Latest Headlines
- ECFR Says McDavid Mobile Home Fire Was Sparked By Trash Fire; Firefighters Respond To Ascend
- Few Showers Today; Rainy Pattern Beginning Friday
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- Santa And Mrs. Claus Take Last Minute Trip Through Century, Byrneville
- ‘Shop With A Cop’ Brings Holiday Cheer to Local Children
- Ice Flyers Create Special Moment In ‘My Wish’ Day for Young Boy
- George Stone Students Fabricate Unique Christmas Tree
- House Ethics Releases Scathing Report On Matt Gaetz
- Photos: Christmas Activities At Jim Allen Elementary
- Here’s The Christmas Closure And Trash Schedule You Need To Know
Supreme Court Justices Ponder Obama Health Care Law
March 29, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court grappled with a complex question Wednesday in the Florida-led challenge to the 2010 federal health overhaul: If the so-called “individual mandate” is unconstitutional, should the rest of the law also be thrown out?
The 2,700-page law deals with wide-ranging issues, such as expanding Medicaid eligibility and creating insurance exchanges for people to buy health coverage.
But the lightning-rod issue is whether it is constitutional to require almost all Americans to have coverage in 2014 or pay a penalty — a requirement that has become known as the individual mandate.
Paul Clement, an attorney for Florida and other opponents, argued Wednesday that other major parts of the law are connected to the mandate and that justices should reject the entire Affordable Care Act if the coverage requirement is unconstitutional.
Justice Antonin Scalia backed Clement’s argument and also said it would be hard for the Supreme Court to determine which parts of the law should be allowed to continue.
“Is this not totally unrealistic?” Scalia asked at one point, according to a transcript of the hearing. “That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
But more-liberal justices said parts of the law could stand, even if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional. In questioning Clement, they said Congress — not the Supreme Court — should be responsible for deciding whether to make changes to other pieces of the law.
“So why should we say it’s a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you (Clement) are requesting, or a salvage job?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”
The arguments came on the third day of the landmark arguments about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
The final session Wednesday afternoon centered on part of the law that would expand Medicaid eligibility. Justices heard arguments Tuesday about the individual mandate.
By The News Service of Florida
Comments
11 Responses to “Supreme Court Justices Ponder Obama Health Care Law”
Sara – Everyone is taxed for medicare if they work. It is not govenment provided if you work and pay taxes.
REGARDING:
“What about auto insurance? I’ve never had an accident, but I have to pay it.”
Actually, you don’t. You don’t have to own a car. In fact Gore and others would prefer you DIDN’T own a car. Millions of people don’t own cars or have auto insurance.
Further, the Federal Government isn’t empowered to require you to have auto insurance if you drive an auto; that is a state function.
Giving the federal government unlimited power might be a good thing if the leaders were incorruptible and benevolent. They aren’t.
David considering the danger
of limitless power
over the individual
Jimbo – What about auto insurance? I’ve never had an accident, but I have to pay it. As for health coverage, it’s great that you live a healthy lifestyle, but the hospitals are full of people who were healthy until an accident or unexpected illness turned everything around. There are few people who can pay out of pocket for hospital stays, intensive care, or surgery. Ditto for a child’s broken arm, asthma attacks, allergies, etc. ALL of us are paying for the uninsured in one way or another. Doctor and hospital payments are higher to factor in non-paying patients. Those costs are passed on to those who pay.
What I’ve had against this law is that it picks and chooses who is forced to buy insurance and who gets it free. It forces some to purchase a product that they may otherwise choose not to buy. I don’t have health insurance. I eat right, I stay in shape, and if I get sick, I go to a doctor that I pay out of my pocket. Last visit cost $98 dollars with the prescription. I had insurance, but I could not afford $700 dollars a month. Thats more than my mortgage.
REGARDING:
“I believe that until all Americans can have basic healthcare paid for by their taxes then the Congress & Senate should forfeit their comprehensive health care insurance. (also, paid by tax payers).”
Until everybody has it, nobody should be allowed to have it.
What’s socialist about that? Oh wait, it’s the very definition of socialism. (Not that I’m opposed to socialism, it retards otherwise powerful countries.)
Of course there is the idea that health care insurance be part of one’s pay for work one does, but that involves the concept of work and pay and we are assuming making laws isn’t actually work just as we’re assuming the duty of government is to heal the sick.
David for healthy government
I believe that until all Americans can have basic healthcare paid for by their taxes then the Congress & Senate should forfeit their comprehensive health care insurance. (also, paid by tax payers). Also, I have seen first hand how doctors & hospitals push for unnecessary procedures/tests on elderly people when they see that they have extensive medicare/insurance. The Tea Party people are always shouting “Socialism” when it comes to other people of younger generations getting insurance but God forbid that somebody should take anything off of their “Medicare” coverage. Don’t they realize that Medicare is government paid insurance. I think the whole Medicare system should be revamped and divided up so that all Americans can afford basic insurance.
Any law that is unconstitutional should never have been passed inthe first place. Congress should know better. Nancy Pelosi said we would just have to wait to see what was in this law… now we know and we also know that there is no such thing as transperancy in government.
A good rule of thumb should be that any rule over 1 page should be thrown out. The current Code of Federal Regulations is around 163,000 pages. Do we, the people, need to add 2700 more pages of rules? Much less, rules that control us more.
Do you mean the idiots that wrote a 2700 page bill and never bothered to read it? your right they should be treated like idiots.Never buy a product or pass a bill UNLESS you read about it first.It is called common sense.
Yep, They had too write that way. Cheap skates who expect Medicaid to cover them because they won’t buy insurance expect free-bee care. When you have idiots you have to treat them like idiots.
Effectively they are wondering if the Supreme Court could exercise a line item veto of the 2700 page law — striking some parts and leaving others intact. The court has already ruled that the President can’t exercise a line item veto, that he has to accept an entire bill or reject an entire bill.
Normally congress writes bills with a severability capability such that part can be declared unconstitutional but other parts left confirmed. In this case they intentionally removed that clause because they insisted it be all or nothing. They were hoping the much good could overcome the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate.
David for good laws