Supreme Court to Hear Healthcare Next Three Days

All network news will be put on the back burner, as the Supreme Court sucks all the oxygen out of the newsroom for the next three days. The high court will begin hearing an unprecedented six hours of testimony in an effort to determine the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The PPACA was passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Both Montana senators voted in favor of the bill that passed the senate with the minimum 60 votes needed. Our lone representative in the house was joined by 34 democrats and voted against the bill but it eventually passed in the house.

Since the passage of PPACA 27 states have filed suit in federal courts around the nation. Most of the State Attorney’s Generals have signed onto the Florida lawsuit.

Here is a list of the states opposing ACA: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The decision by the Supreme Court will be the most far-reaching decision since Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. If the Supreme Court decides in favor of health care it could change forever how the government of the United States will operate in the future.

So far, federal appeals courts in Cincinnati, Richmond, Va., and Washington, D.C., have all ruled in favor of the health-care reform law. However, a federal appeals court in Atlanta declared the individual mandate of being forced to purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional. So currently the Federal Courts have ruled in the presidents favor 3-1.

The Supreme Court will hear three individual cases over the next three days:

1.) National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (11-393) -  To decide “(1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.”

2.) Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (11-398), - To decide “(1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.”

3.) Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services (11-400), -  To decide “(1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.”

Tomorrow’s article will cover, “How Will The Healthcare Law Affect Montana Business?”