Battle over health care law reaches high court Monday

  • Follow National

Back | Next
Don Kirchoff, of Nassau Bay, Texas, places flowers in front of the Supreme Court during a Sunday event led by several Christian organizations before the court hears arguments on the health care law .  JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
JACQUELYN MARTIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Don Kirchoff, of Nassau Bay, Texas, places flowers in front of the Supreme Court during a Sunday event led by several Christian organizations before the court hears arguments on the health care law .

WASHINGTON — The monumental fight over a health care law that touches all Americans and divides them sharply comes before the U.S. Supreme Court today. The justices will decide whether to kill or keep the largest expansion in the nation’s social safety net in more than four decades.

Two years and three days after President Obama signed into law a health care overhaul aimed at extending medical insurance to more than 30 million Americans, the high court begins three days of hearings over the law’s validity.

The challenge from 26 states and a small business group puts the court smack in the middle of a heavily partisan fight over the president’s major domestic accomplishment and a presidential election campaign in which all his Republican challengers oppose the law.

If upheld, the law will force dramatic changes in the way insurance companies do business, including forbidding them from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions and limiting how much they can charge older people.

Republicans are leading the fight to kill the law either by the court or through congressional repeal. They say the worst fears about what they derisively call “Obamacare” already have come to pass in the form of higher costs and regulations, claims that the law’s supporters dispute. All the Republican presidential candidates promise to repeal the law if elected.

Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the mandatory insurance requirement is unconstitutional.

The administration’s public education campaign has come under strong criticism from its allies who say the White House has been timid in the face of relentless Republican attacks.

Washington lawyer Walter Dellinger, who served in the Clinton administration Justice Department, said opponents have succeeded in keeping the focus on the insurance requirement instead of two provisions that will keep insurers from discriminating against sicker and older people. “The other two are very popular, and no one discusses them,” Dellinger said.

The White House has belatedly begun touting parts of the law already in effect, including allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26 and reducing older Americans’ prescription drug costs.

The main event before the court is Tuesday’s argument over the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business say Congress lacked authority under the Constitution for its unprecedented step of forcing Americans to buy insurance whether they want it or not.

The administration argues Congress has ample authority to do what it did. If its action was rare, it is only because Congress was dealing with a problem that has stymied Democratic and Republican administrations for many decades: How to get adequate health care to as many people as possible, and at a reasonable cost.

The justices also will take up whether the rest of the law can remain in place if the insurance mandate falls and, separately, whether Congress lacked the power to expand the Medicaid program.

The court will consider whether the challenge is premature under a 19th century tax law because the insurance requirement doesn’t kick in until 2014 and people who remain uninsured wouldn’t have to pay a penalty until they file their 2014 income taxes in early 2015.

Taking this way out of the case would relieve the justices of rendering a decision in political high season, just months before the presidential election.

The justices like to say they give the same attention to the small cases as the big ones. But everything about the court’s handling of health care suggests there is no doubt among the court’s six men and three women about the significance of what they are about to decide.

The six hours of argument time is the most scheduled since the mid-1960s. The court will release audio recordings of the arguments on the same day they take place. Outside groups filed a record 136 briefs dealing with the four issues the court will take up over the next three days.

The case arrives at a high court in which ideology and political affiliation align for the first time in generations. The four Democratic appointees make up the liberal wing, while the five justices named by Republican presidents form a cohesive conservative majority on several key issues.

The partisan battle lines were drawn early on. The law passed Congress, controlled by Democrats in 2009 and 2010, without a single Republican vote.

Republican elected officials filed suit in federal court the same day Obama signed the bill into law.

Even in the courts, the first decisions fell along party lines. Democratic-appointed judges uniformly upheld the law or dismissed suits against it, while Republican appointees in Florida and Virginia struck it down.

But in federal appeals courts, one Democratic appointee joined in the decision that struck down the insurance requirement.

In two other opinions, conservative Republican-appointed judges voted to uphold the law.

Despite calls for Thomas, from liberal groups, and Justice Elena Kagan, from conservatives, to step aside, it appears all the justices will take part in the historic case.

Obama campaigned on a promise of offering affordable health care to all Americans, emphasizing that the U.S. was the only developed nation without a comprehensive national health care plan for all its citizens.

The U.S. spends about two-and-half times as much on health care as other industrialized countries, but it does no better on life expectancy and other measures than nations that spend far less.

ARGUMENTS

WASHINGTON — On the first of three days of arguments on the health care law, Supreme Court justices and lawyers will focus on a basic question: Should we even be here?

The answer isn’t simple.

The highly technical issue is whether an obscure, 145-year-old law means it’s too soon for courts to hear challenges to the new mandate that people have insurance or pay a penalty. The Obama administration and the states and businesses opposing the health care law all agree on this: They all want the justices to decide now.

But one lower appeals court embraced the argument that court challenges are premature, so the justices assigned lawyer Robert Long to argue the position that courts can’t rule yet on mandatory insurance.

The main arguments today:

• Long says the mandate to carry health insurance or pay a penalty is in essence a tax. He says the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits courts from hearing challenges to a tax before it’s been collected, and the IRS won’t begin enforcing the penalty until after tax day 2015.

• The Obama administration argues that, because the law doesn’t call the penalty a tax and the IRS doesn’t enforce it that way, it doesn’t fall under the Anti-Injunction Act.

• Those challenging the law say the act doesn’t clearly direct courts to stay out of tax disputes so the justices are free to decide the case now. The businesses also say the insurance mandate is separate from the penalty for not having insurance – whether the penalty is a tax or not.

– Associated Press

loading...
Search Augusta jobs