Sign Obamacare Petition - You tube

[copsnrobbers]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNhVUGLmug&feature=player_embedded]End Obamacare Now - YouTube[/ame]

 

[waltky]

Obamacare comes to the Supreme Court...

US Supreme Court to Make Historic Health-Care Decision
March 22, 2012 - On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case that will have a lasting effect on American laws and virtually every American's access to health care. For three days, the justices will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act - a medical insurance overhaul that the U.S. Congress passed two years ago.

Three families explain what's at stake for them.

Just like he did four years ago, Miles Fawcett is there to catch his daughter when she needs him. Serena was born with a severe liver defect. Her dad donated part of his liver to save his little girl's life. Now both have what's called a pre-exisiting condition. The Affordable Health Care law says no insurance company can deny coverage based on that. Serena's mother, Mira, worries what might happen if the Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional. “It’s difficult for me to think about somebody who’s gone through something through no fault of their own, who’s had to go through so much, to have the bottom drop out like that," she said.

Steve Fleishman runs a bagel business and does not offer health care to every employee. He would see no change if he stays under 50 employees. But, if he hires more, Fleishman would have to offer affordable coverage to his regular workers or pay a penalty. He says - in this economy - there's not much profit left over when he wraps up the day, so, he'd have to raise prices and cut staff. “I’d want to fall into the category of somewhere between 40 and 49 employees, so somewhere along the line we’d have to trim down and work a little harder to not be in that category so we wouldn’t have to pay for health benefits," said Fleishman.

Dianna Buckett is studying for an advanced degree in public health at Johns Hopkins University. The new law allows her to remain under her parents' health insurance until age 26, even after graduation. “There’s not a lot out there that’s a full-time position without prior job experience," said Buckett. "A lot of what I’m looking into is internships and, even if they are paid, the biggest thing is you don’t get benefits.”

"On every scale this is a monumental case," said attorney Tom Goldstein. Goldstein has a stash of quill pens - one to mark each case he's argued before the Supreme Court. The real debate here is if Congress has the authority to mandate health insurance for all Americans. "It involves the signature accomplishment of the president and it involves a question which affects the healthcare, which is absolutely basic to a hundred million people at least," he said. With that in mind, the justices have scheduled six hours of arguments over three days. That's the longest given any case since the 1960s. And for good reason - analysts say their decision will be cited in American courts for the next 250 years.

Source

See also:

Obama Faces High Stakes in Supreme Court Arguments on Health Care
March 21, 2012 - Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on legal challenges to President Obama’s signature health care reform law. The court’s ruling, expected in June, will be of immense importance to Americans and a president seeking re-election in November.

President Obama signed health care reform into law in 2010 after prevailing in a year-long political struggle on an issue that defied bipartisan solutions for decades. Thirty million uninsured Americans gain access to coverage. Highly popular provisions prohibit denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, and allow children to remain on their parents' plans until they are 26. A recent opinion poll found that fewer Americans now believe their health care will worsen under the law. Polls also show that opposition to the law remains high.

Critics, such as Republican Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who is a doctor, call it a big government approach that will drive up deficits and debt and lower the quality of care. “Patients I talk to want patient-centered health care," he said. "They don’t want insurance company-centered or government-centered.” Supreme Court arguments will focus on a requirement that virtually all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty. Opponents call this unconstitutional and want the law repealed. Scott Vavrinchik is a partner in a company in Chicago that provides kidney dialysis services, which the federal government normally pays for. “I think it is unconstitutional. I think it is a freedom of choice [issue]," he said. "Health care is not a right, it is a commodity.”

Attorneys-general in 26 Republican-led states, filed suit against the health care law. A Florida judge struck it down last year, though it has been upheld in other courts. Maron Soueid, a recent college graduate from New Jersey, believes arguments against the law won’t stand in the long run. “It has been difficult to find a job, and a job that will cover all of your health care, so this is definitely beneficial for a person like me,” Soueid said. The Obama administration points out the law's benefits. On the president's re-election campaign web site a video highlights a family relying on it to care for a daughter with a heart condition. “I can’t even fathom what is going through the minds of people who want to repeal the health care act," the daughter's mother says in the video. "They’re choosing life or death for many, many Americans.”

Health care is a key issue in the 2012 presidential campaign as Mr. Obama seeks re-election and spars with Republican challengers. “Depending on what the Supreme Court rules, one side or the other could be particularly emboldened," said Henry Olsen, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute. "It also brings back the conversation to health care, which is not a good field for President Obama to be fighting on.” If the Supreme Court upholds the health care law, Mr. Obama could gain important momentum before the November presidential election. If the court strikes down major provisions, opponents will claim victory and argue that he mishandled his signature legislative achievement.

Key aspects and programs of the Affordable Care Act:

 

[waltky]

Granny keepin' her fingers crossed...

Supreme Court to tackle controversial health care debate
26 Mar.`12 WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court plans to tackle the most controversial aspects of President Obama's landmark health care law today after seeming to brush aside questions about whether the law is ready for its day in court.

As they began a historic three-day review of the law, the justices weighed in, however cautiously, on issues ranging from tax law to Medicaid that are critical to the challenge. Monday's hearing paves the way for two more days of oral arguments in a case that has played a central role in this year's presidential campaign and raises questions about the scope of Congress' powers. The challenge by 26 states and a national business consortium seeks to overturn the law passed by Congress and signed by Obama two years ago. "Regardless of where the court wants to come out on the merits, you heard an overwhelming sense that an answer should be given, " said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general who defended the law in lower courts.

Today's arguments will center on whether Congress can require people to buy insurance. The justices will focus Wednesday on the law's Medicaid expansion and on whether portions of the law can survive if the mandate doesn't. First, however, the high court had to surmount the 1867 Anti-Injunction Act, which bars lawsuits against taxes until they are paid. If the justices apply that standard strictly to the health care law, it could delay any challenge until 2015. "This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the court's consideration of those issues," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued, and it seemed clear most justices agreed. But that could create other problems for the government.

Several justices questioned whether the penalty under the law for not buying health insurance is a tax at all. "This is not in the Internal Revenue Code but for purposes of collection," Justice Stephen Breyer said. Today, the government will argue that it is a tax, and therefore within Congress' authority. "Today, you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax," Justice Samuel Alito said Monday. "Tomorrow, you are going to be back, and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax." Lawyers representing opponents of the law said those debates show the administration may have trouble making that case. "The court is not sympathetic to the government's tax argument," said Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the Judicial Network, who wrote a brief for GOP senators.

Some liberal justices indicated they were puzzled by 26 states' contention they would be harmed by the law's expansion of Medicaid. Although Washington would pay for those newly eligible, states would have to contribute to help those already eligible. "That does seem odd, to suggest that the state is being injured because people who could show up tomorrow with or without this law will show up in greater numbers," Justice Elena Kagan said. As the justices weigh into the meat of the law, Tea Party opponents and Obama administration supporters are expected outside the court today to demonstrate for and against it.

Source

See also:

US Supreme Court opens health care reform case
The US Supreme Court appeared set to press ahead with an explosive review of President Barack Obama's signature health care reform law Monday at the start of three days of complex hearings.

As the nine justices took their seats in a packed courtroom, hundreds of people gathered outside, some chanting and marching for or against the Affordable Care Act, derided by some as "Obamacare." In Monday's 90-minute hearing, the justices considered arguments on the narrow question of whether they have jurisdiction in the case, or must wait until the law has fully entered into force after 2014 to rule on it. The justices appeared to lean toward the view that the Anti-Injunction Act -- which bars legal action to impose prior restraint on Congress' power to tax people -- does not apply in this case. "It seems to make no sense to separate the punishment from the requirement," Chief Justice John Roberts said, referring to the penalties imposed under the law on Americans who refuse to buy health insurance.

The government and the 26 states challenging the health care reform as unconstitutional both say the court has jurisdiction, but the court assigned its own lawyer to make the case that it does not. The justices sharply questioned Robert Long, the court-appointed lawyer, about why the penalty for not buying insurance should be considered a tax, and thus subject to the Anti-Injunction Act. Justice Antonin Scalia said there was "at least some doubt" about whether the penalty was a tax, and "unless it's clear, courts are not deprived of jurisdiction."

Justice Ruth Ginsburg said the act "does not apply to penalties that are designed to induce compliance with the law rather than to raise revenue." "There is nothing in the statute that should be treated as a tax," said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the government. Gregory Katsas, arguing for the states, said for the act to come into play the purpose of the lawsuit has to be to stop the taxes. But he said, "The purpose of this lawsuit is to challenge the mandate, not the tax." A ruling is not expected until June, but if the court decides it does not have jurisdiction, any action on the law would be set aside at least until 2015.

MORE