Reuters Photojournalism
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
Sponsored Links
Top court schedules Obama healthcare law briefs
Ceremonial pens and the health insurance reform bill are placed on a table for U.S. President Barack Obama to sign at a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, March 23, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Thursday set the schedule for briefs to be filed ahead of hearing arguments in late March over President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare overhaul law.
The high court agreed to a proposal by the three main parties in the legal battle and by two attorneys who have been appointed to argue certain positions.
In a brief order, the court for the most part required that the first set of briefs will be due starting in early January, the other side will file their briefs in February and final reply briefs will be submitted in early March.
The court on November 14 agreed to hear an Obama administration appeal defending the law and urging it be upheld as well as two separate appeals by 26 states and an independent business group challenging the law and urging it be struck down.
The court agreed to consider the following four separate questions:
- whether the U.S. Congress overstepped its powers by requiring all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty, a provision known as the individual mandate.
- whether the rest of the law can survive if the mandate is struck down.
- whether challenges to the mandate must wait until after it takes effect in 2014.
- and whether Congress improperly coerced the states to expand the Medicaid program that provides healthcare to the poor and the disabled.
The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.
(Reporting by James Vicini; editing by Todd Eastham)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
The consideration of whether the rest of the law can survive if the mandate is struck down is going to be the key to understanding how politically controlled the justices of SCOTUS are. Striking down the entire bill would have enormous implications for the election. Watch how the timing unfolds…
The mandate is not central to other portions of the bill that protect consumers from being dropped for getting ill, or being denied because they are ill or ensuring insurance companies are using the lion’s share of premiums to actually pay for care.
If the entire bill is struck down, it is a near certainty (with the course private insurance has taken to bilk every American) the vast majority of Americans will fully back a government run, single payer system…eventually.
The problem is this will take too much time and cost too many lives and too many bankruptcies. Our economy will continue to suffer the drag the healthcare insurance burden places on every American and every business.
Not that the current system under the Healthcare Act is that much different. The problem is the middle man for-profit model of “coverage” is a financial waste and provides no meaningful part of the actual healthcare equation.
My guess? The Conservative Justices will be under immense pressure to strike down the entire bill so as to allow the door to open for whichever candidate the Republicans select.
For universal affordable and effective healthcare in America this would be a short term loss, but probably a long term victory.
Politically Obama might be made the goat, but remember the Healthcare Act was a huge compromise from what Obama and the Dems wanted: Single Payer, government run system.
Sadly, for as long as we have too many Americans who worship the sanctity of the dollar over the sanctity of human life, we will have middle men in healthcare.
I would add that the argument should (and undoubtedly will) be made that the mandate is separable from the rest of the law because the penalty fees generated by those who forgo purchasing insurance are not at all commensurate with the costs required to run the exchanges. (This also discredits the DOJ’s argument that the law is a “tax”.)
I do think that the US will eventually have some form of bare minimum government run healthcare system (public option). The political landmines on that road can be defused by setting up a parallel individual system that people can opt into on their own if they want – something that is more free and fairer than the employer dominated plans that are most prominent today. For all the acrimony on this issue, I think that most people can get behind such a two-tiered system.
I disagree that the conservative Justices will be “under pressure” to invalidate the law. I think the Justices are quite immune to pressure by now. They will rule according to their principles as they always do. Looking especially at Kennedy’s recent opinions, I think they’ll strike down the mandate. The rest of the law I think is 50/50.
I believe you are correct that Obama will be made the goat, and rightly so. Remember that he campaigned against an individual mandate in the primary 2008. He did not want a mandate and Hillary did. This was one of the main differences between them and a significant reason why he won. Then he got into office and did a 180. I don’t know whether he outright lied or was bullied into a position he didn’t want to take, but either way it speaks to his poor leadership skills. In my opinion, he deserves to be booted out of office for this reason alone.
Finally, I agree that we need a system that values human life more than the dollar. The problem is that by stripping the citizenry of economic freedom (the freedom to not by a product they may not want or need), you invalidate liberty, which is a fundamental human right. You violate life’s sanctity by killing freedom. The sanctity of life and the sanctity of liberty are one and the same. Unless the Healthcare Act is repealed and replaced, we have a system that erodes both.
Innovation, particularly important innovation, is messy. If we were to have waited for inSensiblity’s crypto-libertarian/constitutional niceties to align, we’d be waiting along with our grandchildren. If we’re to cower before the “corporations are more like people than ever, except moreso” court to rule wisely, we’ll cower while we’re waiting. PPACA is ungainly, godawful legislation – but legislation is by definition the offspring of unsightly compromise. Legislation FOLLOWS what people desire, usually stumblingly; it doesn’t LEAD them to it.
Screw it; let’s just take Reagan’s misguided emergency care mandate – EMTALA – and nip it here, tuck it there (ok, it would take more than tweaking, but whatever), and convert IT into a platform for “health care everyone in the US is entitled to as a matter of course”.
This is America – we’ve answered harder, and less important, challenges than this.
Follow Reuters