The United States Supreme Court has decided that it will hear an appeal relating to the comprehensive healthcare program passed by a Democratic congress and approved by President Obama. The healthcare program is commonly known as Obamacare, which for reasons unknown many supporters consider a pejorative term. One would think that if you are in favor of legislation and take pride in it that you would have no problem having it associated with the head of your political party.
Ever since passage of the healthcare legislation, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009 and later by both houses of Congress through some procedural back door mechanisms, the healthcare plan has been subject to criticism. And subject to lawsuits.
In addition to the perceived procedural sleight of hand that resulted in its passage, parts of the actual content of the law have been subject to criticism. And it seems that almost every month, if not more often, some new issue arises with the contents of the legislation. After all, this is the legislation that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said needed to be passed so that Congress and the people could figure out what was in it. This is apparently the political equivalent of "Shoot first, and ask questions later."
Criticism has especially been the case with regard to the law's mandate that every person must purchase an insurance policy. The requirement that each person buy an insurance policy is central to the whole idea of healthcare reform because some of the other aspects and requirements of Obamacare essentially fall apart without such a mandate.
For example, the law mandates that private insurance companies will be prohibited from denying insurance to any applicant regardless of that applicant's physical condition or pre-existing condition. Without the mandate, it was clear that healthy people and people who perceived that they were healthy would not purchase insurance until they needed. In other words, no disease, no doctor, no need for insurance; but all of a sudden disease, need a doctor, give me insurance now.
This would result in insurance companies having to pay out potentially massive coverage claims to newly covered people when those same people have not been paying into the company coffers. Thus, insurance rates would have to increase dramatically for everyone in order to cover these potential claims to come in the future. With a mandate that everyone purchase insurance, then not only would these future unhealthy persons have to take out policies and pay premiums, but all the healthy persons who remain healthy and hardly receive any benefit from insurance coverage would also have to pay in.
Without the mandate, there would be but two choices. Insurance rates would skyrocket (still a possibility) or insurance companies would go out of business. Of course, this second choice would be favored by many progressives, as it would lead to government-controlled healthcare. In fact, this was the favored choice of then-candidate Obama, who said that a single-payer system could not be immediately implemented but must be done so in steps. Obamacare is one such step.
The mandate to buy insurance has been criticized by some, including more than half the states, as unconstitutional. The claim is that never before has the federal government mandated that its citizens must enter into a private purchase agreement, must purchase something from a third party.
Those supporting the mandate have countered that states require their drivers to purchase liability insurance from third party insurance companies, and this is really the same thing. Of course, in that situation, the states are really requiring drivers to purchase liability insurance for the privilege to drive, for the license. A more apt comparison would be if the states were requiring all of its citizens to purchase a car.
In this case, there is no privilege or license that the government is granting to go with the mandate. Unless one wants to consider that the government is allowing you the privilege of living.
Critics of the mandate point out that, if the government can require everyone to but insurance, then is there anything that the government cannot require its citizens to purchase. Given the federal government's partial ownership of General Motors, perhaps the mandate to buy a car is not that farfetched.
In various lawsuits, Obamacare has been upheld and has been rejected. Therefore, with competing opinions, it is not unusual that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue. However, the Court is taking up the matter rather quickly with the anticipation of ruling on the matter prior to the November 2012 presidential election.
Now, just because the Supreme Court is going to consider the matter and promises a ruling does not mean that there will be a resolution of the Obamacare issue. The Supreme Court could rule the mandate unconstitutional; it could rule the mandate constitutional; or it could kick the issue down the road by holding that the mandate issue is premature or otherwise relying on some procedural gimmick to avoid an immediate answer.
Regardless of whatever ruling makes its way out of the Supreme Court prior to the election, Obamacare will remain an election issue. Polls indicate that many people oppose the law, and this is before much of the law has even kicked in yet as different aspects of the law are to be phased in over the next six years.
As long as opposition is strong, Obamacare will be an issue. If the Supreme Court rules that the mandate is unconstitutional, President Obama and the Democrats will be subject to criticism for overreaching and going against the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court punts the issue, Obamacare of course will remain an issue since it will remain unsettled.
But even if the President's administration and the Democrats prevail and the Supreme Court holds that the Obamacare mandate is constitutional, they will have little over which to gloat. Clearly, they will be able to exclaim to the American people that their mandate has passed the legal test. But in turn, the Republicans will be able to question what next mandate will the Democrats seek to impose on its citizens and to point out that having passed constitutional muster there is but one way to get rid of Obamacare: throw out the Democrats who support it and put in place Republicans who will promise to unwind it, including a president who will not veto the efforts of a Congress intent on giving back to citizens some measure of sovereignty over their lives.
President Obama and the Democrats might win this Supreme Court battle, but in doing so they might also lose the war.
Regards to President Dunsell!
Ever since passage of the healthcare legislation, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009 and later by both houses of Congress through some procedural back door mechanisms, the healthcare plan has been subject to criticism. And subject to lawsuits.
In addition to the perceived procedural sleight of hand that resulted in its passage, parts of the actual content of the law have been subject to criticism. And it seems that almost every month, if not more often, some new issue arises with the contents of the legislation. After all, this is the legislation that then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said needed to be passed so that Congress and the people could figure out what was in it. This is apparently the political equivalent of "Shoot first, and ask questions later."
Criticism has especially been the case with regard to the law's mandate that every person must purchase an insurance policy. The requirement that each person buy an insurance policy is central to the whole idea of healthcare reform because some of the other aspects and requirements of Obamacare essentially fall apart without such a mandate.
For example, the law mandates that private insurance companies will be prohibited from denying insurance to any applicant regardless of that applicant's physical condition or pre-existing condition. Without the mandate, it was clear that healthy people and people who perceived that they were healthy would not purchase insurance until they needed. In other words, no disease, no doctor, no need for insurance; but all of a sudden disease, need a doctor, give me insurance now.
This would result in insurance companies having to pay out potentially massive coverage claims to newly covered people when those same people have not been paying into the company coffers. Thus, insurance rates would have to increase dramatically for everyone in order to cover these potential claims to come in the future. With a mandate that everyone purchase insurance, then not only would these future unhealthy persons have to take out policies and pay premiums, but all the healthy persons who remain healthy and hardly receive any benefit from insurance coverage would also have to pay in.
Without the mandate, there would be but two choices. Insurance rates would skyrocket (still a possibility) or insurance companies would go out of business. Of course, this second choice would be favored by many progressives, as it would lead to government-controlled healthcare. In fact, this was the favored choice of then-candidate Obama, who said that a single-payer system could not be immediately implemented but must be done so in steps. Obamacare is one such step.
The mandate to buy insurance has been criticized by some, including more than half the states, as unconstitutional. The claim is that never before has the federal government mandated that its citizens must enter into a private purchase agreement, must purchase something from a third party.
Those supporting the mandate have countered that states require their drivers to purchase liability insurance from third party insurance companies, and this is really the same thing. Of course, in that situation, the states are really requiring drivers to purchase liability insurance for the privilege to drive, for the license. A more apt comparison would be if the states were requiring all of its citizens to purchase a car.
In this case, there is no privilege or license that the government is granting to go with the mandate. Unless one wants to consider that the government is allowing you the privilege of living.
Critics of the mandate point out that, if the government can require everyone to but insurance, then is there anything that the government cannot require its citizens to purchase. Given the federal government's partial ownership of General Motors, perhaps the mandate to buy a car is not that farfetched.
In various lawsuits, Obamacare has been upheld and has been rejected. Therefore, with competing opinions, it is not unusual that the Supreme Court would eventually take up the issue. However, the Court is taking up the matter rather quickly with the anticipation of ruling on the matter prior to the November 2012 presidential election.
Now, just because the Supreme Court is going to consider the matter and promises a ruling does not mean that there will be a resolution of the Obamacare issue. The Supreme Court could rule the mandate unconstitutional; it could rule the mandate constitutional; or it could kick the issue down the road by holding that the mandate issue is premature or otherwise relying on some procedural gimmick to avoid an immediate answer.
Regardless of whatever ruling makes its way out of the Supreme Court prior to the election, Obamacare will remain an election issue. Polls indicate that many people oppose the law, and this is before much of the law has even kicked in yet as different aspects of the law are to be phased in over the next six years.
As long as opposition is strong, Obamacare will be an issue. If the Supreme Court rules that the mandate is unconstitutional, President Obama and the Democrats will be subject to criticism for overreaching and going against the U.S. Constitution. If the Supreme Court punts the issue, Obamacare of course will remain an issue since it will remain unsettled.
But even if the President's administration and the Democrats prevail and the Supreme Court holds that the Obamacare mandate is constitutional, they will have little over which to gloat. Clearly, they will be able to exclaim to the American people that their mandate has passed the legal test. But in turn, the Republicans will be able to question what next mandate will the Democrats seek to impose on its citizens and to point out that having passed constitutional muster there is but one way to get rid of Obamacare: throw out the Democrats who support it and put in place Republicans who will promise to unwind it, including a president who will not veto the efforts of a Congress intent on giving back to citizens some measure of sovereignty over their lives.
President Obama and the Democrats might win this Supreme Court battle, but in doing so they might also lose the war.
Regards to President Dunsell!
