THCB

Conservative Supremes Can Overturn ACA With “All Deliberate Speed”

If conservative Supreme Court justices are determined to overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), then why not look to the Court’s famous ruling on school desegregation for what comes next? Couple the declaration that the signature legislative achievement of the nation’s first black president is unconstitutional with the enforcement urgency that followed Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

In other words, tell the federal government to dismantle the ACA with “all deliberate speed.” Given the history of how putatively law-and-order Southerners responded, that should give health reform breathing room until at least the middle of the 21st century.

There are similarities between Brown and the ACA case. Both are rooted in controversies over state versus federal power and both, coincidentally, involve Kansas. In Brown, it was the Topeka Board of Education that said the Constitution allowed it to maintain separate schools for whites and blacks. In the ACA, it’s the Kansas state attorney general who has joined with 25 others to say that the Constitution protects state from having to expand the Medicaid program for the poor.

Brown was a landmark ruling that initially prompted little concrete change. When civil rights advocates returned to the Supreme Court in 1955 seeking better enforcement, the Court set a standard of “all deliberate speed” that in effect winked at much deliberate disregard. It wasn’t until 1969, in Alexander vs. Holmes County Board of Education, that the Court ruled that desegregation had to proceed immediately.

Which is why school district land in Holmes County, Miss., was promptly sold to a private group for a nominal sum and quickly became, as in many other parts of the state, the site of a private academy. Jump forward another 40 years, when our son was in the Teach for America program in the county seat in Lexington: there were no white students in the high school and precisely one, tow-haired white child in the middle school.

Proponents of health reform can be inspired by this example. If conservative justices will adhere to the “all deliberate speed” precedent, states which have begun implementing Medicaid expansion, health insurance exchanges and other ACA provisions have at least 15 years to talk about formally unwinding them while figuring out some legal way not to undo them at all. In other states, federal money for health reform might have to be channeled through private sources. Perhaps “charter” hospitals and clinics and “private academy” medical schools?

Since we know that lack of access to health care leads to premature death and disability, this could also be positioned as a right-to-life issue. So, Catholic bishops, here’s the deal: we’ll drop the birth-control and abortion coverage, and you take responsibility for bringing affordable access to medical treatment to every American. With all deliberate speed, of course.

Michael Millenson is a Highland Park, IL-based consultant, a visiting scholar at the Kellogg School of Management and the author of “Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age. This post originally appeared in The Huffington Post.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

15
Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
timMatthew HoltBobbyGDr. MikeJohn R. Graham Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
tim
Guest
tim

Great stuff. I’d have to give it a 9.5.

You can’t be against killing a baby unless you agree to pay for the child’s health care forever. Oppose execution for Ted Bundy or shut up about dismembering a sleeping embryo. If you oppose Obamacare, you’re Jefferson Davis, or Bull Connor.

Signed,

the Party of tolerance and nuance and reason and gravitas.

(How did Hitler get left out of this analogy-fest? Correct that, and get a full 10. )

Maggie Mahar
Guest

Dr. Mike Every other developed country in the world provides comprehensive care for all of their citizens. If they have enough money to do it, we do too— as long as we stop over-paying for everything, and over-treating people. To say it can’t be done–or “we’re different” — reminds me of the argument before the Civil War that we just couldn’t afford to abolish slavery: the Southern economy depended on it. But England and most other countries had abolished slavery long before we did. They could afford to do it, and we could too. (Though of course a costly y… Read more »

Dr. Mike
Guest
Dr. Mike

Please correct me if I am ill informed, but I am not aware of a single country that provides universal health care via government purchase of private insurance for it’s citizens. There is no single model, but often the government owns some of the health care infrastructure and there is a tiered system of public/private options (like Australia). Many of the countries are experiencing their own set problems with their systems (which of course is unavoidable and does not negate the overall positive of each system) which are conveniently ignored by universal proponents over here. By far and away the… Read more »

John R. Graham
Guest

Please see Switzerland and The Netherlands, which I believe would fit the description of countries that “provide universal health care via government purchase of private insurance” although I wouldn’t quite put it that way.

Maggie Mahar
Guest

Michael, Matthew

I did realize that the suggestion about hte Catholic chuch was tottaly ironic, but was so intrirgued by the parallel to civil rights legislation (which was not ironic) that I didn’t qutie take in the fact that the title was also, obviouslyl, ironic.

Matthew– thanks for the link to the fuding for a federal exchange.
There are, in fact, ways that the federal govt can partner with states
to hep them set up Exchanges while using the funding that, in many cases, the states have already accepted.

Matthew Holt
Guest

John, given that the US government (including the Supreme Court) doesnt follow the law or the consitution on several matters (try the Drug “War”, undeclared wars in several countries, illegal wiretapping) and as Michael has pointed out, not bothering to enforce laws in favor of the poor and afflicted in education for several decades, why should it be troubled by petty inconsistencies in state exchanges.

Incidentally you may think PPACA doesnt set up a Federal exchange, but one beltway bandit (GCI) has already been awarded $93m to build it
http://www.cgi.com/en/CGI-selected-build-US-wide-competitive-health-insurance-exchange

Dr. Mike
Guest
Dr. Mike

Fact: We don’t have enough money to provide comprehensive health insurance to every American. Liberal: It doesn’t matter how much it costs, every American deserves health care Conservative: It absolutely matters how much it costs, so let the free market determine who gets health care. Both are right and both are wrong. And PPACA makes neither happy (if they are honest, which they are not) because it is both expensive and does not provide heatlh care to every American. PPACA sets the bar way too high – cadillac insurance plans that hardly anyone can afford without huge subsidies. We need… Read more »

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

Amen to this comment.

BobbyG
Guest

None of this is exactly news. See Elhuage, 1994, “Allocating Health Care Morally.”

“We need Universal major medical for all Americans, then lets debate and work out the best way of dealing with the rest.”

Agreed.

John R. Graham
Guest

I understand it’s satire but it makes no sense. Whether or not PPACA is overturned by SCOTUS, the federal government cannot implement exchanges in the absence of states’ collaboration for three reasons: One uncovered by me and two uncovered by Michael Cannon of Cato Institute. First, an insurer canot participate in an exchange unless licensed by the state. So, an anti-PPACA state can credibly threaten to pull the license of any carrier that participates in an exchange. Second, Sec. Sebelius has effectively unlimited money to grant states to establish exchanges but zero money to establish federal exchanges. Third, PPACA does… Read more »

Michael Millenson
Guest

Loath as I am to short-circuit the loathing (or support) this post may inspire, it is satire. Not ha-ha humor. Satire. As in: if law-and-order conservatives in favor of states’ rights managed to keep the law from being enforced for decades with civil rights, these same conservatives can’t possibly object if a Supreme Court rulling against the ACA (which is compassionate, as opposed to segregation, which is the opposite) gets fulfilled REALLY slowly. Note the suggestion to turn the whole thing over to the Catholic Church. You know, like “whites only” schools are religious. See, this is about hypocrisy. You… Read more »

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

That is the flaw, why should everyone HAVE to get insurance? Just as it is the flaw why everyone should be offered full court press care for any and all issues. Both parties these past 20 or so years are out of touch with the general public, and in the end it is the general public’s fault they have allowed this failed incumbent representation to stay in place. Mandates are not a democratic policy. You can argue otherwise until the cows come home to roost (sarcastic ha ha) but nothing good comes from telling everybody to do something. Here’s an… Read more »

Maggie Mahar
Guest

Michael– A very interesting post. Yes, I agree, this is very much like civil rights legislation in that the issue at hand is “equal rights”– i.e. does everyone have an equal right to comprehensive health care? Secondly, the passions run very high on each side, and conservative states would like to feel that they can buck the law. The difference is this: the ACA is very explicit: if the states do not set up Exchanges, the federal government can and will do it for them. (I don’t think this will take Federal Marshalls, as it did in the case of… Read more »

DeterminedMD
Guest
DeterminedMD

Wow, and that is all I feel I can write here after being asked to tone it down by the authors of THCB. Posts like this do evoke passion and rebuttal.

Really, drawing similarities to racism with health care legislation, is the desperation of the Left getting this intense?

steve
Guest
steve

There is a huge difference between trying to take down an existing system and implementing a new one. If the ACA is overturned, it will be easy to stop implementation.

Steve