How health care case will unfold before the court

[jaxx]

How health care case will unfold before the court
Mar 24, 7:11 AM (ET)
By JESSE J. HOLLAND


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments on Monday over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively labeled "Obamacare" by its opponents. A look at how the case will unfold before the court in question-and-answer form:

Q: What's this all about?

A: The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is Obama's signature domestic achievement. Passed by Congress in 2010, its aim is to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans, while trying to restrain costs and prevent disruptions to the majority already with coverage. Opponents say the law is unconstitutional; their chief argument is that Congress does not have the power to force unwilling Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine.

<..> A: The court could decide any time, but complex cases argued in the spring normally produce decisions near the end of the court's session, scheduled for late June.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/2012032...QNR80.html

Some good Q&A on how this will unfold in court. Too bad they don't allow cameras in the court room, but it does say that an audio transcript will be posted each day.

[pappy]

It was pointed out yesterday that the court must first decide if the Court can even hear the case against the mandatory insurance portion of the law now.

Apparently the precedent is that tax law matters cannot be heard until or if the tax in question is actually applied and then challenged. In other words no one as yet has standing to challenge the tax penalty since it has not even gone into effect or been used and tax policy cannot be preemptively challenged.

[jaxx]

(03-24-2012 06:05 AM)pappy Wrote:  It was pointed out yesterday that the court must first decide if the Court can even hear the case against the mandatory insurance portion of the law now.

Apparently the precedent is that tax law matters cannot be heard until or if the tax in question is actually applied and then challenged. In other words no one as yet has standing to challenge the tax penalty since it has not even gone into effect or been used and tax policy cannot be preemptively challenged.

Thanks for that info pappy. I'd love it if they had to wait 2 more years, while more opens for the people.

[pappy]

(03-24-2012 06:20 AM)jaxx Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 06:05 AM)pappy Wrote:  It was pointed out yesterday that the court must first decide if the Court can even hear the case against the mandatory insurance portion of the law now.

Apparently the precedent is that tax law matters cannot be heard until or if the tax in question is actually applied and then challenged. In other words no one as yet has standing to challenge the tax penalty since it has not even gone into effect or been used and tax policy cannot be preemptively challenged.

Thanks for that info pappy. I'd love it if they had to wait 2 more years, while more opens for the people.

I think there are other aspects of the ACA being challenged concurrently with the mandate so while the mandate question may have to wait if other challenges succeed then the mandate argument could well be made moot.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-24-2012 06:26 AM)pappy Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 06:20 AM)jaxx Wrote:  Thanks for that info pappy. I'd love it if they had to wait 2 more years, while more opens for the people.

I think there are other aspects of the ACA being challenged concurrently with the mandate so while the mandate question may have to wait if other challenges succeed then the mandate argument could well be made moot.

I honestly didn't think there was any significant challenge to the law beyond the personal mandate. I wonder what challenges those would be and what the significance is of the additional challenges? The way I heard it described was that if they could not challenge the mandate, it was essentially game over for now.

[pappy]

(03-24-2012 06:53 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 06:26 AM)pappy Wrote:  I think there are other aspects of the ACA being challenged concurrently with the mandate so while the mandate question may have to wait if other challenges succeed then the mandate argument could well be made moot.

I honestly didn't think there was any significant challenge to the law beyond the personal mandate. I wonder what challenges those would be and what the significance is of the additional challenges? The way I heard it described was that if they could not challenge the mandate, it was essentially game over for now.

Quoting from an AP story:

Quote:Q: When will the court get started?

A: Justices will begin hearing arguments shortly after 10 a.m. EDT Monday, March 26. They will hear six hours of arguments on several different issues on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Q: Which issues on which days?


A: Monday's 90-minute argument is about whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not having health insurance.

Tuesday's two-hour argument will cover the central issue of whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-24-2012 10:14 AM)pappy Wrote:  

(03-24-2012 06:53 AM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  I honestly didn't think there was any significant challenge to the law beyond the personal mandate. I wonder what challenges those would be and what the significance is of the additional challenges? The way I heard it described was that if they could not challenge the mandate, it was essentially game over for now.

Quoting from an AP story:

Quote:Q: When will the court get started?

A: Justices will begin hearing arguments shortly after 10 a.m. EDT Monday, March 26. They will hear six hours of arguments on several different issues on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

Q: Which issues on which days?


A: Monday's 90-minute argument is about whether court action is premature because no one yet has paid a fine for not having health insurance.

Tuesday's two-hour argument will cover the central issue of whether Congress overstepped its authority by requiring Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

Wednesday's arguments will be split into two parts: Justices will hear 90 minutes of debate in the morning over whether the rest of the law can take effect even if the health insurance mandate is unconstitutional and another hour Wednesday afternoon over whether the law goes too far in coercing states to expand the federal-state Medicaid program for low-income people by threatening to cut off federal aid to states that don't comply.

Seems the bulk of this case revolves around the personal mandate. In addition, the last argument that isn't strictly related to the mandate is ludicrous IMO.

[sandnsea]

The most dangerous part of this case is the Medicaid expansion. If we can't help more low income adults get health care, then the entire program will be in jeopardy. We've got to get people healthy to bring costs down.

If they decide the feds can't "coerce" states to apply various laws based on the money the state gets, it could affect a ton of programs, from speed limits to school gun free zones to community water regulations and on and on.

Very important case.