.

[Marr]

10. Yep-- it's the only path there that I can see.

If this thing is deemed unconstitutional, then the big corporate route is off the table for good. But the problem certainly isn't going away.

[pnwmom]

5. The same legal reasoning that supports it applies to Medicaid and other government programs.

So we all better hope you're dead wrong, or we're heading toward a libertarian train wreck.

[Wounded Bear]

7. You have stated my greatest fear on this issue. nt

[unblock]

8. non stop handouts to industry are not unconstitutional.

in fact there's all manner of bad law that's perfectly constitutional.
the supreme court is not the sole remedy available to correct bad law.

and the only thing about the "mandate" that even sounds unconstitutional is the word "mandate".

call it an income tax coupled with a tax credit for anyone who has qualifying health insurance and no one would think for one minute that it was unconstitutional.

[KatyMan]

9. United Healthcare has said that regardless,

they will keep some of the changes the law enacted.

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/morning-edition/2012/06/unitedhealthcare-to-keep-some-reform.html

So it's at least a start...

The provider...said it will continue to offer some of the protections mandated from the health law, even if they are no longer mandated — including provisions related to coverage of preventive health-care services, coverage of dependents up to age 26 and lifetime policy limits.

[Wounded Bear]

11. Yeah, I read that.....but...

I refuse to trust the good will of an organization like United HealthCare. If it's not coded into law, they have carte blanche to end it when they think they need a new corporate jet or something.

[KatyMan]

12. Agreed.

But the gov't could always bring the whip down again......right?

Don't think I need this:

[pnwmom]

13. Temporarily, until the Rethugs repeal the law. And they're not making any promises

about taking the millions of people with preexisting conditions.