advertisement

WHAT OTHERS SAY: Supreme Court should resist political statement on health care

Thursday, November 17, 2011 | 5:27 p.m. CST; updated 5:42 p.m. CST, Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of health care reform means it will be issuing a ruling in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign.

This can be a highly politicized court, and, for the public good and its own credibility, it must resist that impulse.

If the court follows its own precedents, as it should, this case should not be a close call: The reform law and a provision requiring most people to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty are clearly constitutional.

The court agreed to hear appeals from a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which struck down the individual mandate to buy health insurance but left other parts of the law standing.

Opponents of the law contend that Congress went beyond its authority in the reform measure. But Congress, under the commerce clause, plainly has the power to regulate the national health care market.

Almost everyone needs health care at some point, and if uninsured people are unable to pay steep medical bills, they will get charity care that shifts the costs to others, whose insurance premiums go up to cover the cost of the free riders.

There is no denying the health care market is interconnected and that individuals' decisions to purchase insurance — or not — affects the whole system.

Republican-appointed judges on two appellate courts have found the insurance mandate constitutional.

They have cogently pointed out that past Supreme Court decisions have upheld federal laws that were much more intrusive on personal liberty and involved activities less clearly relevant to interstate commerce. ...

... The Supreme Court ought to show judicial restraint, adhere to precedent and uphold the constitutionality of health care reform.

Copyright, New York Times. Courtesy of The Associated Press.

 

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 5:44 p.m.

The Times plays SCOTUS with the comment: "The reform law and a provision requiring most people to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty are clearly constitutional."

and then says, "But Congress, under the commerce clause, plainly has the power to regulate the national health care market."
_____________________

Well, NYTimes...that's exactly what we are about to find out. Your first statement is absolutely false if the second statement is false.

All you did was set yourself up for a (potential) future conclusion: SCOTUS rules against our position; hence, SCOTUS behaved politically.

Can you say illogical?

Apparently there is no place in the collective NYTimes editorial minds that use of the Commerce clause may be interpreted as "overextended" INDEPENDENT of any politics at all. No place at all. It's beyond your comprehension.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements