Historic and closely watched arguments that could determine whether most Americans will have to buy healthcare coverage or pay penalties began with the legal and political world watching.

Rather than concentrating on merits of substance of the 2,700 page healthcare law passed in 2010, opening day arguments centered on whether lawsuits challenging the case are premature.

Arguments strike at the heart of patient protection by challenging its requirement that U.S. residents either buy insurance or pay a penalty -  a mandate that starts in 2014, with the first fees to be collected by the IRS on April 15, 2015.

NOTE: The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the fees will produce between $5 billion and $6 billion annually,

This report contains material partially

obtained from the Washington Post

How does this affect you?

Find us on Facebook to read and discuss

more Healthcare News.

Split evenly over the question of whether the "individual mandate" requiring Americans to carry health insurance or pay a fine is constitutional, the prospect was clearly raised that the president's signature domestic achievement could be struck down.

Reporting by the Wall Street Journal dated Wednesday, March 28 states "At the Supreme Court, the courtroom again was packed and demonstrators outside filled the streets. Inside, the justices finally arrived at the centerpiece of the case after two years of leagal battles, and they dived head first into questioning what powers the federal government has and when do they go too far."

According to the report, the government described an existing nationwide market for health services and said almost everyone already is part. The challengers saw the product in question as health insurance and said people have a right to stay out of that market if they wish. These same challengers conceded that the government could do many things to regulate the healthcare market, including requiring individuals to pay for medical services with insurance or creating a system in which the government pays for everyone's care.

The law aims "to get care for the ones who need it by having everyone in the pool but is also trying to preserve a role for the private sector, for the private insurers," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Discuss this on Facebook with us!

Let us know your thoughts! 

From Wire Reports

The day after the Supreme Court suggested that President Barack Obama's healthcare law may be in danger of being held unconstitutional the justices turned their attention to the practical consequences and political realities of such a ruling.

The Justices seemed divided on both questions before them: What should happen to the rest of the law if the court strikes down its core provision? And, was the law's expansion of the Medicaid program constitutional?

The court had, on the third and final day of historic set of arguments, moved from the high theory of constitutional interpretation to the real world consequences of what various rulings would entail, leaving both supporters and opponents mapping strategies for the months until the court decides the case.

Discuss this on Facebook with us!

Let us know your thoughts! 

From the Associated Press - A divided House approved a $3.6 trillion Republican budget Thursday, March 29, a decision that would recast Medicare and impose sweeping cuts in domestic programs.

The vote capped a battle that gave both political parties a campaign season stage to spotlight their warring deficit-cutting priorities.

The partison divisions over the measure also underscore how tough it will be to achieve the cooperation needed to contend with tax and spending decisions that will engulf Congress after the fall elections.

The fiscal plan the House passed by a vote of 228-191 would reshape and squeeze savings out of Medicare and Medicaid, the federal health insurance programs for the elderly and poor. It would force deep cuts in a wide range of spending, including rail projects, research and Pell Grants for college students.

It would block President Obama's plans to raise taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year. Instead, it would collapse the current six income tax rates into just two. Overall, the GOP budget would cut spending $45.3 trillion more deeply over the next decade than Obama would - out of more than $40 trillion that would be spent. It would cut taxes by $2 trillion more than the President's plan, leaving Republicans seeing a $3.3 trillion in deeper deficit reduction than Obama.

The measure immediately became a grist for presidential campaign.

What are your thoughts? Does this affect you?

Discuss this with us!