So you are saying that Roberts was more moved by his business buddies than the Teahadists? If he leaves the Court before he dies, I hope his business buddies have work lined up for him. The wingnut welfare brigade will never forgive him for this decision. Not any time soon.

This theory would go a long way to explaining Nino’s bitter and wide-ranging dissent on Arizona’s law last week, especially his bringing Obama’s contemporaneous political action into his rant. Was he trying to show Roberts thst he, Nino, wasn’t moved by Obama’s threats and neither should the Chief?

And isn’t it amazing how much like Kremlinology our understanding of this critically important branch of government has become? Whence do they derive their claims of secrecy? How can we open their deliberations up to the American people?

Why does SCOTUS get to be so secretive?

Oooo, let’s gossip some more! I heard Kennedy doesn’t wear anything from the waste down under his robes!

Our CIA controlled media sure helps with the secrecy. But if you pay attention to the web, then you can ferret out info regarding which corporations which justices are loyal parties to.

And the Democrats are just as entangled in being friendly to corporations as the Republicans. Although they favor different corporations.

LOL.

Rand Paul is right for a change.

I must have said a year ago that Roberts was a corporate tool and he would vote to uphold even if there was no basis in conservative legal theory. Later I decided I was probably being too cynical, but clearly I wasn’t.

Evidently they also vote on Diebold’s machines.

The decision maximized Roberts’ utility function: minimized attacks on the Court from all but the loonies, declared the mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce and Necessary Clauses, paid off his insurance buddies, put Scalia back in his cage, limited use of the Commerce Clause, and screwed with Medicaid. Hey, maybe one of the “liberal” judges threw in some head.

From Roberts’ viewpoint, what’s not to like?

Roberts vote is no more bizarre than the “liberal” justices upholding what in essence is the Heritage Foundation’s health care scheme that penalizes (oops, taxes) people who don’t buy an expensive corporate product.

But wait, isn’t Justice Ginsberg dissenting? Why, yes, she dissents from the finding that a rationale based on the Commerce Clause would be unconstitutinal, but okay as a tax. She writes that the Commerce Clause does in fact apply, but concurs also that the mandate is indeed a tax. So, she concurs and dissents. She just would have gone further, nicht wahr?

I like her discussion of “the broccoli horrible.” And that the conservative klan dissent is “long on conjecture and short on real world examples.”

I think that the Chief Justice saw from Citizens United fiasco that the Supremes are not equipped to legislate from the bench — Breyer refused to go along with a re-hearing of the Montana campaign limit shut down (whatever happened to sovereign state rights, huh?) and blocked little fixes to what is turning out to be huge and growing problem of Super Pacs and non-profit disguised corrupt campaign contributions.

Then there’s the tragic result of Bush v Gore. The courts should not be legislating. Full stop. That’s what he is afraid of doing yet again to satisfy that mad dog, Scalia and the compromised Thomas.

What’s that saying about the simplest answer?

Roberts got paid off. End of story.

Isn’t it possible Scalia’s opinion was referring to the “dissent” specifically on the commerce clause argument? He was in the majority on that question.

By the way, from the opinion, here’s Justice Ginsburg on Chief Justice Roberts’ take on the Commerce Clause (footnote 12, p. 102, bolding mine) –

Ultimately, the Court upholds the individual mandate as a proper exercise of Congress’ power to tax and spend“for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1; ante, at 43–44. I concur in that determination, which makes THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s Commerce Clause essay all the more puzzling. Why should THE CHIEF JUSTICE strive so mightily to hem in Congress’ capacity to meet the new problems arising constantly in our ever developing modern economy? I find no satisfying response to that question in his opinion.12

12 THE CHIEF JUSTICE states that he must evaluate the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision under the Commerce Clause because the provision “reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax.” Ante, at 44. THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately concludes, however, that interpreting the provision as a tax is a “fairly possible” construction. Ante, at 32 (internal quotation marks omitted).That being so, I see no reason to undertake a Commerce Clause analysis that is not outcome determinative.

In other words, it seems like Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks that Roberts was merely spewing hot and importless air with his bloviatings on the Commerce Clause.

Note that she states that Roberts’ Commerce Clause musings are “not outcome determinative”. Sounds like she’s tweaking him for being a blowhard.

Does anyone remember why they didn’t call it a tax from the get-go? It obviously was structured as one.

It wasn’t just that calling it a tax would have been politically unpopular. It was that this thing originated in the Senate, which a revenue bill cannot do. So expect a new challenge to the law on that ground now. Also, a tax bill can be repealed by a bare majority: no filibuster.

Romney has raised over $1.5 million on this issue this afternoon.

“If all inactivity affecting commerce is commerce, commerce is everything.”
Isn’t that the first law of conservative politics? Everything is commerce. Or does it depend on what the meaning of “is” is?

Thanks so much for your tremendous coverage today, David!

Chief Justice Roberts May Have Switched Health Care Vote at Last Minute

someone had to change their vote, roberts bit the bullet

this was decided a long time ago otherwise obama would have never fast tracked the scotus decision

if it wasn’t roberts it would have been alito, if not alito then scalia

if it were a republican in office the “conservative” judges would have been on board and one of the “liberal” judges would have joined

it’s kabuki

My thoughts exactly. Tax bills must originate in the house. This is why the govt argued against it being a tax.

What’s that saying about the simplest answer?

Roberts got paid off. End of story.

don’t know if the term “paid off” works here since he is nothing but a marionette being manipulated by the corporate puppeteers, no “pay off” is needed, simply the script

Why did Roberts flip? “Monied Interests?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

He is most remembered for delivering the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), that ruled, among other things, that African Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and could not be considered citizens of the United States.

Taney was a Jacksonian Democrat when he became Chief Justice. Described by his and President Andrew Jackson’s critics as “[a] supple, cringing tool of Jacksonian power,”[1] Taney was a believer in states’ rights but also the Union; a slaveholder who regretted the institution and manumitted his slaves.[2]

I wonder what Roberts legacy will be? The justice which rendered Americans into corporate service. I believe these chumps have ignored constitutional protections designed to limit this type of servile relationship between the governed and corporations. They have approved the use of a punitive tax penalty to compel citizens into contracts with corporations, not to protect Americans and the republic but to protect business models. Little geographic monopolies in commerce and trade? I wonder if Roberts will wake and and regret his vote and wish he had manumitted the Americans, people from the clutches of the health insurance industry, as Taney eventually manumitted his slaves after protecting the slave holder’s business model?

For one thing taxes are unpopular. For another if it’s a tax, it can be repealed through budget reconciliation, not subject to filibuster.

You mean Romney raised money by criticizing the decision of a conservative Chief Justice appointed by a Republican president? What a RINO! (/snark)

That makes sense to me.

Ding!

It’s pathetic over at RedState where they are trying to spin this as Roberts playing 11-dimensional chess.

I’d thought that game was only played by the left.

Isn’t there also a surtax on unearned income above some amount in the ACA too, to help fund the gov’s subsidies for buying insurance? (One of the primary reasons, I think I recall, that the CBO scored it as lowering the deficit …) I wonder where that provision originated.

I take back my ding! LOL

yup.

If you want to try and solve our health care crisis by decree, which is what has been done here, and mandate that every citizen have medical insurance there are a number of options. You could mandate that businesses cover all of their employees, and I believe that this was once the Democratic Party alternative to the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s individual mandate idea, with appropriate subsidies for small businesses of course. You could mandate that the individual states assure coverage for all of their respective citizens, much as Medicaid does for the poor and disabled. You could extend Medicare to all through a federal mandate to cover everyone.

All of these methods of achieving universal health care coverage would be infinitely more desirable than putting the onus on the individual to purchase a poor quality product in the private market from a for-profit corporation. By definition then the consumer is not getting full value for their health care dollars, because money is being skimmed off the top for a profit margin that was previously unlimited and is now capped at 20%. As a consequence the consumer gets only 80% of what they pay for, assuming they can prevent their insurance company from screwing them in other ways.

So why were these other forms of mandating universal health care coverage deemed politically unpalatable while sticking it to the individual citizen apparently is? Money, specifically campaign contributions from big business and corporate health care providers in particular. It seems that the individual citizen’s interest is not currently represented in our government and thus the path of political least resistance leads to what we have, the individual mandate. Unconstitutional? Only if you believe the Constitution was created to limit the power of government over the people, which is not a popular interpretation these days…

not sure if this is correct but under Article 1, Section 7 requires all legislation that raises revenue originate in the HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES.

Didn’t this bill originate in THE SENATE? So if this is a tax then it is not enforceable?

Cogent analysis, aztronut.

And much appreciated.

DW

That’s how I read it, too. The quote from Scalawag’s majority opinion in the post is, I thought, pretty clearly limited to the commerce consideration:

“rests upon the Constitution’s requirement that it be commerce which is regulated. If all inactivity affecting commerce is commerce, commerce is everything.”

You mean Romney raised money by criticizing the decision of a conservative Chief Justice appointed by a Republican president?

He certainly raised money from me. Not that I’m pleased with Justice Roberts today, but if his point is that this law needs to be addressed politically by electing Congressmen who will repeal it instead of relying on an activist Court to overturn it, then I’m on board with the political action. Apparently I’m not alone.

I agree with Roberts on the general conservative idea that laws shouldn’t be overturned lightly. I just think that it’s stretching things too far to uphold this law as if it had been a tax, when Congress failed to call it a tax or treat it as a tax for any other purpose.

Which means that Romney has raised $1.5M to overturn what is, at heart, his own legislation.

Nimwads every one.

I wonder where that provision originated.

Everything in the law as it was finally passed, and as it was construed by the Supreme Court, came from the Senate. If you’ll recall, the House originally passed an anodyne bill, by unanimous vote, addressing certain housing benefits for military and federal employees — not a word about health care. The Senate then took that bill up, changed its title and every single word in it, substituting the title and language of the ACA, but keeping its House number. Then the House rubber-stamped the “altered” bill. Thin reed.

Tax “Wall Street” and “Oil……” Control these corporations before they destroy USA. They control inflation……..

While we are at it, also revoke the tax exempt status granted by the IRS to major players in the healthcare industry and use the tax code to control their behavior as the SJC has now seen fit to impose a mandated punitive life tax on every American for not being able to afford $2,300 a month premium for a family plan at the tax exempt public charity called Blue Cross Blue Shield, and control our behavior??

Its called protect the slave owners!

Equal protection under the law, as it stands now is a illusion in healthcare. Corporations win. People loose. The American Way. So how will you celebrate America’s Independence from a King and his corporate cohorts in crime? Working to pay for a health insurance premium or drinking beer enjoying the prospect of leveraged servitude to a health insurance corporation?

Isn’t it “nimrods”?

I am unclear why there is so much shock that Roberts used his vote to protect the interests of corporations. Its the insurance companies that wanted the mandate. That makes up a key portion of what makes the AHCA the insurance companies bailout.

This vote is reminiscent of Congress’s left/right Kabuki. It splits down partisan lines with someone breaking ranks to protect the corporate interest. How is this any different?

Which means that Romney has raised $1.5M to overturn what is, at heart, his own legislation.

Well, sort of. The Constitutional principle is that states may do many things that the federal government may not. Also, if I have to choose between a candidate who now understands what a stupid law it is, vs. one who used to think it was a good approach but has come to his senses, my choice is clear.

But it seems likely that he was moved by something.

The folks hoping for it to be struck down making Medicare-for-all theoretically more viable as the only universal coverage, constitutional option?

The biggest problem with the ACA is that it does nothing to promote doctors going into general family practice. I predict that 2015 many doctors will simply say I have no room for any more patients. Think of it like this a gp that works 10 hours a day and spends 20 min with a patient can see maybe 27 easy patients a day. Any complications and that reduces that number. 27 x 5 days = 135 patients/week * 48 weeks/year = 6480 patient slots per year. If each patient uses 1.5 slots/year that is 4320 unique patients/year. ~350,000,000 people in the US. = 81015 gp’s to cover the patients in the US. There are not that many GP’s and LNPs in the US. You better hope that everyone does not use all their benefits. Otherwise we will have rationing by availability. You are giong to have to entice docs to become GPs and that means paying off their 100k loans and that is not in the budget.

Your comments and analysis are also always very much appreciated, James Joyce.

In general, and for all remotely practical considerations and purposes, the Rule of Law, no longer exists … for, when “money” is regarded as speech and corporations are held, by the courts, to be persons, then we are well and truly deep into Dred Scott territory … and have been since Bush v. Gore.

DW

You forget that no one, dems or repubs want to pay the true cost of health care. If you want unlimited care, go to the actuaries at the insurance companies, they are the best in the world at it, and ask them what the cost to cover 350,000,000 Americans would be. Devide that number into the gross income above 75,000/worker and come up with a rate, if you passed that kind of tax, I don’t think you would be relected.

step back and look at what the supreme court has done in recent years with their outrageous activism. It is quickly losing all credibility.

- Scalia’s political rants and overreach
- Thomas’ financial conflicts of interest, intellectual midget
- congressional letters requesting Roberts to adhere to code of ethics in place for all other fed judges, in other words “you guys have no ethics”
- Roberts’ overreach in Citizens United
- Alito’s overreach on nearly every ruling, another mental midget
- Obama’s smackdown at the state of the union

these five conservatives are a rogues gallery of ideological activism on the bench. They know it, everybody knows it, and the pressure is starting to build on them.

my theory says that Scalia’s latest personal political attack on the president, for something unrelated to the Arizona case, was so outrageous that it freaked out Roberts, Scalia appears to also be a rascist, along with all his other disgusting traits. I think Roberts realized he was loosing control of the ship because the other four nutcases he is aligned with are totally out of control, and the 5 political operatives are now widely perceived as a charade of justice. Striking down ACA would have deemed “the Roberts Court” the worst in the history of the country, he’s trying to preserve his own legacy.

Roberts is a corporatist first, last, and always. He couldn’t bring himself to deprive the Insurance Industry of thirty-million new customers.

My God! Roberts said to himself this morning. I’m about to make the terrible mistake of privileging the right-wing rabble with whom my heart lies over my corporate masters!

The U.S. pays twice as much per resident as any place else in the industrialized world for health care, yet rates in the bottom quartile in terms of quality.

I believe you are neglecting to account for economies of scale. These are costs that are going to be paid one way or another, it’s a zero sum game until someone get hurt, so adding in a profit margin for a middleman is morally indefensible.

gp’s are increasingly joining hospital based groups, becoming employees of the hospitals. the hospitals will have to compete for the gp’s, because the gp’s are the feeders into the hospitals’ more lucrative services. Hospitals will gladly make incentive payments to gp’s to pick up the tab on those debts.

the National Health Service, the fed program that pays off loans for gp’s in exchange for working in under-serviced areas is actually cutting back on the number of gp’s they will subsidize, as demand among current med students is skyrocketing to be part of the program. That reduces the number of future gp’s even further, increasing their value even more to the hospitals.

i’m hoping my daughter currently in med school chooses the gp path, the current loan amounts for med school students (who are not legacy medical family students) are well over 200K for most kids

This was all about keeping corporate America happy while trying to maitain the illusion the Right Wingers on the court are about “liberty” and the constitution.

It was quite the balancing act. I’m impressed.

Now, the Right Wing propaganda machine can direct the people’s anger to the election.

Vote Republican House, Senate and President to overturn Obama care.

Guess what. If they do, the Republicans are going to hand the corporations tort reform, selling across state lines and shifting costs to employees.

It’s a win win for corporations either way.

That is until over a hundred million or more people in this country don’t have health insurance and therefore health care.

Then the shit is going to hit the fan and I wouldn’t want to be downwind in Washington.

I believe they are sowing the seeds of civil war, surely as Taney’s Scott decision led to America’s civil war. Slave owners said it would cost to much to liberate slaves, just as the corporations says it cost to much to grant access to healthcare services and pay for care especially as it comes to those who get shit luck in the genetic draw of life. You know like being born with dark skin vs white skin, in SC in 1778? Servitude for life….

Now all Americans can experience this servitude to a corporation in one form or another. The type of servitude a King imposed on a people to protect his cash flow? The kind of servitude which caused Jefferson to write a Declaration of Independence. I feel today, as many dutiful Germans felt when Hitler was elected and then saw their republic ripped apart by fascists, seeking power over every aspect of their live’s, protecting who?. I will not be silent. The government is to protect the governed. Instead the court just screwed us as they screwed Scott.

Protect the corporate health insurers, slave owners and their 11 million dollar severance packages for corporate exec. Never mind “Monopolies in commerce and trade,” and the threats to liberty they represent!

This is a problem in rural areas especially.

Urban and suburban hospital systems recruit primary care providers with the golden handcuffs of paying off their student loans. These captive docs tend to earn less that docs who have their own practices but more docs are forced into this arrangement because that’s the way the financial incentives are structured.

In rural areas, the only recruiting tool that rural and low-income community clinics have is the National Health Service Corps .

If Robbers is in I’m out.

They made a shell bill you take some House bill and amendment it to replace everything.

An opinion that agrees with the result of the opinion of the court but disagrees with the rationale of the opinion of the court is a concurrence in the result, not a dissent.

Why would Roberts ever have assigned the writing of the opinion of the court to Nino, if Roberts was originally on the same side? Why wouldn’t he have assigned the writing to himself or to Kennedy?

“BOLD” My fucking ass Tweety!!!!!!!!!!

I beleive this entry is incorrect. If you read the majority opinion, Justice Ginsburg dissented in part of the majority opinion. Specifically, she dissented to Chief Justice Roberts arguments that the individual mandate cannot be found constitutional per the Commerce Clause. When Scalia is talking about Ginsburg’s dissent it is in this context, that the individual mandate should have been upheld under the Commerce Clause. That is why he calls it her dissent, because she is actually dissenting in part of the majority opinion. I do not think anything else can be read into this.

They are many ways to fight back.

1. Start screaming at the top of your lungs that Republicans need to denounce Roberts or you will say they are for Obama care.

2. Start screaming at the top of your lungs that your premiums are too high and that health insurance CEOs and executives need to have their pay capped at (insert under $200,000 figure)

3. Go naked (drop the crap insurance you are paying a fortune for). Do it now. If millions do this we can turn the screws.

Tax. Yes, it is a tax because the IRS collects it, just like a penalty, for those free-loaders who don’t buy insurance until they get sick. However, the law specifically does not allow the IRS to use its collection mechanisms for scofflaws.

Medicare. Still operational, but states can opt out. J Ginsburg cited sources that will cost states something less than 1% increase in government spending to provide for all the new people to be enrolled in Medicare. First 100% covered by the USG, then ends up at 90% covered.

State’s Rights. Hypocrites. Liars. State’s rights only apply for conservative issues. Marijuana cases where states cannot write own laws. Ditto campaign financing where Montana cannot have own laws. Yet, immigration? Arizona is a sovereign state. Gun control? Not a sovereign state.

If a Democrat is for it, Scalia is against it. Simple as that.

No matter what happened today, you know who still has health care paid for by the US government?

The Supreme Court, that’s who.

“…for those free-loaders.”

Oh like those freeloaders who lost their jobs and insurance coverage, while banks, wall street and oil raped the country blind, while million of jobs went to emerging market? You sound like a “brownshit” blaming them freeloaders like Nazis blamed who?

Freeloaders aye?????????

DDay, great “inside baseball,” analysis. Thanks, as always.

Well now, that is a very telling point, Teddy.

Let’s see … so does Congress … and the President and the Vice President and all Cabinet members … and so on and so forth.

It is just a small part of the perks available for honest public servants (doing the peoples’ “business” …)/s

And ultimately, it IS the “public”, that is, “the people”, hoi paloi, who pay for this “fawning” largess, for such it really is … one way or another.

DW

Ha! I almost missed your /s tag on “honest public servants!”

for those free-loaders who don’t buy insurance until they get sick.

WTF? If I could afford healthcare it would cost me $2000 a month. I live on around $3200 a month along with my husband. I am not a freeloader. I simply lost everything after having cancer twice. So, STFU.

I hate both political parties and especially, the hycrid corporate appeasers call Asselephant.

Since 1996 I’ve called and berated all my representative state and federal, chastising them on exec pay.

As for health insurance, its kind of like gasoline. You need it to run your car. The system is rigged. People actually need healthcare services, more than insurance, just like American needs more choice in potential energy, rather than pigeon holed to one commodity, manipulated by corporations, under the illusion of free market bullshit when its monopolized….

I second that STFU! Mary!

Roberts Rules of Order…. Is there a motion to approve!!!

The pressure Roberts was under came from his financial backers in the Healthcare and Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries, all of whom make out like bandits under ACA, with a larger guaranteed market, and no competition whatsoever. None of those stocks went down today, so Roberts earned his pay. He is still invested in them, you know… what with the SCOTUS being exempt from all ethics rules.

So why were these other forms of mandating universal health care coverage deemed politically unpalatable while sticking it to the individual citizen apparently is?

Money, specifically campaign contributions from big business and corporate health care providers in particular. It seems that the individual citizen’s interest is not currently represented in our government and thus the path of political least resistance leads to what we have, the individual mandate. Unconstitutional? Only if you believe the Constitution was created to limit the power of government over the people, which is not a popular interpretation these days…

This is spot on Aztronut. Congress should have ended pre-existing conditions discrimination decades ago and found a way to pay for it. In a true cost benefits analysis the American people as well as the republic, will not benefit form the chicanery. They are protecting the “skimming” as you point out. Corporations always find new ways to morph and achieve a new angle ahead of law, to screw people. This mandate is imposed on people because corporations have all the money and bought it. This will not address the forever escalating healthcare costs hence premium increases. They can’t control energy costs ever, and that has decimated America, what make people think that this can control costs??? It’s an utter joke!!!!!

It’s unbelievable…. No appearance of impropriety?

“…all of whom make out like bandits under ACA, with a larger guaranteed market, and no competition whatsoever. None of those stocks went down today, so Roberts earned his pay.”

Been watching them stocks all day. Your right, they have geographic monopolies. AMA Health Insurance Competition Study proves it!!

It’s a too-good-to-be true deal for the insurance companies.
A major “victory” for a President and his party who are deep into the pockets of said insurance companies.
Republicans get their stupid ideas turned into law and they get to pretend that they are pissed about it.
A win-win all around.

Except if you work for a living.

Dear Obama, the Supreme Court, Democrat and Republican Congress:

We the people have been mandated by you to buy health insurance from private corporations. We are already paying outrageous premiums which are sure to go up.

We cannot afford these outrageous premiums.

So, we the people demand that said private health insurance companies cap the pay of all employees, up to and including the CEOS to $200,000 and less.

No more stock options.

No more private jets.

No more overseas junkets.

No more golden parachutes.

No more making millionaires and billionaires from our mandated premiums.

And if you don’t think we have the power to demand this and get it. Just watch.

Signed,
The Mandated

agree!