Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court’
TOP 12 IN ’12: The 12 Most-Visited Posts on AHLAlerts.com
From the Affordable Care Act surviving a Supreme Court challenge and a presidential election to yet another “doc fix,” 2012 was filled with health care news. AHLAlerts was there every step of the way, providing reliable coverage and pointed analysis. But what were readers’ favorite stories? Find out after the jump.
SUPREME COURT: Denies Hobby Lobby’s Request To Block Contraceptive Coverage Rules
The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied retail chain Hobby Lobby’s request for an emergency injunction to block enforcement of the federal contraceptive coverage rules and said it will not consider the case until lower courts have ruled, Politico reports (Haberkorn/Smith, Politico, 12/26).
POST-SCOTUS: The Affordable Care Act After the Supreme Court
The Congressional Budget Office today released its updated estimates on the effect of the Affordable Care Act, now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the individual mandate and established that states can opt out of the law’s Medicaid expansion.
Below are highlights of the report. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Medicaid expansion:
- Will reduce the cost of the insurance coverage provisions in the ACA by $84 billion by reducing federal spending on Medicaid and CHIP by $289 billion;
- Will reduce the number of U.S. residents expected to be covered by Medicaid or CHIP by six million;
- Will increase enrollment in the state-based exchanges by three million; and
- Will increase the number of uninsured U.S. residents by three million.
[Ed. Note: See the earlier post on the effect of legislation (HR 6079) that would repeal the ACA for CBO's estimates on the effect of the law on insurance coverage.]
The report speculates on the effect of the court ruling that states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion. It estimates that:
- About one-third of newly eligible U.S. residents — those with annual incomes of up to 138% of federal poverty level — will live in states that choose to participate fully in the expansion;
- About half will live in states that partially expand coverage to less than 138% of FPL; and
- About one-sixth will live in states that will not expand Medicaid coverage in the next 10 years.
The court’s ruling on the individual mandate — that it is constitutional under Congress’ power to tax, and not under the Constitution’s commerce clause — will not have any effect on coverage levels, according to the report.
The report notes that “what states will be able to do and what they will decide to do” in regard to the Medicaid expansion “are both highly uncertain.” It also states that “this analysis should not be viewed as representing a single definitive interpretation of how the ACA should or will be implement in light of the court’s decision.”
by Anthony Wilson, Editor
GLOBAL VIEW: Canadian, German, British Views on U.S. Health Reform, Supreme Court Ruling
People in countries with universal health care systems — like Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany — have been puzzled by the sharp divide in the U.S. over the federal health reform law and the Supreme Court’s ruling on the law.
News coverage and editorials about the law and the court ruling generally were critical of the diverging attitudes, but some of them suggested that U.S. residents will grow to accept and appreciate the law.
FIVE KEY READS: The Best In-Depth Coverage of Health Reform at the Supreme Court [June 26, 2012]
In putting together American Health Line, the writers and editors comb through hundreds of media outlets for the best news on health care and policy. As such, we have an opportunity to see the good, bad and ugly in media coverage. With so much attention on the Supreme Court and its case against the federal health reform law, there’s been plenty over news coverage. Below you’ll find five key reads to help you stay informed about the upcoming high court ruling on the overhaul.
- “How Republicans made it possible for the Supreme Court to rule against the mandate,” Washington Post‘s “Wonkblog”: Since the overhaul was enacted in March 2010, the GOP has “slowly been building a permission structure for the five Republicans on the Supreme Court to feel comfortable doing something nobody thought they could do:” strike down the law.
- “What’s the Supreme Court Doing This Week? Proofreading, Mostly,” National Journal: For those who hope that the delay in announcing the high court’s decision could mean there is last-minute jockeying among the justices, you’re likely to be disappointed. The high court is mostly spending it’s time doing some copy editing.
- “Not Defending The Affordable Care Act,” NPR: If the Supreme Court strikes down the overhaul, it won’t be because the Obama administration’s lawyers messed up.
- “What health reform could cost you,” CNN: A look at how the law — if it stands — will hit your pocketbook.
- “An Unpopular Law Is Easier to Strike Down,” The Atlantic: The relative distaste for the overhaul could make it easier for the justices to strike it down.
FIVE KEY READS: The Best In-Depth Coverage of Health Reform at the Supreme Court [June 25, 2012]
In putting together American Health Line, the writers and editors comb through hundreds of media outlets for the best news on health care and policy. As such, we have an opportunity to see the good, bad and ugly in media coverage. With so much attention on the Supreme Court and its case against the federal health reform law, there’s been plenty over news coverage. Below you’ll find five key reads to help you stay informed about the upcoming high court ruling on the overhaul.
- “Everything you need to know about ObamaCare and SCOTUS in one post,” Washington Post‘s “Wonkblog”: Got a few minutes? Here’s 6,564 words on the Supreme Court’s pending ruling.
- “Bill Clinton Warns About Supreme Court Ruling Against ObamaCare,” The Daily Beast: President Clinton warns that there are consequences to striking down the health reform law, and they aren’t being reported in the media.
- “U.S. health care reform efforts through history,” AP/Atlanta Journal-Constitution: A look back at all the previous efforts to reform the U.S. health care system. Given the topic, the name of the paper seems fitting.
- “Massachusetts’ health care plan: 6 years later,” CBS Evening News: A look at the law that many people say served as a model for the federal overhaul, half a dozen years in.
- “California Physician Groups Vow To Continue Reforming, Regardless,” California Healthline: At least in one state, doctors don’t care what the high court has to say.
FIVE KEY READS: The Best In-Depth Coverage of Health Reform at the Supreme Court [Weekend Edition - June 23-24, 2012]
Each day for the foreseeable future, AHLAlerts will select the five best in-depth news stories on the Supreme Court case against the federal health reform law.
- “Waiting for Supreme Court health-care decision: A news release for every outcome,” Washington Post: As stakeholders and advocacy groups await the ruling, all are preparing for the numerous potential outcomes.
- “Supporters Slow to Grasp Health Law’s Legal Risks,” New York Times: Democrats’ hubris on the constitutionality of the health reform law — then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2011 infamously asked, “Are you serious?” when queried about what section of the Constitution allows the government to force U.S. residents to purchase coverage — might cost them in the long run.
- “Finger-pointing starts over Obama’s health care law,” USA Today‘s “The Oval”: Although the high court hasn’t yet released its ruling, some already are looking to assign blame for its downfall.
- “Upcoming Supreme Court rulings may benefit both parties,” Los Angeles Times: According to the Times, “the justices could rule in unexpected ways that would allow both sides to claim a victory.”
- “Congress ready for high court’s health care decisions — then it gets tricky,” CNN.com: The “messaging” battle over the health reform law and the high court ruling begins the moment the justices release their decision.
Bonus Read
- “Barack Obama’s legacy in the balance as Supreme Court rules on ‘ObamaCare’,” The Telegraph: A British perspective on the upcoming ruling. Two things are particularly interesting: the article always uses quotes when referring to the “mandate,” and the comments section.
Double Bonus
Two charts:
- “Uninsured Population, With and Without Health Reform,” Washington Post: How many U.S. residents will be uninsured over the decade if the law is maintained or struck down?
- “Health Care at the Supreme Court,” Washington Post: How each of the lower courts ruled on the issues being decided by the Supreme Court.
FIVE KEY READS: The Best In-Depth Coverage of Health Reform at the Supreme Court [June 22, 2012]
Each day for the foreseeable future, AHLAlerts will select the five best in-depth news stories on the Supreme Court case against the federal health reform law.
- “Case by Case: The U.S. Supreme Court,” Reuters: Though this interactive graphic features all of the cases in front of the high court this year, its look at the health reform case is succinct and provides a look at the briefs in the case, the justices and the lawyers who argued it.
- “Those Already Ill Have High Stake in Health Ruling,” New York Times: An examination of what’s at stake for U.S. residents with pre-existing conditions, a group for which the Times says no one has “higher stakes” in regard to the overhaul ruling.
- “If the Supreme Court Strikes Down the Mandate — What’s Next?,” The Nation: Writer George Zornick answers the question, ” So where would the law stand if the mandate disappears, and what could be done to patch it?
- “Supreme Court Health Law Ruling Will Only Begin More Debate,” McClatchy/Appleton Post-Crescent: Michael Doyle and David Lightman share both parties’ post-ruling plans and look ahead to the future discourse on health reform.
- “Stern Advice: The Supreme Court, Health Care and You,” Reuters: Linda Stern, an advice columnist, offers practical tips on the “personal ramifications” of the high court’s ruling.
Also, we’d be remiss not to mention the always-reliable SCOTUSblog, which has been hosting remarkably well-attended live blogs in anticipation of the overhaul ruling.
BLOGGER VS. BLOGGER: Obama Stirs the Pot With Supreme Court Comments
President Obama on Tuesday pulled back on previous comments on last week’s Supreme Court oral arguments over the constitutionality of the federal health reform law, after those remarks were rebuked by several Republican lawmakers. Conservative and liberal bloggers also were critical of the President’s statements.
Are the Reports of the Individual Mandate’s Death Greatly Exaggerated? (And Five Key Reads To Prepare You for Day Three)
If you believe the immediate reaction from the pundits after today’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court case against the federal health reform law, the individual mandate is dead.
The general consensus, if you haven’t determined it already, is that Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s poor performance in today’s arguments – contrasted by a fantastic performance from the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, Paul Clement – will mean the court is likely to strike down the individual mandate in the overhaul. Judging from the following tweets, it’s almost a foregone conclusion.
@jamiedupree Today’s headline from the US Supreme Court – Individual Mandate in Trouble http://bit.ly/Hd7mbQ
@JeffreyToobin: Train wreck for @barackobama in #supremecourt today.
@kpickert The individual mandate legal fight takes a dark turn for the Obama Administration. My piece on today’s #SCOTUS http://ti.me/GX9D5O
@jenhab After oral arugments today, health law’s mandate is in trouble. http://politi.co/HhTew4
@ezraklein Justices are 90% decided on this before oral argument. That said, looks like individual mandate is on life support. Heh.
But wait just a minute.
It seems like just yesterday we were reading that Supreme Court oral arguments matter little in the grand scheme of things and that the justices — having read the briefs filed in the case — mostly have made up their mind.
In fact, just last summer, Justice Samuel Alito told a crowd of 500 lawyers in St. Louis that the unimportance of oral arguments is one of the top 10 things people don’t know about the high court.
It’s no surprise that Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t think much of oral arguments. Thomas – who hasn’t made a peep in the court since 2006 — once infamously said, “So why do you beat up on people if you already know? . . . I refuse to participate. I don’t like it, so I don’t do it.”
Meanwhile, a post on the blog “D.C. Circuit Review” notes:
Justice Scalia, in a book co-authored by Bryan Garner, wrote that while oral argument rarely changes a judge’s mind, it often helps an undecided judge make up his mind when “the case is a close one.”
Of course, the post also notes that Chief Justice John Roberts thinks “that oral argument is terribly, terribly important.”
So, it’s not that the pundits are wrong. In fact, they very well may be right: Verrilli could have cost the Obama administration at least part of its signature achievement. However, it’s impossible to know at this moment what the court will decide, and it might be forever unknown to us what led to the justices’ ultimate ruling. In fact, only one thing’s for sure: There’s no way for us to know what the court will decide, until it decides.
After the jump, five key reads to prepare you for Wednesday’s oral arguments.
