Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

With healthcare reform law in legal limbo, Dems consider their options (on the edge of contempt)
The Hill ^ | 2/01/11 | Julian Pecquet

Posted on 02/01/2011 11:05:47 AM PST by Libloather

With healthcare reform law in legal limbo, Dems consider their options
By Julian Pecquet - 02/01/11 06:01 AM ET

Healthcare reform supporters have begun to seek alternatives to the unpopular individual mandate at the heart of Monday’s surprising decision overturning the entire law.

Officially, the Obama administration dismissed Judge Roger Vinson’s decision as a fluke. Two judges have already ruled that the mandate is constitutional, and a third struck down the mandate but not the rest of the law.

“The department intends to appeal this ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler. “We strongly disagree with the court's ruling today and continue to believe — as other federal courts have found — that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.”

Yet lawmakers supportive of the law and healthcare activists are already actively contemplating various scenarios for moving forward without the mandate.

Healthcare reform advocates say that as the administration and the states move forward with implementation, millions of Americans will begin to benefit from the law's consumer protections — making it less likely that the appeals court judges and eventually the Supreme Court justices will strike down massive legislation that's already the law of the land.

“I think the litigation will be less attractive at that time,” said Tim Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Even if the mandate itself is struck down, others say, moving forward with implementation could also make it more likely that Americans would clamor for an alternative so they can keep the law's consumer protections.

“Justices have to factor in the impact of their decision on people,” said Chris Jennings, who was senior healthcare adviser to President Clinton. “I'm not saying they’ll acknowledge that. But everyone's human, and humans react to their environment.”

Traditionally, judges have sought to strike specific provisions instead of entire laws, to avoid accusations that they’re legislating from the bench. The federal judge in Virginia who struck down the mandate in December, for example, limited his ruling to the mandate.

“Without the benefit of extensive expert testimony and significant supplementation of the record,” Judge Henry Hudson ruled, “this court cannot determine what, if any, portion of the bill would not be able to survive independently.”

Vinson addressed his rationale for striking the whole law in his decision.

“I must conclude that the individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit,” Vinson wrote.

Democrats are still hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor on the individual mandate. If that doesn't happen, though, they've started laying the groundwork to argue that only the mandate should be stricken, not the whole law.

The administration in November filed arguments in the Florida case, stating that “parts of the statute ... are plainly severable from ... the minimum coverage provision.” Lawyers for the administration wrote at the time that “plaintiffs inflate beyond their obvious meaning” the arguments in favor of the individual mandate and added that “countless ... provisions of the Act are entirely capable of being applied even if” the mandate is struck down.

Defenders of the law reiterated those arguments after Monday's ruling.

“There is no reason why the rest of the statute — including the insurance reforms — shouldn't go forward without the individual mandate,” Jost said during a press call organized by the liberal Center for American Progress (CAP). It would be “more difficult,” but “not impossible.”

“Most of [the provisions] do not have anything to do with the individual mandate,” added CAP Chief Operating Officer Neera Tanden, who worked inside the White House Office of Health Reform during the reform debate. “I think that is a mark of how much judicial activism this ruling really is.”

Some centrist Democrats up for reelection in 2012 are already looking for alternatives.

“There's other ways we can get people into the pool — I hope — other than a mandate, and we need to look at that,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said on MSNBC earlier this month.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) late last year asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate alternative incentives to get people covered. The senator has been told to await a response “in the first part of this year,” a spokesman said Monday.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), however, thinks striking the mandate would have a noticeable impact. According to the CBO's June analysis, repealing it would increase the number of uninsured people in 2019 by 16 million, for a total of 39 million uninsured. Doing so would also shave $202 billion off the federal deficit, as scores of people choose to forgo signing up for Medicaid or requesting federal subsidies to buy private coverage.

Some options do exist if the Supreme Court tosses the federal mandate.

Bill Pewen, the top health staffer for Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) during the healthcare reform debate, laid them out last December in a lengthy post on the policy journal Health Affairs’s blog. Pewen was deeply involved in the process because Snowe was among the four Republicans who worked for several months with Senate Finance Committee Democrats to try to craft a bipartisan bill.

One alternative would be to penalize people who wait to buy coverage by hitting them with higher premiums or excluding them from certain protections, such as the guarantee that a pre-existing condition will be covered. Another approach would be to tell states that they can only get certain federal subsidies if they pass their own individual mandates.

“The risk of a successful challenge of the mandate could have been avoided through a number of alternative mechanisms,” Pewen wrote. “Most of these were not viable, as they would have required substantial bipartisan cooperation to enact.”

Jennings told The Hill that there were major shortcomings with all those alternatives.

The idea of penalizing people who wait works to get them into Medicare as soon as they're 65, but older Americans are much more risk-averse than the young people who are most likely to stay uninsured without a mandate. And failing to sign up for Medicare benefits and its 75 percent subsidy would be a costly “mistake,” he said.

As for leaving the decision up to the states, that would create a patchwork system because some would be sure to reject the mandate; in fact, voters in several states have already voted to make it illegal.

Still, Jennings said, the administration would likely seek ways to keep the healthcare reform law intact if the mandate is struck down.

“I think they feel committed to those insurance protections,” he said, “and they would look at alternative ways to do that.”

Correction : This story was updated at 9:45 a.m. to reflect the fact that Missouri is not among the parties in the Florida challenge.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: healthcare; judgevinson; legal; options; reform
Officially, the Obama administration dismissed Judge Roger Vinson’s decision as a fluke.

Big mistake.

1 posted on 02/01/2011 11:05:54 AM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Later on this afternoon they’re going to go down to the beach and try to hold back waves with their hands.


2 posted on 02/01/2011 11:08:30 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (Huguenot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I think that the RATs will cut and run. They know that if Obamacare is an issue in 2012 that they will lose everything.


3 posted on 02/01/2011 11:09:06 AM PST by Mike Darancette (The heresy of heresies was common sense - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Demwits in the regime will ignore the ruling, but the attorney generals in the offended states won’t. Congress can hold hearings.


4 posted on 02/01/2011 11:10:28 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

This article shows why any time the Feds get their claws in anything it is impossible to get the Vampire off your neck. The best hope is for the SCOTUS to grab the case and rule now.


5 posted on 02/01/2011 11:10:55 AM PST by screaminsunshine (Surfers Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Here's the skinny..........

Promises have been made. Assurances have been communicated. Much of this legislation has been bought and paid for by special interest groups who have paid top dollar to buy this ATM, called Obammacare. The players are now in position to demand their return on investment.

This is going to get very ugly. Egypt style ugly considering the union beast and public employees unions will also draw on the teacher reserists for protests this summer.

6 posted on 02/01/2011 11:13:25 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I found one White House statement really hysterical. They disdained Judge Vinson's ruling, decrying this kind of judicial activism".

Which is to say "We only like our kind of judicial activism!"

The coalition of 26 states should get this to SCOTUS first. We should demand that Kagan fella recuse himself, so even if Kennedy sides with the liberals, we would win (the moving party to SCOTUS wins in the even of a tie, according to Greta last night).
7 posted on 02/01/2011 11:14:27 AM PST by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Healthcare reform advocates say that as the administration and the states move forward with implementation, millions of Americans will begin to benefit from the law's consumer protections — making it less likely that the appeals court judges and eventually the Supreme Court justices will strike down massive legislation that's already the law of the land.

What about ... THE CONSTITUION?????? Do we just swat it away like a fly when a law becomes popular. After all, lynching was once quite 'popular'.

8 posted on 02/01/2011 11:15:40 AM PST by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

Kayan fella lol


9 posted on 02/01/2011 11:16:33 AM PST by steel_resolve (Boycott Made In China Garbage)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

The left will try to destroy the judicial branch of our government now or at the very least try to bypass it with impunity.


10 posted on 02/01/2011 11:16:41 AM PST by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

None of the ramblings of the law professors addresses the reality that the dems intentionally removed the severability clause. They knew that the individual mandate was the lynchpin to forced funding of this nightmare and tried to protect it by making it seem too difficult for a judge to want to over-turn the entire law. It almost worked with Hudson in Virginia kicking that can down the road.

Vinson, on the othe rhand, took the bull by the horns and said up front in his ruling that the removal of the severability clause will not protect the law. If the individual mandate cannot be severed, then the entire law must fall.

For the liberal bloviators to now claim that somehow they still have the legal right if severance after intentionally removing it as a defense to protect the individual mandate is pure hogwash. No matter how thin the media tries to slice it, it’s still baloney!


11 posted on 02/01/2011 11:16:47 AM PST by Buckeye Battle Cry (At DiDi's Used Guns, if we can't kill it, it's immortal - DiDi Snavely, Proprietor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Officially, the Obama administration dismissed Judge Roger Vinson’s decision as a fluke.

Flaunting the law is an impeachable offense.
12 posted on 02/01/2011 11:17:25 AM PST by Tzfat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“Yet lawmakers... are already actively contemplating various scenarios for moving forward without the mandate.”

The “affordability” aspect of the law to the treasury and health insurance providers, according to the numbers given to the CBO, rests on the mandate. Without that, there will be no such thing as health insurance left in this country, therefore the law is even more damaging to the economy, even more restrictive of access to care, even for people who had access prior to the law, and accomplishes nothing.

Repealing the bleeping thing and starting over is the only rational alternative, not moving full steam ahead like money is no object.


13 posted on 02/01/2011 11:17:39 AM PST by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Let them flounder about....we haven't even begun to ratchet up our options to combat this.
14 posted on 02/01/2011 11:17:39 AM PST by Niteranger68 (Jared Lee Loughner - Disciple of Michael Moore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
"Democrats are still hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in their favor on the individual mandate. If that doesn't happen, though, they've started laying the groundwork to argue that only the mandate should be stricken, not the whole law."

With over half of the sovereign states opposing this outrageous bill, it would be interesting to watch how many people will move into those states from the Obama slave states if the bill is allowed to stand sans the mandate.

15 posted on 02/01/2011 11:18:25 AM PST by jiminycricket000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

They should get Donald Berwick to the Hill ASAP and get him on record stating that he plans to ignore a federal court ruling and proceed illegally to implement Obamacare until SCOTUS tells him otherwise. The judicial system doesn’t work so well if one branch of government can just thumb its nose at its rulings.


16 posted on 02/01/2011 11:20:37 AM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Doesn’t this ruling carry more weight than the other two. If only because there were 26 states that joined this one.


17 posted on 02/01/2011 11:20:40 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Where is this vaunted “consumer protection” that everyone is supposed to fall in love with? It doesn’t exist! The only thing anybody has to like about this bill is the provision to let your child stay on your policy until they are 26....and then only if you happen to have a college grad who cannot find full-time work in this Obama Economy.

The article does belie the fact that Liberals think judges should put a moistened finger in the air and check the political winds before ruling on the Constitutionality of anything.


18 posted on 02/01/2011 11:21:19 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

I think you have a likely point. We’re probably in for “Battle of the Corporate Pigsters”.


19 posted on 02/01/2011 11:22:44 AM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder ("Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking" - Barack Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

I pointed this out yesterday to some other FReepers.

Don’t your hopes too high yet. Wait till the Democrats open up their 55 gallon drum of worms first!


20 posted on 02/01/2011 11:25:15 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (Patriotic by Proxy! (Cause I'm a nutcase and it's someone Else's' fault!....))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Doesn’t this ruling carry more weight than the other two.

From what I gather, 50 judges could say it's constitutional but just ONE other judge saying otherwise deems the entire deal unconstitutional. The rookie Hussein's administration maybe breaking the law as we speak. (Although I've always assumed that to be the case once Hussein got into office.)

21 posted on 02/01/2011 11:53:23 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DrC; Liz
They should get Donald Berwick to the Hill ASAP and get him on record stating that he plans to ignore a federal court ruling

Another new idea.

22 posted on 02/01/2011 11:56:07 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

OK throw the whole law out and pass a one page that says insurance companies can’t throw you off of their plans if you get sick as long as you pay yor premiums.Let the states set up pools for those who have pre existing conditions like most already have and that is it.That’s it done.


23 posted on 02/01/2011 2:06:07 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Healthcare reform advocates say that as the administration and the states move forward with implementation, millions of Americans will begin to benefit from the law's consumer protections — making it less likely that the appeals court judges and eventually the Supreme Court justices will strike down massive legislation that's already the law of the land. “I think the litigation will be less attractive at that time,” said Tim Jost of the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

Didn't we hear this lie about 10 months ago for the November election??..how did that work out???

24 posted on 02/01/2011 3:06:49 PM PST by BerniesFriend (Sarah Palin-"Lord knows she's attractive" says bitter Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the MSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson