Seminar to Provide Answers to Your Health Care Questions

We don’t utilize this space very often to simply "sell" you on Chamber events. But in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, it’s time to move forward.

A half-day seminar, appropriately titled Health Care Reform: What Happens Now, takes place on July 24 at the Indiana Chamber Conference Center. While Ice Miller attorneys will analyze the opinion, the focus will be on what this means for your organization going forward.

The investment you make in this event will certainly pay off as companies, providers, health plan administrators and others prepare to take the next steps down the health care path.

Supreme Court to Fill Week With Health Care Arguments

When the federal health care reform law of 2010 began winding its way through various lower courts, it was not clear whether the ultimate destination would be the Supreme Court. The justices, after all, weigh many factors in determining their caseload.

But some conflicting rulings along the way made it less of a surprise when the "Supremes" recently indicated they would indeed consider various issues surrounding the far-reaching law. Now, even more information has come out about the unprecedented level of attention coming in early 2012. The Washington Post reports:

The high court scheduled arguments for March 26th, 27th and 28th over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which aims to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans. The arguments fill the entire court calendar that week with nothing but debate over President Obama’s signature domestic health care achievement.

With the March dates set, that means a final decision on the massive health care overhaul will likely come before Independence Day in the middle of Obama’s re-election campaign. The new law has been vigorously opposed by all of Obama’s prospective GOP opponents.

The justices will start the week of arguments that Monday with one hour on whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not participating in the overhaul. Tuesday’s arguments will take two hours, with lawyers debating the central issue of whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health care insurance or pay a fine. Finally, Wednesday’s arguments will be split into two parts, with justices hearing 90 minutes of debate over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and an extra hour of arguments over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to participate in the health care overhaul by threatening a cutoff of federal money. 

Sizing Up the Court on Health Care Ruling

A quick Google search Monday evening of the four words of the day — "Supreme Court" and "health care" — revealed more than 1,800 news articles. I glanced at a handful to gain some perspective on what follows the not-too-surprising announcement that the Court will listen to arguments (likely next March) and issue a ruling (likely in June) on the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion (among other things) of the federal health care reform law.

Here are a few different facts and notes:

  • It’s been more than 600 days since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. It’s only 215 days until the expected end of the Supreme Court’s spring term.
  • Stuart Taylor, Jr. of the Brookings Institution writes that the Court’s allocation of five hours of time for arguments is "extraordinary" and the "most time in many decades for related challenges to a single new law."
  • Taylor also notes that none of the justices recused themselves from hearing the case. There had been suggestions that Justice Elena Kagan (Obama’s former solicitor general) or Justice Clarence Thomas (whose wife has been politically active in opposing the law) might take that step.
  • Andrew Cohen, chief legal analyst for CBS News, offers 1-9 odds that Justice Anthony Kennedy "will be in the majority no matter which way the Court rules … and that both supporters and detractors of the Act likely can’t win without his vote."

Congressional Quarterly, in the business of interpreting what goes on in Washington each day, offered this analysis of the political implications and the possibility that a ruling may not be a decision after all:

A ruling, four months before Election Day, that the mandate is constitutional would provide a significant and perfectly timed boost to Obama and congressional Democrats — because it would enshrine for the ages their top shared domestic policy achievement. A ruling that strikes it down would grant the GOP nominee-in-waiting, and congressional Republican candidates, their No. 1 campaign season wish — because it would validate all of their vituperative derisions of “Obamacare” as an unconstitutional overreach.

The main reason the justices would take one side or the other is that the regional federal appeals courts have been split on the core question of whether the mandate is within Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. (Two have upheld the law, a third has found it unconstitutional and a fourth has ruled it’s too soon to say.) And a main function of the Supreme Court is to make consistent judicial policy when the lower courts disagree. But it’s also true (Bush v. Gore aside) that (Chief Justice John) Roberts and the other conservatives who are the majority on the court have said over and over again that the judicial branch should generally look for ways to stay out of white-hot political disputes — and also should defer, if at all possible, to the will of the elected branches of government when it comes to policy disputes.

And so the easiest way to find five votes between now and June might be for one of those conservatives (the chief justice, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and that big maybe, Kennedy) to shop the view among his colleagues that it’s too soon to decide the constitutional question yet — because the mandate hasn’t actually taken effect and so no one has been “harmed” by having to pay a penalty for not obeying.

What does it all mean? The analysis will be sure to continue over the next 200-plus days until a decision has been made. Then a new round will begin on the implications of that decision. I’ll guess it’s a 5-4 ruling in favor of … how do I know? No one has ever confused me with a Supreme Court justice.

Judge: Supreme Court Voice Needed on Health Care Reform

The Florida judge who declared the federal health care reform law unconstitutional "updated" his own ruling yesterday and urged that "the sooner this issue is decided by the Supreme Court, the better off the entire nation will be."

On January 31, 2011, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson (Pensacola, Florida) determined that the “individual mandate” provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is unconstitutional and declared the remainder of the Act void because it was not severable.  The defendants (the Obama administration) filed a motion to clarify with the court, suggesting that there would be adverse consequences from an immediate halt of implementing the Act given that many provisions are now in effect and that several other district court judges have upheld the law.

Yesterday, the judge stated that while his original order “was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused or misunderstood its import.”  He did however, treat the clarification as a stay from his original order and as such granted it.  He conditioned the stay upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven days of his order, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court. He chastised the administration that it had been more than a month since his order and the defendants had not filed their notice of appeal.

Twenty six states, including Indiana, are party to the lawsuit. On Wednesday at the Indiana Statehouse, a joint meeting took place with the House and Senate Insurance and Health Committees. Attorney General Greg Zoeller commented on PPACA and offered his view that in those states that were party to the suit the Act was unenforceable. Those comments do not apply a day later as Judge Vinson’s stay to his original order was granted. 

UPDATED: Our Congressmen Agree on Something! (Paperwork is Terrible)

Any time eight members of a nine-person Congressional delegation can agree on something these days, it must be a good thing. That is the case with the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011.

H.R. 4 is expected to be considered on the House floor today and the subject of a vote on Thursday. The 273 co-sponsors include all six Indiana Republicans (Larry Buschon, Dan Burton, Mike Pence, Todd Rokita, Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young) as well as Democrats Andre Carson and Joe Donnelly. Only Pete Visclosky is missing from the co-sponsor list, which, of course, doesn’t disqualify him from supporting the bill.

For those who don’t recall the provision or prefer to block it out in order to try and get a good night’s sleep, a section of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates that small business owners file a 1099-MISC with the IRS for all payments of $600 or more to a vendor in a tax year. In other words, just about everything. In a regulatory world gone awry, this might be the biggest nightmare of all if allowed to proceed.

The repeal earlier passed the Senate 81-17. Let’s hope common sense prevails in the House this week. The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has additional background and facts.

UPDATED: Thankfully, the U.S. House has voted to repeal this ridiculous measure. Surprisingly, despite being listed as a co-sponsor, Indiana Rep. Andre Carson voted against the measure. All eight other Hoosiers representatives sided with the majority in a 314-112 vote. The Senate has passed a slightly different version, so a compromise will need to be reached. Journal of Accountancy has the story.