Courts and Congress put health care reform on shaky foundation
- Feb 8, 2011 - 1 -
Less than 11 months ago, when Congress passed and President Obama signed into law sweeping health care reform, many of its backers thought the spirited showdown on reform had ended. That was then. The backlash that has followed, both in the courts and in the newly configured Congress, demonstrates the battle over health care has only just begun.
Two tests came last week—one by a court, a second in the Senate. Both moved the nation a step closer to repeal and real reform.
On Jan. 31, a federal judge in Florida diced up and served the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the proverbial platter, ruling that the so-called individual mandate—a key component of the law that most Americans purchase health insurance or else pay a fine—is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson’s decision in the case brought by 26 attorneys general followed another blow to the law one month earlier. In Virginia, a federal judge also had ruled that a mandate to purchase insurance does not meet constitutional muster.
But the latest court decision goes a giant step further. Without the individual mandate, ruled Judge Vinson, the entire law is unconstitutional. “I must conclude,” he wrote, “that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” In response, several states have already declared intent to stop any further implementation of the law.
Two days after the Florida court struck a blow to Obamacare, the Senate tried to send another. Senators seeking new, sensible reform forced a vote on the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act to wipe reform off the books and start over. Regrettably, the Senate fell short on the repeal vote, with 47 senators supporting repeal and 51 in opposition.
Many detractors criticized the vote as purely political show and a waste of Senate time. In truth, it was an opportunity for senators who stood behind the reform last go-around to rethink their votes. None changed his mind. But despite coming up short, the vote was a significant improvement from March of last year, when 39 senators wisely said no to adopting over 2,000 pages of reform that drives a wedge between doctor and patient, with the government as a go-between, and allows federal funding of abortion. The difference was an influx of new senators. No one can refute that progress toward sensible reform has been made.
Nowhere has that been more evident in Washington than in the House. The Senate action follows the lower chamber’s rebuke of the law last month in a 245-189 vote—a turning of the tables from less than a year ago, when the House pushed reform across the finish line, 219-212. That represents a remarkable 30-vote swing.
All this leaves us with mixed results. In Congress, the two houses are split on whether to retain or scrap the law. In the courts, two benches have struck down all or part of the law, while two others have upheld it. And some 20 lawsuits in all are working their way through the courts. So what does all this mean for health care reform? Ultimately, the fate of reform will be decided at the U.S. Supreme Court, most likely in 2012.
Some want to see the process expedited. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli has called on the Supreme Court to bypass the usual appeals court chain-of-command to take up the suit he brought and won at the district court level. As it stands, the case is expected to reach the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
Meanwhile, many lawmakers are vowing to chip away at the law piece by piece. They will seek to dry up appropriations for the law where possible and dismantle other parts incrementally. Slowly but steadily, health care reform’s foundation is crumbling. Let the chipping continue.
To see how your senators voted on the bill to repeal the 2010 health care law, click here. To see the ERLC’s “15 Principles for Successful Health Care Reform,” click here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, Healthcare,
The comment thread for this article is now closed. Please use our contact form.
{comment_total} comments
1 On Feb 12th, 2011, at 1:59am, James Reeves wrote:
Within the SCOTUS there are boundaries but as a paid working body of this republic whenever both of the other branches of the republic are engaged in legal debate over the most laborious legislation in our history then it should be present with guidance.
Why is this not an ETHICAL issue?
Can the public hold anyone in government accountable?