Approximately 60 percent of Americans believe that the Supreme Court justices who will hear the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will base their judgments more on personal ideology than a legal analysis of the individual mandate, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
Only 28 percent believe the justices will base their decision on the mandate without regard to politics and ideology. The poll also asked about general views of the Supreme Court and found that 75 percent of the public believe that justices sometimes let their personal politics sway their decisions. Seventeen percent said justices more often than not decide cases based on legal analysis. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in March in a case brought against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) by 26 states.
The Kaiser poll found that the individual mandate, a requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, remains unpopular — 67 percent of Americans opposed the provision and just 30 percent supported it. Overall, approximately 37 percent of Americans view the health law favorably, while 44 percent have an unfavorable view.
In terms of the “repeal and replace” agenda that House Republicans are pursuing, it’s not really winning over the public. According to the Kaiser poll, 50 percent of respondents would prefer to expand the law or keep it in place; just 40 percent want to repeal it outright or replace it with an alternative. That could be a problem, since House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts said that a “replace” plan is on the subcommittee’s to-do list, at approximately the same time that the Supreme Court is expected to rule. Pitts hopes that his caucus will be able to seize the opportunity to sway public opinion: “We’ll have a window of opportunity to — with everyone looking — to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet. A lot of people think it is. So we’ll use that opportunity in that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act and what we’ll replace it with.”
For example, Justice Elena Kagan (who was Solicitor General at the time the ACA was passed and has recused herself from the Supreme Court case) and noted Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who worked for the Justice Department at the time, had an email exchange in which they discussed the pending healthcare vote. “I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan wrote to Tribe in an email.
“So healthcare is basically done!” Tribe responded to Kagan. “Remarkable. And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!” The “Stupak group” refers to then-Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI), who masterminded a group of House Democrats who had indicated they would not vote for the ACA if it permitted federal funds to pay for abortions. Ultimately, Stupak and his allies voted for the bill, even though no additional language was added that would prevent federal funding for abortions.
Writing for KSL.com, contributor Curt Mainwaring muses on what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the ACA. “If the Supreme Court rules that ACA is constitutional, healthcare costs will likely continue to rise — although at a slower rate than if the law were determined to be unconstitutional. Healthcare costs currently make up approximately 18 percent of gross domestic product. If expenditures continue on their current trajectory, ‘the share of GDP devoted to healthcare in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040.’ In more intimate terms, the Department of Health and Human Services demonstrates individuals paid approximately $1,000 per year in healthcare costs in 1960, more than $7,000 per year in 2007, and are projected to pay more than $13,000 per year by 2018.
“Simply put, this kind of a rise in healthcare costs is unsustainable — and these kinds of projections are part of the reason ACA was created in the first place. Nevertheless, claims of ACA’s positive impact on the economy have likely been overestimated. ACA focuses heavily on reducing the cost of health insurance — a factor that will likely result in reduced insurance costs.”
Tags: Bias, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Elena Kagan, Gross domestic product, Harvard, healthcare reform, Ideology, Individual mandate, Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health News, Lawrence Tribe, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Politics, President Barack Obama, Representative Bart Stupak, Supreme Court, “Repeal and replace”