Obama v. GOP: Healthcare showdown

When President Obama took office two years ago, the GOP had much more than a mere inkling that a healthcare overhaul was on the horizon.  Fast-forward to the final days of 2010, and an attempt at a repeal may be just around the corner. 

It comes as no surprise that healthcare is still a hot topic - but there is a twist - many did not predict the upcoming degree of Republican control in the House. 

Aside from the mega-issue of healthcare, there are other pressing issues too; national debt; national security; internet freedom; and global warming.  But according to The Hill, the healthcare debate is at the very top of the list as far as points of contention go in early 2011.

The Hill today said Republicans in the House will remain firm with their intentions to repeal Obama’s healthcare law early in 2011.  But the Democrats do maintain control of the Senate, which means that the GOP may have to resort to devices aimed at thwarting the bill indirectly through tightfisted budgetary tactics.     

We reported last week that the Supreme Court will likely have to decide whether the key provision of the healthcare law requiring mandatory insurance is constitutional.  According to CNN, “a new national poll indicates that a majority of Americans oppose that provision in the bill Congress passed earlier this year.”  Only 38% of those surveyed are on-board.

Besides the mandatory insurance uncertainty that will take some time to sort out, what will Democrats do in the mean time to prevent the GOP from hampering the healthcare law? If the law becomes deadlocked, there is a good chance that Americans will still see some form of the bill come to fruition; it just may come with conceded spending cuts elsewhere.   

Image: vitasamb2001 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net Evan H. Farr on Google +

Most likely: Supreme Court will have to decide constitutionality of mandatory insurance

The mandatory insurance debate represents an intersection (or a train wreck, depending on how you look at it) between federal powers, Congressional constitutional boundaries, and state interests.  At issue is whether Americans can be required to buy medical insurance, and if so, whether penalties can be enforced for noncompliance. The states that oppose the multi-trillion dollar reform argue that among other things, state governments would get stuck with the bill in the long run.  Analysts agree that the case will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. 

Late last week in Pensacola Florida, Obama’s legal team disputed the argument that a mandatory insurance policy would be unconstitutional.  20 U.S. states adhere to the view that such insurance policies would exceed the limits of the constitution. 

Presiding Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Florida articulated the need for patience from both sides.  Commenting on how long it would take to reach a decision, he said “I cannot give you a date certain.”  According to reuters, Judge Vinson made the comment after three hours of testimony. 

Earlier last week, a Virginia Federal Judge opined mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional.  Judge Henry Hudson thinks that Congress does not have authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to mandate health insurance.  The power wielded by Congress and the Federal government by way of the Commerce Clause is explained by the Court in its’ 2005 landmark (and controversial) decision, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):   

The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. (emphasis added).

The key issue – whether the government can force the public to buy a commercial product – will undoubtedly remain at the forefront of national media coverage until either the Supreme Court issues its view, or when the law goes into effect starting in 2014

.Image courtesy of: http://hubpages.com/hub/inauguration-day-clip-art

Evan H. Farr on Google +