Democrats are so desperate to torpedo Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court that they’re resorting to scare tactics, telling Americans that his confirmation would put 130 million people at risk of losing their health insurance.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says Democrats can sink Kavanaugh by showing how his appointment will lead to a court majority that “repeals ACA with its protections for pre-existing conditions.” It’s demagoguery. And it’s working, as demagoguery too often does. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a frequent Trump opponent, is already moaning that the SCOTUS appointment will determine if “West Virginians with pre-existing conditions will lose their health care.”
Not true. Even if the Supreme Court does strike down the Affordable Care Act someday, the era of insurance companies turning down applicants with health problems is over. Across the country, Republican and Democratic state lawmakers agree on that. They are busy devising smarter ways to protect people with pre-existing conditions and keep insurance affordable, with or without Obamacare. Not one of these plans throws people with health problems under the bus. Democrats’ rhetoric about losing coverage for pre-existing conditions is hysteria… Read More at Boston Herald
A pro-ObamaCare group has launched the first television ad focused on health care in the fight over the next Supreme Court justice.
The Protect Our Care ad tells viewers that President Trump could nominate a Supreme Court justice who opposes ObamaCare — specifically its protections for those with pre-existing conditions, like diabetes and asthma.
“This is an emergency,” the narrator says. “Trump and Mitch McConnell have a plan to install a Supreme Court justice who will overturn those protections,” the ad continues, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
The ad refers to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general against the Trump administration targeting ObamaCare, arguing Congress’s recent repeal of the individual mandate to have health insurance makes the whole law unconstitutional. Read More at The Hill
If recent polling is any indication, the U.S. Supreme Court may not rank especially high in the trust and fairness departments, at least when it comes to its anticipated (June, 2015) ruling in King v. Burwell.
According to a recent report in the New York Daily News (online, May 11) which cites an Associated Press-GfK poll, “. . . 44 percent prefer that Congress leave the law as is and let states decide whether they want to create insurance exchanges that would allow their residents to receive subsidies.”
For its part the Obama White House says that many of their Affordable Care Act adversaries just simply misinterpret Obamacare, by honing in on very small portion(s) of it. Here too, perception, and that perception as enumerated in polling numbers may be of significance – especially as they relate to the High Court’s trustworthiness. The New York Daily News explains further, “In a twist, the poll found that opponents of the law, who tend to be politically conservative, have less confidence in the objectivity of a court with a conservative majority. Among foes, 60 percent are not confident, compared with 44 percent of the law’s supporters.”
And as to the now well-publicized Obamacare federal subsidies, the New York Daily News adds, “Regardless of how the public feels about the court’s internal deliberations, a majority wants the justices to allow subsidies to continue flowing in all 50 states, an opinion in line with the administration’s position.”
Tom Coburn, U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, who is also a physician, expresses concern in a new Wall Street Journal article (online, Dec. 3). Currently, the Senator frets over what he and co-author physician, Phil Roe, see as an outright dangerous provision of the Affordable Care Act. Chiefly, the (IPAB) Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Coburn and Roe contend, “This is why, on Thursday, several members of the House will file an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Coons v. Lew. This lawsuit, filed by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, and Nick Coons, an Arizona businessman, challenges the constitutionality of IPAB.”
Additionally, in their WSJ article, Sen. Coburn and Dr. Roe claim the IPAB can actually regulate expenditures, ”by lowering physician reimbursements — thus driving more doctors away from treating Medicare patients — or by reducing the services eligible for reimbursement. Coburn and Rose describe this as “rationing care.”
Also, according to the WSJ report, “Groups as varied in their missions and beliefs as the American Medical Association, Easter Seals, National Right to Life, Vietnam Veterans of America and the Children’s Rare Disease Network are among the hundreds that have called for IPAB’s repeal.”
Perhaps sooner rather than later, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the case of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties.
The two family owned and operated businesses have challenged an Affordable Care act directive mandating that employers provide abortion and birth-control related drugs and/or treatments. Conestoga and Hobby Lobby are not alone in fighting this Obamacare provision and 49 others have joined the cause. These businesses now await a decision from the highest court in the land which determines whether they get to run their companies in ways aligned with their respective Christian faiths.
In 35 other such lawsuits, courts have issued injunctions denying the federal government mandate enforcement powers for this issue.
Hobby Lobby update. As of Tuesday, March 25, 2014 , the U.S. Supreme Court appeared split over the issue of the Obamacare birth control mandate – requiring employers to provide contraception coverage to their workers – through health plans. Until a final decision is reached, a crucial part of the Affordable Care Act remains unresolved. Reportedly, the court’s more liberal justices quickly offered defense to the administration’s positions. Justice Antonin Scalia, almost predictably, took an opposing view: “There is not a single case that says a for profit corporation can’t make a free religion claim.”
On Tuesday, protesters felt so strongly about their positions they braved 32 degree temperatures outside the U.S. Supreme Court building to have their voices heard.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear another case about the First Amendment. This time as it relates to religious freedom – and religion-based choices. Arts and crafts industry leader Hobby Lobby is challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide extensive coverage for contraceptives – like IUDs and morning after pills. Four years ago the court was asked to rule on free speech in relation to campaign contributions. A widely disputed ruling by the justices held that private corporations had free speech rights in election campaigns. Now the Court is being asked to decide whether private-sector entities companies can be granted religious liberties. Hobby Lobby is made up of some 500 plus stores owned by the Green family. The Greens are Evangelical Christians who contend contraceptive requirements inherent in Obamacare violate guarantees of religious freedom to which they are entitled. Some contraception devices can end human life after conception, so says the Green Family, and thus forcing them to fund such devices makes them accessories to abortions. Obama Administration advisors are fighting back. Their argument: there is no legal precedent for a private enterprise winning a right, based upon religious beliefs, to be exempted from laws which govern for profit corporations. The lawsuits seek remedies potentially based not just on the 1st Amendment, but also on a 1993 congressional act strengthening religious freedom. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of that year states: “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion,” except to further a “compelling” interest.
In addition to Hobby Lobby, about 50 other for-profit companies of varying sizes are in litigation to obtain a religious exemption from the contraceptives rule.