The biggest news about health insurance right now is the upcoming case that is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. No matter what decision the Justices of the Supreme Court ultimately decide, it will affect every American. Today, an announcement was made about which attorneys will be arguing this case.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case regarding the insurance mandate. This is the most controversial part of the health reform laws that came from the Affordable Care Act. A decision will be made about if it is constitutional, or unconstitutional, to require all Americans to purchase health insurance in 2014, (or to pay a fine if they choose not to do so).
There are nine Justices of the Supreme Court. Already, there have been efforts made by different political groups to try and get certain Justices to recuse themselves from hearing this case. Conservative groups, and Republicans, want to have Justice Elena Kagen recused. Liberal groups, and Democrats, want to have Justice Clarence Thomas to be recused. Each side hopes to sway the decision made by the Justices of the Supreme Court to match the political opinions of their group or political party.
The Supreme Court has recently announced which attorneys will be arguing this health care case. Each one is a veteran attorney working in the Washington, D.C., area.
H. Bartow Farr III is a partner at Farr & Taranto. He is going to argue that if the federal government cannot require people to purchase health insurance, then all of the other provisions of the Affordable Care Act can still go into affect.
This view links to an opinion held by the Obama Administration. The idea is that it would be wrong to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act simply because of the insurance mandate. The argument is that the rest of the Affordable Care Act should still be kept as law. This includes things that are already helping Americans to find health insurance, such as the law that allows young adults to be covered under their parent’s health insurance policies.
Robert Long, a partner at Covington & Burling, is going to argue that lawsuits that challenge the insurance mandate, (the portion of the law that requires people to purchase health insurance), are barred, because the penalty has not yet been imposed upon anyone.
This view links to a federal law that is called the Anti-Injunction Act. Some feel that the Anti-Injunction Act means that challenges to the insurance mandate have to wait to be heard until after at least some Americans have had to pay the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance. This cannot happen until after 2014, when the insurance mandate is expected to “kick in”.
There are two important provisions of the Affordable Care Act that could not survive if the insurance mandate is struck down. One is the law that bans health insurers from refusing to cover people who have a pre-existing medical condition. The other is a law that bars insurers from charging someone a higher premium because of that person’s medical history. What happens to these laws if the insurance mandate is struck down?
Another argument is whether or not Congress exceeded its power when it adopted the insurance mandate. Yet another argument has to do with whether or not Congress improperly coerced the states to expand their Medicaid programs.
Image by TexasGOPVote.com on Flickr