Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Ohio Knows the Time | This Is Your Spider on Caffeine »

Monday, November 14, 2011

Health / 2012 Supreme Court to Hear Anti-Health Care Lawsuit

Posted by Goldy on Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 8:03 AM

In an unsigned order this morning, the US Supreme Court announced that it would hear a lawsuit brought by Republican Rob McKenna and other attorneys general challenging 2010's historic Affordable Care Act.

With various lower courts issuing contradictory opinions, the suit had been long expected to find its way to the highest court, but what is news is the schedule: Oral arguments will be held in March with a decision to come in late June, right in the heart of the 2012 election season. This guarantees that access to affordable health care will be a major issue in both the presidential election and in the gubernatorial race here in Washington state. And it's hard to see how that's ultimately a good issue for WA Republicans, considering that they're the ones fighting to deny it.

For McKenna himself, there can be only one of two outcomes. Either the Supremes rule in his favor, tossing out the entire health care law (either explicitly or implicitly) including provisions like those that guarantee insurance for people with preexisting conditions, or that allow young adults to stay on their parents health insurance plans. Or the Supremes rule against McKenna, once again proving what a crappy lawyer he is. No doubt the individual mandate doesn't poll well (what sort of government imposed "mandate" does?), but this sure does look like a great opportunity for Democratic opponent Jay Inslee and his surrogates to pound McKenna with all the popular provisions the Republican fought to repeal.

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

God, you really shouldn't be allowed to blather on about things you know nothing about.

There's actually a third option, and in my view it's probably the most likely one: Gut the individual mandate, but leave the rest of it intact.

That's the type of thing I've come to expect from the Supremes lately. Nobody wins, everybody loses.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 14, 2011 at 8:08 AM

@ 1, thanks for that. After Goldy's recent series of ignorant posts I didn't think I could trust him to be knowledgeable about this.

Posted by Matt from Denver on November 14, 2011 at 8:11 AM

@1 I'm hoping for the same results.

It seems like striking the individual mandate but sustaining the greater public mandate will lead to problems for the insurance industry, but that can be worked out once the basic rules are established. Right now, too much of the economy is paralyzed by the uncertainty.

Posted by Sir Vic on November 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM

@1: Hence the parenthetical phrase "(explicitly or implicitly)". The preexisting condition provision — arguably one of the core provisions — and others simply are not possible without an individual mandate, or something like it. Otherwise, people wouldn't buy insurance until they got sick, making the entire system unworkable. So, tossing out the individual mandate would implicitly toss out the entire Act.

Surely, just like McKenna, you know this. But obviously, you're just as dishonest as he is.

Posted by Goldy on November 14, 2011 at 8:18 AM

@2: And yet here you are religiously reading me? What does that say about you?

Posted by Goldy on November 14, 2011 at 8:19 AM

Goldy, I'm doing other readers a service. Feel free to twist that in your mind as you wish.

Posted by Matt from Denver on November 14, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Goldy, while I may disagree with your choice of words, you're basically correct that gutting the individual mandate would make the rest of the bill, er, "untenable." That wouldn't necessarily have to be fatal - it simply necessitates a trip back to the drawing board. But (there's always a "but") in the current political climate, in an election year, it probably would be fatal.

And I'd be careful who I call "dishonest." Shitbag.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 14, 2011 at 8:29 AM

Be right or be President seems to be the choice you present.

However, that Health Care law is very much despised.

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe

on November 14, 2011 at 8:48 AM

attorneyS general, you ignorant illiterate sack of shit

Posted by you're welcome, asswipe. on November 14, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Polls show that the health care bill is "despised" only in the abstract. Individual elements of the bill are extremely popular, including preventing insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions -- which can't be accomplished without some sort of coverage requirement. Bottom line: if the Supreme Court tosses this, things will get worse for health care consumers, not better.

Meanwhile, I agree with Goldy that regardless of the outcome, it presents a political opportunity for the Dems. However, they are guided more by poll than principle these days, and my guess is that they will be frightened away from the moral high ground by the post-Supremes polls we are certain to see: "Are you glad that ObamaCare survived/was tossed?"

Posted by LaborGoon on November 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Umm, despite the "conventional wisdom," the individual mandate is polling surprisingly well. According to a CNN poll released today it's polling around 52% (major gains among seniors). (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201…).

The right wing echo chamber is very good at repeating its talking points about the unpopularity of the individual mandate. No sense giving them an assist here.

Posted by PollWatcher on November 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM

"...other attorney generals..." it's attorneys general.

Posted by David Thompson on November 14, 2011 at 9:26 AM

@12: Now that was a valid criticism. (Though in my defense, I was pre-caffeine.)

Posted by Goldy on November 14, 2011 at 9:36 AM

It may help McKenna - he's a martyr sympathetic to his supporters if he loses (and one given a large microphone), he's right if wins. Plus it's all being resolved while he's still the AG. Eech. Not too happy.

Posted by in-frequent on November 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM

McKenna is a Republican 1st, and the AG of WA state 2nd. And that's why he sucks.

Posted by Max Solomon on November 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

An uneducated numnuts like Goldy commenting on the lawyering skills of others. Hilarious. And what makes you so qualified to comment? Your law degree? Bar admission? Experienced advocacy in matters of nuanced Consitutional Law? No, just working for a tabloid that hosts amature porn contests? Oh, I see. We all await your guidance and wisdom on these complex Consitutional Law issues, fatboy.

Posted by You Work For Savage! Ha! on November 14, 2011 at 10:22 AM

You're "pre-caffiene" and "pre-law" when it comes to this. Once again, you are out of your fucking element. Sit down, son.

Posted by Savage is Your Boss! Ha! on November 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

You do know that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea, don't you?

(Not that it's doing Mitt Romney much good on the campaign trail, but still)

Posted by Mr. X on November 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Happy Birthday, Fifty-Two-Eighty. Enjoy your day.*

*Sorry for being off topic.

Posted by kim in portland

on November 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Thanks, hon. I am, and hopefully will continue to. Yours is just around the corner too.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on November 14, 2011 at 12:43 PM

the "individual mandate" doesn't specify that people must buy insurance; it simply provides for a $ penalty if they don't.

The Supremes are ruling on that portion of the legislation only. If that messes up the whole bill, I'd imagine they'd be happy, since the ones who hate it are Republican tools and they wouldn't have to be blamed for ruling against the whole thing. Not that they care; they're in for life.

Posted by sarah70 on November 14, 2011 at 4:55 PM