G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments on the fate of the healthcare law sets the stage for a ruling just as the presidential election shifts into full swing, putting the law — and the justices — in the center of the campaign.
Both sides see the case as posing a profound legal dispute over the size and scope of the federal government, reminiscent of the 1930s court battles over the New Deal.
At stake now is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require all Americans to buy health insurance — a linchpin of the new law.
Conservatives have made the "individual mandate" a key part of their argument that Obama and congressional Democrats tried to expand government regulation to an unprecedented degree.
Democrats argue that the requirement will help control costs and spread the risk. Otherwise, individuals could refuse to buy insurance until they were taken to a hospital with a medical emergency. In 2008, hospitals, insurers and taxpayers paid $43 billion to cover the medical costs racked up by uninsured people.
"Probably no court case in modern times would have the impact this would" in the middle of a presidential campaign, said Ed Rollins, who directed Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection.
The impact comes both because the case involves one of the most hotly debated issues of the campaign, and because the decision will come at a key moment of the general election contest — most likely June of next year.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-healthcare-20111115,0,7552718.story
Both sides see the case as posing a profound legal dispute over the size and scope of the federal government, reminiscent of the 1930s court battles over the New Deal.
At stake now is whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require all Americans to buy health insurance — a linchpin of the new law.
Conservatives have made the "individual mandate" a key part of their argument that Obama and congressional Democrats tried to expand government regulation to an unprecedented degree.
Democrats argue that the requirement will help control costs and spread the risk. Otherwise, individuals could refuse to buy insurance until they were taken to a hospital with a medical emergency. In 2008, hospitals, insurers and taxpayers paid $43 billion to cover the medical costs racked up by uninsured people.
"Probably no court case in modern times would have the impact this would" in the middle of a presidential campaign, said Ed Rollins, who directed Ronald Reagan's 1984 reelection.
The impact comes both because the case involves one of the most hotly debated issues of the campaign, and because the decision will come at a key moment of the general election contest — most likely June of next year.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-healthcare-20111115,0,7552718.story