Supreme Court ruling means mom's life or death

hc

A California mother of two in the crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court defending President Obama's health care reform law says she would not be alive today were it not for the Affordable Health Care Act.

S.D. Ward, in an impromptu press conference on the steps of the Court, said the health care reform law is the reason she is now getting treated for her stage-three breast cancer.

This morning the justices inside began their third straight day of hearing arguments on the legal challenge from 26 Republican attorneys general to the Affordable Health Care Act.

Ward was uninsured when she was diagnosed last year. "If you have a pre-existing condition," she said. "There's no private health insurance company that's going to welcome you aboard and take care of you."

One of the provisions of the new health care law already in effect is the creation of a Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

"One of my friends discovered the plan," said Ward. "Ten days after applying I had health insurance and I am in treatment for stage-three breast cancer. Because President Obama signed the Affordable Health Care Act, I get to keep my house, I won't go bankrupt, my kids are going to go to college and I'm going to live."

Labor, its allies and a wide range of groups supporting health care reform are angry that the Supreme Court deliberations now underway will not weigh the problems faced by Ward and millions of others like her. They are also angry because many of them backed the Affordable health Care Act, rather than a single-payer "Medicare for all" plan in order to win support from Republicans who wanted to keep private health insurance companies involved in the delivery of health care in America. They are angry because those same Republicans have now turned against the individual mandate they once supported in order to kill health care reform altogether.

Yesterday potential Supreme Court swing voting justices, asked questions in the first hours of oral arguments that, by their skeptical nature, buoyed Republican opponents of reform. "Do you not have a heavy burden of justification," Justice Kennedy asked Solicitor General B. Verrilli Jr., "to show authorization under the Constitution?"

But later in the day Kennedy asked questions that made supporters of the law happier. He seemed to accept an argument critical to the Obama administration's case: that people who don't buy health insurance are still in the health-care market, because they will need care at some point. "They are in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for," Kennedy said. Prior to that some conservative justices had said that while Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce it di not have the power to create such commerce for the purpose of regulating it.

Some of the Republican-type partisanship coming from other conservative justices, however, led observers to believe that conservatives on the court, as was the case in the Citizens United ruling and in the ruling where they gave an election to George Bush over Al Gore, simply don't care how much they damage the reputation of the Court, as long as the Right Wing prevails.

"If the Affordable Care Act goes down - especially if it suffers the same schismatic 5-to-4 blow sustained by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case," wrote Politico today, "critics will accuse the Roberts Court of rigging the game and covering their power play with constitutional doublespeak. The case is also a critical test of Robert's role as the leader of his own court: In decades past, chief justices have labored mightily to secure something approaching consensus on major decisions."

Photo: Lisa Dowling rallies in front of the Supreme Court in Washington in support of the Affordable Health Care Act.   Charles Dharapak/AP

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.

Comments

  • Imagine if you will.... the next president a republican.
    The "swing" (not really in my opinion) vote will be overruled by a stacked court. Ruth Ginsberg will probably retire in the near future.... can you imagine?

    peace

    Posted by Gabriel Falsetta, 03/29/2012 4:55pm (2 years ago)

  • Wojcik states, "Labor, its allies and a wide range of groups supporting health care reform are angry that the Supreme Court deliberations now underway will not weigh the problems faced by Ward and millions of others like her. They are also angry because many of them backed the Affordable health Care Act, rather than a single-payer "Medicare for all" plan in order to win support from Republicans who wanted to keep private health insurance companies involved in the delivery of health care in America. They are angry because those same Republicans have now turned against the individual mandate they once supported in order to kill health care reform altogether."

    It sounds like another uncompromising "compromise" where a Repub profits before people system controlled by private health insurance companies still lurches on. Despite a little Obamacare tinkering, it's still business as usual: Prices continuing to rise, a mess of "options" to choose from using pretty language but amounting to bascially the same thing where "improvements" actually mean cutting back on care in a round-about fashion, i.e., people paying more for less for more profits for the industry and their political allies. And with healthcare still privatized, putting in a mandatory requirement makes it worse: You either buy the care or you'll be penalized.

    Healthcare is a basic right. There must be a one-payer system/public option where care is free and/or affordable.

    Posted by revolution123, 03/29/2012 3:36pm (2 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments