What will the Supreme Court's health care ruling mean for 2012?

The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments over President Obama's Affordable Care Act next spring means a potential replay of 2010's ferocious health care debate months before the 2012 presidential election.

And the court's decision could have a significant impact on the president's re-election prospects.

The Obama administration expressed confidence Monday that the controversial law will be upheld by the court and emphasized the need to put the matter "to rest once and for all."

"If we're going to have a fully functional system by 2014...it's important to put this to rest once and for all," Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services Secretary, told reporters on Monday. "We are confident that the law is constitutional, will be upheld as constitutional."

And when asked the same day if Mr. Obama was "worried" about the timing of the decision, White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said, "he's not."

Earnest said the Supreme Court's decision to take up the case was "not a surprise."

"In fact, it's actually something that we had requested," Earnest told reporters. "We had formally asked the Supreme Court to consider this issue."

Many observers, however, say the White House is rolling the dice in pushing for a decision before Election Day.

"This was the ultimate high-risk, high-reward gamble on the part of the White House," says the University of Southern California's Daniel Schnur, who was Sen. John McCain's communications director in his 2000 presidential primary campaign. "If the court rules to uphold it, that may make the law more popular among voters than it has been since its passage. On the other hand, overturning it would reinforce very strong feelings against it."

"The White House probably realizes that the act's not particularly popular right now so it's worth the risk in order to get a favorable court decision that would turn public opinion," Schnur added. "A Supreme Court decision in either direction is the ultimate Good Housekeeping seal of approval for whichever side gets what they want."

According to a CBS News/New York Times Poll conducted last month, the American people remain relatively divided on the Affordable Care Act: The survey indicates that 45 percent of Americans think the health care law should be repealed, but nearly as many -- 41 percent -- say it should be kept. Among those who support repeal, 25 percent want to get rid of the entire law, and another 20 percent think just certain parts should be eliminated.

Not everyone, however, thinks that the American people want to rehash the bitter 2010 debate -- particularly in light of the nation's continuing economic struggles.

Neera Tanden, the President of the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress and a former Obama administration official who worked on the health care bill, argues that voters don't want to talk about health care anymore - and that the court's decision will make little difference in the election.

"Both parties will have to be talking about broader economic issues going into the elections," she said in an interview with Hotsheet. "I don't anticipate it being an electorally significant issue regardless of the outcome."

Tanden said she thinks the law will be ultimately be upheld but that "I don't think it behooves any party" to keep the debate alive.

"I believe the Court will uphold it but I don't think it will be super significant to the president," she said. "People on both sides don't want to be talking about health care anymore."

But some people believe the debate over the Affordable Care Act has been elevated to encompass a more theoretical dimension about the role of government in American life.

Michael Franc, Vice President of Government Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argues that the debate is no longer about health care at all, which is why it remains so significant in the American dialogue.

"The Democrats wanted it to be a purely health care debate," Franc said of the discourse surrounding Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act in 2010. But, he says, the inclusion of the individual mandate in the bill "broadens and elevates the debate to the point where the politicians are going to have to address, in a really basic way, what's the role of government."

"It's not a health care debate, it's a debate about almost everything else," he says.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to strike down the law in its entirety, but if the individual mandate, a major component of it, is ruled unconstitutional, implementing it will be more difficult. Schnur says a ruling against the law, even if limited to the individual mandate, would damage the president.

"A decision to overturn weakens Obama even further. Not only would you have public opinion coming out against the law, but the U.S. Supreme Court, too," says Schnur. "The court's decision on this isn't going to determine election but it's going to be of immense political benefit to whichever side wins."

According to Tanden, however, even if the individual mandate is struck down, "I think that will be something that will be fodder for a few days or weeks tops, but not into November."

"The debate has gone on a long time, but a lot of the energy has left it," she said. "If they strike down the mandate there will be some stories about how the law will be more difficult" to implement but "I don't think that will be something that people will be thinking about on Election Day."

If anything, she says, striking down the mandate would provide some Democrats with an incentive to increase their involvement in the 2012 election - not only in the name of health care, but as a reminder of the importance of getting Democrats tapped to the Supreme Court.

"If five justices on the Supreme Court decide through an act of judicial activism to overturn a properly-enacted act of Congress...I think it will make a case for Democrats to get active on the campaign," she said. "I don't think it would just be the issue of health care; I think the actual issue would be judicial activism and how it's important that the next Supreme Court justice be a democratically appointed judge."

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin, on the other hand, contends that the ruling itself may be guided by - rather than guide - the outcome of the 2012 race.

Noting that the vote will likely come down to Anthony Kennedy, Toobin wrote in a Tuesday blog post that "Kennedy is an ethical and honorable man, but there's no doubt that he, too, follows the news. All the Justices do."

"The case will be argued next February or March, when all of us will have a better idea of whether President Obama will be reelected," he wrote. "If Obama looks like a lame duck at that point, it will be a lot easier for the Justices to dismantle his signal achievement; if Obama looks like a winner, some on the Court may think twice about picking this particular fight with him."

[ozhawk2]

What is the issue? Why force people to sign up for healthcare...I say don't. If you don't have healthcare and get sick/ill after you have been given a way to have healthcare. Shame on you. We should let you languish and die. I know this seems harsh, but I say if you are thirsty and I hand you a bottle of water then you slap my hand away after that, it is YOUR decision. Then accept your own self induced fate. Why cost those that don't have coverage that are begging for it especially for their children this necessity. Build the bill so that those that don't want it don't have to have it or if they do, but don't want to help those that don't by signing up screw them. So be it. If we can tax smokers multiple times what non smokers pay in taxes for products, then we can subsidize this to make sure that it works. I will put it this way. Look a what we pay for non covered individuals, compare the costs and figure it out for yourself.

[wfw3536]

Don't worry Obama will win this one as he is a constitutional lawyer who taught it in college. He went over this bill, line by line, page by page, just like he promised to do with the budget when he ran in 2008.

[tsigili]

If it is set aside, the saving of the country. Otherwise, it's demise.

[radsenior]

If Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dines with the law firm Clement's law firm, Bancroft PLLC, one of almost two dozen firms that helped sponsor the annual dinner of the Federalist Society, a longstanding group dedicated to advocating conservative legal principles and were fed at the same table by Pfizer, Inc., a huge pharmaceutical conglomerate, one would hope they abide by rules and ethics associated with their stature in the legal community. If these two do not recuse themselves from this case, then none should recuse themselves. Now, I ask every American citizen in America to consider the implications of any ruling unfavorable to the Health Care Act. Here's where I say again: The concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands in all aspects of local, state and the federal government has colored the American dream.

[involved_indi]

thanks, just won a bet. I bet that the "they should recuse" themselves comments would start in less than a week.

[AOCGUY]

I find it amazing that the overwhelming majority of those opposed to the health insurance mandate most likely have insurance and a not so insignificant cost of that insurance is to cover the cost of treating the intentionally uninsured who would prefer to use emergency care that the rest of us are forced to pay for.

Yeah, I get the sentiment of "the govt can't tell me what to do crowd" but folks, this mandate will save those of us that already purchase insurance money. Fail to see how that is a bad thing.

[anebt]

I don't know if you understand what this law is about. Most people will be mandated to buy insurance but will receive subsidies from your tax dollars to pay for their premiums. So, if I make only so much money per year, you will pay for most or part of my premium. Since premium "support" from your tax dollars is part of the picture, there's another tax you'll have to pay: increased state taxes to expand Medicaid for more households.

If you think you're the mandate is about your not paying for the uninsured, think again. The bill is *all* about you paying for us. In essence, you're very much going to pay for the premiums of practically all the uninsured.

[involved_indi]

you're very uninformed if you think Obamacare is going to reduce the cost of HC in this country. 9% increase this year alone in premiums and the expensive part doesn't even start until 2014... well timed to be after the election.

[emilymarie11]

"The case will be argued next February or March, when all of us will have a better idea of whether President Obama will be reelected," he wrote. "If Obama looks like a lame duck at that point, it will be a lot easier for the Justices to dismantle his signal achievement; if Obama looks like a winner, some on the Court may think twice about picking this particular fight with him."

Seriously? The Supreme Court's decision will be made based on Obama's election campaign? And not by, oh, I don't know, the Constitution and everything this country was founded on? Are you kidding me? We have law for a reason. We have the Supreme Court for a reason. And if their own lawful decisions are based on politics, and not the Constitution, we have a serious problem. It's not about "picking a fight" with Obama. It's about making the right decision, whatever that may be, based on the law.

[AmericasConscious]

The White House says they are not worried about this un-Constitutional health care bill passing in the Supreme Court and the timing and significant impact on his already disastrous presidency means they are worried big time. The story refers to it as a "controversial" law. If it is controversial then it has to have something wrong with it that is un-Constitutional.
Obama should be worried after the scoding he gave the Supreme Court Justices during his State of the Union Sppeech.
I couldn't believe my ears.

Obama has been using his office to thumb his nose at the Congress, the Supreme Court and at the Constitution since he took office.
Now it is payback time.
Karma is a Bi--h, Barry.

[RunsWithWolves]

nevwesrter1,
On a State level the same could be said of auto insurance. It should then be unconstitutional to mandate that you have to have insurance to drive.

[nowayobama]

runswithwolves: In CA you don't have to have auto insurance to drive. You do have to prove financial responsibility and one way to do that is to have insurance. A driver may also have deposit with the DMV, a bond from a licensed company or a DMV issued self-insurance certificate. So auto insurance may not be mandated in your state. Auto insurance is just the most common way of complying with the law.

[Anotheryahoo]

Its unconstitutional period. The Constitution rules us, not corporations, not the military industrial complex, not a come and go worthless bought off Congress..The Constitution is being trampled upon by both parties. We are not born into slavery....but congress wants us to be slaves to them.