The Supreme Court and the health care law
In the New York Times today:
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to the 2010 health care overhaul law, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The development set the stage for oral arguments by March and a decision in late June, in the midst of the 2012 presidential campaign…
…
Appeals from three courts had been vying for the justices’ attention, presenting an array of issues beyond the central one of whether Congress has the constitutional power to require people to purchase health insurance or face a penalty through the so-called individual mandate.
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.
…
On Monday, the justices agreed to consider that question. The justices also said they would consider an intriguing threshold issue.
In September, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled that it was premature to decide the case in light of the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that bars suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” The Supreme Court had interpreted the term “tax” very broadly for purposes of the law.
If the Fourth Circuit ruling is correct, individuals may not challenge the individual mandate until the first penalty is due in April 2015. On Tuesday, a dissenting judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also endorsed that position.
One thing that gets me is that nobody is actually required to buy health insurance.
No insurance, you can pay the penalty tax.
So it gets down to whether or not Congress has the power to tax.
And the answer to that is Yes, thanks to the 16th. Next question.
Troy
I wish I could agree with you. And I suspect the Supremes will.
But it’s just too cute. O hands over health care to the health care industry and creates the new idea that the government can force the people to buy a product from a private business…. sorry, this is not well said, but i think you get the idea…
that escape clause will become completely meaningless in practice, first, and soon after, in law.
I am a great believer in a national health care plan. But not one that leaves me at the mercy of the criminal consortium that has preyed on the people for the last thirty years that i have been paying attention.
The tragedy here is that Obama with his Lot’s compromise style of leadership has made national health care a bad smell among the people, so that even if it is overturned (i don’t think it will be) it will be a long time before an honest plan can be considered.
The cuteness of Obama is that by offering “universal care” he enlists the support of “the left” who ought to recognize the plan is backwards from true reform, but the left can’t resist the “idea” of universal care even when it’s a cheat.
This is much of a piece with the payroll tax holiday… a fatal blow to Social Security, but “the left” only sees it as a “tax cut for the poor” so they think O is on their side.
O is a salesman, hired by the rich to sell the snake oil they have been trying to sell for seventy five years. “Easy,” says O,”just stop calling it Hi populorum. Call it Lo populhiam.”
Troy
to make all that simpler:
There is a difference between Congress taxing you “for the general welfare” and spending the money however it sees fit.. which can be problematic, but it is a normal political problem…
…and Congress telling you “You have to buy product Z from private citizen Y, or pay a fine,”
unfortunately… and very dangerously… we now have “liberals” running around saying “it’s like a tax, see, therefore it IS a tax.”
aside from the political danger, the logic stinks.
Coberly:
Oh BS. We got what the damn blue dogs wanted us to have. Single payor, medicare . . . both were dead on arrival. Congress can legislate insurance which they have done under any fee.
run
i don’t understand your comment. is O a blue dog?
Congress can legislate insurance.. government run, as a tax.
The states all have mandatory car insurance… probably necessary, but a present to the insurance companies, who are not honest, nonetheless.
Law is nothing more than words and when we give ourselves words like “like a tax therefore is a tax” we are taking ourselves down a road that is going to get ugly.
SS and Medicare were “dead on arrival” but fortunately we had better Presidents back then.