PDA

View Full Version : The Mandate Can Stay


mykarma
Jun 28th, 2012, 02:23 PM
The Mandate Can Stay, Supreme Court Says in Health Care Ruling


By MATT NEGRIN (@MattNegrin) AND ARIANE DE VOGUE (@Arianedevogue)
June 28, 2012

The so-called individual mandate to buy health insurance, the key part of President Obama's signature health care law, has survived, the Supreme Court ruled this morning.

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

"The Affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the court said in the ruling.

The high court kept the country in suspense for days, announcing at the beginning of the week that it would hand down its decision today.

The ruling will have immediate effects on the presidential race. Obama has called his health care law "the right thing to do," even as polling has determined that the law is unpopular. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, had vowed to repeal "ObamaCare" as soon as he became president, despite championing remarkably similar legislation as the governor of Massachusetts.

While just 36 percent of people in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll had a favorable opinion of the health law, a similarly low number of people — 39 percent — had a favorable opinion of the health care system as it stands now. And while the GOP has trumpeted polling that shows Americans unsatisfied with the law as a whole, the White House has boasted of surveys that show that people are warmer to individual parts of the law, like letting young adults stay on their parents' plans until they're 26 and barring insurers from denying coverage to people with so-called pre-existing conditions.

In court, the government argued that the health care law was passed partly because in 2009, 50 million people lacked health insurance. Costs of the uninsured were spiraling out of control and were being shifted to those who are insured, doctors and insurance companies. And, people with so-called pre-existing conditions were being denied coverage. The law offered insurance reforms but mandated that almost every American buy health insurance by 2014.

The government said that Congress was well within its authority to pass the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. As a secondary argument the government also said Congress had the authority to pass the mandate under its taxing authority.

Opponents — 26 states, an independent business group and two private citizens — said that while Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, it doesn't have the power to require people to buy a product. The opponents argued that the claim of federal power was both "unprecedented and unbounded."

In March, the court devoted more than six hours of arguments to different aspects of the law.

mykarma
Jun 28th, 2012, 02:24 PM
The Mandate Can Stay, Supreme Court Says in Health Care Ruling
PHOTO: U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court building is shown in Washington, Wednesday, June 27, 2012. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

By MATT NEGRIN (@MattNegrin) AND ARIANE DE VOGUE (@Arianedevogue)
June 28, 2012

The so-called individual mandate to buy health insurance, the key part of President Obama's signature health care law, has survived, the Supreme Court ruled this morning.

The court ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but it can stay as part of Congress's power under a taxing clause. The court said that the government will be allowed to tax people for not having health insurance.

"The Affordable care act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," the court said in the ruling.

The high court kept the country in suspense for days, announcing at the beginning of the week that it would hand down its decision today.

The ruling will have immediate effects on the presidential race. Obama has called his health care law "the right thing to do," even as polling has determined that the law is unpopular. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, had vowed to repeal "ObamaCare" as soon as he became president, despite championing remarkably similar legislation as the governor of Massachusetts.

While just 36 percent of people in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll had a favorable opinion of the health law, a similarly low number of people — 39 percent — had a favorable opinion of the health care system as it stands now. And while the GOP has trumpeted polling that shows Americans unsatisfied with the law as a whole, the White House has boasted of surveys that show that people are warmer to individual parts of the law, like letting young adults stay on their parents' plans until they're 26 and barring insurers from denying coverage to people with so-called pre-existing conditions.

In court, the government argued that the health care law was passed partly because in 2009, 50 million people lacked health insurance. Costs of the uninsured were spiraling out of control and were being shifted to those who are insured, doctors and insurance companies. And, people with so-called pre-existing conditions were being denied coverage. The law offered insurance reforms but mandated that almost every American buy health insurance by 2014.

The government said that Congress was well within its authority to pass the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. As a secondary argument the government also said Congress had the authority to pass the mandate under its taxing authority.

Opponents — 26 states, an independent business group and two private citizens — said that while Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, it doesn't have the power to require people to buy a product. The opponents argued that the claim of federal power was both "unprecedented and unbounded."

In March, the court devoted more than six hours of arguments to different aspects of the law.

Totally Shocked.

Moveyourfeet
Jun 28th, 2012, 02:54 PM
Pretty shocked that it was upheld.
There are other parts of the law that I find more disagreeable than the mandate however, but onwards with PPACA I suppose.

pov
Jun 28th, 2012, 03:37 PM
:eek: W.T.F. What makes it more shocking is that they deemed it (correctly IMO) unconstitutional.

wta_zuperfann
Jun 28th, 2012, 03:59 PM
CNN initially reported it as unconstitutional but they retracted it moments later:


http://i.imgur.com/2Gw8n.jpg

wta_zuperfann
Jun 28th, 2012, 04:01 PM
Pretty shocked that it was upheld.
There are other parts of the law that I find more disagreeable than the mandate however, but onwards with PPACA I suppose.


The court ruled that it may be upheld as part of Congress's power to tax. I disagree (mind you I have a law degree) and feel it may be upheld as part of Congress's power to regulate commerce.

Wigglytuff
Jun 28th, 2012, 05:27 PM
I'm not shocked at CNN.

I AM shocked @ Stevens.

I agree that this is essentially a tax and always has been. So in general I agree with the ruling.

miffedmax
Jun 28th, 2012, 06:19 PM
The court ruled that it may be upheld as part of Congress's power to tax. I disagree (mind you I have a law degree) and feel it may be upheld as part of Congress's power to regulate commerce.

It's a legal figleaf, a bit of pragmatism by Roberts. Had he rules against it, it would have unraveled decades of case law, including a lot that applies to policies that Republicans and big business support. Had he ruled it was part of the power to regulate commerce, it would have been an even bigger capitulation to the administration and Congress than it already is.

This isn't the first time that the SCOTUS has made rulings that allow it to have its cake and eat it too. In fact, these sort of mental gymnastics are sometimes necessary for our country to get along with the business of governing itself, so I'm not really being cynical here. It's just the way I see it. That there is such flex built into our system is actually one of the reasons we can keep a 18th-Century Constitution functioning in a 21st Century world.