≡ Menu

The best coverage of the Supreme Court decision

Since the Supreme Court decision there has been plenty of coverage of what it means going forward. Here’s some of the best we’ve found. (And we’ll be updating this post as we continue to find things worth sharing, so check back often!)  

First, if you want to read the entire 193-page Supreme Court decision yourself, here it is as a PDF, and here’s an interactive version from NPR.

************

From Mother Jones, a list of 10 things you get now that Obamacare survived.

1) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you, “Sorry, you’ve ‘run out’ of coverage.” Almost everyone I’ve met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.

************

The always excellent Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic gives his take on how the Supreme Court hasn’t ended the threat to Obamacare, but has made it easier for the President to defend it.

************

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor who argued the health law case for the government in a lower level court, wonders whether the Supreme Court decision is a Pyrrhic victory:

“There was a subtle loser too, and that is the federal government. By opening new avenues for the courts to rewrite the law, the federal government may have won the battle but lost the war.

Indeed, it is becoming so commonplace for the federal courts to invalidate legislation that a decision like the health care one is celebrated resoundingly — even when the court has invalidated part of a law Congress passed. In just one day, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional just as many laws of Congress as it did during the first 70 years of its existence: two.”

************

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein describes the political genius of Chief Justice John Roberts:

By voting with the liberals to uphold the Affordable Care Act, Roberts has put himself above partisan reproach. No one can accuse Roberts of ruling as a movement conservative. He’s made himself bulletproof against insinuations that he’s animated by party allegiances.

But by voting with the conservatives on every major legal question before the court, he nevertheless furthered the major conservative projects before the court — namely, imposing limits on federal power. And by securing his own reputation for impartiality, he made his own advocacy in those areas much more effective. If, in the future, Roberts leads the court in cases that more radically constrain the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce, today’s decision will help insulate him from criticism. And he did it while rendering a decision that Democrats are applauding.

For the legal nerds, ACA Litigation Blog has a post on the judicial genius of John Roberts, calling the decision a Marbury for our time. (If you don’t know what that means, you might just want to skip this one.) And the New Yorker’s Hedrick Hertzberg considers the possibility that Roberts might be an actual conservative.

************

With all the complaints from Republicans about the individual mandate “forcing” people to buy insurance, it’s worth noting some health care mandates Republican politicians do support. ThinkProgress lists five. For example:

Forcing women to get transvaginal ultrasounds: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted to force every woman seeking an abortion to go through the extremely uncomfortable and medically unnecessary procedure of a transvaginal ultrasound — sticking a medical wand far into a woman’s vagina to get a clearer ultrasound image.

************

Buzzfeed has a worryingly long list of Twitter posts from people who say they’re moving to Canada because of Obamacare. (You know, because they want to get away from government-run healthcare…)

ABC News points out that those looking to avoid “socialized medicine” don’t have many options:

Heading south to Mexico won’t work. Nearly the entire Mexican population gets their health care from a Medicaid-like system funded by the government.

Europe isn’t an option either. The health care systems in Britain, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Sweden are all funded by taxes much in the same way as public schools or the police force […]

“As far as I can tell, there’s not really any developed country that doesn’t have either a government-provided system or a mandate,” said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute who studies health policy […]

So where can people disillusioned by ‘Obamacare’ turn to find a country whose health care system has less government involvement than the United States?

“I can’t name one,” said Robin Osborn, vice president and director of The Commonwealth Fund’s International Program in Health Policy. “It’d be more likely a third world country.”

Yanzhong Huang [a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations] suggested “maybe sub-Saharan Africa.”

************

And finally, our favorite new blog about the Affordable Care Cat.

************

UPDATES

In poll from Kaiser Family Foundation after the Supreme Court decision, 56% of Americans said that opponents of the health law should “stop their efforts to block the law and move on to other national problems.”

************

CBS News’ Jan Crawford reports that Chief Justice Roberts initially sided with conservatives to strike down the mandate, but later switched his position. According to Crawford, Roberts was then shunned by the four conservative justices:

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The entire article is definitely worth reading.

************

The Wall Street Journal has a pretty great article looking at the decisions faced by four professionals and their organizations– a large employer, a hospital chief, a self-employed entrepreneur, and an insurance company actuary– in the wake of the health reform decision.

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment