Spokane7
67°
November 13, 2011 in Nation/World
Supreme Court weighing health care reform
Decision to hear case expected soon; ruling likely to have broad impact
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court justices appear poised to thrust themselves and the Obama administration’s signature health care law smack into the middle of the 2012 election.
As early as today, following a closed-door session last week, the justices will reveal whether they will consider one or more challenges to the law. If they do, as every court watcher expects, the program that opponents call “Obamacare” will dominate both the legal and political docket throughout the election year.
“This decision could come right in the middle of everything,” said Dennis Goldford, a professor of politics and international relations at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
By mid-April, assuming the challenge to the law is considered, the court is likely to hear oral arguments. Public and political attention will spike through the spring. A ruling is likely to come out around the last week of June.
By then, it should be clear which Republican will run against President Barack Obama, and any of the GOP candidates is expected to make repealing the 2010 health care law a centerpiece of the campaign.
After all, University of California at San Diego political scientist Gary Jacobson noted, the 2009-’10 health care debate “was a titanic political struggle that polarized the nation. It helped inspire the (conservative grass-roots) tea party. And it’s had a profound effect on people’s views of Obama.”
Impact of decision
If the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, which requires nearly everyone to buy coverage by 2014, “it will give the Obama campaign something to trumpet, but it could help mobilize the opponents,” Goldford said.
Views of the health care law hardened long ago, especially in the political arena. An October survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 51 percent of U.S. residents surveyed have an unfavorable view of the law, while 34 percent have a favorable view.
Many Democrats won’t back down from touting the law. Republicans won’t stop criticizing it.
“I’ve said time and time again: Obamacare is bad news,” former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said at a recent debate.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry calls the health care law a job-killer. Texas Rep. Ron Paul finds that because of the law, “already insurance premiums are going up.” Many Democrats, in turn, embrace it.
Court could become a campaign issue
Add to that another classic clash: The court’s ruling will rivet attention to the president’s power of appointing Supreme Court justices. The court itself could become a campaign issue, depending on the ruling’s scope. Expect to hear the phrase “unelected judges” a lot.
The one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is they want a Supreme Court ruling. They have every reason to expect one.
Six separate petitions concerning the health care law are before the court and were scheduled for private consideration at a Thursday conference. It takes at least four justices to agree in private for a case to be granted a full hearing.
The petitions reflect not only high-level interest in the law, but also the conflicting interpretations provided by lower appellate courts. The Supreme Court often agrees to hear cases to resolve these so-called “circuit splits.”
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. argued in a legal brief that “review is especially appropriate” because the split circuits differ over a central piece of a law “to address a matter of grave national importance.”
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Ohio and other Midwestern states, upheld the law formally called the Affordable Care Act. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Florida and other Southern states, upheld most of the law but struck down the individual mandate.
The politically controversial mandate requires an individual to either purchase insurance or pay a fee.
“The (law) is without precedent both in its coercive impositions on the states and in its effort to force individuals to engage in commerce so that the federal government may regulate them,” attorney Paul Clement wrote for Florida and the other states in their challenge to the law.
Formerly the Bush administration’s highly regarded solicitor general, Clement is a good bet to be tapped as the lead attorney for the health care law’s opponents. A final decision, though, will turn in part on exactly which petition is accepted. Some petitions, which are probably a long shot, call for the entire law to be struck down, while others focus on the individual mandate.
Campaign fodder
Almost any ruling is likely to trigger a fresh round of political warfare. Republicans want the mandate out. Democrats don’t.
Democrats plan to stress the benefits already in place – 26 major provisions went into effect last year and 17 more have been implemented so far this year. Most insurers can no longer deny coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and must allow dependent children up to age 26 to remain on parents’ policies.
Democrats also have localized the health care issue. They have fact sheets describing how many children in a state are helped. Or how many community health centers would get funding under the law.
Odds are the court will give everyone plenty to debate.
In a sign of massively complex rulings to come, the 11th Circuit’s judges needed 304 pages to spell out their decision. On Tuesday, in the most recent ruling, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals used only 103 pages to uphold the law.
“Since so much has already been written by our sister circuits about the issues presented by this case – which will almost surely be decided by the Supreme Court – we shall be sparing in adding to the production of paper,” Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for D.C. Circuit.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
oneanddone on November 13 at 5:12 a.m.
The Supreme Court really should have no option in deciding this case. It should be pro-forma whenever two circuits disagree. Maybe Congress can continually duck the important issues but not the court.
In any event, if the mandate is ruled out then NO one who games the system, individual or business, should get medical care. If you’re 30 years old and figure you’ll wait to pay any premium until you actually get sick then as far as I’m concerned you can find an alley somewhere and die.
JBlim on November 13 at 6:09 a.m.
Funny how the article gives the legal rational for overturning the Affordable Care Act, but when quoting a case that upholds it, the quote is inconsequential. I have supplied here a less bias storyline to counteract the article’s bias:
“The conservative Reagan appointee notes that the “activity/inactivity” distinction hatched to argue that the individual mandate violates the Constitution has no basis in the Court’s precedents, and under those precedents the ACA is clearly constitutional:
“Today, the only recognized limitations are that (1) Congress may not regulate non-economic behavior based solely on an attenuated link to interstate commerce, and (2) Congress may not regulate intrastate economic behavior if its aggregate impact on interstate commerce is negligible. Those limitations are quite inapposite to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which certainly is focused on economic behavior–if only decisions whether or not to purchase health care insurance or to seek medical care–that does substantially affect interstate commerce. […] …we do not believe these cases endorse the view that an existing activity is some kind of touchstone or a necessary precursor to Commerce Clause regulation.. . .”
http://prospect.org/article/dc-appeals-court-upholds-aca%E2%80%94-republican-taking-lead
greyhound2 on November 13 at 7:15 a.m.
Reform. What reform? Good idea at the outset, but after stakeholder lobby groups gutted it, the system is no better than before. The United States is the most expensive system in the world, but ranks 37th in the quality of care provided for the average citizen. There is not another country in the world stupid enough to copy the US version of healthcare. Using sick people as profit centers is immoral.
misjustice on November 13 at 7:48 a.m.
“Republicans want the mandate out.”
The party of “personal responsibility” is vociferously against personal responsibility when it comes to paying for your own health care insurance…figures.
gopin2012 on November 13 at 8:12 a.m.
The Supreme Court will do the correct thing and find that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Bonus is that by taking on the case it will be a campaign issue and will help the non-partisan GOP in its bid to make Obama a one-term President.
Non-partisan GOP in 2012!
greenlibertarian on November 13 at 8:23 a.m.
The “individual mandate” to purchase private health insurance was the centerpiece of REPUBLICAN health care reform dating back to 1994.
so when Obama caves on universal health care or even a public option and co-opts a REPUBLICAN idea on health care reform, all of sudden he’s the black socialist devil for doing so.
Guess Bob Dole was also a socialist for proposing the individual mandate back in ‘94.
But teabaggers have no memory, they’re like the goldfish in the aquarium, the little plastic castle is a surprise every time.
Apologies to Ani.
Scoutster on November 13 at 9:03 a.m.
THe Supremes need to decide this so we can move on.
If it’s thumbs down, let the GOP give us their awesome solutions to the health care problem (tort reform and cross state lines–yup, that’ll do it!).
If they vote thumbs up for the mandate, then 12 years from now we will be hearing GOP presidential candidates promising to keep it.
And they still won’t have a plan for paying for the last gift they gave us, Medicare Part D.
Jeffrey_Grey on November 13 at 9:12 a.m.
Greyhound and Scoutster,
You’ve put your fingers squarely upon it.
‘Obamacare’ is not health reform. It is insurance reform. Until the problem of increasingly un-affordable health care is addressed, no solution will be adequate. So to that degree, it really makes little difference how the Supreme Court decides the issue.
If they uphold the mandate that everyone obtain insurance, it will be at least a temporary albeit minimal band-aid that might permit us to kick the can down the road a year or two. If, on the other hand, the Court strikes down the mandate (and thus renders un-affordable all those other provisions of the reforms that something like 70% plus of Americans approve of and want), fine. So be it. That just means that instead of the luxury of kicking the can, we’ll be that much closer to the unavoidable tipping point.
Either way, we’re fast approaching the point where Obamacare’s continuation or repeal will be irrelevant. The only question will be how to fix the looming crisis that nobody has yet attempted to fix - health care that is simply beyond the financial means of too many Americans.
Blondscence on November 13 at 10:29 a.m.
Obamacare was written by the insurance company executives who went to work for Obama. Small wonder it’s a mandate to buy insurance from the copnaies. Obama has this habit of floating ideas and then turning control over to industry.
His rookie move on this will mean nothing. He mandated that YOU fund the Insurance companies…and you idiots want to repelcect him? The “Chosen One” you chose to elect and will elect him again? The Supreme will swat this Obamacare like a gnat that irritates.
Smart. But remember who you vote for when it comes time to pull the lever in 1 year. I’m betting you Dems are stupid enough to elect Obama again. Deceit seems to work.
Obama’s goal isn’t health care. He’ll spend the US to bankruptcy because he like that idea. See what happening in Europe? New World Order controlled by the chosen few is where this is going. Obamacare doesn’t “care”….it’s about weakening the US financially….and getting worse healthcare as a byproduct…..and still getting your votes. Obama’s assumption is that the US is soft (his program depends on it)….and will fall for the free stuff no matter the cost. And it looks like America IS soft..soft from the free stuff (the trojan horse) When the Us is bankrupt and must fall in line, he’ll point back at you and say “this is what YOU wanted” Live with it.
An note that back in 1994 who swatted Socialized Health Care in 1994? The Republicans did…Hillarycare is back with a new name.And you Americans liberals fall for this?? Again?? Disgusting. Gutless.
greyhound2 on November 13 at 11:06 a.m.
There is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “moral”. In the United States today, we have an abundance of the former, and little of the latter.
RCL500atMSNdotcom on November 13 at 11:13 a.m.
To those who believe it’s Government’s job to force the People to be “responsible”, I ask the following question. What if a Republican controlled Government passed a law requiring everyone to buy a gun to protect their own family? We could tout it as Public Defense or National Security. The argument could be made that if everyone had a gun then the whole country would benefit from the security it would provide. Would you so quickly then relinquish your own choice? Just sayin….
JBlim on November 13 at 11:35 a.m.
RCL:
Yeah but health insurance is something everyone wants, just like everyone wants money. Guns are different entirely. Bad analogy.
misjustice on November 13 at 11:46 a.m.
Ummm, the health insurance “mandate” was a Republican’t idea…being as how they are/were the party of personal responsibility and all.
gmorton on November 13 at 12:02 p.m.
JBlim wrote,
“Those limitations are quite inapposite to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which certainly is focused on economic behavior–if only decisions whether or not to purchase health care insurance or to seek medical care–that does substantially affect interstate commerce. …”
Sorry, JB, but the Constitution confers no power on Congress to “regulate economic behavior.” It confers a power to regulate *icommerce*. And then only commerce which occurs between States (or with foreign countries).
First, you (and other Obamacare rationalizers) attempt to re-write the document to replace “commerce” with “economic behavior.” Then you laughably construe a non-behavior as itself a behavior!
That, of course, allows you to regulate everything I may do. If the auto industry is in a slump, may the gummint compel everyone to buy a new car? Is my not buying a new car also an “economic behavior”?
I’ll be amazed if the Supremes buy that nonsense.
misjustice on November 13 at 12:09 p.m.
I’ll be amazed if the Supremes go against the interests of their corporate masters. I fully expect them to uphold the mandate.
Not because they loves them some Obamacare but because the mandate delivers millions of health insurance consumers to the wolves’ doors. And the Roberts’ court has seldom ruled against corporate interests.
Just sayin’…
gmorton on November 13 at 12:10 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
“The party of ‘personal responsibility’ is vociferously against personal responsibility when it comes to paying for your own health care insurance…figures.”
Oh? Which Repubs are against each person assuming personal responsibility for his or her own health care costs?
You’re not slyly trying to equate forcing people to buy a gummint-approved product with assuming personal responsibility, are you?
If you want to make sure everyone assumes that responsibility, you need to abolish all the gummint-compelled or financed free lunches that allow them to avoid it.
gmorton on November 13 at 12:12 p.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Guess Bob Dole was also a socialist for proposing the individual mandate back in ‘94.”
No. Just a garden-variety statist. The GOP has produced a good many of those.
DickAdams on November 13 at 12:16 p.m.
The do nothing republicans and democrats, its noteworthy that both parties, the career politicking characters should be ousted for taking a bribe and then prosecuted. The elected officials who should be representing their constituents, should be telling the lobbyists calling on them for favors, to get the heck out of their office. I can`t stand both parties and I refuse to belong to either. How dare these career politicians accept money from the paid lobbyists representing the large greedy corporations. Is it any wonder that pharmaceutical corporations will do anything necessary to bilk the public? It appears the elected career legislators sell their souls and have no conscience. Seems to me anybody that tries to stop this crime is marginalized and called unthinkable names, that disgust even the low life thugs. The priority of old crooked congress members that have been there for decades, love money and not America.
DickAdams on November 13 at 12:20 p.m.
Oh yeah, that`s why Obamacare ended up in the supreme court.
misjustice on November 13 at 12:56 p.m.
Dick asked, “How dare these career politicians accept money from the paid lobbyists representing the large greedy corporations.”
Did you see 60 Minutes last week? That explained a lot about the link between gubmint and lobbyists.
The_Seer on November 13 at 4:45 p.m.
I didn’t watch 60 Minutes last week figuring it would be an All Andy Rooney Bawl Fest. What did I miss?
I agree with my peeps, Misjustice: The Roberts court won’t rule against a multi trillion dollar handout to the insurance industry. Now if it were single payer and something that would actually address the crippling cost of health care on the overall economy, then we could expect the court to rule against.
misjustice on November 13 at 4:55 p.m.
You missed Abramoff explaining why the Congress is OWNED by lobbyists…riveting stuff, my Peep!
JBlim on November 13 at 5:48 p.m.
gmorton says: “JBlim wrote, “Those limitations are quite inapposite to the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which certain . . .”
Actually, I didn’t write that gmorton, it was written by Republican favorite and conservative Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman.
gmorton says: “First, you [here you mean Laurence Silberman] attempt to re-write the document to replace “commerce” with “economic behavior.”
Now really, who I am I going to listen to about constitutional law, the above mentioned Laurence Silberman, or some Internet clown?
bdr on November 13 at 7:00 p.m.
If this is Obama care is an illegal mandate just imagine everything else that will fall under state law.
Mandate to have a drivers license
Mandate to have car insurance
Mandate to pay unemployment or any insurance prior to getting any business license.
Mandate to have education credentials prior to entering any licensed job. Doctor,nurse,college
who boy what a can of worms.
DickAdams on November 13 at 8:35 p.m.
MisJ, I to watched 60 minutes when Lesley Stahl interviewed Jack Abramoff, and I must say, she was truly shocked at his answers. Listening to Lesley, it was almost impossible to believe what being said. Abramoff stated, he had never contacted any elected person in congress that would not accept his “funneled money” and always granted him the favor he asked of them. Abramoff said, their were no exceptions declining money or the requests he asked for..
gmorton on November 13 at 8:42 p.m.
JBlim wrote,
“Now really, who I am I going to listen to about constitutional law, the above mentioned Laurence Silberman, or some Internet clown?”
Neither. You should read the Constitution.
mtharves on November 13 at 8:43 p.m.
DickA and MisJ,
Tonight’s 60 Minutes was even worse. Congresspersons can use the system to make money hand over fist. Brian Baird, an ex-Wa Congressman from the Westside, has attempted to end this repeatedly but has gotten nowhere. Money is corrupting this country so badly we may never get out of the hole. The Occupy Movement is right.
Orphan on November 13 at 9:36 p.m.
BDR
Drivers licenses are state licenses
Car insurance is mandated by the states
Unemployment insurance is a state enterprise heavily funded by the feds
States require insurance not the feds.
States license Drs, nurses, lawyers etc.
Now understand that the states have different rules to obay than the federal government. The Constitution does not apply to the states in the same way it applys to the Feds. The states are free to require car insurance the feds can not require car insurance.
misjustice on November 14 at 10:58 a.m.
mtharves, I KNOW! I watched in amazement with my mouth dropped open! I suspected it was bad but was shocked at HOW bad…
Disgusting corrupting greed on display by both parties, sadly…
JBlim on November 14 at 5:27 p.m.
gmorton says “Neither. You should read the Constitution.”
Just ignore case law and precedent so you can offer some preconceived libertarian interpretation, I suppose. Typical gmorton.