Health Care Law Wins Round One In Court

A few months ago the Democrats passed a new health care reform act which was signed into law by President Obama.   The law didn't go far enough and didn't solve all the problems of the health care system in this country, but it did make some improvements and cover some people with health insurance that couldn't get it before (although not everyone will be covered).  

But when the law was passed the Republicans hit the roof.   They knew the law would rein in some of the worst abuses of their buddies in the private health insurance industry (such as not insuring those with pre-existing conditions).   They tried to demonize the law from the beginning, and after it passed they went to court to stop it from being implemented.

I don't think they really think they can stop the law from being implemented, but it is an election year and wanted to show their right-wing base they are trying to do something.   Several states with Republican leadership filed cases in federal court claiming the law was unconstitutional -- that the U.S. Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority in passing the law.

They have lost the first of probably many court battles.   A few days ago Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan threw out the case that had been filed in his court.   In a 20 page opinion, he found the law to be constitutional.   Here is some of what he said:

“In assessing the scope of Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause,” the court’s task “is a modest one.” The court need not itself determine whether the regulated activities, “taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a ‘rational basis’ exists for so concluding.”

There is a rational basis to conclude that, in the aggregate, decisions to forego insurance coverage in preference to attempting to pay for health care out of pocket drive up the cost of insurance. The costs of caring for the  uninsured who prove unable to pay are shifted to health care providers, to the insured population in the form of higher premiums, to governments, and to taxpayers. The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance. These are the economic effects addressed by Congress in enacting the Act and the minimum coverage provision.

Round one goes to the good guys.   There are similar cases in other courts and the Republicans will probably appeal this loss, but there is little reason to believe they can win -- even finally in the Supreme Court.   Even the most conservative of the Supreme Court Justices, Antonin Scalia, believes Congress has broad powers to regulate "economic activity".

The Republicans think they are tapping into a large resentment among ordinary citizens over the new health care law.   What they don't realize is that among those who aren't happy with the law, there are more people who think it didn't go far enough (like me) than people who think the law went too far.   And those who think the law didn't go far enough, combined with those who like the new law, represent a significant majority of Americans.

The Republicans may not realize it yet, but they are fighting a losing battle over health care.   Now if the Democrats would just realize they didn't do enough and create a public option for insurance, we would all be better off.