In a “Health Law Hearings Wrap Up” this morning on KQED’s Forum, I perked up when the guests got going on how much to read into the justices’ questions. These are not the first legal experts to focus on Justice Kennedy, the perceived swing vote, who asked many tough questions of the attorney defending the government’s position on the constitutionality of the health care law.
But Vikram Amar, professor at the UC Davis School of Law urged caution in trying to analyze the questions too closely. “Justice Kennedy at some points in the past asked very tough questions of the government and ended up not striking down the law in question,” he said. Continue reading →
The Supreme Court’s historic hearings of the Affordable Care Act have wrapped up. The Court addressed four issues over the last three days and held a total of six hours of oral arguments.
Below is complete audio and transcripts from each set of arguments.
First, the court heard arguments about whether it can even consider the case now. Under the new law, the first penalties would be assessed in 2015 for those who do not purchase health insurance. An arcane 1867 law says people can’t sue over a tax until they pay a tax. Must the court wait until 2015 to decide whether the health law is constitutional?
You can listen to the 90 minutes of oral arguments here:
Or read on for the complete transcript as well as audio and transcripts from the other arguments: Continue reading →
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the justices making the occasional joke today. (Courtesy: U.S. Supreme Court)
It was the hottest ticket inside the Beltway–the Supreme Court’s hearings on the federal health care law. Kaiser Health News reporter Phil Galewitz was determined to get in, but didn’t have a press pass (and no member of Congress gave him one, either). Instead–just by standing in line–he got in.
There were two sets of arguments today. For the earlier arguments, Galewitz only snagged a “three-minute pass” then parlayed it into a full six minutes. But for the second hearing about the Medicaid expansion, he got a special “gray” ticket for the full, one-hour session.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it could throw out other key parts of the Affordable Care Act if it first finds the individual insurance requirement unconstitutional.
On the third and last day of arguments, the justices appeared to accept the administration’s argument that at least two important insurance changes are so closely tied to the insurance requirement that they could not survive without it. Those two changes are the popular provisions that both require insurers to offer insurance to applicants with pre-existing conditions and also requires insurers to charge the same rates to people who are roughly the same age, regardless of their health.
Those changes should go, the Obama Administration argued, because without the individual mandate, people might wait until they’re sick before they signed up for coverage. Not enough people would be in the health insurance pool to spread risk. Ruin could come to the insurance market.
In short the Court faces three scenarios if it strikes down the individual mandate: Continue reading →
The Supreme Court heard two sets of oral arguments today in its final day of considering the health care overhaul. The second arguments were extended and wrapped up about an hour ago. In that session, the Court addressed the question:
Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?
Remember that Medicaid is the health care plan for the poor and disabled that is run by individual states with both state and federal dollars. The Affordable Care Act expands those eligible for Medicaid to adults earning 133 percent of the federal poverty level. But in order for states to continue receiving any federal money for Medicaid, the ACA requires them to comply with this expansion. Twenty-six states have challenged this requirement saying that withholding all monies for Medicaid is coercive and therefore unconstitutional. Those states which support the expansion–including California–say that Congress can constitutionally attach such conditions under what’s known as the “Spending Clause.”
You can listen to the complete oral arguments about Medicaid expansion here:
Or read on for the complete transcript … and for audio/transcripts of all the Court’s earlier sessions: Continue reading →
The constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is also before the Court today.
(Image: Kaiser Health News)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The heart of the Obama administration’s health care overhaul hanging in the balance, the Supreme Court is turning to whether the rest of the law can survive if the crucial individual insurance requirement is struck down.
The justices also will spend part of Wednesday, the last of three days of arguments over the health law, considering a challenge by 26 states to the expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income Americans, an important feature toward the overall goal of extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people.
The first two days of fast-paced and extended arguments have shown that the conservative justices have serious questions about Congress’ authority to require virtually every American to carry insurance or pay a penalty. Continue reading →
Inside the Supreme Court building this week, the nation’s highest court is hearing oral arguments in a case that seeks to overturn the 2010 health law. Outside the building, Americans gathered to express their support or opposition to the law — or just to see history being made.
The second image is of Spike Dolomite Ward, who wrote an apology to President Obama in December.
Over the last year as the myriad court cases about the federal health care law have made their way to the highest court in the land, California has spent that time moving ahead aggressively in implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). California was the first state to pass legislation to set up a health insurance exchange. The state also set up a new high risk pool so people with pre-existing conditions can get health insurance.
But what happens if the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional? Or overturns the entire law? What can still go forward in California?
The answer depends in part upon whom you ask. But for the most part California — like all states — will find it tough to move forward without the backing of the federal law. Continue reading →