Washington: President Barack Obama's overhaul of the failing US health care system could either be struck down, upheld, or a bit of both in a Supreme Court ruling Thursday with major implications for his re-election bid and the future of the United States.
Two years after Obama signed into law an act to insure another 32 million Americans and prevent coverage from being refused on the basis of patients' medical histories, its fate lies in the hands of six men and three women.
Although the United States is the world's richest nation, it is the only industrialized democracy that does not provide health care coverage to all its citizens.
"More people have paid attention to this case than any other case in recent memory, probably with the exception of Bush v Gore," Paul Clement, who argued the case on behalf of the law's challengers, told reporters last week.
Hours before the decision, protesters waving American flags or toting signs in support of the law gathered, along with banks of TV cameras, outside the court's neo-classical building opposite the Congress.
"I believe health reform was the right thing to do," he said. "I believe it was right to make sure that over three million young people can stay on their parent's health insurance plan.
"That's what I believe. But it's up to you. You decide."
Republicans, who have vowed to repeal "Obamacare," say it will increase costs, cause insurance premiums to rise and hurt the quality of health care.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the legislation would reduce the ballooning US deficit a little over the first decade and substantially more over the second.
At the heart of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed "Obamacare" by its critics, lies the individual mandate that requires every US citizen from 2014 to take out health insurance or be subject to a fine.
Opponents argue that Congress overstepped its constitutional prerogatives in requiring individuals to buy insurance, while the Obama administration contends that the move was vital and in line with existing trade and tax law.
"If the court broadly declares that the mandate is beyond Congress's commerce and taxing powers, the ruling could have the very significant effect of turning health reform into a state and local issue rather than a federal issue," constitutional lawyer Elizabeth Papez told AFP.
"If the court invalidates the mandate on narrower legal grounds, it might simply mean that Congress has to try to write a more careful law."
There is also the question of the law's expansion of the Medicaid health program for low-income families, a move the CBO says will cover an estimated 16 million uninsured, poor Americans.
Opponents argue this expansion is unconstitutional as it forces states to provide coverage to this new group with an implicit threat to withhold federal Medicaid funds.
It is unclear how different rulings would play out politically.
The reforms were supposed to be the president's biggest domestic triumph, so he would obviously take a knock if the Supreme Court strikes them down, and critics would be able to paint him as a far weaker figure.
But if a 5-4 conservative majority strikes down all or part of the law, it would stir up liberals and Obama would be able to tap into this anger to galvanize Democratic support in November.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law health reforms including an individual mandate that became a template for "Obamacare," leaving him open to accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.
Some observers say tough questioning from key swing justice Anthony Kennedy in March indicates all or part of Obamacare will be struck down.
But, as justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted recently: "At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk. And those who talk don't know."
Two years after Obama signed into law an act to insure another 32 million Americans and prevent coverage from being refused on the basis of patients' medical histories, its fate lies in the hands of six men and three women.
Although the United States is the world's richest nation, it is the only industrialized democracy that does not provide health care coverage to all its citizens.
"More people have paid attention to this case than any other case in recent memory, probably with the exception of Bush v Gore," Paul Clement, who argued the case on behalf of the law's challengers, told reporters last week.
Advertisement
Hours before the decision, protesters waving American flags or toting signs in support of the law gathered, along with banks of TV cameras, outside the court's neo-classical building opposite the Congress.
Advertisement
"I believe health reform was the right thing to do," he said. "I believe it was right to make sure that over three million young people can stay on their parent's health insurance plan.
Advertisement
"That's what I believe. But it's up to you. You decide."
Advertisement
Republicans, who have vowed to repeal "Obamacare," say it will increase costs, cause insurance premiums to rise and hurt the quality of health care.
Advertisement
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the legislation would reduce the ballooning US deficit a little over the first decade and substantially more over the second.
At the heart of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed "Obamacare" by its critics, lies the individual mandate that requires every US citizen from 2014 to take out health insurance or be subject to a fine.
Opponents argue that Congress overstepped its constitutional prerogatives in requiring individuals to buy insurance, while the Obama administration contends that the move was vital and in line with existing trade and tax law.
"If the court broadly declares that the mandate is beyond Congress's commerce and taxing powers, the ruling could have the very significant effect of turning health reform into a state and local issue rather than a federal issue," constitutional lawyer Elizabeth Papez told AFP.
"If the court invalidates the mandate on narrower legal grounds, it might simply mean that Congress has to try to write a more careful law."
There is also the question of the law's expansion of the Medicaid health program for low-income families, a move the CBO says will cover an estimated 16 million uninsured, poor Americans.
Opponents argue this expansion is unconstitutional as it forces states to provide coverage to this new group with an implicit threat to withhold federal Medicaid funds.
It is unclear how different rulings would play out politically.
The reforms were supposed to be the president's biggest domestic triumph, so he would obviously take a knock if the Supreme Court strikes them down, and critics would be able to paint him as a far weaker figure.
But if a 5-4 conservative majority strikes down all or part of the law, it would stir up liberals and Obama would be able to tap into this anger to galvanize Democratic support in November.
As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed into law health reforms including an individual mandate that became a template for "Obamacare," leaving him open to accusations of hypocrisy on the issue.
Some observers say tough questioning from key swing justice Anthony Kennedy in March indicates all or part of Obamacare will be struck down.
But, as justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted recently: "At the Supreme Court, those who know don't talk. And those who talk don't know."
COMMENTS
Advertisement
Trump Administration Asks Court To Totally Repeal Obamacare Obamacare Repeal Could Take Months; Replacement, Years: Republican Aides White House Hopefuls in Passionate Pleas Over Addiction Trainee IAS Officer Puja Khedkar Recalled To Academy, Training Put On Hold Under-Fire Trainee IAS Officer Accuses Pune Collector Of Harassment Meet Indian-Origin Usha Chilukuri Vance, Wife Of Trump's Vice President Pick Four In Five Americans Fear Country Is Sliding Into Chaos: Polls Royal Enfield Guerrilla 450 Launched In India; Prices Start At Rs. 2.39 Lakh Admission Deadline Extended For EWS And Special Needs Children Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.