prev
next
Political Hotsheet
© 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Will the Supreme Court strike down the most popular part of the health care law?
Supporters of health care reform rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 28, 2012, on the final day of arguments regarding the health care law signed by President Barack Obama.
/ AP Photo/Charles Dharapak(CBS News) After Tuesday's Supreme Court hearings, it looks like the high court could very well strike down one of the least popular and most controversial aspects of President Obama's 2010 health care overhaul -- the requirement for nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance.
On Wednesday morning, the court considered whether striking down the so-called individual mandate would require striking down the entirety of the law -- or at least other parts of it. If the court were to rule that the mandate is unconstitutional, it's possible some of the most popular aspects of the law would go down with it.
A CBS News/ New York Times poll released this week shows that three in 10 Americans want the court to strike down the mandate but to keep the rest of the law. Those people may not be happy to hear that even the Obama administration argued today that if the mandate goes, two other significant parts should go, too -- the rule barring insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, and the rule barring insurers from charging more because of a person's medical history.
Court's conservatives question insurance mandate
Could health care law survive without mandate?
Heart of health care law in focus in high court
The rule barring insurers from discriminating against customers with pre-existing conditions (known to policy wonks as "guaranteed issue") is overwhelmingly popular, even among those who oppose the overall law. The CBS News/ NYT poll shows that 85 percent of Americans support the rule, including 76 percent of Republicans.
Still, the administration argues in its brief to the court that the "guaranteed issue" rule, as well as the rule banning insurers from charging customers differently, are critically tied to the mandate.
It's important to note the court doesn't have to listen to the administration. And indeed, the conservative justices on Wednesday seemed inclined to throw out the whole bill, rather than parse out so-called "good" provisions from "bad" ones, as Justice Antonin Scalia put it.
"My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone," Scalia said. "That enables Congress to -- to do what it wants in the usual fashion. And it doesn't inject us into the process of saying, 'this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad.'"
The more liberal justices, however, appeared ready to keep at least portions of the bill.
"There are so many things in this Act that are unquestionably okay," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. "It's a choice between a wrecking operation... or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything."
Poll: 47% disapprove of Obama health care law
Poll: 1 in 4 want Supreme Court to uphold health care law
Special Section: Health Care
While Scalia called the individual mandate the "heart" of the 2010 law, attorney H. Bartow Farr argued that the provisions barring discrimination or price variation based on medical history are the "crown jewels" of the law. Appointed by the court to argue in favor of keeping those two provisions, he pointed out there are other elements of the bill to prevent costs from spiraling out of control without a mandate.
It's up for debate whether the individual mandate is really needed to prevent a "spiral of higher costs," but that's not the primary issue at hand: Rather, the question before the court is what Congress intended.
"The court standard for severability is, 'Would Congress have passed the [health care law] without the mandate?" Robert Alt, a senior legal fellow for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Hotsheet. "Does [the law] operate in the manner consistent with Congress' intent [without it]?"
Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler argued that clearly there are parts of the law that can work without the mandate -- including provisions already in place, like the rule allowing children up to 26 years old to stay on their parents' health insurance plans.
Arguing for the other side, attorney Paul Clement said, "You can't possibly think that Congress would have passed that hollow shell without the heart of the Act."
Scenes from the Supreme Court health care hearings
Popular in Politics
- FBI director acknowledges domestic drone use
- Obama and Berlin: Faded echoes meet new realities
- Obama on NSA programs: Americans "not getting the complete story" 258 Comments
- Smooth, on-time Obamacare rollout no sure thing: GAO
- House Republicans pass 20-week limit on abortions 389 Comments
- Senators: U.S. must take "more decisive" military action in Syria
- Obama renews push for a nuclear disarmament legacy
- GOP Sen. Murkowski backs same-sex marriage
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Right now the average person can work every day of their life and be a totally responsible citizen.
But STILL be unable to pay once ONE disaster hits their family.
Most of us don't have more hundreds of thousands of dollars just lying around.
The Insurance Companies are in control of our health decisions - and that's wrong - we and our doctors should have that control.
If you can show me a way to get rid of ALL insurance companies and bring health care back in reach of the average working American - I'll say you might have a better idea.
-------------
LOL! Why do YOU keep coming back to it? ; )
Mortar. You claim to be all for babies when we're discussing things like Abortion.
But what about when there's a baby born with a pre-existing condition? And the insurance company won't cover it. And the parents don't have the money......then what???
They'll die - because the hospital wouldn't treat them, because they didn't have MONEY.
As if the life of a child of a rich man is more important that the life of the child of a poor man.
I understand if you (and those on your side) do not think this is the best way to solve the problem.
I just wish they'd drop the accusations that we want something for nothing. That we want others to pay our way.
That's not what we after here.
Not anyone elses.
Again, Zann....what right do you have to force someone else to work for you and give you the fruits of their labor to pay for your medical procedure (I am not saying you need a medical procedure or cant pay for it...I am being rhetorical)?
----------------------
Very.
By now you know I PAY for my insurance! I pay for my healthcare! I have HAD to since I was 20, I couldn't afford to go without insurance ever! I've had to think twice about changing jobs because if I do I'll have to wait a year to be covered for a pre-existing condition. I've had to pay for the meds in Full out of my pocket for the entire year.
You try every time to switch it around like I want someone to pay for me!
WRONG!
I want others to pay their way!
I want everyone to get insurance so I'm not paying for them when I have to go to the hopspital.
I don't suppose you'll ever acknowledge that point!!!
But so is Life...Health - without them, Liberty isn't worth much is it? I mean when you're Dead...you really couldn't care less who won the political battles of America.
I know you are.
But the end result wont be what you wanted, Zann. That is guaranteed!
------------
We'll see.
And what's next after he gets re-elected and they've struck down the healthcare law? SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE!!!!!!!!!
OBAMA 2012 : )
So do I!!!
OBAMA 2012
BUT when the neighbors in America start looking at each other, One family wondering why in Hell another family would vote to take the healthcare that their "pre-existant condition child" needs away from them.......the battle lines will sadly be drawn.
Its okay though. Its about time this country decided whether it was for Life or Death. Health or War.
The merits of the law speak for themselves, and don't for one minute think that the ONLY thing the SCOTUS takes into consideration is what the lawyers argue before them.
The 1-hour verbal arguments is the theatre surrounding the cases that make it before the judges, it's the chance for history to record the words of our country's greatest orators... or not so great.