ObamaCare in Critical Condition

Pages: 1 2

Both Justices Kennedy and Scalia questioned Solicitor General Verrilli on what exactly was being regulated. For example, Justice Kennedy asked whether the government can “create commerce in order to regulate it.” The Solicitor General rejected the premise of the question and responded that “what is being regulated is the method of financing health, the purchase of health care.”

Justice Kennedy also asked Verrilli whether or not there are any limits on the Commerce Clause  and to identify such limits. The Solicitor General did not give a direct answer. Instead, he responded that Congress is merely “regulating existing commerce, economic activity that is already going on, people’s participation in the health care market, and is regulating to deal with existing effects of existing commerce.”

Justice Scalia characterized the issue as whether “failure to purchase something in that market subjects me to regulation.” The Solicitor General answered, “No. That’s not our position at all, Justice Scalia.”

Verrilli argued that sooner or later virtually everyone is in the health services market and that “the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot, people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market.” This line of reasoning brought Chief Justice Roberts into the discussion. He noted that the same argument could apply to emergency services provided by the police or fire departments as well as to ambulance services.

“So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?” Chief Justice Roberts asked. Without offering any real explanation, Verrilli answered that such emergency services did not constitute a market subject to regulation.

Then Justice Alito, for the sake of argument, got the Solicitor General to concede that burial services did constitute a market. He pointed out that the same argument the Obama administration was making regarding cost-shifting in the health services market could be made in the burial services market if someone did not have burial insurance and did not pre-pay for his or her funeral before passing away. “Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?” Justice Alito asked.

Solicitor General Verrilli tried to distinguish between the health services and burial service markets on the grounds that, in the case of burial services,  “you don’t have the cost shifting to other market participants.” Justice Alito disagreed with that assumption.

But while the conservative Justice Alito was concerned about where to draw a line around congressional power if Obamacare were upheld, the liberal Justice Breyer disagreed with Verrilli’s distinction for a very different reason. He appeared to support an extremely broad reading of the Commerce Clause, an interpretation beyond what Verrilli was arguing in this case. Congress, Justice Breyer said, could set up the same type of uniform regulatory and financing scheme for burial services as well as emergency services. Verrilli said that was a possibility but added “that we are advancing a narrower rationale.”

Moving on from whether health services constituted a unique national market with special cost-shifting issues that Congress could address without necessarily creating a precedent for other markets, Justice Alito turned to a different aspect of the cost-shifting issue within the health insurance and health service markets themselves. He pointed out that young healthy people would be forced under Obamacare to buy health insurance at a government-mandated level of coverage. Thus, they will have to pay more expensive premiums than if they were only financing their own expected needs.

Then Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli a question that exposed a critical weakness in the Obama administration’s economic rationale for upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate:

[I]sn’t it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume? It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.

Chief Justice Roberts also touched on this issue. He noted that, under the individual mandate, individuals are being required to purchase and pay premiums to cover health services they are unlikely to ever need such as maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, and substance use treatment.

Justice Kennedy – whom both sides are seeking to swing in their direction – raised the question whether in this case the government has “a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution” when it is “changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way.” Later on during the oral argument, he returned to this point:

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.

Justice Kennedy did indicate a willingness to consider whether the government has met the higher burden he posited. “I think it is true that if most questions in life are matters of degree,” he said, “in the insurance and health care world, both markets — stipulate two markets — the young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries.”

Michael Carvin, representing the private party challengers, responded that the government is not only compelling people to enter the market for health insurance. The government is also “prohibiting us from buying the only economically sensible product that we would want. Catastrophic insurance.”

In other words, if the problem Congress was trying to address was how to fairly pay for big, unaffordable catastrophic health costs that could hit someone without insurance unexpectedly, Congress could have narrowly tailored the health insurance purchase requirement to just catastrophic insurance. Instead, it imposed a far more intrusive requirement.

The four liberal-leaning justices – Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan – not surprisingly articulated rationales that would buttress the case for upholding the individual mandate. Justice Ginsburg, for example, emphasized the government’s principal argument that the people who don’t participate in the health insurance market until the point where they actually consume health services that they cannot afford are making it much more expensive for the people who participate in the health insurance market all along. “The problem is that they are making the rest of us pay,” she said.

Justice Breyer provided an historical discourse to demonstrate that Congress had the authority to address problems in the delivery of health care in the manner it chose, since it was dealing with substantial effects on interstate commerce. Congress, he said, could even create a market to regulate. He gave as an example “the national bank, which was created out of nothing to create other commerce out of nothing.” But the national bank example backfired when Clement, the states’ attorney, pointed out that in establishing a national bank Congress did not also decide that “we are going to force the citizenry to put all of their money in the bank, because, if we do that, then we know the Bank of the United States will be secure.”

Justice Sotomayor indicated a lack of concern about the constitutional implications of the health insurance mandate since there is “government compulsion in almost every economic decision because the government regulates so much.” She also said that since Americans would not stand for a system in which children whose parents did not have health insurance could be turned away and possibly die, Congress could legitimately deal with the problem of how to fairly distribute the costs. Carvin, the private party challengers’ attorney, responded that there were alternative ways to ensure that children would not be turned away because of lack of money. Congress, for example, could have enacted a general tax to help subsidize such care or mandated insurance at the point at which somebody actually goes to an emergency room and asks for care.

Justice Kagan had alluded to this issue of whether there were alternative ways of dealing with the problems that the individual mandate was enacted to address. Nevertheless, Justice Kagan clearly sided with the government’s arguments – not surprising, considering her role as Solicitor General when she was in charge of defending Obamacare, which should have disqualified her from participating as a justice in this case. She remarked, in response to the arguments challenging the mandate by the states’ attorney, Paul Clement, that “Congress surely has within its authority to decide, rather than at the point of sale, given an insurance-based mechanism, it makes sense to regulate it earlier.” Clement begged to differ, saying, “We don’t think it’s a matter of timing alone, and we think it has very substantive effects.”

On balance, the Obama administration did not come out very well during the oral argument on the individual mandate issue. The more conservative justices whom the administration’s lawyers were trying to sway in order to ensure a majority upholding Obamacare – Justices Kennedy and Scalia – did not appear to be persuaded. Their questions indicated a deep concern that there would be no clearly defined limiting principle to apply in determining the boundaries of congressional power in future cases if the individual mandate were approved. If Congress has the power to compel individuals to buy a government-defined health insurance package in order to more efficiently and fairly support the costs of a national health service market, then on what rationally defined basis would Congress be prohibited from compelling individuals to buy any product where the purchase is going to benefit interstate commerce that Congress deems important enough to promote?

During the final day of oral arguments, the justices turned to the question of whether any portion of the Obamacare law could survive if the individual mandate were to be declared unconstitutional. There is no severability clause in the law that would indicate Congress’s intent to keep the remaining portions intact. Moreover, the individual mandate’s financing mechanism is so integral to funding other key provisions of Obamacare, such as the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, that it may not be practical to take out the heart of the law and leave the rest intact. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit had upheld the lower court’s invalidation of the individual mandate but did not invalidate the rest of the law.

Much of the discussion focused on whether the Obamacare law is an all-or-nothing proposition. While Clement, the states’ attorney, argued for invalidating the entire law, he conceded that there may be peripheral portions of the law that could be retained because they had no connection to the individual mandate. The government rejected the argument that all other provisions should fall if the individual mandate falls, indicating that it should be the prerogative of Congress, not the courts, to decide what Congress wanted to preserve in the remainder of the law. However, the government did concede that there were a few provisions such as non-discrimination, guaranteed issuance and community rating irrespective of an individual’s own health status that were tied very closely to the individual mandate. For that reason, they “rise or fall in a package.”

Conservative members of the Supreme Court expressed concern with allowing the rest of Obamacare to stand if the individual mandate — the heart of the law — were to be struck down. They were also uncomfortable with the notion of the Court trying to divine Congress’s intent as to which subset of provisions could remain without being adversely affected by the removal of the individual mandate provision. Justice Kennedy, for example, said that without the individual mandate provision Congress would be left with “a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider.”

The more liberal members thought it would be preferable to perform what Justice Ginsburg called a “salvage job” rather than “wrecking operation.”

It is always a tricky business to try and predict the final outcome of a Supreme Court decision on a matter as controversial and far-reaching as the constitutionality of Obamacare. However, based on the line of questioning and comments made during the oral arguments, in particular by Justice Kennedy, it looks increasingly likely that the individual mandate — if not all of the provisions of Obamacare with which the individual mandate are interdependent — will be struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 vote.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Pages: 1 2

  • jimbrown

    Suck it Barry! Obamacare sucks and so does your freedom-derpriving administration. Get bent!

  • Majestic_One

    The BIG problem is healthcare, buying, selling or price fixing has no connection with regulating commercial intercourse between states and nations. See:

  • kentatwater

    I wanted to say that Obamacare deserves the Terry Schavio treatment, but no one or thing deserves the brutal death she endured.

    Just give Obamacare a massive overdose of cocaine, and be done with it. If Hussein had any dignity, he'd use his own supply, and take Obamacare out to the backyard, needle in hand. Treat it like a beloved pet, that is no longer living beyond suffering, and making everyone around it despair.

  • http://jc.does-it.net Geneww

    I pray Obama Care is destroyed!

    I also hope I am wrong … but the One World NeoCon’s and thugs who run the UN (who own the One World bank …IMF), Council of Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission … and key legislators will eliminate our judicial system before they loose this battle.

    If you do not think patriots are in trouble … does not the government provides backdoor funding to the Black Panthers and the media sides with their mantra while the Judeo-Christians are villains who are hated? Who is inciting these racist wars on false accusations while endorsed/encouraged by the media and government with congressman dressed as a ‘hooded’ antagonist? Who would ever allow a sexual deviate to testifies for entitlements and critics are made to appear wrong and prejudice?

    I take comfort knowing that God is not worried seeing His end time Biblical prophecies being unfolded when ‘evil and sin are right’ and ‘righteousness is condemned as wrong’.

  • Looking4Sanity

    If ObamaCare goes down in flames, the only thing this man has accomplished his entire term will have been to ruin America's global reputation, increase the size and tyranny of government, squander a trillion dollars of taxpayer money, and fan the flames of racism.

    Quite a legacy.

    • Patriot2Opine

      Nothing like a country where a radical, mentored by a communist, who engaged in inciting communities with lies can become President of the United States. I mean really!

      Nothing like a country where the people can still elect those who can say, "not so fast there…".

      • Looking4Sanity

        Ever hear the phrase, "Only in America…"? Now I know exactly how true that is.

  • davarino

    I am sure the democrats thought for sure they would still have the majority of both houses of congress. Thank god there was a turn around in 2010. That being said, the Republicans have to submit something better with their majority in the coming years, tort reform, more competition….etc. etc. in order to bring down costs.

    • kentatwater

      Agreed. Few things result in lower cost and higher quality, than a free market. Look at Lasik. The procedure requires fantastically expensive equipment, but since it is rarely covered by insurance, providers have to compete in a relatively free marketplace. Result? Terrestrial prices!

  • DogsHateRomney

    IF ObamaCare is so wonderful;

    WHY did ALL elected persons in the U. S. CONGRESS & SENATE …
    Exclude themselves from OBAMACARE in their legislature?.

  • Diane

    Obama is truly why the fathers did not want a President who was not a natural born citizen. Obama hates our country..
    He is also a child of a "family" (not ) that is as dysfuntional as they get. He exhibits all llllllllllll the qualities. He is so codependent also…wanting people "in front of him" to LIKE him…he'll say whatever it takes ………….why the teleprompter has kept him in line………………….and how can we continuously allow this man to not answer real questions?

  • Supermom

    I'm not so sure that Obamcare will go down in flames. I suspect that the Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas will vote with the Libs on this one, if only to show solidarity with the blacks and with their scam(s) to get wealth redistributed to themselves. It will be those scams and not Obamacare that will be that street hustler's legacy.

    • coyote3

      I don't know what will happen, but if the whole thing fails, it will be, ironically, beause the proponents killed it by not only not including a "severability" clause in the legislation, but actually removing one that was there in the original bill.

  • fiddler

    Why didn't Elena Kagin recuse herself?

  • fiddler

    Spelling correction:

    Why didn't Associate Justice Elena KAGAN recuse herself?

    I would love to ask that question 100 more times, but you get the point.

    Doesn't a conflict of interest exist? Oh, that's right, different rules for liberals.

  • fiddler

    Sorry for beating this to death:

    "Justice Kagan had alluded to this issue of whether there were alternative ways of dealing with the problems that the individual mandate was enacted to address. Nevertheless, Justice Kagan clearly sided with the government’s arguments – not surprising, considering her role as Solicitor General when she was in charge of defending Obamacare, which should have disqualified her from participating as a justice in this case."

  • fiddler

    "The government rejected the argument that all other provisions should fall if the individual mandate falls, indicating that it should be the prerogative of Congress, not the courts, to decide what Congress wanted to preserve in the remainder of the law."

    ACORN (under a new name) and voter fraud to the rescue! Hey it work to keep Harry Reid in didn't it?
    Get out there and register Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy and the rest of them. Don't forget folks like Heath Ledger, and Tim Russert. They are always good for a vote TOO!