Health Care Law Challenge Weighed By Supreme Court -- What's At Stake (VIDEO)

Two years after the president signed the Affordable Care Act, the justices of the Supreme Court are poised to weigh in with their opinions about the far-reaching act, with people across the country expectantly awaiting the outcome of the legal challenge. The court will consider over the course of three days several cases brought by 26 states and several private plaintiffs.

Along the way, legal scholars, political figures, health care leaders and ordinary citizens have probed the constitutionality of the law's controversial requirement that virtually all Americans must purchase minimal health insurance coverage starting in 2014 or pay a tax penalty. With oral arguments scheduled to begin on March 26 and the ultimate decision expected to come by the end of June, it's worth revisiting the central arguments involved.

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal and libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett, both Georgetown law professors, provided HuffPost with a refresher course about the challenge, from their respective opposing points of view. Katyal defended the Affordable Care Act and its individual mandate in three federal courts of appeals. Barnett was one of the intellectual architects of the constitutional challenge to the mandate and now serves on the legal team for the private plaintiffs before the Supreme Court.

In this first installment of a four-part video series, Katyal and Barnett set the stage by laying out what's at stake in the biggest test of the federal government's power in seven decades.

"It's a very rare thing for the Supreme Court of the United States to be asked to strike down any piece of federal legislation, let alone something as signally important as this health care reform bill is," Katyal said of the litigation.

For Barnett, the new law amounts to "a disaster for both American health care and the American form of government," which was designed to strike a balance between state and federal powers. His diagnosis is stark: The 2,400-page law "is going to put the government between us and our doctor, and that just basically means the government owns us."

Video produced by Sara Kenigsberg

Comments

[BarcelonaGuy]

07:42 PM on 03/26/2012

Some people are so predictable. If the ACA were a republican legislation , they would all be for it in a big way. But because it was Obama, it's THE END OF THE WORLLLLLLLLLLLLLD.

[acts4him]

02:01 AM on 03/30/2012

Sorry, not Obama. 1) rammed through by Democrats. 2) Abortion coverage lies (yes, by the president. Have you heard what he said about his daughters and pregnancy, like babies are punishment? Babies are a choice pre-conception on). 3) Religious liberty intrusions. 4) Poorly written, presented, etc. 5) ....... Probably 53 other reasons. I'm tired. Good night.

[Newthron]

04:26 PM on 03/26/2012

If the obamacare is sooo dangerous and sooo bad for America, Medicare should have been severed even before the new healthcare law could have been challenged, in all honesty The hypocritical machine put in place by the conservatives is as dishonest as the repeated lawsuits thrown at the democrats for the Solyndra debacle, which now we know has for goal to only weaken the president, rather finding any wrong doing.

[Johnangry]

07:24 PM on 03/26/2012

No, the people who vote for these goons are on Medicare and Social Security. Their belief system is based on Obama's skin and nothing else. Remember, those on Social Security come from the generation of high school teens you saw screaming at the top of their lungs in the the 1950s and 60s.

http://blog.mywonderfulworld.org/2009/02/11/Little_Rock_Desegregation_1957.jpg
http://www.ernie-jones.com/segregation.jpg
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/rstaudt/classes/2007PublicInterestLaw/BrownvBoardProject/schoolintegration5.jpg

[TreP3]

02:46 PM on 03/26/2012

The Affordable Care Act is a good start, but why are we so behind the rest of the world. Many poorer countries give very good health care to their entire citizenship. Why can't the Great USA?

Improved Medicare for ALL!!!

[A Globalist]

04:33 PM on 03/26/2012

The rest of the world is insolvent, broke, socialist, or Marxist, and lack personal freedoms Americans alone possess, or wish they could come to be like the US. Why would be want to be like them? The ACA may prevail, but the American way of life will soon be over. I know you probably don't really care, but someday you'll see what I'm talking about---in about 10 years your personal freedoms will begin to dry up, just like your personal health.

[TreP3]

05:28 PM on 03/26/2012

Not sure what you mean by the rest of the world being broke, insolvent or Marxist, but Scandinavia has equivalent personal freedoms, superior standards of living and a fantastic health care system. How about Taiwan? Germany? The UK? Australia? Canada? South Korea? The Netherlands? I'm sure I could come up with a few more.

I believe in American Exceptionalism, like you obviously do, but I don't believe that any other country is necessarily inferior, which seems to be your outlook. Try opening up to what other countries have done successfully. There are a lot of closed minded Americans that have a lot to learn!

(The Globalist, huh??? Interesting.)

BTW, I mistakenly marked you as a favorite when I intended to just reply.

[thebuzzmanisone]

09:59 PM on 03/26/2012

A Globalist do me a favor and change your bong water buddy it must be to strong for your little mind.

[TreP3]

02:29 PM on 03/26/2012

Would you rather have between you and your doctor? an insurance company (profit driven, answers to shareholders) or the government ( can be inept but no profit motive and has to answer to people).

The Affordable Care Act's two biggest provisions no longer allows insurers to decline customers based on insurability and requires that they refund customers when more than 20% of revenue is not used on medical expenses. When you need insurance and can't get it, you'll be very sorry you were so outspoken against it.

[omobob]

11:29 AM on 03/26/2012

Conservative t.p. republican are upset ObamaCare is working and they are mad about that. It is noted that the ones that are whining the loudest about the Affordable Care Act already have insurance and are not effected. Insurance premiums and health care costs have doubled in ten years. 47 million Americans who had no medical insurance and over half a million Americans went bankrupt trying to pay exorbitant medical bills. the Affordable Care Act is financial relief and HC reform, long over due. 

The Affordable Care Act is working. The Census Bureau's annual health survey reported that in the first quarter of 2011 more than 900,000 young adults obtained health insurance. They took advantage of a provision in the new health law allowing them to stay on their parents' insurance until they are 27. It was the first time in years that the share of young adults who were not insured fell. The growth rate of Medicare spending, the issue that is driving the deficit-reduction war, is declining as hospitals and other providers react to the law's mandates to achieve efficiency and quality. The elderly poor and disabled are paying less for drugs under the overhauled Part D drug program and they will pay even less in January.

[DumSpiroSpero]

07:55 AM on 03/21/2012

A ton of party rhetoric coming from all sides here, but it seems that there is a large number of people that don't understand the real issue at play. While there are many good points for having a universal healthcare system, points that rational people could debate, the real issue is the scope of federal power. It's true that states mandate car insurance, but that is because all powers not delegated to the national government remained with either the states or the people at large. The national government is supposed to be one of limited powers which are enumerated, and since FDR and his court packing plan those powers have grown exponentially. Even if you think that this law is good in theory, additional expansions to the definition of interstate commerce will eventually be used to pass things you don't find good or may even find oppressive. Congress is composed of only 535 people, do you really think it's a good idea to give them this much power?

[LoLandivotedforHimOnce]

09:59 PM on 03/20/2012

Obamacare is going down in Flames, just like Obama!

[admnasstsd]

06:27 PM on 03/20/2012

Wow, I'm so relieved that they are not "promoting it." But I still wonder why in the world Congress thinks an 18 year old should be even tying her tubes. A huge number of them will change majors at least once... what makes us think they can make such a permanent decision about whether to be a parent?

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D.-Ill.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which has oversight over the Affordable Care Act (AKA "Obamacare"), said Monday that a new Obamacare regulation announced on Friday afternoon that requires all student health insurance plans to offer college women free sterilizations does not mean the government is "promoting sterilization."

[Stephanie Beavers]

11:45 AM on 03/25/2012

Some college aged women have health issues which make any pregnancy extremely dangerous. Considering how difficult it is even for older women to get their doctor's to preform this surgery, I would chance it that any college women who are approved under the plan are in such a situation.

[admnasstsd]

12:43 PM on 03/25/2012

I think that this is pretty rare... forcing us all to pay for it (without even a copay) adds to all of our insurance costs. Not sure why everyone is so willing to give up their freedoms over these outlier conditions. That people will no longer be able to have catastrophic plans that are very affordable and pay for their own routine care is one of the issues that I have with this mandate, along with the fact that if the Court rules it constitutional, it paves the way for the government to dictate what you must and must not buy, with the penalty of fines and/or jail. And don't think that they won't use the opportunity "for your own good." Next on the agenda will be mandated long term care insurance and life insurance. Anyone who lives long enough will eventually need extra care, and certainly we all die. And let's not stop at insurance... what else is good for us that we don't all buy? Air cleaners for our homes? Exercise classes & gym memberships? The slippery slope has a bottomless pit at the end of it.

[OnceProudAmerican]

05:48 PM on 03/20/2012

What is the difference between making sure everyone has CAR INSURANCE, HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE?
There is none!
The Gov makes it mandatory in alot of states!
You REPUB/BAGGERS cry about someone gettig a free ride meanwhile most of you are getting one!
If you drive on a public hyway or go/went to a public school or went to college on the GI bill you got somethig that we ALL paid for!
Thats the GREAT thing about these UNITED STATES-We are united and therefore are STRONG!
Think about it!

[admnasstsd]

06:31 PM on 03/20/2012

Why it it necessary to call names when discussing something that is so important? The difference is in your question. STATES make car insurance mandatory. And here in California, your 3rd grader still has to be in a booster seat. And in Hawaii, a motorcyclist does not HAVE to wear a helmet. States rights are a great thing in a country of regional cultures and diversity. What's wrong with the mandate is that it takes away rights. Our right to pay $218 a month for a middle age couple's catastrophic plan, where they are responsible for their doctor visits and other incidentals. Exponentially more affordable for them than the plan that will include all of these mandates. We are a country founded on liberty. And that is being taken away with the threat of fines and levys by the IRS. Think about it.

[LoLandivotedforHimOnce]

10:00 PM on 03/20/2012

It is all libs can do, as they have nothing else!

[alfatu]

02:52 PM on 03/26/2012

With all due respect, one man's liberity ends where another man's begins. Some people want health insurance and others don't. If you have good insurance, the law allows you to keep it. You all are the same folks who fuss about paying the cost of insurance for people who go to the emergency room. This law allows those people to sign out for benefits so that the cost won't trigger down to you. Yet you all complain. You complain that medical bills are too high, the cost of prescription is going through the roof, this bill brings these bills under control; and yet you complain. I take it that you don't have kids in college; this bills allows you to keep you kids on your company insurance for up to age 26. Millions of parents have taken advantage of this and yet you complain. What's your liberty? The right to complain just for the sake of it?

[dhendric]

06:52 PM on 03/20/2012

Simple--Congress is justifying the mandate to purchase health insurance by saying that it is covered by the Commerce Clause. However, the Commerce Clause can only be used to enforce a mandate if an individual participates in commerce. You can be required to purchase automotive insurances because you voluntarily particpated in commerce by purchasing an automobile. Same thing for homeowners insurance--you initiated the requirement by purchasing a house. The requirement to purchase health insurance is not predicated on active participation in commerce, therefore the Commerce Clause does not cover the mandate.

This is not the first time this has been explained. Please pay attention. And stop calling people names simply because you have nothing logical to add to the conversation.

[Marianne Hodges Thomas]

01:01 PM on 03/21/2012

well then if you go to the doctor and want to use those services then you should have to purchase health insurance and since everyone at some point in their life will need to see a doctor then they should have insurance.

[Fogcatcher]

05:33 PM on 03/20/2012

The second anniversary of Obamas signature legislation is coming up , and not one Democrat in Congress is out there touting it... Obama isn't even touting it... If it were good policy they would be having a parade right about now.. The fact of the matter is, Obamacare is bad policy and when the SC knocks down the individual mandate, Obama is history.....

[Polar Shift]

06:05 PM on 03/20/2012

Fog, They won't do that. It is LEGAL and in action all over this nation in the form of car and homeowners' insurance. It is ALL mandatory because THAT is your responsibility. To pay your SHARE, and this is ALSO backed by FEMA when insurance doesn't pay enough for catastrophic disasters. In most developed nations, it is the 'collective' requirement that sustains all. And NO nation has survived based on 'Individual only' responsibility. NONE. If YOUR theory were true, there would never be a NEED for gov't leaders, OR for borders.

[drhinesmid]

07:17 AM on 03/21/2012

The gov getting between you and your things (mandated insurance for car & home) does not equate with the government getting between you and your medical care. To equate the two dehumanizes Americans. The ACA may also jeopardize the personal nature of the doctor patient relationship.

[Fogcatcher]

07:38 AM on 03/27/2012

If I don't drive a car I don't buy insurance...This nation has survived without Obamacare and when the SC takes the individual mandate out, we will continue to survive....

[thebuzzmanisone]

10:13 PM on 03/26/2012

so fog you must like to pay higher hospital bills then right? because that is whats happening when people dont have insurance and dont pay their hospital bills it gets passed on to you and me so if you like to pay for others you can pay for me ok?

[manmi1]

09:44 AM on 03/20/2012

It must be a brain disorder that cons have. If you google "conservative brain studies" you will be enlightened by several different studies conducted by various groups. It explains why they "think" like they do. It really doesn't tell most of us anything that we don't already know, but it's interesting to see it done in study form.

[clark8642]

09:37 AM on 03/20/2012

Many posts on this site indicating that Congress exempted itself from the ACA. That is not accurate. From Factcheck.org "Members of Congress are subject to the legislation’s mandate to have insurance, and the plans available to them must meet the same minimum benefit standards that other insurance plans will have to meet. "All plans would have to follow those requirements by 2019," Aaron Albright, press secretary for the House Committee on Education and Labor, told FactCheck.org. "People actually believe we wrote in the bill that Congress exempts itself from these requirements. That falsehood has been going around since the very beginning."

[m2modon]

10:11 AM on 03/20/2012

In 2007, when Obama was running for the office of President of the United States, he promised Americans "health care that is as good as the health care that I have as a member of Congress." However, recently when a newspaper reporter pressed Obama on whether he would commit to Americans having the same health care as congressmen, Obama repeatedly refused to commit to his previous promise of Americans having the same coverage as members of Congress. President Obama merely claimed Americans would have health care coverage that would "largely match up" with what members of Congress have.

[clark8642]

10:18 AM on 03/20/2012

My comment refers to the oft repeated but inaccurate statement that Congress exempted itself from the requirements of the law. It did not do so but the statement continues to be a bulwark in posts here opposing the law.

[avbysandy]

09:34 AM on 03/20/2012

ADMINISTATIVE costs here are 2> 3 times as high as other industrialized countries!! YOU get NOTHING for that $$. Just FILLING others pockets!! WHY do people love the insurance companies doing that??

[avbysandy]

09:31 AM on 03/20/2012

OR .... look @ Switzerlamd, Germany, Japan etc etc who ALL have better healthcare than we do for HALF the $$. YOU are getting ripped off and apparently NOT bright enough to realize it. WOW!

[ljkcan]

11:25 AM on 03/26/2012

The US spends more GDP than any other industrialized nation on HC. I would hate like hell to be spending on premiums and getting denied health care.

[TreP3]

02:37 PM on 03/26/2012

The US is about 5 times more populous than any other industrialized country and still pays medical bills for just about everybody over 65 in addition to the poor. Of course we spend more than other countries.

And why do you think you're going to be denied healthcare?

[Dongflopper]

08:36 AM on 03/20/2012

This is not a big government interference thing. If you read it, some of the highlights are; keeps the insurance from cancelling a policy because it's costing them more than they were making off the insured; let's people with pre-existing conditions obtain some coverage. Both these bad for insurance companies, of whom makes bukoo bucks. The uninsured must provide at least basic medical attention which if you ever go to an emergency room the uninsured use this as a doctor's office. Let's doctor's remove extra ordinary measures on patients, when there is no direct of kin without a court order. It doesn't make you or your employer change insurance. If your employer raises your co-payment, that is there doing, not this law. I urge you to read this entire law. It really only hurts the insurance companies, the medical profession, medical suppliers and the pharmaceutical companies, which let's face it, there rolling in the cash. It also hurts stock holders, but if they have any feelings for their fellow man only has to move their money if their funds that could make more elsewhere (probably not). Don't feel the least remorseful for the pharmaceutical companies. Like oil companies, their subsidized by the government. People who are well off need not write a rebuttal. Even though I am not a Christian, it's a case of WWGD! If my facts are wrong, go ahead and let me know. I'm okay with that.

[m2modon]

10:36 AM on 03/20/2012

Big Pharma loves Obama...
Of all the single-industry lobbies in Washington, the largest is the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA spent $26.2 million on lobbying last year — that’s nearly three times as much as the insurance lobby, America’s Health Insurance Plans, which spent $8.9 million.
If you include individual companies’ lobbying, pharmaceuticals blow away the competition, beating all other industries by 50 percent, according to data at the Center for Responsive Politics.
Given this Big Pharma clout, it’s not surprising that the bill Obama’s whipping for Senate bill — has nearly everything the drug companies wanted: prohibiting reimportation of drugs, preserving Medicare‘s overpayment for drugs, lengthy exclusivity for biotech drugs, a mandate that states subsidize drugs under Medicaid, hundreds of billions in subsidies for drugs, and more.

[jimdavis11]

10:48 AM on 03/20/2012

You do realize that lobbyist influence every bill congress passes don't you?

[Dongflopper]

09:25 PM on 03/20/2012

You don't really think it's big pharma, where everything in his healthcare plan kills bukoo profit for them?