Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Health Care Law - Polidicks

[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/politics/health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1"]Source[/URL] I recommend reading the source instead, easier on the eyes. [QUOTE][B]Washington (CNN)[/B] -- As expected, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama. The justices made their announcement in a brief order issued Monday. Oral arguments are likely to be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become a hot-button political debate in a presidential election year. The high court agreed to hear two major questions: whether the law's key provision is unconstitutional, and if so, whether the entire law, with its 450 sections, must be scrapped. Five and a half hours of oral arguments have been scheduled. Other related cases are pending and may also be added to the docket. The largest and broadest legal challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act comes from a joint filing by 26 states, led by Florida. It was that series of appeals the high court accepted for review. At issue is whether the "individual mandate" section -- requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties -- is an improper exercise of federal authority. The states also say that if that linchpin provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must be also go. Joining Florida in the challenge are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Virginia and Oklahoma have filed separate challenges, along with other groups and individuals opposed to the law. "We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in a news release issued after the court made its announcement. The justices made a calculated call to address the broader issues of the reach of federal authority and the power of Congress to enact this kind of legislation. The National Federation of Business, a key player in opposing the law, said it is pleased the court will address the larger issues. "For the small-business community, this comes not a day too soon," said Dan Danner, the group's CEO. "The health care law has not lived up to its promises of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees, alike. The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation's highest court." Many provisions of the law have not yet taken effect, but the White House, in its release, said that under the provisions that have, "one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket, and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses." Three federal appeals courts have found the PPACA to be constitutional, while another has said it is not, labeling it "breathtaking in its expansive scope." That "circuit split" all but assured the Supreme Court would step in and decide the matter. Florida and other Republican-led states had urged the high court to intervene. "This health care law is an affront on Americans' individual liberty, and we will not allow the federal government to violate our constitutional rights," said the state's attorney general, Pam Bondi. "Our country urgently needs a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court." The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. The Justice Department had countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market. Federal officials cite 2008 figures of $43 billion in uncompensated costs from the millions of uninsured people who receive health services, costs that are shifted to insurance companies and passed on to consumers. The coalition of states is asking the court to decide three fundamental questions: --Whether the entire law must fail because its centerpiece -- the individual mandate -- is unconstitutional. --Whether states can be forced by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration, with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse. --Whether state employees can receive a federally mandated level of health insurance coverage. The legislation was heavily promoted by Obama in his first year in office. Supporters say it would extend health coverage to about 30 million Americans. The White House argues the move is good for society and good for the economy. Opponents claim it would overly burden states and small businesses, raise costs, and reduce individual choice. All sides agree the issue needs to be decided soon, with more provisions of the law set to come into effect in coming years. Legal analysts say the health care cases are the biggest to be tackled by the high court in a decade, and will shine new political light on the role of courts to decide these kinds of huge social issues. "The questions raised here are explosive, a kind of perfect storm for the justices to address in an election year," said Thomas Goldstein, a Washington lawyer and founder of Scotusblog. "It will be impossible to take your eyes away from the Supreme Court. Health care reform, a top Democratic priority since the Truman administration, was passed by the previous Congress in a series of virtually party-line votes. Obama signed the act into law in March 2010. The law is widely considered to be the signature legislative accomplishment of the president's first two years in office. Among other things, the measure was designed to help millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans receive adequate and affordable health care through the government-imposed mandates and subsidies. The federal government stated in court briefs that 45 million Americans last year were without health insurance, roughly 15% of the country's population. Critics have equated the measure to socialized medicine, fearing that a bloated government bureaucracy would result in higher taxes and diminished health care services. Opponents derisively labeled the measure "Obamacare." Republican leaders, who captured the House of Representatives in the midterm elections, have vowed to overturn or severely trim the law. The cases accepted Monday are Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Florida (11-398); NFIB v. Sebelius (11-393); and Florida v. HHS (11-400).[/QUOTE] I find it interesting that the only problem I had with the bill (requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty) is the main talking point of this debate.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;33272915][URL="http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/14/politics/health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1"]Source[/URL] I recommend reading the source instead, easier on the eyes. I find it interesting that the only problem I had with the bill (requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty) is the main talking point of this debate.[/QUOTE] Why is that an issue though? What's wrong with requiring everyone to be insured? If you're not you're fucked in America anyway, and having it required for everyone would drive down prices as well as cover a large portion of the actual procedures.

[QUOTE=Miskav;33273121]Why is that an issue though? What's wrong with requiring everyone to be insured? If you're not you're fucked in America anyway, and having it required for everyone would drive down prices as well as cover a large portion of the actual procedures.[/QUOTE] Actually, to repeal my silly statement, I do find it strange that there has to be a penalty. I support the bill, but can someone tell me what the idea behind the penalty is?

[QUOTE=Miskav;33273121]Why is that an issue though? What's wrong with requiring everyone to be insured? If you're not you're fucked in America anyway, and having it required for everyone would drive down prices as well as cover a large portion of the actual procedures.[/QUOTE] If a person wants to save money and take the risk of no health insurance then they should be allowed to. I imagine that a healthy man in his 20's could go for a few years without insurance to save for more pressing matters that require ungodly exorbitant amounts of money like college. [editline]14th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zoook;33273416]Actually, to repeal my silly statement, I do find it strange that there has to be a penalty. I support the bill, but can someone tell me what the idea behind the penalty is?[/QUOTE] It said financial penalties, so I imagine that if you choose to not purchase health insurance, you'll still be paying more than you used to so you might as well pay a little more (or less?) and get the insurance.

Wasn't the mandate part of the bill originally a republican invention

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33273487]Wasn't the mandate part of the bill originally a republican invention[/QUOTE] I'm having trouble finding anything on that. Care to post a link proving that?

I think it was put in to balance the pre-existing condition portion of the bill. (ie. to prevent people from only buying healthcare once they get sick)

[QUOTE=Echo 199;33273769]I think it was put in to balance the pre-existing condition portion of the bill. (ie. to prevent people from only buying healthcare once they get sick)[/QUOTE] I never thought of it that way. I always thought of pre-existing conditions as some sort of problem or complication a person is born with. I still stand by my point though. We should be allowed to make our own decisions. Fruits and vegetables are good for you, but people are still going to eat cake and blubbery buffalo wings fro a bucket. You can't force people to make the right decision, but you can make it available to them.

Aren't proponents of the bills concerned about how the Supreme Court is much more conservative now than decades ago?

[QUOTE=Zoook;33273416]Actually, to repeal my silly statement, I do find it strange that there has to be a penalty. I support the bill, but can someone tell me what the idea behind the penalty is?[/QUOTE] It goes hand-in-hand with the provision that insurers can't reject people with pre-existing conditions. Without an incentive to buy insurance and join the pool, people would simply wait until they got sick to buy insurance, thus driving UP prices and ruining the entire plan. Also, the "penalty" (a 2% income tax hike) won't put a single person in jail unless they were already guilty of tax evasion, and there are supposed to be enough subsidies for low-income people to purchase insurance that nobody should have to go uninsured in the first place. The "Throw people in jail who are too poor to afford insurance" angle is a complete fucking lie, and built on the same bullshit bedrock as the death panels. Either way, it doesn't matter. The Republicans own the Supreme Court and Roberts will probably get the whole thing scrapped.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;33273643]I'm having trouble finding anything on that. Care to post a link proving that?[/QUOTE] When Massachusetts passed it's healthcare law it had a mandate. Who was the governor at the time? Mitt Romney. The national healthcare reform law is based largely on the Massachusetts law as well.

[QUOTE=Miskav;33273121]Why is that an issue though? What's wrong with requiring everyone to be insured? If you're not you're fucked in America anyway, and having it required for everyone would drive down prices as well as cover a large portion of the actual procedures.[/QUOTE] This is the primary intention. But then you have the die-hard blowhard Libertarians who way it's a violation of their personal rights, and the HMOs, who say that it's a violation of their corporate rights. And both have loadsamone to fund superPACs and Lobbyists and Internet wise guys like Glaber.

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;33274511]This is the primary intention. But then you have the die-hard blowhard Libertarians who way it's a violation of their personal rights, and the HMOs, who say that it's a violation of their corporate rights. And both have loadsamone to fund superPACs and Lobbyists and Internet wise guys like Glaber.[/QUOTE] I just fail to see how anyone could see it as a bad thing. Are they that uninformed?

[QUOTE=Miskav;33273121]Why is that an issue though? What's wrong with requiring everyone to be insured? If you're not you're fucked in America anyway, and having it required for everyone would drive down prices as well as cover a large portion of the actual procedures.[/QUOTE] Forcing people to buy private health insurance is not the proper way to do socialized healthcare. The Republicans hijacked a good bill and completely fucked it up, and now they're criticizing it solely for what [b]they[/b] did to it

[QUOTE=Miskav;33274555]I just fail to see how anyone could see it as a bad thing. Are they that uninformed?[/QUOTE] It's not so much uninformed as it is misinformed.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;33274576]Forcing people to buy private health insurance is not the proper way to do socialized healthcare. The Republicans hijacked a good bill and completely fucked it up, and now they're criticizing it solely for what [b]they[/b] did to it[/QUOTE] It's not forcing them though, it's just fining them if they don't. They have the option to not do it, they'll just receive a fine. Health insurance that spans your entire country needs to get it's money from somewhere, requiring your citizens to have insurance is a great way to get a part of the money as well as increase overall health.

[QUOTE=Miskav;33275013]It's not forcing them though, it's just fining them if they don't. They have the option to not do it, they'll just receive a fine. Health insurance that spans your entire country needs to get it's money from somewhere, requiring your citizens to have insurance is a great way to get a part of the money as well as increase overall health.[/QUOTE] They shouldn't be fined at all! And it doesn't span the entire country. It's a collection of private health insurance companies that are more concerned about money than peoples' well-being.