Plan B Forum

US Supreme Court hears challenge to Obama healthcare law


The US Supreme Court has finished the first day of a landmark hearing on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform.

Twenty-six US states have brought the Republican-led challenge to the administration's 2010 law.

The act expands health coverage to 32 million Americans, but critics say its requirement that people buy insurance intrudes on civil liberties.

A ruling is expected by late June - in the thick of the election season.

The Washington DC court, which holds about 400 people, was packed with lawmakers, senior Obama administration officials and members of the public on Monday.

People had been camping outside the white-marble building since Friday.

The nine Supreme Court justices, five of them appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats, have allotted six hours of argument - the longest in decades - for the case.

Because of the huge interest, the court will release daily audio recordings from the three days of proceedings.

It is one of the most politically explosive cases since the 2000 election wrangle that saw the White House awarded to Republican George W Bush over Democrat Al Gore, or the hearings on the 1974 Watergate tapes that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, passed in March 2010, has been the divisive centrepiece of President Obama's term in office.

If upheld, the law would forbid insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. It would also limit how much they can charge older people.

But the most controversial aspect of the law is its core requirement that most people buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

Monday's hearing focused on whether the judges actually had the power to rule on the case.

They heard 90 minutes of argument about an obscure 19th-century piece of legislation - the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act - which deters legal challenges to any tax law that has not yet been collected.

The healthcare law's insurance mandate does not begin until 2014, and those who flout the requirement to have insurance would not face a penalty until the following year.

On Monday, several judges cast doubt on whether such a fine would constitute a tax - which correspondents saw as an indication that the court would not postpone the case.

The most eagerly anticipated day is Tuesday, when the judges will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement.

The 26 states led by Florida say the federal government has no power to force individuals to buy health insurance.

Critics say that if Congress can require citizens to buy health insurance, they could also force consumers to eat broccoli, and purchase gym membership or buy American-made cars.

However, the Obama administration says that Americans who have no healthcare simply push their unpaid health bills upon taxpayers, who are forced to subsidise emergency room visits.

On Wednesday, two questions will be heard.

The first is whether, if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional, the rest of the law can stand or must be struck down in its entirety.

The other is whether Congress unfairly burdened states when it expanded eligibility under Medicaid, the medical care programme for poor people.

A ruling on the intensely partisan issue is expected only several months before November's general election.

The US was the only major developed country without a national healthcare system until President Obama's reform.

An opinion poll published on Monday found that 47% of voters disapproved of the healthcare law and 36% were in favour.

Republicans seeking to foil President Obama's bid for a second term have vowed to repeal it if elected.

Mitt Rommey, who is the front-runner to be this year's Republican presidential candidate, called the law an "unfolding disaster for the American economy".

His rival, Rick Santorum, appeared outside the court after Monday's hearing to say that "Obamacare" should be the central issue of the forthcoming election campaign.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17513609

Critics say that if Congress can require citizens to buy health insurance, they could also force consumers to eat broccoli, and purchase gym membership or buy American-made cars.

Analysis

Mark Mardell
North America editor

Surprisingly, a number of people are putting a very brave face on the possibility of defeat for Obama's healthcare reform. They argue in the long run it might help the president in November's election.

A Democratic strategist says that it "gives something for Obama to fight for", arguing that taking healthcare away from young people and those with pre-existing conditions will paint the Republicans as the bad guys.

I am less certain that defeat would play well for President Obama. In a campaign it is of little use claiming the moral high ground, only to admit your plans have been shredded and there is nothing you can do about it.

Impotency is not attractive. Polls suggest around 70% of voters are against his changes, so it doesn't make an obvious centrepiece to the campaign anyway.

What an adverse ruling would prove to voters is the limits of presidential power in America, and reinforce a view that Washington is better at stopping things happening, than coming up with solutions.