Supreme Court upholds health-care law (Updated)

story by Greg Stohr
Bloomberg News

Editor’s note: The story is updated with new information and comments throughout.

BLOOMBERG — The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the core of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, giving him an election-year triumph and preserving a law that would expand insurance to millions of people and transform an industry that makes up 18 percent of the nation’s economy.

The justices, voting 5-4, said Congress has the power to make Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty. That requirement is at the center of the law, which also forces insurers to cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. The court modified the law’s extension of the Medicaid program for the poor by saying the federal government can’t threaten to withhold existing money from states that don’t fully comply.

The ruling frames the health-care issue for this year’s elections and is a victory of symbolism as well as substance for Obama. Chief Justice John Roberts, a Republican appointee, joined four Democratic-selected justices to give Obama a majority on a law that has divided the country along ideological and partisan lines throughout his presidency.

Roberts, writing for the court, said Congress had the authority to impose the insurance requirement under its power to levy taxes.

“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” he wrote.

LONGEST ARGUMENTS
“The highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said afterward in a televised statement from the White House.

“We will continue to implement this law,” and search for improvements, Obama said. “What we won’t do, and what the country can’t afford to do, is re-fight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were.”

The decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the climax to an epic legal fight that featured the longest courtroom arguments in 44 years, a record number of briefs and extraordinary public interest in a Supreme Court case. The case tested both the constitutional powers of Congress and the willingness of the Roberts court to overrule the other two branches of the federal government.

Republican-appointed Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying they would have struck down the entire statute.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril,” the dissenters wrote. “Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”

UNUSUAL STEP
Among the majority, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted to uphold the entire statute. Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan agreed with Roberts in limiting the Medicaid expansion.

Kennedy and Ginsburg each took the unusual step of reading a summary of their opinion from the bench. All told, the justices took more than an hour to announce the ruling before a packed courtroom that included members of Congress, retired Justice John Paul Stevens and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Obama administration lawyer whose defense of the law drew criticism.

The dispute marked the first time the Supreme Court had considered a president’s defining legislative accomplishment in the middle of his re-election campaign. The court hadn’t taken up a law of comparable scope since the justices overturned part of the National Industrial Recovery Act in 1935 during President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

BIGGEST SINCE MEDICARE
The law marks the biggest change to the U.S. health system since Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. It was designed to expand coverage to at least 30 million people — primarily by expanding Medicaid and setting up online markets where consumers could buy insurance — while controlling the soaring costs of health care.

Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, have called for its repeal, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, scheduled a vote on that effort for the week of July 9.

Romney said he disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision. He said what the justices failed to do he would “do on my first day if elected president of the United States.”

Obama’s health-care legislation “puts the federal government between you and your doctor,” Romney told reporters in Washington. Though he pushed through a similar plan when he was governor of Massachusetts, he has said such a measure isn’t applicable nationally.

“The president’s health-care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire,” House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement.

The law was challenged by 26 Republican-controlled states and a small-business trade group. They contended the measure exceeded Congress’s constitutional powers to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes.

The challenge focused on the insurance mandate, which requires Americans to get coverage by 2014 or pay a penalty. The concept was championed by Republicans years ago as an alternative to Democratic proposals for a single government-run health system.

ROBERTS’ REASONING
Roberts accepted the Republicans’ commerce argument, while voting to uphold the mandate under Congress’s taxing power.

While the federal government “does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote, “the federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.” The law “is therefore constitutional because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Roberts said that, for most Americans, the amount of the penalty will be far less than the cost of insurance.
“It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance,” he wrote. “Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to expand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new.”

The ruling will shape Roberts’ legacy as much as Obama’s. The 57-year-old chief justice — whose 2005 nomination Obama opposed as a senator — has been a leader of the court’s conservative wing on other issues.

MEDICAID EXPANSION
The Medicaid expansion was designed to extend eligibility to those with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line. States that didn’t comply with the new expansion would have lost all or part of their share of federal Medicaid funding.

Roberts said Congress can require states to meet conditions to receive new Medicaid money, though it can’t take away existing funding. He said Medicaid spending accounts for more than 20 percent of the average state’s total budget, with the federal government covering at least half those costs.

“The financial ‘inducement’ Congress has chosen is much more than ‘relatively mild encouragement‘ — it is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote. “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.”

The ruling removes some of the uncertainty the health industry had faced about the future of government policy. By upholding the individual mandate, the court left intact a provision that will give insurers such as UnitedHealth Group Inc. millions of relatively healthy, low-cost policyholders.

Other parts of the law will help the drug industry, including the Medicaid expansion and the system of online insurance markets that will make it easier for people to buy policies. Hospitals also may benefit from the expansion, as will insurers that focus on managing states’ Medicaid programs, including Amerigroup Corp. and Centene Corp.

MARKET REACTION
Hospital companies led by HCA Holdings Inc. jumped in New York trading, and Medicaid insurers paced by Molina Healthcare Inc. rose. Commercial carriers such as WellPoint Inc. fell in the face of the law’s new regulations. HCA, the biggest U.S. hospital chain, rose 9.1% to $29.03 at 12:28 p.m., after the Nashville, Tenn.-based company earlier climbed as much as 12%.

Advertisement:

Tenet Healthcare Corp., the third-biggest chain, jumped as much as 13%, while Long Beach, Calif.-based Molina rose as much as 9%. Indianapolis-based WellPoint, the second-largest U.S. health insurer, declined 4.9% to $64.58.

Some parts of the law have already gone into effect, including provisions that close a gap in prescription-drug coverage under Medicare, allow 2.5 million young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, and provide free mammograms, colonoscopies and flu shots.

LAW HISTORY
The health-care measure’s enactment in March 2010 marked the culmination of decades of efforts by Democrats and Republicans alike to put in place a universal health-care program. For Obama, congressional approval marked a victory that had eluded presidents from Harry Truman to Bill Clinton.

Passage in the Democratic-controlled Congress came only after months of lobbying, deal-making and parliamentary maneuvering. In the end, not a single Republican voted in favor of the law. The measure passed the House by a 219-212 tally.

From the beginning, the law divided the public, with opposition fueling the Tea Party movement and helping produce the 2010 Republican takeover of the House. A Bloomberg National Poll conducted in March found that 37% of respondents said the law should be repealed, 11% said it should be left alone and 46% said it may need small modifications.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 3 (4 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Hallelujah!

I have renewed faith that the Supreme Court has not been completely corrupted by ideologues.

Penalty

Let's be clear; the court stated in it's ruling that this was a "TAX" not a "PENALTY". And who is going to pay these taxes? ... the working middle class. This bill needs to be repealed in it's entirety.

Umm. . .

What is that you say, "Anonymous"? I myself am part of the "working middle class", along with pretty much everyone I hang out with, and we all already have insurance. In fact, I don't know a single person that could be classified as "working middle class" who doesn't have insurance (and I know a LOT of people), so none of us will be paying this "tax" or "penalty" or whatever you want to call it. This bill is a small step in the right direction. Health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies make obscene profits at the public's expense, and this bill aims to correct that.

wow, you are so wise! When

wow, you are so wise! When has our government (famous for extreme inefficiency) overseen an industry, and it worked? Was it the postal service? Or auto manufacturing? What about banking - surely those bailouts helped put more money into middle-class pockets! Mortgage lending? No wait, retirement!

wow, you are so wise! When

... so you might as well go outside, run in circles and scream "The sky is falling"

Motomushu - I am "working

Motomushu - I am "working middle class" and know at least five other working middle class people who cannot afford insurance, mostly because of preexisting conditions; including my husband. Our insurance went up to $1200 a month after his last illness so we had to drop insurance in order to pay the medical bills ($2,500 deductible).

Trash Insurance

I get it now!! It is like Fort Smith's automated trash collection. If you don't want it then you pay a penalty in the form of an additional manual service charge. After all, exempting anyone from the automated does not support the common.....it is not a tax either! Can I opt out on religious grounds? Same principle can apply to all "health" issues; trash collection prevents disease. Heck, I don't even go to church.....but I could start. What I don't pay for trash pickup I could donate to a church. Maybe even volunteers could pickup my trash then.

Now it's a simple matter of raising the rates...

..of the one's who have insurance, fining some of the ones who don't have it, and giving the best possible medical care available totally free to others. This may cause some problems.

Help for Arkansans

I have lived in the northeast most of my life. Every day I see newspaper obituaries here--forty year-old women, and they all say, "She was a homemaker of the Pentacostal faith," or something similar. It's shorthand for, "She had no insurance, she got sick, she couldn't afford healthcare, and she and her family really believe that this miscarriage of justice in our wealthy society is OK, that she deserved to die because she was a young homemaker without insurance. "Deer Hunting with Jesus" should be mandatory reading in every school in this state.

Orwellian or Divine?

It boggles the mind how people can be indoctrinated to think against their own self interest regarding fundamental survival necessities in the modern world. Food, shelter, education and health are essential fundamentals for survival in our modern and wealthy nation. Yet people will do without them on twisted moral and spiritual grounds.....Lock 'n Load for the Lord.....I got Jesus so I'll work for free.....Don't need no health insurance......when the Lord calls, ain't no 'surance gonna stop him......Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. Amen.