Dates set for Supreme Court health care reform arguments

[alp227]

The Supreme Court has carved out a week in late March to hold oral arguments in perhaps its biggest case in a decade -- the sweeping healthcare reform law championed by President Obama.

The court announced Monday it will hear 5½ hours of arguments spread over three days March 26-28.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA or ACA) was signed into law March 23, 2010, passed by a Democratic congressional majority with the support of the president. It has about 2700 pages and contains 450 some provisions.

A ruling from the court is expected by late June and regardless of the outcome, will become a major issue in a presidential election year.

full: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/justice/scotus-health-care-arguments/index.html

[pinto]

1. Story highlights (CNN sidebar) -

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

> Applicability of Anti-Injunction Act will be first question before justices, on March 26

> Provision requiring Americans to have health insurance will be the key argument

> Lawyers will argue whether rulings on mandate's constitutionality affect entire law

> States challenging law are saying it coerces them to expand Medicaid

[RC]

5. Single Payer, Universal Health care similar as the rest of the civilized world already has.

"Provision requiring Americans to have health insurance will be the key argument"

How about something good for the average American for a change we can believe in? I am still waiting.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. There's a lot for them to rule on --

I am most interested in the mandate -- I have never agreed with it and hope that it is stricken down.

[savalez]

3. Yeah, especially for those immortal humans

who will never get sick or hurt.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. My opposition is to a mandate that Americans --

purchase a product from a private company. I think that is vastly different than mandating participation in a government health care system such as Medicare.

[savalez]

7. Do you mean mandating participation

in a government health care system for free, or at a cost?

[kenfrequed]

6. were there a public option

This would have been moot. We would not need a mandated private system which is basically a give-away to the very profiteering private insurance system that is part of the problem of excess healthcare costs in the first place.

The supremes will not decide agaisnt this as it benefits corporations too much.

[savalez]

8. if there were

a public option, do you feel it would then be okay to mandate that you buy it?

[kenfrequed]

9. Yes.

I think that if it were a government program it could be taken out of your taxes like social security is. So I think it would be acceptable.

There would be an opt out if you had private insurance that you preferred.

[primavera]

10. Precisely

Basic health care is an essential element of the right to live, which should be the most basic right of all. Sure, certain medical services like plastic surgery one can live without and are appropriately excluded from "basic care," but many other medical services one literally cannot live without. Health care thus shouldn't be a service one purchases like a normal consumer, where those who can afford it get to have it, while others less fortunate simply do without. No one should have to give up their life simply because they aren't rich enough to go on living. The only way to ensure that everyone receives that essential care is to cover its costs through taxes which are - or at least should be - progressive, based upon how much you earn. If you earn nothing, you pay no taxes, but still get to enjoy those most basic and essential services, and the cost of those services is redistributed broadly amongst the remaining majority of the population that can afford to maintain those services. So yeah, everyone has to "purchase" the service, so to speak, but on a sliding scale based upon ability to pay and, even if you can't afford to pay anything at all, you will still receive that basic level of service.

[kenfrequed]

11. Indeed

And again, no government program should be propping up a for-profit enterprise that is not providing direct care. Insurance companies are profiteering middle-men that exist merely to extort cream from the system.

[savalez]

12. Let's say that it was not tacked onto your income as a tax.

What if you had to pay the monthly premium out of pocket? For example, if you had to pay $130/month out of pocket, and it was a government program, would you be for it?

[kenfrequed]

13. Lets say that all of your taxes were itemized

What if missles, bombers, and oil subsidies were all were itemized on your check as outgoing expenses.

Really, the public option is the next best possibility to single payer universal.

[zipplewrath]

14. Yeah, I don't really know how to bet here.

I'm afraid that if they stike down the mandate, they'll strike it all down.

I do wonder though, if they do strike it all down, what the congressional reaction would be. Costs will rise for the federal government, so there will be some incentive to take action. Several of the features of the bill are popular, including the shrinking donut hole, and the provision for 26 year olds. And alot of companies that have started providing health insurance may stop, if the incentives end. That makes for a long string of News stories.

But what we could get is the republic replacement for many of these features (or more accurately a MORE republican replacement). There could be a HUGE effort to privatize much of this, and medicaid/care. And they could spin the decision into "single payer/socialized medicine/government run health care is unconstititutional!!!!".

I wouldn't mind them striking down the mandate, but I don't see them ONLY striking down the mandate.

[pampango]

15. 5 1/2 hours of argument are believed to be the most time devoted to a single case since the 1960's.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-healthcare-20111220,0,7552715.story

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear arguments over three days in late March to decide the constitutionality of President Obama's healthcare law, another sign the justices see the case as a once-in-a-generation test of the federal government's regulatory power. The 5 1/2 hours of argument are believed to be the most time devoted to a single case since the 1960s.

On Monday, March 26, the court will consider an issue that could derail a decision for now. A 19th century law known as the Anti-Injunction Act forbids judges from striking down taxes until the taxpayer has paid the tax and then sought a refund. Under the healthcare law, a citizen who has no health insurance in 2014 would have to pay a "penalty" on his or her tax form that is due in April 2015. If this penalty is deemed a "tax," the Anti-Injunction Act says no judge could rule on it until 2015.

On March 27, the court will devote two hours of argument to what has been the main issue: Is the mandate that each individual have insurance a valid regulation of the health insurance market, or is it an unconstitutional burden on people who do not want to buy insurance?

On March 28, the court will spend 90 minutes debating a question that arises if the mandate is declared unconstitutional. Must the entire statute fall if this one provision is struck down, or can it be "severed" so the rest of the law can stand?