[And Also: This analysis, including addressing five ways the law handles the health care problem, is appreciated but has shades of what I criticize below. Why is this thing in particular a concern for the Tea Party? Since the case against claims a tweak in the tax law would legitimize it, especially. Warrants comment. I will say it until I'm blue in the face. "All" people don't have to buy insurance and merely living here isn't enough to penalize you if you do not. When reasonable analysts say it, it becomes common sense. It still is false.]
Thus, though admittedly it seems some simply aren't aware this is not just a "force you to buy insurance" measure (the quotes implying the misleading nature of the argument), if this law goes, all of this stuff will as well. The Republicans didn't support all of that while opposing the insurance requirement. No, as with opposition to Medicare and so forth, they were more comprehensively wrong. So, no, I don't think this is a trivial law. Also, change doesn't happen all at once -- current safety net programs didn't all come into effect in the 1930s either. If this is struck down, how will stronger federal requirements be upheld?
Finally, as to the insurance requirement or be taxed (unless you don't make enough money etc.) measure, the desire of people to be freeloaders is duly noted. Unless, they want not to have the things listed, which includes federal spending that is threatened by bankruptcies and other federal obligations arising from those without insurance still getting health care. Federal legislation provides lots of things; this brings forth certain responsibilities. As with the constitutionality of the law, even if you don't like it on a policy level in some sense, this apparently needs to be repeated over and over again. So be it.
I think the brief quoted above does a good job telling Kennedy (and in a sense Scalia) that their previous opinions make the arguments against the constitutionality of the law unsustainable. By now, there has been a virtual cottage industry of such briefs, law articles and so forth. I guess it is a fait accompli that the Supreme Court will take this case and on some level it would be nice for the matter to be settled. That is, if they do not hold that a statutory provision prevents challenges to the insurance requirement until someone is actually targeted for not paying the tax. This won't happen for years. If the provision doesn't kick in -- and it is reasonable to decide the question -- they still need not decide, just as they did not decide under questions not deemed "ripe" for similar reasons. I still think that would be the right thing to do.
As to predictions, past cases do not show me why Kennedy (and maybe others) would overrule this law. It is not a type of one-off replacing something handled by the states (gun possession near schools, U.S. v. Lopez) or something arguably not "commercial" (gender violence, U.S. v. Morrison). A comprehensive regulation of the national insurance market is like Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld a federal law against the mere possession of marijuana. Scalia concurred and if anything this is an easier case. For one thing, there you can be put in jail for breaking the law; here, they can't even put a lien on your property to enforce the tax penalty. When did the USSC actually strike down a similarly broad law in recent memory on enumerated powers or federalism grounds?* The funding question is a stretch, so much even the 11th Cir. didn't accepted it. State actors are not "coerced" illegitimately just because refused federal funds is unpopular. No requirements ala Printz v. U.S. for state actors to specifically do anything. And, if we just think they are a bunch of conservative hacks, the drug case different because they hate druggies or something, insurance companies actually prefer this law and the specific infamous provision to the alternative.
But, we shall see. One last thing that keeps on coming up is the "Obamacare" label, which is used at times even by some liberal leaning sorts like TPM. It is not the biggest battle to fight, to be sure, and people can laugh/shrug it off or even adopt it (Obama cares etc.). I still don't like it. This is a health care law. It isn't about "Obama." Medicare isn't "LBJ-care." The U.S. Senate crafted this law with an assist from the House. Obama left them to it, too long in the minds of some. We are supposed to forget all of this, why? The use of the word by the opposition is malign -- it makes it about Obama with implications of some scary socialist measure where the government "cares" for you for your own good or something. And, to the degree it sounds like "Medicare," in fact, it is not that. It expands Medicaid somewhat, but it actually is a middle of the road, former Republican, approach. The use of the word sends the message that it is more left leaning than it actually is. Framing-wise, and framing is a major part of policy making these days, it has too many nefarious elements.
Again, there are bigger battles, and the confusion found in the public debate on this issue underlines the breadth of the fight. I admit to be tired of the whole thing, but Roe v. Wade is approaching forty, and we still are talking about it. It isn't just some sort of fait accompli, the issues common sense, without controversial. That's how life works.
---
* Bush v. Gore is tossed around, like the USSC does that sort of thing on a regular basis, but a reason so many were so upset there is that they actually don't. Upholding some criminal penalty or abortion restriction also doesn't point to a major federal law. The USSC dealt with federalism and so forth in various cases over the last two decades, but I nothing of this scope struck down. The comparison to federal drug policy only helps my point. Is this really where the Roberts Court will draw a line in the sand?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (speaking of framing) as applied to states might be cited, though that is like 15 years ago, but there the Court was particularly upset that the Congress tried to in effect overturn Oregon v. Smith. Also, states accommodate religion in any number of ways that deal with local matters. Again, it is quite different than a national insurance market that no one state could handle on its own. And, literally anything can possibly be a federal case if burdens on religion have to be considered. This law is much more limited in scope.
The ACA is a comprehensive, multi-faceted legislative scheme aimed at achieving near-universal and affordable health care coverage for every American citizen. It expands Medicaid coverage, ACA § 2001; requires large employers to provide health care coverage for their workers, ACA §§ 1511, 1513; creates new health benefit exchanges for individuals and small businesses, ACA §§ 1311, 1312; provides tax credits to allow a broad range of individuals and families to purchase health insurance, ACA §§ 1401-1421; eliminates Medicare copayments for a wide variety of preventive services (e.g., screening for cancer), ACA § 4104; and strengthens the Medicare Part D prescription drug program by filling in the “donut hole,” ACA § 2501.A summary of the legislation, including a reminder to the misinformed that parts are in place now, shows this is if anything only a limited list. Two things stand out for me -- allowing parents to have their children under twenty-seven on their insurance and the pre-existing conditions measure. But, just focusing on them if anything is a misleading undersell of what actually is covered here. The breadth of the legislation is impressive, if the inability to fully promote it is not. We should have loads of promos and videos and accounts how people are helped and how not having such and such provision is a problem. As to all aspects not being in effect yet, it is eminently reasonable and common sense that something of this magnitude has to be slowly put in place.
Thus, though admittedly it seems some simply aren't aware this is not just a "force you to buy insurance" measure (the quotes implying the misleading nature of the argument), if this law goes, all of this stuff will as well. The Republicans didn't support all of that while opposing the insurance requirement. No, as with opposition to Medicare and so forth, they were more comprehensively wrong. So, no, I don't think this is a trivial law. Also, change doesn't happen all at once -- current safety net programs didn't all come into effect in the 1930s either. If this is struck down, how will stronger federal requirements be upheld?
Finally, as to the insurance requirement or be taxed (unless you don't make enough money etc.) measure, the desire of people to be freeloaders is duly noted. Unless, they want not to have the things listed, which includes federal spending that is threatened by bankruptcies and other federal obligations arising from those without insurance still getting health care. Federal legislation provides lots of things; this brings forth certain responsibilities. As with the constitutionality of the law, even if you don't like it on a policy level in some sense, this apparently needs to be repeated over and over again. So be it.
I think the brief quoted above does a good job telling Kennedy (and in a sense Scalia) that their previous opinions make the arguments against the constitutionality of the law unsustainable. By now, there has been a virtual cottage industry of such briefs, law articles and so forth. I guess it is a fait accompli that the Supreme Court will take this case and on some level it would be nice for the matter to be settled. That is, if they do not hold that a statutory provision prevents challenges to the insurance requirement until someone is actually targeted for not paying the tax. This won't happen for years. If the provision doesn't kick in -- and it is reasonable to decide the question -- they still need not decide, just as they did not decide under questions not deemed "ripe" for similar reasons. I still think that would be the right thing to do.
As to predictions, past cases do not show me why Kennedy (and maybe others) would overrule this law. It is not a type of one-off replacing something handled by the states (gun possession near schools, U.S. v. Lopez) or something arguably not "commercial" (gender violence, U.S. v. Morrison). A comprehensive regulation of the national insurance market is like Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld a federal law against the mere possession of marijuana. Scalia concurred and if anything this is an easier case. For one thing, there you can be put in jail for breaking the law; here, they can't even put a lien on your property to enforce the tax penalty. When did the USSC actually strike down a similarly broad law in recent memory on enumerated powers or federalism grounds?* The funding question is a stretch, so much even the 11th Cir. didn't accepted it. State actors are not "coerced" illegitimately just because refused federal funds is unpopular. No requirements ala Printz v. U.S. for state actors to specifically do anything. And, if we just think they are a bunch of conservative hacks, the drug case different because they hate druggies or something, insurance companies actually prefer this law and the specific infamous provision to the alternative.
But, we shall see. One last thing that keeps on coming up is the "Obamacare" label, which is used at times even by some liberal leaning sorts like TPM. It is not the biggest battle to fight, to be sure, and people can laugh/shrug it off or even adopt it (Obama cares etc.). I still don't like it. This is a health care law. It isn't about "Obama." Medicare isn't "LBJ-care." The U.S. Senate crafted this law with an assist from the House. Obama left them to it, too long in the minds of some. We are supposed to forget all of this, why? The use of the word by the opposition is malign -- it makes it about Obama with implications of some scary socialist measure where the government "cares" for you for your own good or something. And, to the degree it sounds like "Medicare," in fact, it is not that. It expands Medicaid somewhat, but it actually is a middle of the road, former Republican, approach. The use of the word sends the message that it is more left leaning than it actually is. Framing-wise, and framing is a major part of policy making these days, it has too many nefarious elements.
Again, there are bigger battles, and the confusion found in the public debate on this issue underlines the breadth of the fight. I admit to be tired of the whole thing, but Roe v. Wade is approaching forty, and we still are talking about it. It isn't just some sort of fait accompli, the issues common sense, without controversial. That's how life works.
---
* Bush v. Gore is tossed around, like the USSC does that sort of thing on a regular basis, but a reason so many were so upset there is that they actually don't. Upholding some criminal penalty or abortion restriction also doesn't point to a major federal law. The USSC dealt with federalism and so forth in various cases over the last two decades, but I nothing of this scope struck down. The comparison to federal drug policy only helps my point. Is this really where the Roberts Court will draw a line in the sand?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (speaking of framing) as applied to states might be cited, though that is like 15 years ago, but there the Court was particularly upset that the Congress tried to in effect overturn Oregon v. Smith. Also, states accommodate religion in any number of ways that deal with local matters. Again, it is quite different than a national insurance market that no one state could handle on its own. And, literally anything can possibly be a federal case if burdens on religion have to be considered. This law is much more limited in scope.