Nepal – the country of the Buddha and the Mt. Everest

Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without – Buddha

Supreme Court Health Care Decision: Individual Mandate Survives

Posted by Ram Kumar Shrestha on June 29, 2012


 News with more than 68,000 comments and more than 13,000 shares
Obamacare

WASHINGTON — The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama’s signature Affordable Care Act.

The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress’ commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the outcome.

The decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius comes as something of a surprise after the generally hostile reception the law received during the six hours of oral arguments held over three days in March. But by siding with the court’s four Democratic appointees, Chief Justice Roberts avoided the delegitimizing taint of politics that surrounds a party-line vote while passing Obamacare’s fate back to the elected branches. GOP candidates and incumbents will surely spend the rest of the 2012 campaign season running against the Supreme Court and for repeal of the law.

Five justices concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress’ power under the Constitution to “lay and collect taxes.”

“The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” Roberts wrote. “That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Ginsburg, writing separately for the four liberals, said they would have upheld the mandate under the commerce clause too. “Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate,” she wrote. “Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will visit a doctor or other health care professional.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined in a dissent. Together, Roberts’ controlling opinion, Ginsburg’s concurrence, the four-justice dissent and Thomas’ own dissent add up to 187 pages.

In a nod to the importance of the health care cases, Roberts, Ginsburg and Kennedy all chose to read summaries of their opinions from the bench.

In a section of his opinion joined by the liberal justices, Roberts noted that the conservative dissenters contend that the mandate cannot be upheld as a tax “because Congress did not ‘frame’ it as such. In effect, they contend that even if the Constitution permits Congress to do exactly what we interpret this statute to do, the law must be struck down because Congress used the wrong labels.”

But the majority was not persuaded by that argument. Roberts wrote that the mandate provision “need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.”

On Medicaid expansion, the court upheld the expansion but with a critical caveat: The federal government may not threaten the states that don’t comply with the loss of their existing funding. Essentially, the Medicaid expansion is now optional for the states.

“As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts wrote. “Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction.”

For their part, the dissenters were not impressed with Roberts’ parsing of the law. “The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching,” wrote the four other conservatives.

They then looked to the political future: The majority’s decision, they argued, “creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court’s new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.”

Summarizing his delicate decision from the bench, Roberts reminded his listeners that it is “not our job to save the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Still, the decision appeared to do just that.

By narrowing Congress’ commerce and spending powers, Roberts moved the law in a decidedly conservative direction. Yet by invoking the taxing power, he saved not only the people but also Congress, the president and the Supreme Court itself from the consequences of their political choices that had seemed so evident at oral argument three months ago.

Careful legal parsing aside, the bottom line is: The Affordable Care Act has survived.

COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo iskra 17 hours ago (11:22 AM) 2989 Fans Become a fan Follow
On one hand I think this is good news, the notion that we should not provide health care to our population seems ludicrous to this ex-pat Canadian. Having a healthier population and spreading the costs across the entire population make good financial sense for both my family and my business. It makes us more productive and competitive in a world where all other democracies have had it for decades.

That we don’t have access to a single-payer medicare for all type option is troubling. I for one have never been a fan of having insurance profits and their bureaucrats coming between me and my doctor all the time seems counter productive. I understand that between Republicans and Blue-Dog Dems it wasn’t possible, but still disappointing.

What I find most astonishing however is that Republicans still can’t quite figure out that they’re already paying for other people’s health care today, just at the highest cost: emergency care when it’s too late. I guess it’s because it’s too conceptual, it’s buried in their tax bill, the cost of their insurance and their hospital bills, it’s not handed to them as a bill each month labeled “Coverage for people you don’t like”.

I know math is hard but the fact remains: Covering everyone is cheaper overall than not. It benefits us all in the long run. They seem to forget that health care costs have been skyrocketing for decades and pretend that somehow ACA is at fault, believing that the current system we have is fine. It’s not.

So I’m pleased that everyone has to have coverage but still shaking my head at the idea of insurance companies providing it. Still, one small step is better than none at all.

@HP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: