NYT BREAKING NEWS: Justice Department Asks Supreme Court for Quick Ruling on Health Care Law

[flpoljunkie]

No link to article yet.

http://nytimes.com

[mdmc]

1. just got denied a medication from my healthcare "insurer"

we need single payer asap..

[DrToast]

3. Denials happen in single payer systems, too.*

*

[jefferson_dem]

2. Some details here:

"The Department has consistently and successfully defended this law in several court of appeals, and only the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional. We believe the question is appropriate for review by the Supreme Court," the Justice Department says in a statement.

"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed. We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act -- like the one in the 11th Circuit -- will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," it says.

White House adviser Stephanie Cutter writes a lengthy blog post on the White House website, defending the decision, entitled, "Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Health Care Lawsuit."

"There has been no shortage of lawsuits regarding the Affordable Care Act," Cutter writes. "Of course, whenever our nation is undertaking fundamental reform, legal challenges like this are nothing new. Just as challenges to the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act all failed, challenges to health reform are failing as well. ... We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We are confident the Supreme Court will agree."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/28/8018499-obama-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-take-up-health-care-case?ocid=twitter

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. A quick ruling would probably be the least painless route to go at this point

I'm not particularly worried about them striking down the individual mandate so much as I am about them striking down the entire law- though I wonder if the law will actually be able to function as intended without the individual mandate. :shrug:

[golfguru]

5. Without the individual mandate, HCR will be in tough situation

If people are allowed to opt out, it dramatically reduces the pool of paying customers. That will increase premiums for every one else significantly.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. That's what I thought

Frankly, I never understood what the big deal about the mandate is (especially from conservatives whom used to support the idea- until President Obama made it part of HCR. No hue and outcry about Romneycare from them as far as I can remember :eyes:). Don't most people want health insurance coverage? I know how most people feel about private health insurance companies and don't disagree with them but if these reforms help bring them to heel and reduce premiums it will be worth it IMHO. Frankly, there's no way that we could have realistically gone from private health insurance coverage right to single payer IMHO.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. Your premise is that "health care" costs

in the US are subject to market forces. The "health care" industry is exempt from anti-trust regulation. I expect the cost of health "insurance" to keep going up under HCR, just as it has dramatically for decades. I hope the individual mandate is struck down. Then I won't be compelled to buy "health care" insurance I can't afford to utilize.

[golfguru]

17. The single biggest problem I have with HCR is....

that the bill has no restrictions whatsoever on rate hikes by private insurers. They are restricted for the percentage they can spend on administrative costs which does not stop them from hiking our premiums until that percentage allowed for administration costs yields the desired profit.

And you are not correct in saying that people should be allowed to opt out of HC insurance. These are usually the young & healthy adults who do not need to go to a doctor much at all. But what happens when they have a catastrophic illness/accident and they are unable to pay hospital bills?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

18. You are correct.

That issue should be addressed by a comprehensive insurance system. But the HCR plan is a perverse reversal of that. Rather than providing coverage for all citizens, as is done in Canada, Cuba, Great Britain, etc., it compels poor people to buy insurance from "health insurance" thieves. Just because there is a problem, means we should embrace a "solution" from the very "health insurance" industry which makes the problem ever worse.

[golfguru]

19. Oh, I have been for single payer from day 1

But I am also a realist and knew it could'nt pass the congress.

Like I said, what really stinks in the HCR bill is that there is
ZERO restriction on how high and how fast the private insurers can
jack up our insurance premiums.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I think the case being handed to the SCOTUS has already ruled all of the health care law

constitutional other than the Mandate. So the case to go in front of the supreme court
is dealing with the issue of the mandate only.....and the legal analysts I've heard talk on the subject
believe that there are possibly 6 votes to support the mandate....the 4 "liberal" justices,
and then Scalia and Kennedy. That's based on how they have voted in the past on commerce laws,
which is how the mandate is being approached by the Justice Department.

That is my understanding. I believe that the Justice Department had until this Monday to respond,
and didn't purposely, because this is the type of case they were waiting for. Their non response is what forces this on the SCOTUS desk, and SCOTUS has no option but to take the case, again, according to legal analysts.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Many Dems I talk to want the individual mandate tossed out

They say that they don't want to be forced to pay money to a private for-profit insurance organization.

[FrenchieCat]

13. The "Many Dems" aren't the SCOTUS.....

Who have never "cared" what Many Dems wanted ever before. I don't believe that will start now.

[Blasphemer]

14. Interesting to see how Kennedy and Scalia rule

Kennedy I could see siding with the liberal justices. Scalia is perfectly capable of ignoring his own previous votes and voting along party lines. I'm not a fan of the mandate but what bothers me more is that we have a SCOTUS that can't be trusted to make consistent legal rulings and that is so severely ideologically split.

[Rosco T.]

6. SOCTUS strikes down the individual mandate...

.. opening for a Public Option so it's still available to everyone if private companies won't insure at reasonable rates.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. It would still need to get passed

and won't by this Congress, so we'll need to work like hell to re-elect President Obama and get enough progressives in Congress next year to help get it through.

[AtomicKitten]

9. C. Thomas MUST recuse himself.

Of course he won't but if there is any mechanism to force his dumb ass from ruling in this case, I hope the Justice Dept imposes it.

[frazzled]

11. A major portion of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional in 1935

The National Industrial Recovery Act was basically scuttled by the case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, because it supposedly overstepped Congress's power under the commerce clause.
I think parts of it were later passed under other laws, especially regarding labor. I'm not saying that particular case has any bearing whatsoever on this one, just that when there's big legislation, parts of it might get scuttled.

I hope not. But even if the decision is bad and the mandate part of the law is ruled against, there are other options for creating the largest possible pool of buyers. (No getting insurance for x years after deciding not to purchase, so that people can't just buy it when they're sick, for example.)

[underpants]

15. Why Scalia has to rule for the healthcare law --good article

In 2005, Scalia laid out his commerce clause jurisprudence in a medical-marijuana case, Gonzales v. Raich . The issue in Raich was whether the federal Controlled Substances Act, which criminalizes the cultivation or possession of marijuana — including its cultivation and use solely for personal medical purposes — exceeds Congress' power to regulate "commerce among the several states" under the commerce clause.

Scalia cited approvingly one of the most expansive interpretations of the commerce clause in constitutional history, Wickard v. Filburn , a post-New Deal decision that allowed Congress to regulate the production of wheat for personal consumption on the farm because of the impact such production, when aggregated, would have on the regulated wheat market.

As Scalia summarized, citing precedent, "here Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, 'it possesses every power to make that regulation effective.'"

But if Scalia remains faithful to his analysis in Raich , the issue for him will not come down to whether the commerce clause itself extends to inactivity. The question will be whether the individual mandate is a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the necessary and proper clause, and based on his opinion in Raich, it is difficult to see how he could find the mandate unconstitutional.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/mar/06/tdcomm02-why-obamacare-will-survive-in-the-supreme-ar-884246/