(MintPress) – With three weeks left in the Supreme Court’s 2012 session, Americans will finally learn whether President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) will be upheld, requiring all Americans to be covered under a health insurance plan by 2014.
It’s a decision being watched by health insurance companies, as well — which still stand to profit either way, but would alter a corporations’ freedom to stray from provisions within the ACA, including one that would not allow providers to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Even if such provisions are struck down by the court, they’ll have lasting impacts within the industry, with health insurance leader UnitedHealth claiming it will hang on to some portions of the Act, including one that includes coverage of children on parents’ plan until the age of 26.
“The protections we are voluntarily extending are good for people’s health, promote broader access to quality care and contribute to helping control rising healthcare costs,” CEO Stephen Hemsley said in a press release. “These provisions make sense for the people we serve, and it is important to ensure they know these provisions will continue.”
Battle in the courtroom
While the famously dubbed “Obamacare” plan has already made an impact on the insurance industry, it has yet to pass the litmus test of the Supreme Court, which will rule before June 28 on whether Congress can hold states and Americans accountable in a plan that would require all U.S. citizens to be covered through a health insurance provider.
The court heard challenges to the ACA starting March 26 in what included three days of arguments. At odds with the healthcare act were 26 states, which challenged Obama’s policy alongside business organizations. Their case included the argument that the government could not enforce all Americans to obtain coverage, citing the Anti-Injunction Act.
States opposed to the ACA, in particular, take issue with provisions that would require it to essentially expand Medicaid coverage, or risk losing federal funds.
At issue in the court’s ruling will be whether two portions of the ACA in question will be nixed from the overall plan, or if the entire health care act will be deemed unconstitutional. According to a PBS report, NewsHour Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle indicates that even if the individual mandate is thrown out, the debate wouldn’t end there, as it would need to be decided if the remaining portions of ACA would stand.
If they decide the individual mandate cannot simply be taken out of the ACA and go with the all-or-nothing approach, states would have to once again alter their healthcare and Medicaid plans.
“This probably would create considerate chaos and uncertainty, because a number of states already have moved to implement the law and have offered insurance to people who were unable to get it or afford it prior to the law’s enactment,” Marcia told PBS.
The state of Washington is taking an active role in promoting the ACA. In a press released issued May 29, the state’s Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler makes the claim that, if not passed, millions of Washingtonians will be negatively impacted.
“The health care reform law is not perfect,” Kreidler said in the press release. “But history shows that, as a nation, we summon the will to try to reform health care only about once a generation. If we fail again, it’s our children and grandchildren who will be left struggling to pick up the pieces.”
Kreidler makes the argument that the act’s expansion of Medicaid coverage would apply to 328,000 of the state’s uninsured, while an additional 477,000 residents would receive subsidies to pay private sector insurance companies.
Those arguing against the ACA also question the authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce — an issue that bears historical precedent on both sides of the debate. In a KPBS report, author Nina Totenberg highlights the controversy that has seemingly always surrounded the issue of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, with legal battles siding both for and against Congress’ power to regulate commerce among states.
Health, freedom at stake
The decision will be crucial for all Americans, as it will require every person to be covered under a health insurance plan.
That’s comforting to some not covered through their employer, as it will, in theory, drive down health insurance costs by flooding more consumers into the market. Others aren’t comfortable with the government forcing them to purchase the insurance, either because of principle or cost concerns.
A poll released June 7 by the New York Times and CBS News indicated that a majority of Americans were opposed to the ACA, with 7 out of 10 Americans in favor of the court completely overturning Obama’s healthcare plan or at least voting against the personal mandate for health insurance. Twenty-four percent surveyed were in favor of the entire Act — 42 percent of whom identified as Democrats, with 20 percent of Independents and 6 percent of Republicans in favor.
The political side
No matter what the Supreme Court decides this month, the issue is unlikely to fade into the background. Partisan since the beginning, the fundamental issues at stake within the High Court’s ruling will be touted by both Republicans and Democrats well into the future.
In the midst of a presidential campaign, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has already been vocal in his opposition to “Obamacare,” claiming it steps into Americans’ and states’ freedoms and sets a dangerous precedent.
Capitalizing on Obama’s seemingly unpopular healthcare act, Romney has hit the campaign trail touting a promise to overturn ACA, leaving it up to individual states to come up with their own plan. While serving as governor in Massachusetts, the state implemented a plan similar to the ACA, dubbed “Romneycare” — one in which he has defended based on the fact that it was state mandated and didn’t include federal intrusion.
Obama came under fire in the midst of the Supreme Court hearings on the ACA when he showed concern over the possibility the Supreme Court could overturn legislation passed through Congress, claiming it would be unprecedented and a direct violation of Conservatives’ complaints that activist judges have too much power.
“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama stated.
Those remarks were met with stark criticism by those who pointed to precedents, including Marbury v. Madison, an 1803 case in which the Supreme Court overturned a portion of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress.
“A handful of people didn’t seem to understand what he was referring to,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said in a briefing after the statement, going on to state that, since the New Deal era, the Court has not overturned a Congressional ruling.
“He did not suggest … did not mean and did not suggest that it would be unprecedented for the Court to rule that a law was unconstitutional. That’s what the Supreme Court is there to do,” Carney said.
It’s likely those statements made by Obama will be brought up again within the political arena, depending on the High Court’s ruling. Striking down any portion of the ACA would give merits to those who criticize Obama for such statements, while a ruling upholding the Act would seemingly validate Obama’s claims.