For reasons that are not immediately apparent our Supreme Court has elected to enter the politically charged healthcare tug-of-war—perhaps as referee for divergent lower court decisions?
It's difficult to imagine a more compelling federal purpose than Congress providing for the welfare of all our citizens by ensuring they are afforded systematic, effective, and competent healthcare.
Amazingly, providing healthcare for all our citizens has proved contentious—less than when Congress established our First Bank of the United States, which promptly assumed the Revolutionary War debts owed by the individual states1.
UPDATED 06/25/2015 SC King et al. v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (pdf, slip opinion)
SC, Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners v. Florida, et al.
UPDATED 01/18/2017 WP, How the Republican Plans to Replace Obamacare Could Affect You
UPDATED 01/06/2017 Reuters, Pence says repealing Obamacare 'first order of business' and CNBC, Nancy Pelosi: We Had 3 Goals For Obamacare and CNN, Biden to GOP: Go ahead, repeal Obamacare and WH, President Barack Obama interview with Ezra Klein and Sarah Kliff about Obamacare
Repealing healthcare for our citizenry is at cross-purpose with America's long-term economic growth expectations. These expectations are most easily understood with reference to economic productivity or real gross domestic product (GDP) per hour worked. Absent automation and robots healthy citizens of all color and creed, including immigrants will generate that GDP—the healthier, happier, longer living and productive our citizenry the better!
It's likely that providing healthcare to all our citizenry will add more to our long-term real GDP growth than any other single public-private action and perhaps all public-private actions combined (a close second will likely be mitigating the many negative impacts of the unprecedented magnitudes of our inequality metric measures4)?
Pence would do well to adopt to the objectives of his running mate with respect to healthcare for all our citizenry, "...we're not going to have a two-day period...where there's nothing...it'll be great healthcare for much less money..." and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
President Obama, your being very generous with your "Republican-friends'" cruelly cynical repeal-delay-replace political tactical strategy. Your "Republican-friends" are likely intending to rerun their opposition to Obamacare, which has worked for them so well to date, during the 2018 congressional elections.
One might think your cruelly cynical "Republican-friends" hope to keep the House and gain a filibuster-proof Senate in 2018 so they can simply repeal healthcare (i.e. ignore their delayed promise to replace), without political penalty.
Wonder why our citizenry hold our politicians in such low regard or complete disregard, disdain, and disgust? If our citizenry had to associate with your "Republican-friends" they'd embrace their enemies—oh!, wait they just embraced one...he's now their president-elect!
UPDATED 09/29/2016 HHS, Every Income Group Experienced Significant and Similar Drops in Uninsured Rates Under the Affordable Care Act and Urban, What if More States Expanded Medicaid in 2017? Changes in Eligibility, Enrollment, and the Uninsured (pdf)
UPDATED 09/15/2016 UCTV, Health and The Supreme Court: 2016 Year in Review
Mostly reviews the case(s) reversing the religious wackos from Texas attempts to impede a women's control of their own bodies and healthcare.
UPDATED 06/25/2015 Reuters, U.S. top court backs Obamacare, president says it's here to stay
UPDATED 07/22/2014 Reuters, U.S. court rulings create new uncertainty over Obamacare
Jacqueline Halbig, et al., V. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, In Her Official Capacity As U.S. Secretary Of Health And Human Services, et al., Decided July 22, 2014, No. 14-5018 is pedantry in pursuit of politics.
The opinion is likely to be read as contributing more to the categories of fear, uncertainty and distraction than common sense construction aimed at preserving the historic purpose of our Affordable Care Act (i.e. provide every American citizen with affordable and comprehensive healthcare).
UPDATED 07/04/2014 NYT, Birth Control Order Deepens Divide Among Justices
Wow, that didn't take long for our Supreme Court to generate more zaniness—not even a Court opinion.
Just a stay of a lower court decision while the Supremes figure out whether yet another religious
Hey, on the positive side our religious
Happy 238th birthday America!
UPDATED 07/01/2014 Burwell, Secretary Of Health and Human Services, Et al. V. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Et al.
More legal mischief created by the "corporation as person" fallacy3, which glides through the bizarre and sublime in to the zany.
It's unclear what impact the amazingly narrowly tailored opinion will have on providing equal healthcare to our women. Health and Human Services (HHS) and our President should accept the Court's invitation to use alternative methods to ensure all our women have unimpeded access to complete reproductive healthcare independent of any entities' public or private religious beliefs.
The Court's stated objective of judging a religious practitioner's sincerity independent of whether their religious beliefs are reasonable or mistaken will no doubt guarantee more zaniness in future court opinions.
UPDATED 06/28/2012 US Opinion, National Federation Of Independent Business et al. V. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, et al.
U.S. Supreme Court rightly stretches to save the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—its detractors discuss their next destructive move.
More after studying this historic, necessary and fascinating decision—its most significant implications and impacts may have nothing to to with healthcare!
UPDATED 04/06/2012 Thomson Reuters, Analysis: Justice Kagan--Giving liberals a rhetorical lift
UPDATED 03/29/2012 Thomson Reuters, Analysis-Chief Justice Roberts: Man in middle is man of the moment and NYT Op-Ed, Broccoli and Bad Faith
UPDATED 03/27/2012 ProPublica, What’s at Stake in the Supreme Court’s Health Care Decisions Provides a handy yes-no decision flowchart for the question presented.
Understandably, some of our "laissez faire" justices seemed to conflate market entry with market function and were puzzled that our government has the ability to compel entry into the healthcare market.
If you are equally puzzled query whether our government has, can and would compel individuals to enter the healthcare system (market) if they were: radioactive; carrier of Ebola or other Class IV pathogen; or even a non Class IV pathogen like tuberculosis? (Justice Breyer pursued this line of questioning)
Now assume our explosive field of biochemistry serendipitously discovers that broccoli can treat any or all of the above illnesses. Then our government can and would compel individuals to enter the food market, too—even the most religious or broccoli phobic of our sitting Supreme Court justices!
Compelling second session question from Justice Kagan @ ~1:10:00 on hearing distinction between insurance and healthcare markets:
"...Doesen't that seem a little bit, Mr. Clement, cutting the baloney thin..."?On market function it seems useful to note that it's very difficult or impossible for individual states to establish separate healthcare markets that operate efficiently—they would need to impermissibly restrict interstate travel or face market collapse as the uninsured seeking healthcare flowed into the state.
A "laissez faire" proponent will tend to slice the baloney nanoscale thin before acknowledging the obvious, that real world markets can and do regularly fail. Often citing prior market interventions as the reason for current market failure—you need look no further than the recent catastrophic collapse of the mortgage market—the failure was caused by to those seeking to provide affordable housing, according to our laissez faire proponents.
If our states cannot individually construct and operate efficient markets then you simultaneously implicate the commerce clause and delimit the "broccoli conjecture"2 articulated and repeated by some of the justices.
UPDATED 03/25/2012 Thomson Reuters, The Supreme Court tackles health care reform: What's at stake for U.S. businesses Summary by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
NYT, Affordable Healthcare Act
Thomson Reuters, Factbox: Health benefits Americans may lose in court ruling
1. Had Florida et al. been states in 1790-91 they no doubt would have filed a federal complaint arguing that our Constitution prohibited the nascent central bank from assuming any Revolutionary War debt!
2. The "broccoli conjecture" guesses that if our federal government requires Americans to form a single risk pool for the purpose of diversify healthcare risks then our Supreme Court is unable to delimit a federal government requirement that Americans purchase broccoli.
Unfortunately, we have learned to accept this type of conjecture from our Sunday school teachers—must we also learn to accept it from our Supreme Court justices?
UPDATED 06/14/2012 An interesting article tracing origins of the "broccoli conjecture"—no thinking necessary.
3. A corporate container is typically utilized to insulate its beneficiaries, apparently exempting a beneficiary's religious requirements or beliefs.
The Court does not explain how a corporate container transmogrifies a beneficiary's religious beliefs—perhaps just another
4. An added benefit of providing healthcare to all our citizenry is a reduction of our unprecedented economic inequality.