The New York Times continues to use its opinion pages to lay out a legal case for protecting Health Care Reform. How different is mandated health insurance from the Medicare checkoff on our pay stubs every week?
Will politicized anti-Obama justices listen to reason and solid arguments? Doubtful, but perhaps Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing voter, will.
[We note that justices Scalia and Thomas, deeply in the political bag, were feted at an anti-health care bill dinner the same day the Supremes decided to take on the case—where is the outrage?]
Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge was a perfect OP-Ed choice to say that the pending Supreme Court decision on health care has precedents and should be clear-cut. Elhauge is the founding director of the Petrie-Flom Center in Health Law Policy.
“The crux of the constitutional complaint against the mandate is that Congress’s ability to regulate commerce has never been understood to give it the power to force Americans to buy insurance, or anything else. But not only is there a precedent for this, there is also clear support for it in the Constitution. For decades, Americans have been subject to a mandate to buy a health insurance plan — Medicare. Check your paystub, and you will see where your contributions have been deducted, whether or not you wanted Medicare health insurance.”