The nation's eyes will be on Washington, D.C., as people wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to release its ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The court is expected to release on June 25 its ruling on the constitutionality of health care reforms Congress passed in 2010. Health care reform was a major campaign platform for President Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, however the bill was and is unpopular with many voters.
Scott Rasmussen, founder and president with Rasmussen Reports, said many people are trying to predict how the Supreme Court will rule this week, but Rasmussen said he doesn't know. No one does, he said, except the justices. However, Rasmussen said he knows what voters want.
"A majority of Americans want the law repealed, they have held that view ever since it was passed; we also know a majority think they want the court to do the job and overturn it."
He said voters' opinions about the nation's highest court has changed in recent months.
"Remember those oral arguments back in March? Just before that, we asked people to rate the Supreme Court, and 28 percent said the court was doing a good or excellent job. Then they had that week of hearings, and it became apparent the law might be overturned, and the justices were a lot more skeptical than people expected. … Ratings shot all the way up to 41 percent after that," he said. "I think you'll see even more of that if the health care law is overturned; again, when you say are (the public) is following it, they don't know the details of every nuanced part of the discussion, they don't know which Supreme Court justice asked which question, they know it's an important discussion, and they want it repealed."
The Affordable Care Act was signed into law March 23, 2010. Shortly after, 13 states sued, challenging its constitutionality. Thirteen later turned into 26 states. However, West Virginia declined to join the suit.
According to court documents, the act covers several major aspects to reduce the number of uninsured people. Among those aspects, the act would alter private insurers' underwriting practices and restrict pricing structures. It also would create a state-run Health Benefit Exchange to serve as a marketplace where people could competitively purchase new insurance plans.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, ruled by a 2-1 vote it was unconstitutional to require citizens to buy insurance. However, the 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs have not shown the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.
Reed Rubinstein, a Dinsmore & Shohl partner in the firm's Washington, D.C., office, said determining the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be one of the main decisions high court justices must make, Rubinstein said.
Some people have questioned whether the federal government has the authority or right to dictate that every American have health insurance. That so-called individual mandate is at the heart of much of the legal challenge.
A recent news story by Politico said a survey of several past Supreme Court clerks and leading lawyers said they expect the individual mandate aspect of the law to be struck down.
Rubinstein said the court must decide whether the individual mandate is a tax. If justices say the mandate is a tax, no one has standing to challenge it until it is paid, Rubinstein said, which would put proceedings on hold.
"The conventional wisdom is people are saying it is not a tax. The government says it's not a tax. It would be odd if the court said they're both wrong and it is a tax," he said.
The second question is whether the rest of the bill can stand if the mandate is struck.
"The answer is yes, it can. But the question is whether the court will rule that way. My guess would be the court will say the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the act ," he said.
Justices also must address a federalism question, Rubinstein said. He said certain provisions in the Affordable Care Act requires the states to implement policies, which has been challenged on the basis that the federal government cannot require states to implement federal policies.
"Conventional wisdom is to uphold that provision. If there was a surprise, it would be here. This is something the court asked for arguments over the phone and no one saw that coming. There's a strong group on the court that really cares about federalism issues. … It's very possible we will get a federalist ruling, maybe 5-4, saying it's a congressional overreach."
If the court chooses to strike the individual mandate but leaves the rest of the act intact, what will be the plan of finance, Rubinstein asked.
"If you strike out the individual mandate, which is the funding source, then what's next? That's where it will be very interesting."
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2013 WorldNow and WOWK. All Rights Reserved.
