Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WH: The Latest Health Care Court Case

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 02:21 PM
Original message
WH: The Latest Health Care Court Case

The Latest Health Care Court Case

Posted by Stephanie Cutter

There has been no shortage of court cases regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Before today, four courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, examined the health reform law and found it constitutional.

Today, a different court ruled against the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision. We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand.

The individual responsibility provision – the main part of the law at issue in these cases – is constitutional. Those who claim this provision exceeds Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce are incorrect. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us – when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab.

Judge Sutton, a Judge in the Sixth Circuit who upheld the law, declared that the individual responsibility provision is constitutional and wrote: “In choosing how to regulate , Congress also did not exceed its power.”

Judge Martin, another Judge who upheld the law in the Sixth Circuit, said the Affordable Care Act is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because “(1) virtually everyone requires health care services at some unpredictable point; and (2) individuals receive health care services regardless of ability to pay. Virtually everyone will need health care services at some point, including….those without health insurance.”

That’s why the Affordable Care Act requires everyone who can afford it to take responsibility for their own health care and carry some form of health insurance.

For the 83% of Americans who have coverage and who are already taking responsibility for their health care, the Affordable Care Act will help insurance premiums to decrease over time. And only those who are able to pay for health insurance will be responsible for obtaining it. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016.

Without the individual responsibility provision, people could wait until they’re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies could no longer say no or charge more. That would lead to double digit premiums increases – up to 20% – for everyone in the individual insurance market.

By bringing everyone into the health insurance system, we can not only lower costs for everyone but also finally ban discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions.

Today’s ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead. In the end, we are confident the Act will ultimately be upheld as constitutional.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. The ruling today was actually to our benefit, because
it overturned the previous judge's ruling that the whole law was unconstitutional.

Instead, this court ruled that just the mandate was unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. The mandate makes the thing workable. Without it the preexisting conditions
Will explode the expenses and the premiums will be unbearable. This is what the WH response above acknowledges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Clinton appointee joins Bush, Sr., appointee declaring mandate unconstitutional
It doesn't look good for this "reform" at the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. So, if you can't get one CoA Clinton appointee to decide the individual mandate is consitutional...
How will you persuade Fat Tony and his gang at SCOTUS?

Good luck with that.

:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Why
is the fact that the person was a Clinton nominee mean she isn't wrong? From the link:

<...>

Hull has a long record of conservative criminal and individual rights decisions. We now know that she is also very far to the right questions of federal power. That is unfortunate, but it also places her well to the right of some of the Supreme Court’s most conservative members.

<...>


Oh, with that logic, nice hat(s).




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hart2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It means the argument isn't persuasive...
And even if say Justice Kennedy decides its OK, Obama still needs to hold all of the liberal minority, which isn't guaranteed.

The odds aren't good for that then.

:dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce::dunce:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No
Edited on Fri Aug-12-11 06:13 PM by ProSense
"And even if say Justice Kennedy decides its OK, Obama still needs to hold all of the liberal minority, which isn't guaranteed."

...it means you're twisting in the wind hoping this argument prevails.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. I don't quite get the argument of these judges
The government can force us to pay taxes and then use that money to buy things from private companies, but it can't force us to buy things directly from a private company? I don't understand the difference. Ultimately money is still flowing out of my pocket due to a government law which says I need to pay it. This just cuts out the middle man in the equation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Philippine expat Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Actually there is a big difference
in taking my taxes and providing health care for all and requiring me to
buy something from a private company..
As much as I am in favor of single payer I also believe the appeals court is correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tx4obama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-11 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. There is 'precedent' in U.S. law for a mandate - see link below
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC