Hints that the Supreme Court is Poised to Overturn the Health Care Reform Law Around June 25 (UPDATED)
Due to the increasingly political nature of the court, I have long felt the health care law would be overturned — apart from the widely panned case made for it by the administration’s lawyer. And now we have hints that the individual mandate may indeed be D.O.A. — and the only question is how much of the rest of the act is scuttled.
When there leaks on this, it is it yet another sign of how political the court has become. Supposedly not a shred of info is supposed to leak out on these cases, but this report talks about third hand sources and scuttlebutt. But someone is leaking. How would third hand sources have a clue of what is happening and how can there be a scuttlebutt unless someone is leaking? The questions will be: how big will the GOP’s smile be and how many Democrats will then stay home on election day (which will complete the court’s transformation)?
UPDATE: But Juan Williams argues that if the court strikes down the law it’ll erode public confidence in the court and give the Democrats a big issue to run on:
The Democrats have a nuclear option in this political game if the high court throws out the healthcare law as unconstitutional.
That blowup-the-system button, not pushed since FDR’s attempt to stack the court with Democrats during the New Deal, is for Obama to use the bully pulpit of the White House, and the national stage of a presidential campaign, to launch a bitter attack on the current court as a corrupt tool of the Republican right wing.
It is a move that could energize Democrats and independents even as Republicans celebrate a major legal victory.
Some Democrats, sensing a political windfall, can’t wait to start the offensive.
But the question, really, is whether Barack Obama can put on that kind of political hat. There are no signs yet that he is “another Harry Truman.” He tends to progress if little spurts and then suffer setbacks. Instead of ringing speeches can he deliver stinging speeches — and ones not just filled with adjectives and denunciations if he chooses to use a Supreme Court HCR defeat, but one that wins the argument with its logic and solidly makes his case to a)Democrats so they all vote b)swing voters?
How will Democrats react to watching Sean Hannity give high fives and hearing Rush Limbaugh gloat? Will they get out to vote? Or stay home to show their disappointment (and in effect vote)?
Ed Kilgore notes how once upon a time it was predicted that the court would not overturn the individual mandate — but how partisanship has caused an abrupt, almost breathtaking switch. It’s fascinating how long-held principles can become inoperative when someone of another party is in power. (Which is why many independent voters remain independent voters)
Share This
I don’t see how the President can successfully campaign against the Court if the Court strikes down a law a strong majority of Americans dislike. He will be able to rally the base, but I think if he runs to the left he’s going to lose the middle and the election.
I agree with Maggie here – the weakness in Williams argument is that the HCR law isn’t very popular, so it’s difficult for Obama to generate much national outrage over its defeat. As other have pointed out there are parts of the bill that are popular, and the GOP and insurance companies are making noises like those parts will continue.
I have believed all along that the Supremes would cut the baby in half a la the Judgment of Solomon and the individual mandate would be struck down. This despite the persuasive argument that requiring someone to pay a nominal levy is no different than requiring them to pay income taxes, have an employer deduct from their wages for Social Security and be required to have auto insurance.
Maggie22: I have seen nothing to indicate that “a strong majority of Americans” do not like the Affordable Care Act. The polling data that I have seen shows that the more knowledgeable people become about the act the more favorable their views.
And I challenge anyone to find parents of unemployed young adults who do not like having their kids be part of their own health insurance plans until they are 26. Or women who bristle at no longer being denied covered for pre-existing conditions like being pregnant.
Obama must be careful in using the bully pulpit to attack the Supremes, but the court is an appropriate target for most Democrats and many independents since it has become a de facto wing of the Republican Party.
Blaming the referee I don’t think is a winning strategy. Any good coach will tell you the best way to avoid being subject to a questionable call is to not make the game close. If the court does reject the law, the fact that the signature legislation of a president who is a constitutional scholar turned out to be unconstitutional will be tremendously damaging. I’d predict that it would be the final blow in a struggling re-election campaign. But, we’ll have to see how they rule. I have advocated in the past, and continue to advocate, that since this issue is a questionable one, we should commit to respecting the opinion of the court and moving forward from it, no matter what it is.
Shaun,
There’s this showing repeal favored by an 11 point margin: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html
When asked about the individual mandate in particular, there is even more disapproval, with 7 of 10 wanting the court to overturn it (link omitted due to length of URL. Google “Poll: Most want Supreme Court to overturn individual health care mandate”).
I do believe HCR is workable without the mandate. We could, for example, allow insurance companies to charge more for people who were previously uninsured, excluding a grace period and financial hardship. Or, we could implement single-payer *catastrophic*, as opposed to comprehensive, coverage. Unfortunately, we’ve probably squandered our chance at a reasonable compromise on those points.
Well, the auto insurance doesn’t work (legally is it something you agree to when you voluntarily use gov. owned roads). However, the fact is that it probably would have been OK if they had just, for example, given a tax rebate to anyone with insurance. It was a major blunder to base the act on the premise that the government can require you to engage in purchases that might involve interstate commerce. Either they got caught up on some echo chamber that led them to believe they were right or they just didn’t think it through.
Seems to me they are just going to cut off the compromise option of individual mandate, meaning that if any actual change in healthcare takes place in this nation, it will be in the form of single payer. So the ACA may go down, but its just setting the stage for something the GOP REALLY doesn’t want, with the final option being that nothing changes in any meaningful way. Sounds like either way, we will become either more divided or have a degenerating healthcare industry in this country.
It’s just another example of the GOP’s determination to win the battle but lose the war.
I agree the individual mandate is likely to be overturned, by a bunch of right wing, Republican appointed judges. They are cronies of the same group of fellas that tried to run this country into the ditch, and then continued trying to prevent Obama or anyone else to get out us of that same ditch.
But their days are numbered. Healthcare in this country is headed single payer–and I’ll tell you why:
Because no matter what they say while healthy, safe and snug at home, the same Cowboy, don’t-need-no-guvmint conservatives who scream and rant about how they don’t want to pay for other people’s healthcare will show up at level one trauma centers like mine when they get sick (and folks, we will ALL get sick sooner or later), wanting the same expensive tests and all-encompasing care that well insured people get.
Because, see, they DESERVE it. They PAID into the system (whether that system be Medicare, or Medicaid or frankly, charity care that the hospital will eventually write off because you can’t get blood from a turnip-head) and dog-gone-it, they’re OWED it.
It’s typically the dumbest, most inbred and backward nutjobs who demand the most expensive and most extensive health care. And we all know inbred and backward are the very defintion of today’s Republican base.
But the Millennials aren’t going to buy this situation for long. These are the people in their 20′s who are covered by their parents policies, and they’re actually GRATEFUL and AWARE and EDUCATED at what a boon this is to them. And they’re not buying the GOP argument that making people pay for insurance is somehow tantamount to indentured servitude.
Vera,
Why do you suppose that people who oppose the law are likely to not have good insurance? If the law is designed to help people get good insurance, I’d think they would be *more* likely to already support the law, not less. But, if you have data to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
Do you have recent data on support for the health care law based on age? I agree that the provision that allows young people to remain on their parent’s plan is popular, and likely will not be changed. As far as I can tell it doesn’t depend on the individual mandate, even if you accept the premise that other parts do (which I don’t necessarily accept).
Insurance is no guarantee that you won’t still be shelling out huge sums if you get seriously hurt. Nor any guarantee that the insurance will be there when your bills get out of hand. My father had a stroke, went into a coma from late Novermber to early January. His medicare was covering so much, and by the time my brother and I had pieced together his insurance situation, we tried to contact his backup insurance, Blue Shield. Guess what they said? He hadn’t paid his premium since October so they had canceled his insurance. We had no recourse but to go thru an internal appeal with Blue Shield. Guess what the result of that was? Needless to say, his ongoing bills are substantial and the backup insurance he paid for for years bailed and now his care is coming out of pocket. Just to clarify, because he was in a coma for 2 months was no excuse for not paying his premium. Screw Blue Shield.
loco says that the ACA decision won’t erode the public trust in the SCOTUS. He apparently missed this gem.
http://pollingreport.com/court.htm
adelinesdad, here’s something. More of the folks on Medicare oppose comprehensive health care reform.
http://goo.gl/L7J8e
Consider this section.
Of course the sad part is that so many people are so insistent on believing the myth that market forces will fix the problem. Those taking part in a market care about making money from their work. Health care for the poor is not now, and probably will never be profitable. It is possible that in striving to keep going as they are some health care organizations will manage to control costs enough to slow up healh care inflation. But that’s likely to be the best they manage and that will not be enough to enable those who currently can’t afford health care to acquire it. It’s also highly unlikely to stop the increase in numbers of people who can’t afford care with the only question being how much it might slow it up.
Not rocket science. We have been saddled with a supreme court whose allegiance is to party, not country. Of course there is a lesson there which will be ignored by roughly half the electorate. Afterall, there is no shortage of people who have managed to fool themselves into believing the CU decision was the right one.
I find it distressing that the Supreme Court is being held in contempt. This is the highest court in the land and should be respected as such whether one agrees with it’s decisions or not. To malign their authority is not the way to keep a stable representative democracy. The Warren court was maligned in the same way and one of the results is the excessive right wing influence on our other branches of government, now.
Either we’re a nation of laws or we are not and it can’t depend on whose ox is being gored.
TO, well said.
slamfu, true, but my question to Vera was why we should think that those who oppose the bill that was passed are more likely to encounter such coverage trouble. And further, I’d ask why we should assume that the “dumbest, most inbred and backward nutjobs” would conclude the single-payer is the solution after all.
Jim: “More of the folks on Medicare oppose comprehensive health care reform.” I think that makes my point to Vera. As for the article, I agree that most people support reform. I was pushing back against Vera’s assertion that most people will support single-payer as a result of the Supreme Court decisions and the rational reaction from the inbreds.
Correction: I now see that Vera is not saying that those people will support single-payer, but that they will become a drag on the system leading rational, Millenials to push for single-payer. I suppose that could happen, unless Romney wins and manages to put back in place the popular parts of the bill as well as some other reforms that prevent such a backlash. If he fails also, then all bets are off are we’re back to square one in four years.
Actually AD, I don’t think most people support reform. It’s an overused term and too many think that little tweaks are actual reform. I think that those who think that the free market is the solution want only those things that fit into that ideology enacted. Once those policies fail the claim will be that the changes just weren’t free enough from regulations and government interference. Ideology will be placed above actual results.
Jim, and the same happens in reverse on the left, with those who want single-payer claiming that the government just doesn’t have enough control yet. Most people are in favor of reform, as long as it’s their kind of reform.
I’ve never heard anyone claim that the government just doesn’t have enough control. The claim, which is accurate so far as I can tell, is that the private market is incapable of providing health care for millions of Americans because they don’t have the money to make the private sector enough profits.
Isn’t that the argument made by people who think that there should have been a public option, or that we should have gone with single-payer? Wouldn’t those have given the government more control? I think the answer is yes, but I’m open to a counter argument.
In any case, likewise hardly anyone is arguing that the free market can take care of healthcare for the poor entirely on its own.
People in this thread are forgetting that, by body count, more judges have upheld the ACA than have ruled parts of it or all of it unconstitutional. Of particular interest that came out of the appeals court in Virginia was the reasoning that the commerce clause prohibits the regulation of interstate commerce ACTIVITY. But it does not prohibit the regulation of INACTIVITY. It may seem like a semantic game, but that’s what many SCOTUS decisions have become. If the SCOTUS buys the opinion (written by a conservative jurist) that what is being regulated is not the activity of buying insurance but rather the inaction of not buying insurance then the individual mandate will survive in either a 5-4 or 6-3 decision.
I read quite a bit from people that seriously know what they are talking about for the most part. Yet I read a few that left me blinking. So I have a few questions.
Since when did America become a Democracy?
Since when did poor red necks become the embodiment of the Replublican part?
I will answer the above questions from my limited knowledge. First and foremost America is not and never has been a Democracy. We are infact a Republic. Disagree then say the Pledge of Allegiance.
The republican party of course has people in it that VeratheGun suggested however both parties have those types of people.
Car insurances is mandated by the STATES. Being a REPUBLIC gives the states the right to do this.
The fact is I have had my own medical insurance since I turned 18. First with the U.S. Navy and currently with INTEL. Why am I saying this you ask? Simple I need medical insurance so I WORK for it. Our forefathers would cry if they were alive today to see the state of our Government. Our country was founded on STATE rights. The Government was supposed to only be there for defense and foreign policy. The states were supposed to hold the powers in their own states. Please educate yourselves because knowledge is power. Thats why the Federal Government is so powerful now. Sadly the bluk of the American population have no idea what their rights are and how they are being destroyed right infront of them.
This is just the limited knowledge of a “Cowboy” from Alabama, but what do I know.