Jan 19 2012
The Hill reports that some supporters have recently shifted their tone about the health law challenges being "frivolous," acknowledging the Supreme Court wouldn't allow so much time for arguments if the justices viewed the issues as "a waste of time." Also, Politico explores the fate of the law's Medicaid expansion in the context of the court challenge, and CQ HealthBeat reports on the addition of plaintiffs and more amicus briefs.
The Hill: Court Angst For Left Over Health Care
Supporters of President Obama's healthcare reform have lost the high level of confidence they once displayed that the Supreme Court would throw out constitutional challenges to the law's individual mandate. Many liberals and some Democratic leaders initially waved off lawsuits challenging the law's individual mandate, saying the suits were "frivolous" political stunts. But that tone has shifted significantly since the Supreme Court devoted nearly six hours to arguments in the case - a modern record. That the high court would set aside so much time for the landmark case suggests that the justices certainly don't see the challenges as a waste of time (Baker, 1/18).
Politico: Supreme Court Holds Fate Of Medicaid
Legal experts say no one can predict what the high court will do - particularly because many were surprised that the Supreme Court agreed to consider the Medicaid portion of the big multistate challenge to President Barack Obama's health reform law in the first place (Feder, 1/17).
CQ HealthBeat: Two More Plaintiffs For Health Care Lawsuit, And A Defense By Congressional Democrats
Removing a possible obstacle to a decision on the health care law, the Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to add two more people as parties to a suit challenging the overhaul. Meanwhile, leading Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law filed a brief defending their landmark legislation to the high court. They said the legal challenge is little more than a partisan squabble (Norman, 1/17).
Fox News: Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs In Health Care Law Challenge
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the addition of two new business owners to a suit challenging the health care law that was in question because one of the original business owners attached to the case has gone bankrupt. Supporters of President Obama's health care law argued that her bankruptcy made Mary Brown ineligible to continue on as a plaintiff, suggesting the entire case could fall apart because of a lack of standing (Bream, 1/17).
In other news, Politico Pro reports on the status of an IPAB lawsuit -
Politico Pro: IPAB Lawsuit Put On Hold Until SCOTUS Rules
An Arizona district judge on Tuesday ordered that the only health care reform lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Independent Payment Advisory Board be put on hold until the Supreme Court takes up the case against the mandate. Judge G. Murray Snow issued the order after the federal government requested that the case be put on hold. Unlike most of the other health care reform lawsuits that were pending in lower courts, the plaintiffs in this case - the Goldwater Institute, Reps. Jeff Flake and Trent Franks, and former Rep. John Shadegg - protested putting the case on hold (Haberkorn, 1/17).
 This article was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
|
New national dataset maps how far Australians must drive to reach essential healthcare services