Briefs and Amicus Briefs in the Health Care case before the Supreme Court
If there was any doubt about how leftwing NY Times reporter Linda Greenhouse is, you can read her piece in today's online edition.
Journalistic convention requires that when there are two identifiable sides to a story, each side gets its say, in neutral fashion, without the writer’s thumb on the scale. This rule presents a challenge when one side of a controversy obviously lacks merit. But mainstream journalism has learned to navigate those challenges, choosing evolution over “intelligent design,” for example, and treating climate change naysayers as cranks. . . .
Greenhouse accepts the government claims regarding the costs of uncompensated care unquestioningly. But there are some acknowledged problems with those numbers. See here:
Those economists have now acknowledged that their analysis suffered from serious methodological errors. Economists Amicus Br. 15 n.10, 23a n.1; see Gov’t Severability Br. 53-54; Economic Scholars Amicus Br. 28-33. Independent economic modeling shows that repealing the minimum coverage provision “would mean $20 billion more in uncompensated care provided to the uninsured.” Matthew Buettgens & Caitlin Carroll, Eliminating the Individual Mandate: Effects on Premiums, Coverage, and Uncompensated Care 5 (2012).
She claims that the constitutional arguments against the mandate are "frivolous," and she cites the famous New Deal case of Wickard v. Filburn, a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, and United States v. Comstock -- cases cited extensively by the Obama administration. Greenhouse does nothing more than repeat the Obama administration's arguments and doesn't respond to what the states note about those cases.
Another perspective by Peter Johnson is offered here.