Supreme Court Debates Fate of Obamacare

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 1, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

             Spending six hours over three days hearing oral arguments on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul known as “Obamacare,” the U.S. Supreme Court reacted suspiciously to the mandate provision, requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face stiff penalties with the Internal Revenue Service.  Conservative Justices, especially Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito predictably gave Obama’s Solictor General Donald B. Verrilli a hard time, insisting the government overreached its authority under the Commerce Clause demanding citizens buy health insurance.  Scalia asked Verrilli whether it was appropriate for the government to insist citizens buy broccoli because people have to eat.  Roberts asked whether the government could insist citizens buy cell phones.  Alito asked whether citizens should buy burial plots to avoid passing on costs to loved ones.

            Vermilli, a 54-year-old Columbia Law School graduate, was heavily briefed before facing the High Court but couldn’t respond to the most childish objections to Obamacare.  All Vermilli had to do was compare the Obamacare mandate to Social Security and Medicare, where payroll taxes are automatically taken out to pay the hefty sums needed to fund the program.  Verrilli could have easily dispelled the “broccoli” arguments by drawing the parallel to Social Security and Medicare.  No U.S. citizen can opt out of either program whether or not they ever draw benefits.  It’s even more ironic that millionaires, multimillionaires and billionaires currently collect Social Security checks and receive discounted health insurance under Medicare.  Conservatives justices know that Obamacare has nothing to do with buying “broccoli,” “cell phones” or “funeral arrangements.”

           Verrilli, whose incompetence could result in Obama’s signature legislation overturned, knows that Obamacare parallels Social Security and Medicare.  Wage-earners or the self-employed are forced to pay for the entitlements whether they use them or not. Obamacare provides low-cost health insurance with standardized benefits, including coverage for both hospitals and outpatient visits with uniform co-payments, deductibles and waiting periods.  All justices know that the law requires insurance companies to cover all patients, regardless of past or current medical conditions, the so-called “preexisting condition” provision.  Verrilli certainly knew that if the government by precedent requires taxpayers to pay for Social Security and Medicare, they could easily expect to pay for government-sponsored health insurance.  Buying broccoli, cell phones and funeral plots are irrelevant.

            Paul Clement, the attorney representing 26 states opposed to the Affordable Care Act, went for the jugular, insisting that striking down the individual mandate would also end two essential features of Obamacare:  (a) mandating insurers to cover all individuals regardless of condition or medical history and (b) rating policies based on age or zip codes.  Today’s insurers routinely discriminate against individuals with past medical histories and current conditions that become either the basis for denying coverage or making policies unaffordable.  Obamacare eliminates the distinction between individual and group insurance, forcing insurers to cover all individuals regardless of current conditions or medical histories, the exact thing they do with group insurance.  Unfair insurance industry practices are never explained logically, only that any change would bankrupt the industry.

            Today’s health insurance industry is a disaster for employers and hard-working self-employed individuals.  Rising costs of health insurance have prevented many employers and individuals from keeping coverage.  Either due to unemployment or a lack of affordability, around 40 million citizens have no insurance at all.  When Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965 under the Great Society programs of Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson, it was the intent to provide adequate health coverage for seniors, the disabled and the poor.  Obama’s Affordable Care Act did exactly the same thing by covering all non-disabled, non-senior workers regardless of medical histories or current conditions.  Among people that have individual or group insurance, the polices are too expensive and provide inadequate coverage.  All justices know Obamacare is about rectifying these problems.

            When the Justices debate in private the fate of Obamacare, they should consider the alternative:  Too many people remain uninsured or poorly insured, stretching the health care system to the breaking point.  When swing-voting justices like Anthony Kennedy and possibly Roberts consider the alternative to junking the plan, they should consider the real state of American health care:  Too many uninsured citizens and too few with comprehensive affordable coverage.  Obamacare, while not perfect, is the best alternative to doing nothing.  It’s not about forcing citizens to eat broccoli, buy cell phones or purchase funeral arrangements.  It’s about real people getting affordable, comprehensive health care.  Whether conservatives on the High Court like it or not, they should rule in the tradition of Social Security and Medicare, requiring citizens to have comprehensive, affordable health care.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.       

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.