The Supremes Will Decide

Posted on by

This morning the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of one of the health care reform challenges. Adam Liptak writes for the New York Times:

The Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision, from the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, the only one so far striking down the mandate. The decision, from a divided three-judge panel, said the mandate overstepped Congressional authority and could not be justified by the constitutional power “to regulate commerce” or “to lay and collect taxes.”

The appeals court went no further, though, severing the mandate from the rest of the law.

On Monday, the justices agreed to decide not only whether the mandate is constitutional but also whether, if it is not, how much of the balance of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, must fall along with it.

SCOTUS will hear arguments in March and will probably hand down a decision in June, smack in the middle of the general election campaigns.

Ezra Klein has a backgrounder on the legal issues in the case.

10 thoughts on “The Supremes Will Decide”

  1. So, Judge Kennedy may well decide the future of ACA as the critical 5th vote?
    Nah!

    If this were for single-payer, I have no doubt that Heaven and Earth would have been moved to make the SCOTUS decide against it. And he’d have been pressured.
    But, since this is like ‘Citizens United,’ and helps our corporate ‘brothers and sisters’ gain even stronger ‘voices (aka – profits),’ my guess is that it will pass – and by more than one vote.

    And don’t get me wrong – I DO want it passed. It’s at least a start.

  2. Sounds like a good opportunity to raise a public outcry demanding that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from this case, since Ginny’s activities/affiliations have severely compromised any perceived objectivity. Highlighting this could have MANY beneficial ripple effects.

  3. I’m confused. Mandating health insurance for everyone seems like a big, fat give-away to the health insurance providers, who have unlimited funds and thus huge clout. So, who are the people fighting the mandatory provision, and why. Off the top of my (addled, my now) head, logic would have it that the poor would be against it but the poor have absolutely no say in anything these days.

    Is it a ruse? Is the push to get rid of the provision being used as a ‘cover’ when what the power brokers really want is to dump the entire law. But then, why? Maybe it just boils down to as anything with Obama’s name attached to it must fail or at best never get to his desk for a signature?

    • Mandating health insurance for everyone seems like a big, fat give-away to the health insurance providers, who have unlimited funds and thus huge clout. So, who are the people fighting the mandatory provision, and why. Off the top of my (addled, my now) head, logic would have it that the poor would be against it but the poor have absolutely no say in anything these days.

      Without the individual mandate, you might as well flush the rest of the Affordable Care Act down the toilet. Without the individual mandate, the provisions protecting people from being refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions would have to be scrapped, for example. And getting lots of younger and healthier people in the insurance pool is essential to getting control over cost.

      The poor really need this. The ACA will get more people on Medicaid and also provide lots of subsidies for buying insurance. It’s not single payer, but it’s a huge improvement over what the poor have now. But it all falls apart without the individual mandate.

      Yeah, the insurance companies are going to make a lot of money, and they’re in favor of it. Conservatives are against it mostly because they don’t want their precious tax money being used to help poor people.

  4. On the plus side, if the SCOTUS decision dismantles the ACA, if gives Obama a reason to go for single-payer, which might help bring out the frustrated progressive voters. It might help turn Congress heavily Democratic if that goal is presented. Yes?

    • On the plus side, if the SCOTUS decision dismantles the ACA, if gives Obama a reason to go for single-payer, which might help bring out the frustrated progressive voters.

      I agree that single-payer is the only alternative, but there is no way Obama would campaign on single payer; it would amount to giving away the election to the GOP. And there’s no way single payer would get through Congress, anyway.

  5. I have no respect for the rightwing partisan Supreme Court we have right now. Thus, I am very pessimisstic that anything good can come from this.

  7. Frankly, I favor an opt-out clause. Let any adult individual elect to be self-pay with the contractual understanding that if he can’t pay, he will receive only minimal emergency care. When I say contractual,I mean the fool will have to sign away his AHC rights in an interview where the possible consequences have been explained. If he. gets sick and can’t find a charity to underwrite the cost of treatment, he will just have to die.

    Anyone who changes their mind will have to make up the missed payments. Or die. You like the free-market fairy? See how she will take care of you when you signed away your AHC rights and you have a condition that the insurance companies can use to deny you coverage in the free market.

    • Frankly, I favor an opt-out clause. Let any adult individual elect to be self-pay with the contractual understanding that if he can’t pay, he will receive only minimal emergency care. When I say contractual,I mean the fool will have to sign away his AHC rights in an interview where the possible consequences have been explained. If he. gets sick and can’t find a charity to underwrite the cost of treatment, he will just have to die.

      If SCOTUS nixes the individual mandate but lets the rest of ACA stand, that might be a fallback.

Comments are closed.