05-30-2011, 02:55 PM
Health care reform battle arrives here
2:57 PM, May. 30, 2011
Written by
Cliff Peale
The trillion-dollar battle over reforming the nation's health care system comes is coming to downtown Cincinnati.
Wednesday, three judges on the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments over the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, a key feature of the Affordable Care Act that is a signature of Barack Obama's presidency.
The judges won't reach a decision for weeks or months and the issue almost certainly will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Wednesday, advocates of both sides will crowd the courtroom, and the sidewalks outside, pressing their vision of health care reform and of the Constitution's limits on federal power.
"This is a big deal," said Jack Painter, a lawyer and founder of the Indian Hill Tea Party. "The issue here is very important for determining what limits, if any, there are on congressional power to mandate personal conduct."
Col Owens, co-chairman of Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage, said the legal challenges are part of the struggles of broad societal reform.
"If you take a 100-year perspective, this comes from efforts that began literally with Teddy Roosevelt," he said. "This (reform) bill is what the political process could come up with. This is what could pass. The path beyond litigation is uncertain. But we know the current system is unsustainable."
More than 30 lawsuits have been filed challenging the health care law and at least five now have moved to federal appeals courts. The appeal to be heard here stems from a Michigan judge's upholding of the law.
An appeals court in Virginia heard arguments earlier this month.
Most legal and political experts expect the case to be decided by the Supreme Court. The stakes for the combined litigation will affect nearly every American with basic reforms to a system that spends $2.6 trillion a year and eats up more than one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
Signed by President Obama in March 2010, the law requires every American, starting in 2014, to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, a measure called the "individual mandate."
It also requires all but the smallest employers to offer benefits to their workers and prohibits insurers from denying coverage for people who already are sick.
Supporters say the law already is providing benefits, even before the most far-reaching changes take effect in 2014.
If the individual mandate is overturned, it's difficult to see the law remaining in its current form. People simply could wait to buy insurance until they get sick.
"If this free-market approach doesn't work then it's hard to see some other private market mechanism that can work," Owens said.
Supporters of the law have relied on the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which gives Congress authority to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."
Painter argues that the individual mandate, if upheld, would open the door for Congress to regulate other activity clearly beyond the scope of its Constitutional authority.
"The challenge the Obama administration has is identifying a limiting principle to the argument it is marking," he said. "It allows a power to intrude in ways that are clearly inappropriate. The fact that people should do things doesn't mean the federal government should force them to do things."
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll...105310314/
2:57 PM, May. 30, 2011
Written by
Cliff Peale
The trillion-dollar battle over reforming the nation's health care system comes is coming to downtown Cincinnati.
Wednesday, three judges on the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments over the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, a key feature of the Affordable Care Act that is a signature of Barack Obama's presidency.
The judges won't reach a decision for weeks or months and the issue almost certainly will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Wednesday, advocates of both sides will crowd the courtroom, and the sidewalks outside, pressing their vision of health care reform and of the Constitution's limits on federal power.
"This is a big deal," said Jack Painter, a lawyer and founder of the Indian Hill Tea Party. "The issue here is very important for determining what limits, if any, there are on congressional power to mandate personal conduct."
Col Owens, co-chairman of Ohio Consumers for Health Coverage, said the legal challenges are part of the struggles of broad societal reform.
"If you take a 100-year perspective, this comes from efforts that began literally with Teddy Roosevelt," he said. "This (reform) bill is what the political process could come up with. This is what could pass. The path beyond litigation is uncertain. But we know the current system is unsustainable."
More than 30 lawsuits have been filed challenging the health care law and at least five now have moved to federal appeals courts. The appeal to be heard here stems from a Michigan judge's upholding of the law.
An appeals court in Virginia heard arguments earlier this month.
Most legal and political experts expect the case to be decided by the Supreme Court. The stakes for the combined litigation will affect nearly every American with basic reforms to a system that spends $2.6 trillion a year and eats up more than one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
Signed by President Obama in March 2010, the law requires every American, starting in 2014, to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, a measure called the "individual mandate."
It also requires all but the smallest employers to offer benefits to their workers and prohibits insurers from denying coverage for people who already are sick.
Supporters say the law already is providing benefits, even before the most far-reaching changes take effect in 2014.
If the individual mandate is overturned, it's difficult to see the law remaining in its current form. People simply could wait to buy insurance until they get sick.
"If this free-market approach doesn't work then it's hard to see some other private market mechanism that can work," Owens said.
Supporters of the law have relied on the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, which gives Congress authority to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."
Painter argues that the individual mandate, if upheld, would open the door for Congress to regulate other activity clearly beyond the scope of its Constitutional authority.
"The challenge the Obama administration has is identifying a limiting principle to the argument it is marking," he said. "It allows a power to intrude in ways that are clearly inappropriate. The fact that people should do things doesn't mean the federal government should force them to do things."
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll...105310314/