The Supreme Court is expected to announce its opinion on the constitutionality of president's health care law (Affordable Care Act or ACA) this week, and many expect the ruling to come down Thursday, the Supreme Court's last day of the term. The court heard oral arguments for the health care law this March.
Last week and today have already been busy for the Supreme Court, but these decisions appear to be the build up to the ACA ruling.
For detailed information on what's included in the ACA, Reuters has a breakdown (from March):
BENEFITS ALREADY IN PLACE: Although key benefits of the ACA won't be implemented until 2014, significant changes are already in place. For example, 2.5 million young adults age 19 to 25 are now covered on their parents' policies. For Medicare, the first steps to close the gap in prescription drug coverage -- the notorious "donut hole" -- saved $2.1 billion for nearly 3.6 million seniors last year, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Morning Joe panel discussed the forthcoming SCOTUS decision and what it could mean for the president going into the election.
Joe Scarborough said he believes if the Supreme Court strikes down the plan, it would be bad for the president:
I have thought all along a loss could be a win for the Democrats, but then I go back to what I saw with Bill Clinton in '93 and '94 and '95 an '96. The guy got hammered around; he was loathed by a lot of people. But he figured out how to win, and that's when I learned politically that Americans love winners. Things could be going terribly for you, but if you get the big win. Legislatively or any other way, they turn your way. They sense strength; they sense power. My opinion is sort of shifting now. I think a loss here on the health care plan this week actually is bad news for the president politically.
Time's Mark Halperin took it a step further and said he thought any decision on the issue is bad for the president:
“I actually think whatever the court rules it’s bad for the President. And that’s not my opinion; that’s based on reporting, including with a lot of Democrats. If they uphold the law, which is unpopular, it’s going to be a rallying cry for Republicans across the country. Even if the law is upheld, advertising and campaign rhetoric from Republicans will be all about health care. There’s not more than a handful of Democrats in the country, including the President, who will put health care front and center.”
And it looks as if we have until Thursday to see what exactly will happen.
Leave a Comment:
I've noticed that basically you guys think pretty much everything is bad for the POTUS. Fox thinks the same thing. It's a Republican attitude or perhaps it's a theory where journalist's should lead the public a certain way. Well don't worry America's doing well. We're well into a recovery unlike Europe. Despite the fact that Republicans in Congress refuse to pass jobs legislation and Wall Street corporations refuse to invest any of the trillions they're sitting on in this country.
The uninsured are happy that they and their children will now get insurance. Insurance that their employers have failed to give them and they are also happy that the POTUS and the Dems are fighting to protect the safety nets when the Republicans and corporations are fighting so hard to dissolve them and kill any and all pensions.
Just keep at it and soon the Republican party will kill themselves and their billionaire backers will bankrupt themselves trying to save them.
Very interesting. The GOP "strategy" is always to bamboozle the nonacademic crowd. The GOP at it's core is corrupt, by definition. The GOP possesses a "Heart of Corruption." That is the truth, by definition. Corporate "pundits" tend to "tiptoe around the corporate tulips." They tend to ignore definitional truth when it comes to the GOP because GOP backers buy a lot of product and service advertising plus political advertising time and space. These folks are almost all working for the man, and that man ain't Uncle Sam. Wall Street is the man. Corporate America is the man. Pundits ain't workin' for Uncle Sam.
This morning, on Healthcare Reform, Scarborough said ... "Democrats wasted 18 months with a filibuster proof Congress" ... proving again that Scarborough is either a congenital liar, alias a Republican, or that's he's just delusional, or both. If Republicans are talking, they're lying and especially if they are mentioning a "historical" tidbit. Dems never had a filibuster proof Congress and never had a 60 vote Democratic super majority. .That's the truth, Scarborough lied or is immersed in self sustaining delusion. Period!
Joe's a boss in the Flathead Society of America. He's a cappo de poo-poo.
Note...the above quote is actually a paraphrase. Joe said ... "they" in place of the word Democrats. He was referring to Democrats.
Isn't any outcome bad for somebody? While I agree with the need for a national health care policy of some sort, reasonable legislation on major policy seems a bit out of the reach of the current Congress, made even worse by the fact that the Presidency is up for grabs. If we had a group of responsible professionals writing our laws we wouldn't be waiting for this Supreme Court decision. Imagine if the GOP had spent as much time working with the Dems on the ACA, getting more of what they wanted in the process, as they spent tearing it down after it passed, we'd all likely be better of now.
Will the Supreme Court eventually be required to approve the constitutionality of every major piece of legislation? Shouldn't our legislators be expected to write law that is constitutional? Seems like it should a job requirement.
Another consequence of Citizens United is much longer campaign cycles. The additional funding has allowed campaigns to start earlier and last longer. During this time the candidate must appear strong and uncompromising, toeing the party line. So, for at least a year, usually more, political influences force those who need to meet in the middle to get anything accomplished to the extremes of their party's positions. Gridlock.
The contention over the ACA is just the beginning. The amount of money required to win a house or senate seat, and then hold on to it, will produce politicians with narrower, more specific positions, based on who funded their campaigns. The future will prove that money can be used to minipulate the system, we're already seeing it.
What ever the ruling is it may hurt the people of the US. They are the ones who go bankrupt due to expensive treatments they are not able to cover. It all goes to show you, the so called "pursuit of happiness" which the constitution guarantees is all a myth for 85% of Americans. Americans depend too much upon employers and employers are obsessed with profit. One cannot expect to get fairness from those who are only looking after their own interest. SCOLTUS does not represent the interests of the people, although they get paid by the people to fail on their side, they onl the most part fail on the side of profits.
To make it just or fair they would have to do away with the mandate but then they would have to demand a better system within a short period of time. An example would be to have single payer and eliminate the middle man. That it is something they wont do because they have sold themselves to insurance companies. If the mandate is not voted out, it could be tweaked so insurance companies do not abuse the consumers. That is what the SCOTUS should do, but will they. Will they tell the people "not to worry" that the whole law will be kept and rules will be in place to keep insurance companies from financially abusing patients?
One of the provisions hated by the insurance companies is that 80% of the premiums must go to the actual delivery of healthcare leaving 20% for administrative costs. Refunds have already been issued on this. Nobody mentions this much.
There are other provisions that require the insurance to be adequate and not some "defined benefit" type of rip off.
It actually protects consumers quite well. That's one of the reasons for the all out attack on it.
The mis-information about this bill, spread by the right, is just horrendous. They just lie about it with a straight face and the people, being a bit on the lazy side, believe them. For one, although it's a long bill, it's not unreadable, I've read it. It's long because it's set up as a triple spaced, 15 pt type, pdf which allows one to sit a some distance from the computer screen and jump a page at a time very rapidly. The idea that a Supreme Court justice would not read the bill he was going to rule on should be grounds for impeachment or at least dereliction of duty. Beyond that, it doesn't tell you which insurance to buy, it does define the things it has to cover and the minimums of that coverage. So? That's true of auto insurance as well. The state tells you what you have to have. Right now all kinds of bogus "defined benefit" plans are out there as "affordable" alternatives that will leave you broke should you really need them. How many people realize that in many states like Colorado, if you are in a car accident and you are a fault you're insurance only covers up to $5000 ($25000 if you pay more) which is wholly inadequate for even a broken leg much less a major accident? All this ranting about the mandate has obscured the fact that most people are grossly underinsured and at very high risk financially. I'm really sick of the lies and distortions made for political purposes. The main stream media has not done it's job on explaining this bill which really infuriates me. They just keep repeating the rantings and have not done anything to make it clear. NPR is a little better but not much.