SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill
 

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court concluded a marathon public debate on health care Wednesday with justices signaling an ideological divide that could topple some or all of the the sweeping reform bill championed by President Barack Obama.

On the third day of oral arguments on legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the justices tackled the question of what would happen if they ruled that the heart of the law, the individual mandate that is its key funding mechanism, was unconstitutional.

The six hours of hearings over three days provided an extended public view of the high court in action on one of the most controversial issues of the day, touching on legal concepts involving federal and state powers, individual rights and legislative intent.

At stake is the survival of the signature legislation of Obama's presidency as he seeks re-election in November: the health care reform law that requires most Americans to have health coverage as part of a systemic overhaul intended to lower costs.

At issue Wednesday morning was whether all the law's 450 or so provisions would have to be scrapped if the individual mandate were found unconstitutional.

A separate session Wednesday afternoon looked at whether states would be "coerced" by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration by the risk of losing federal funding if they refuse.

To CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the questioning by justices Wednesday signaled they are ready to invalidate the individual mandate, a step he said could put the entire law in jeopardy.

"I think the individual mandate is gone, based on the questioning," Toobin said after the morning session. "It sure looks like there are at least five votes to get rid of ... the individual mandate."

link

What would you keep or get rid of?

Is it possible for the health care reform bill to go into effect without the individual mandate, like an alternative to the individual mandate that may be more constitutionally sound?

It would bankrupt the insurance companies.

Any insurance depends on a large pool of both high and low risk customers. If you didn't have to have insurance, but could buy it at any time if you needed it, then people would only buy it when they needed it and the risk pool would be skewed. It's like saying that you don't need auto insurance or home owners insurance unless you have an accident or disaster and can buy it at that time to cover the damage that has been done already.

The "conservative" position requires legislation from the bench. Essentially stating that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, except now the government's power will be limited by some unseen principle which says that citizens can't be forced to participate in commerce. Doncha love how the Constitution becomes a living/breathing document when it helps to meet our political ends and that we must look to the founders' intent otherwise?

I suspect we don't agree on much politically, but this ^^^ I agree with 100 percent.

ACA will be ruled unconstititutional because of the individual mandate, primarly because of the poor, poor staff work of the presdiden't people. Taken together, ACA has 47 percent approval. But when you separate out and poll ACA's individual elements, (i.e., allowing kids to stay on longer, pre-existing coverage, they have high 60+, 70+ plus approval)

The president allowed his opponents to define the issue (death panels, etc...) and his signature domestic accomplishment may be overturned because of it.

What that does to the general election is another matter, but with a more aggressive political campaign to inform and explain, I don't think we're on the verge of a 5-4 reversal, which is what's likely.

*bump* Because the decision is being announced today. Having worked in health care my entire career and now for an insurance company, I admit I'm quite worried about what a reversal would mean. We have been in a hiring freeze for over a month in anticipation of having to redeploy people in our National Health Reform division into other positions in the company. This day could be financially devastating for us and for the health care industry as a whole. I don't think people understand just how fragile our health care system truly is or how badly we need PPACA.

I'm in tears, I'm so happy, and so surprised.

Whew! I'm so thrilled at this news! While the Affordable Care Act is not perfect, I believe that it's a step closer to ensuring all Americans are covered, which should be a humanitarian and economic goal for all of us. I know that the individual mandate is controversial, but I see it as both a matter of personal responsibility and a realistic way to lower health insurance premiums for everyone.

As many people have already pointed out, folks without health insurance still get care when they need it - in the form of Emergency Room visits that are ultimately paid by the rest of us anyway.

Ditto! Especially the surprised part. And our health care reform division is breathing easier too. We are a humane and compassionate country after all.

Question for smarter people than me: just saw a conservative ad complaining that health care reform has already negatively impacted doctors and their patients and all. Obviously the ad had bias, but, I was under the impression that this bill won't go into effect for some time now- were there other health care changes that have already gone into effect, or was that commercial just completely wrong?

Some parts of it have already. I believe the pre-existing conditions part, maybe, and definitely the carrying dependents until they're 26. It was a staggered rollout of the bill, I believe the individual mandate kicks in in 2013 or 2014 but I can't remember now. It's a big law.

That makes sense, thank you

Some parts are in effect. Parents can insure their children up to age 26, insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge more for premiums due to prior health history. Those are all part of that law.

I am making my comment (example) without actually knowing all the minute details of what is required to be considered 'insurance' per this mandate (like auto insurance that require certain minimum coverages?). I had 'insurance' a few years ago when I fell and hit my head on the floor. bruised my brain and knocked my spinal fluid production and absorption out of whack until it affected my vision (turns out I had 4x the normal level). Well, had to see specialists and all that with head MRIs. Turns out my 'insurance' only covered $100 of the office visit, $100 of the spinal tap, and $100 of the MRI - basically $300 of an approx. $6000 bill - which I'm still paying on 5 years later!

Personally, there needs to be tort reform before mandating everyone has to have insurance (or concurrent reforms/mandates). The insurance industry is even more 'broken' and not much is being done other than to make everyone buy their product of pay a tax penalty. . . . (The ENTIRE healthcare system is disfunctional!)