In arguably the most anticipated U.S. Supreme Court ruling since Bush v. Gore determined the winner of the Presidency in 2000, the Affordable Care Act was ruled constitutional this morning on a 5-4 vote. Here’s a link to the 193-page opinion in its entirety.
U.S. Supreme Court Building
Not surprisingly, my email box and those of journalists statewide have exploded with reactions.
From Gov. Scott Walker:
“I continue to oppose ObamaCare.
One of my first acts as Governor was to authorize Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to add Wisconsin to the federal lawsuit opposing ObamaCare.
Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare. I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level.
If there is no political remedy from Washington and the law moves forward, it would require the majority of people in Wisconsin to pay more money for less healthcare. Additionally, it would increase the size and cost of government, decrease the quality of healthcare and, in our state, reduce access for those truly in need of assistance.
The federal government should not tell individuals and families what to do with healthcare. The alternative is more transparency and a more active role by consumers, so we can truly control costs.”
From the Wisconsin Hospital Association:
“Health reform is already well underway in Wisconsin, and our journey down this path will continue, and would have continued, regardless of how the Court ruled today,” said WHA President Steve Brenton. “Health care leaders have been reforming care in our state to improve quality, moderate costs, expand access and raise the value of health care in Wisconsin.”
For example, Wisconsin providers are already developing new systems of care that improve quality and reduce cost. Hospitals here are working with insurers to develop new payment models in health care, moving away from volume-driven, unit pricing toward outcomes/total cost of care. In fact, health systems, insurers and physicians are actively involved in the Wisconsin Partnership for Healthcare Payment Reform that is moving away from fee-for-service payments in favor of bundled payments that are tied to outcomes. A focus on performance-based outcomes where payment metrics are tied to outcomes is the better way to go, especially for Wisconsin.
“Our commitment to improving health care quality, access and value continues forward,” Brenton said. “Few other states are as well positioned to succeed, if not thrive, in the emerging reform dynamic—a strength WHA believes can be transformed into a competitive advantage for Wisconsin.”
From the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families:
The decision paves the way for further progress toward making sure all Wisconsin children have access to the quality, affordable health care they need to grow and thrive.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling is great news for everyone in Wisconsin,” said Ken Taylor, executive director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. “Many Wisconsinites have been benefiting from the parts of health care reform already in effect. This decision will allow thousands more to benefit from a health care system that is fairer and more responsive to the needs of health care consumers.”
From Americans for Prosperity - Wisconsin State Director Luke Hilgemann:
“We are disappointed with today’s ruling by the Supreme Court but undeterred. Americans want real health care reform that gives them control not unelected bureaucrats in Washington. The President’s plan is unaffordable and continues our nation down the path of debt and deficit. Our activists are dedicated to the full repeal of this law and will continue to work to have their voices heard on this matter. The grassroots will succeed where the Supreme Court failed and they will help us bring true reform. Today is the end of nothing, the fight to take back our country starts now.”
From Robert Kraig, Executive Director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin:
“This historic ruling is a major step towards establishing the freedom of every American to make their own health care decisions. We are one step closer to every American having the peace of mind of knowing that health care will be there when they need it. The court’s decision is a particular relief to nearly one million Wisconsinites who have preexisting conditions who will face outrageous discrimination if they ever have to buy insurance on their own. Now that a conservative Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the health care law, we believe that Governor Walker has a moral obligation to restart the implementation process here in Wisconsin. We call on Walker to stop playing politics with people’s lives.”
RACE TO BE FIRST
There’s been an on-going race to become faster in the two-plus decades that I’ve worked in the media. Get the information to your consumers before anyone else and thus, somehow cement in their minds, you are the only source they should turn to for the news and information. The access to technology has allowed the sprint to occur and thrive.
The problem has been that people are in charge of that technology and at the end of the day, it’s the content they’re sharing through the various platforms that matters most.
Case in point, both CNN and Fox News this morning apparently read the first page of the high court’s decision on health care and decided that was enough information for them to blast the news out to their consumers that the law had been struck down. That’s because in the majority decision the first page talks about how the law would be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but subsequent pages describe its constitutionality as a tax.
Oops. Nothing says ruined credibility like missing on the most important story of the year. Don’t you think they could have waited a couple minutes and their listeners, readers, viewers would have been ok?
For politicians, who tweeted the information only to delete the tweets, there’s a great new website from the non-profit Sunlight Foundation called Politiwoops that’s collects all political tweets that end up getting deleted. Kind of funny, in a warped sort of way.
HISTORY OF U.S. SUPREME COURT
The nation’s highest court has had a history of determining many policies throughout its history. If you’ve followed the debate over the Affordable Care Act, you heard a lot of folks talk about what the Founding Fathers, or the authors of the Constitution, would have wanted or how they viewed the role of the judiciary.
It’s worth going to the Supreme Court’s website for its description of its history. I found this passage particularly applicable today.
The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
For an online link to the litany of important decisions to come from the Court through the years, feel free to re-take high school civics by visiting this site and remembering all over, why you had to learn about Marbury v. Madison, Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and so many more.
.
