Obamacare Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 28, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

                  When President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act March 23, 2010, the eventual battle in the U.S. Supreme Court had already begun.  Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to take the battle to the High Court, declaring Obamacare unconstitutional.  Ruling 5-4 to uphold the law, 56-year-old Bush appointee Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the Court’s liberal minority, Associate Justices, Steven G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan upholding the bill’s constitutionality under Congress’ Taxing Power, not the Commerce Clause.  Arguing for 26 states in 6-hours of oral arguments March 26-27, 46-year-old Harvard Law School graduate and former Bush Solicitor General Paul Clement thought he creamed 54-year-old Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr when they faced off.

            Verrilli was practically tongue-tied when Roberts asked him whether the Affordable Care Act was like forcing ordinary citizens to buy cell phones.  Known for throwing the best legal minds for a loop, the High Court’s conservatives gave Verrilli a hard time asking him whether mandating health care was like forcing folks to eat broccoli or buy funeral plots. Supreme Court watchers focused on Reagan appointee 76-year-old Anthony Kennedy, known for swing voting with the Court’s liberal wing.  Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, who joined the High Court as Chief Justice Sept. 29, 2005, largely voted with the conservative majority.  Writing the opinion for the majority, Roberts gave Obama the needed Constitutional fix.  The law’s “requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” said Roberts.

            Already ranting about a whopping tax increase, conservatives don’t see costly health care premiums as a punitive tax.  Whether one pays insurers directly or pays a health care tax is of no consequence.  As long as taxpayers save money, pay cheaper premiums and get better coverage, it’s about what benefits consumers.  “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it or to pass up its wisdom or fairness” said Roberts, seeing, on balance, the Affordable Care Act’s benefits to consumers.  Promising to insure some 30 million uninsured citizens, Obamacare prevents insurance companies from excluding or charging more for subscribers with pre-existing conditions.  Currently, only individuals are punished by the insurance industry, paying more for current or past medical conditions.  Insurance industry practices have always given a free pass to groups.

            Speaking for the majority upholding Obamacare, Roberts stuck to his Constitutional principles but, more importantly, didn’t let his Party affiliation affect his judgment.  He showed what President John F. Kennedy called “Profiles in Courage,” the title of his 1955 Pulitzer-prize winning book about American political heroes that sacrificed their careers, fortunes and honor for the good of the country.  While vilified by the right, Roberts voted his conscience and learned judgment regarding the ACA’s purpose of giving U.S. citizens comprehensive health care.  “The highest court in the land has now spoken.  We will continue to implement this law and we’ll work together to improve on it where we can,” said Obama at the White House after the Court’s ruling.  Obama’s rival on the campaign trail, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, promised to repeal it if voted president.

            Romney has a lot to explaining to do why he supported a similar health care bill while governor of Massachusetts.  He favored and lobbied hard for the exact mandate that was modified into a tax by Roberts.  “This is a time of choice for the American people.  If we’re going to get rid of “Obamacare,” we’re going to have to replace President Obama.  My mission is to make sure we do exactly that,” said Romney, putting the best spin on what’s clearly an Obama victory.  Leading up to today’s ruling, Romney said Obama would be a failure if his signature legislation was overturned by the  High Court. Now that it’s been upheld, Romney relies on tenuous polls saying that 58% of the public opposed it passing.  Those same polls could swing wildly in Obama’s direction once the public wades through the propaganda and realizes they’ve just received the biggest government benefit in U.S. history.

            Sour grapes could be heard in Republican circles on Capitol Hill.  “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in the country,” said House Speaker Boehner.  When Boehner speaks of a “harmful law,” he’s referring to the potential loss of shareholder value at the nation’s biggest insurance companies.  Most big insurers will eventually figure out how to make money with Obamacare.  Does Boehner really think it’s “harmful” for 30 million uninsured Americans to get insurance?  Does the House Speaker really think it’s “harmful” for those with pre-existing conditions to get coverage?  Does he think it’s “harmful” for those with insurance to get better coverage, lower deductibles and smaller co-payments?  With Congressional approval ratings at a dismal 15%, Boehner should wait and see whether the American public—including Republicans—changes its mind.

About the Author  

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.