This Thursday, the Supreme Court will aim to answer several questions about President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Before we get to what those questions are, let’s back up a little. What, exactly, is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, anyway?
The PPACA, also known as Obamacare, is President Obama’s signature policy that was passed by a majority Democratic Congress in 2010. At around 2,700 pages with some 450 provisions—it is one dense piece of legislation and, as such, extremely confusing and intimidating to tackle. Bottom line, though, is that it’s intended to get more Americans insured, and make insurance more affordable. A lot of people (mostly Democrats) like it well enough, others (mostly Republicans) kind of hate it, and some (mostly average Americans) just don’t know what to think.
If it was already passed in 2010, why are we still debating it?
Though the law passed through Congress, not everyone was excited about it. So 26 states, lead by Florida, filed a series of appeals against the law to the Supreme Court challenging, specifically, “the individual mandate,” which threatens a financial penalty for most citizens who do not purchase health insurance by 2014. For a more detailed explanation of how Obamacare landed on the Supreme Court steps, click through The Washington Post’s interactive guide to states that have already determined the law unconstitutional.
Can the federal government actually require people to buy insurance?
That’s one of the questions the Supreme Court is trying to answer. Those states that brought the legislation to court argue that requiring people to purchase health insurance is a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
What is the Commerce Clause, you ask?
It’s a part of the U.S. Constitution that makes it illegal for the federal government to force its citizens to make any commercial purchases they may not want or need. If the Supreme Court justices agree that requiring people to buy health insurance is, in fact, a violation of this clause, then they’ll deem the health-care legislation unconstitutional.
OK, got it. What are the other questions the court will answer?
If the individual mandate is deemed unconstitutional—then the court has to decide whether that means the entire law is invalid as well. Can the court strike down the mandate separately, or if that provision goes down will the whole thing crumble? This will be determined Thursday.
Wait, is all this fuss just over the individual mandate?
People are pretty hyped about the individual mandate, but no, it’s not the only point of contention. Obamacare also aims to expand Medicaid—the current federal health-care system offered to those lacking in financial resources—to cover 16 million more Americans than it already does. Now that the constitutionality of the law is being questioned—so is the Medicaid provision. The Atlantic offers an excellent, detailed guide to what this expansion actually means and why—constitutional or not—it might actually hurt those people it aims to help.
Are we freaking out for no reason? What’s this talk of the court not even being able to consider the case until 2015?
The funny thing about court cases is seeing what laws or precedents lawyers for either side will throw against the wall in hopes that one will stick. The Anti-Injunction Act has been dusted off from 1867 to make the case that Obama’s health-care law can’t even be argued in court right now. That act—sometimes referred to vaguely as the tax law—says no one can pursue a lawsuit against a tax or fine that hasn’t been paid. In other words, since the rules of the Obamacare individual mandate don’t kick in until 2014, a court case really can’t be argued until 2015. The chances that this argument will work to scrap the case altogether are slim, however. Legal experts and the Justice Department have doubted that argument’s effectiveness in stopping the suit from being heard.
Let’s say the entire law is struck down. Who will be affected?
Everyone from high school grads to Southerners to people who have sex for fun.
The Washington Post has a simple interactive graphic that explains exactly how you will personally be affected by each possible outcome. It’s kind of like a Cosmo quiz, but for the Supreme Court.
Is striking down what is arguably the most significant legislation of President Obama’s presidency really something the Supreme Court would do?
According to Mother Jones, the current Supreme Court justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, is the most conservative bunch the U.S. has seen since the early 1970s. Striking down Obamacare will only solidify this reputation. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the high court’s most liberal member, is actually a lot less liberal than previous lefty justices. Check out MJ’s graph on just how conservative the Supreme Court has gotten over the past 75 years.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment