005: II — Trilogy

Given the intervention later yesterday it was clear that a break was called for. No politics, the contention. Difficult to avoid, I argued, since material to follow arose directly from the minds and majority decision of former US presidential appointees to the judiciary, that third bastion of US democracy. Whereupon silence, our group constituting this no ordinary meaning and specialist politics, as it were, trumping the vulgaré

So, today we continue in the second part regarding the Appeals Court decision which weighed into the constitutionality of health care overhaul by the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.

The Act, aiming to provide medical coverage for more than 30 million UNINSURED Americans, holds major impact for the health sector — health insurers, pharmaceuticals manufacturers, devices and hospitals

Given that Republicans have attacked it as a form of intrusive government power, it is likely to be a major issue through presidential and congressional elections in 2012.

Heard in the 6th Circuit's Cincinnati court, a 3 judge panel ruling separate opinions. Hence interest in unanimous or majority decisions and, given the particular nature of this panel, how much weight might go to the outcome.

The Appeal arising from a case brought by Thomas More Law Center in Michigan on the day the President signed it into law. Arguing that Congress could not regulate how Americans pay for healthcare services and insurance. A federal judge in Michigan upheld the law as legal and the Center appealed.

So..  upholding the Michigan court ruling President Carter's 1979 appointee, Judge Martin. Said by his opponents to be a liberal and anticipating Congress being able to order anything. In the event, this Judge wrote: "The activity of [forgoing] health insurance and attempting to cover the cost of health care needs by self-insurance is no less economic than the activity of purchasing an insurance plan."

Affirming the Michigan ruling.

Importantly, IMO, is how this provision aka the individual mandate brings the Affordable Care Act front and center America's concern. Person-2-patient responsibility presumed existent in respect of costs, as required, and  authorised by Congress.

At first I thought dissenting Judge Graham was addressing this very point of inaction or inactivity, with its overrun costs aspect. A President Reagan appointee(1986) and strong views about "runaway healthcare costs being a national problem" I'll admit to being disappointed when he switched to [ runaway costs ] "does not mean that Congress can try and solve them in any fashion it pleases".

Wants debt reduction or doesn't he!—mebbe he doesn't want President Obama's means to this end.?

Clearer: "If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be. What aspect of human activity would escape federal power?"**

Ah, that's it then, Conservative obsesses over powers, more makes for Big Govt. But what of the unconscious life-threatened guy in the middle of the road? Treat or don't treat?

Economic view, yes; macro no, surely? Be that as it may my double asterisk note above reveals in the next part Judge Graham as the wouldbe beacon for opponents.

Score: 1-1

Reuters - has coverage fyi tho not the great unmentioned(qv later)

Part 3: Surprises galore! Including the great unmentioned by those oh so objectivized opponents..