CHICAGO (AP) The mother of two disabled teens called Thursdays Supreme Court ruling on the health care law wonderful because it bars insurance companies from setting lifetime limits for medical expenses a big help to her family.

But a retiree on Medicare called it a sad day and worries that the laws new rules coming in 2015 will interfere with treatments doctors can provide.

Across the country, some Americans havent been dramatically affected yet by the law, which will take a few years to reach full force. But many others say they have felt its effects already and have strong opinions about it.

Becky Morefield

Home: Mahomet, Ill. Age: 51 Occupation: Stay-at-home mom of two disabled teenagers Insurance coverage: Private insurance through husbands employer

As Morefield sees it, the health law allowed her son Tucker to die peacefully at home with private health insurance covering his care.

Tucker, one of three triplets with cerebral palsy, was always the most fragile of the siblings, Morefield said. Five years ago, he maxed out the $1 million lifetime limit in his familys policy when he went into respiratory failure and was hospitalized for 12 weeks.

Hitting the lifetime limit meant the insurance company would no longer pay Tuckers medical bills. The state of Illinois picked up the slack through a program for children with special health care needs. But the program put strict limits on certain medical supplies, leading the family to wash and reuse equipment meant for single use.

Tuckers coverage was reinstated in 2011 because the health care law barred lifetime dollar limits on coverage. He lived another 15 months covered by private insurance. At the end, he had doctor visits at home, oxygen and enough pain medication all care that Morefield said would have been restricted under the state program.

It was a blessing for us, Morefield said. People whove not had the ongoing medical things weve had dont understand.

Read the original post:

Americans react to historic health care decision

WASHINGTON (CBSMiami) The state of Florida was turned away by the United States Supreme Court almost completely Thursday morning in the states challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Florida led the suit against the Health and Human Services Department and was particularly concerned with the expansion of Medicaid under the health care law. As written, the health care law would have expanded the Medicaid provision to 133 percent of the poverty line.

The ACA also said that if states turned down the new money to expand Medicaid; the states entire Medicaid funding would be pulled.

The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a States overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion, the Court held.

In other words the Court found, The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.

The Court ruled that the withholding of a states entire Medicaid funding was unconstitutional. However, Justice Ginsburg said the remedy is to bar the withholding found impermissible, not to scrap the expansion altogether.

The Supreme Court found that states could refuse to expand the Medicaid expansion, but the money would still be available to any state willing to participate.

When a court confronts an unconstitutional statue, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation, Justice Ginsburg said.

The problem for Florida residents, and other states led by Republicans, who would have been covered under the provision is; what do they do now?

States with Republicans in charge could decide not to take part in the expansion, since no penalty is in place for it. If thats the case, then those who would have been covered under the new Medicaid expansion, will be on their own to find health insurance to avoid the tax.

Read this article:

Health Care Decision Has Far-Reaching Impact For Fla.

WASHINGTON

Obamacare lives.

America's historic health care overhaul, derided by Republicans as intrusive, costly "Obamacare," narrowly survived an election-year battle at the Supreme Court Thursday with the improbable help of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.

The 5-4 ruling now makes it certain that major health care changes will move ahead, touching virtually every American's life. And Democrats, who have learned to accept if not love the GOP label for the law, heartily praised the decision.

But the ruling also gave Republicans unexpected ammunition to energize supporters for the fall campaign against President Barack Obama, the bill's champion - and for next year's vigorous efforts to repeal the law as a new federal tax

Roberts' vote, along with those of the court's four liberal justices, preserved the largest expansion of the nation's social safety net in more than 45 years, including the hotly debated core requirement that nearly everyone have health insurance or pay a penalty. The aim is to extend coverage to more than 30 million people who now are uninsured

The decision meant the huge overhaul, still taking effect, could proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, with an impact on the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care.

The ruling handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in approving the plan. However, Republicans quickly indicated they would try to use the decision against him.

At the White House, Obama declared, "Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country." Blocks away, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney renewed his criticism of the overhaul, calling it "bad law" and promising to work to repeal it if elected in November.

Demonstrators for and against the law crowded the grounds outside the Supreme Court Building on Capitol Hill as Roberts, sitting at the center of the nine black-robed justices inside, announced the decision to a packed courtroom.

See the article here:

Health care law survives _ with Roberts' help

27-06-2012 16:28 Executives from the drugstore giant talk transformation.

Follow this link:

Visionary Leaders: Walgreens Bets Big on Health Care - Video

27-06-2012 19:24 It seems as if the entire nation is holding its breath for the Supreme Court's health care ruling — the presidential candidates, governors of virtually every state, insurers with billions at stake, companies large and small and countless millions of Americans concerned about their own medical care and how they'll pay for it. Still, Thursday's expected ruling almost certainly will not be the last word on the nation's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality. For more on this story:

Link:

Countdown to Supreme Court's Health Care Law Ruling; What Can Americans Expect? - Video

27-06-2012 22:34 Dr. Mary O'Brien, a board member of Physicians for a National Health Program, and former hospital CEO Stan Hupfeld break down what the different possible Supreme Court rulings on Obama's Affordable Care Act tomorrow would mean for health care reform. Tune in Weeknights at 8:00/7:00c on Current TV

View post:

What's Obamacare's prognosis? Health care professionals take the Supreme Court's temperature - Video

When it hands down its major ruling Thursday, the US Supreme Court will render judgment on an issue that carries a direct impact for millions of American families.

Read this article:

Health-care reform law: How Supreme Court ruling could affect families

WEDNESDAY, June 27 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday is expected to hand down its ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration's signature legislative achievement.

Read more:

Supreme Court to Rule Thursday on Health Care Reform

WASHINGTON (CNN) The U.S. Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the constitutionality of the sweeping health care law championed by President Barack Obama, in a hotly awaited decision that is bound to divide the country.

The stakes cannot be overstated: what the justices decide will have an immediate and long-term impact on all Americans, both in how they get medicine and health care, and also in vast, yet unknown areas of commerce.

According to a poll released Tuesday, 37% of Americans say they would be pleased if the health care law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Twenty-eight percent would be pleased if the Affordable Care Act is ruled constitutional, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed, compared to 35% who said they would be disappointed if the court came back with that outcome.

But nearly four in 10 Americans surveyed said they would have mixed feelings if the justices struck down the whole law. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted June 20-24.

Previous surveys have indicated that some who oppose the law do so because they think it doesnt go far enough.

The polarizing law, dubbed Obamacare by many, is the signature legislation of Obamas time in office.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told supporters in Virginia on Tuesday: If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this presidents term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people.

Romney, whose opposition to the law has been a rallying cry on the stump, continued: If it is deemed to stand, then Ill tell you one thing. Then well have to have a president and Im that one thats gonna get rid of Obamacare. Were gonna stop it on day one.

Speaking to supporters in Atlanta Tuesday, Obama defended his health care law as the way forward for the American people.

Read the original here:

Supreme Court Set to Rule on Health Care Law

The big day has come for the president’s health care law. The Supreme Court hands down it’s verdict on the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act  at 10 a.m. ET. We’ll be here all day updating with the decision, what’s going on outside the court, what it...

Read the original:

Health Care Law: Supreme Court Decision Live Blog

Yesterday at 8:09 PM The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule today.

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and MARK SHERMAN The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- It seems as if the entire nation is holding its breath for the Supreme Court's health care ruling - the presidential candidates, governors of virtually every state, insurers with billions at stake, companies large and small and countless millions of Americans concerned about their own medical care and how they'll pay for it.

Still, Thursday's expected ruling almost certainly will not be the last word on the nation's tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

A look at potential outcomes:

Q: What if the Supreme Court, despite justices' blunt questions during public arguments, upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would have to scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They hope to elect Mitt Romney as president, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of outright repeal would seem to be diminished by the court's endorsement.

See the rest here:

Health care countdown: Who wins, loses – pays?

After a slew of announcements early Monday prompted speculation that a decision on health care legislation was imminent, we learned that Thursday will be the day for one of the most heavily anticipated rulings in the last several years. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the health care legislation that was passed in 2010, bringing a conclusion to years of legal wrangling and politicking behind the scenes. The justices are expected to issue a split opinion, and analysts have been divided over how they will rule. Given the far-reaching impact of the decision, the health care sector figures to see increased scrutiny and trading volumes throughout the week.

Analysts see a wide range of possible outcomes in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, with potential positives and negatives for the health care industry. In a recent research note, S&P Capital IQ ETF Analyst Todd Rosenbluth outlined three possible scenarios for Thursdays announcement and gave some thoughts on what each would mean for the health care sector [sign up for the free ETFdb newsletter]:

Under this scenario, which is deemed to be the most positive for the health care industry, the Supreme Court would essentially side with the Obama administration and rule that the mandate for individual insurance is constitutional and can be implemented as scheduled. This could represent a win for the health care sector since it would lead directly to an inflow of more than 30 million additional insured customers over the next several years (beginning in 2014).

In the current political environment, however, this scenario could lead to additional uncertainty for the health care industry. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the health care package if elected, which could lead to additional doubt over the long term prospects for the law if the November election is close as expected. The implementation and subsequent repeal of the entire law would translate into major expenditures for the health care sector, potentially creating a short term drag on efficiency and profit margins.

This is the best case scenario for health care ETFs

Another possibility is that the Supreme Court determines the individual mandate to be unconstitutional, and further rules that the mandate is a primary component of the legislation. That would mean that the individual mandate cant be stripped out from the rest of the law, and the Court would effectively invalidate the entire law. This would lead to healthcare reform eventually being rolled back entirely, which would likely be a complex process.

S&P sees this as a neutral outcome for the health care sector in general; while the loss of millions of new insured individuals would dramatically reduce growth potential, the elimination of the various fees, taxes, and regulations that are part of the overhaul would disappear as well.

This scenario would likely be neutral to health care ETFs

This hybrid scenario could be the worst possible outcome for the health care industry. Its very possible that the Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional but allows the rest of the law to be implemented as planned. That could be the worst of both worlds for health care providers; the pipeline of 30 million new insured Americans would essentially be emptied, while the various taxes and regulatory burdens would remain in place. According to the Congressional Budget Office, striking down the individual mandate would result in about 16 million additional Americans obtaining health insurance. Many of those would come through the expansion of Medicaid, which would weigh on profit margins of health care companies.

This is the worst case scenario for health care ETFs

See more here:

Obamacare & Health Care ETFs: What You Need To Know

WASHINGTON Saving its biggest case for last, the Supreme Court is expected to announce its verdict today on President Barack Obamas health care law.

The outcome is likely to be a factor in the presidential campaign and help define John Roberts legacy as chief justice.

But the courts ruling almost certainly will not be the last word on Americas tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

A look at potential outcomes:

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the courts endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if hes re-elected.

Original post:

Health-care ruling won't stop the headaches

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the controversial health care law passed in 2010.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court is set to release its much-anticipated rulings on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the comprehensive health care law enacted two years ago.

The election-year rulings will not only guide how every American receives medical care but will also establish precedent-setting boundaries for how government regulation can affect a range of social areas. Your health and your finances could be on the line.

The outcome's possibilities are myriad: a narrow or sweeping decision? A road map to congressional authority in coming decades? Which bloc of justices, which legal argument will win the day?

Here are five scenarios -- strategic markers of a sort -- to watch as the high court weighs in on health care.

Wait another day?

The first question the high court tackled in its seven-hour marathon argument in March was something few observers had expected: It boiled down to whether the law's individual mandate is a "tax" that could prevent the court from considering the broader constitutional questions.

A little-known federal law -- the Anti-Injunction Act, dating back to 1867-- bars claimants from asking for a refund on a tax until it has been paid.

This "gateway" issue could render moot all the other pending health care questions if the justices think the minimum coverage requirement amounts to a tax.

Original post:

Health care ruling: Five scenarios

25-06-2012 06:48 Some are calling the impending Supreme Court ruling on health care to be "the decision of the century." Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller was one of the first to sue the government over the Affordable Care Act of 2010. He weighs in on what could happen when the Supreme Court announces its ruling this week.

See original here:

Attorney General weighs in on health care decision - Video

Whats wrong with the mandate?

As we await the Supreme Court judgment of the health-care-reform law [The key point health-law allies failed to address, page one, June 24], the meaning of the mandate so far has not been clarified by the media or by the various courts.

There are many dictionary definitions of the word mandate, and the prevalent interpretation appears to be that a mandate is mandatory or obligatory; that is, it must be obeyed by everyone under penalty of law for disobedience.

However, several sections of the law reveal that enforcement of collection of the fine for failure to comply is nonexistent measures to collect the fine are specifically prohibited. If this is the case, in a real sense, the mandate of this law has no practical meaning, except that it might motivate reasonable people to obtain health insurance somehow under the various provisions of the law. Those who refuse to obtain health insurance still can receive health care at emergency rooms at any hospital at public expense, because that is the law of the land.

Principles of insurance are simple. Auto insurance is required by all states to protect both the public and the driver before an accident. We buy life insurance usually long before we die. Buying health insurance under the new law is a sign of a national sense of community we are all in this together. There is current evidence that the use of health care by others helps to protect the entire population; for instance, the epidemic of pertussis is partly the result of many people in some areas avoiding vaccination of their children.

So what is wrong with the mandate, constitutionally or otherwise?

Irvin Emanuel, MD, Seattle

Not a damaging decision

I am greatly perplexed by the seemingly unquestioned perception that President Obama would be politically damaged by an overturning of Obamacare.

Forget the programs perceived illegalities. Anytime valuable services are stripped from a huge throng of citizens, theres going to be outrage. The majority justices would be perceived as heroes only by a jaded minority, impervious to what gets thrown out in its fanatical bathwater.

More:

Health-care mandate awaiting Supreme Court ruling

Cable TV hosts are talking nonstop about the Supreme Courts decision on President Barack Obamas health care law. Politicians are waiting anxiously for it. And the health industry is plotting to win the aftermath.

In corporate suites, K Street conference rooms, and Wall Street investment shops, industry players havent all been content to wait and see what the court does.

This is every man for himself, said a K Street Republican who has health care clients. Its a zero-sum game. They all want to make sure they are on the winning side.

But theyre also eager to find out what the future of their world looks like because so much of their world now depends on whether the health care law will survive, be shredded, or be wiped out.

(Also on POLITICO: Full health care coverage)

The war-gaming over the law the Affordable Care Act has been particularly intense for insurers and retailers, who are preparing for a doomsday scenario in which the laws individual mandate is struck down but other provisions are left intact. If insurers are required to cover folks with pre-existing conditions, but young and healthy consumers arent required to buy health plans, premiums will skyrocket.

It would be a worse mess than we already have with the health care law, Neil Trautwein, vice president of the National Retail Federation, said.

Major hospitals and health care systems have been developing their playbooks, too.

Obviously everyone is waiting with bated breath about whats going to happen. Theres lot of talk and gaming out under different scenarios, said Harold Ickes, a lobbyist who served as deputy chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. What we do for our clients is lay out different scenarios.

But Ickes and Delos Cosgrove, CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, said that health providers already have been moving toward giving care in the ways prescribed by the health care law, and that will continue even if the law is fully or partially struck down.

Read this article:

Ruling is 'zero-sum' game for health industry

Intrade Market Predicts There's a 76 Percent Chance Supreme Court Will Strike Down Obamacare

Read more:

Health Care Games: The Odds Are Not In Obamacare's Favor

In what looks to be the biggest Supreme Court decision since Bush v. Gore, the highest court in the land will give its opinion on whether or not the Affordable Care Act (:ACA), popularly known as 'Obamacare', is constitutional. The decision looks to come during the final day of the Supreme Court's session before breaking for the summer and it will undoubtedly be a landmark result either way.

A great deal of the debate is centered on the 'individual mandate' or a stipulation in the bill which required all U.S. citizens and legal residents to obtain government-approved health insurance. If people do not get this insurance, they will have to pay a fine as a penalty for not doing so starting in 2014.

Some on the right believe that this is unconstitutional as the government cannot force you to engage in a contact with a private company. They also feel that by giving the government this power, there is no telling what can be mandated next in any industry under the guise of doing it for the public good (read Invest Like The One Percent with These Three ETFs).

Meanwhile, those on the left believe that the individual mandate is nothing more than a tax, no different than social security or Medicare, each of which we are forced to pay into already as a form of insurance. Beyond that, the left's arguments can also consist of a focus on the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the ability to regulate economic activity connected to interstate commerce, presumably such as health care.

This issue is at the crux of the health care debate and it appears to be the main focus of the constitutionality in the Obamacare law. With that being said, it should be noted that there are realistically three outcomes for Thursday; the entire bill is constitutional, the mandate is unconstitutional but the rest of the bill is acceptable, or that the mandate is unconstitutional and 'unseverable' from the rest of the bill, rendering the entire ACA bill unconstitutional.

Likely Outcomes

I think it is fair to say that both sides make some excellent points regarding the debate and that this issue really could go one way or another. However, while the decision may still be uncertain, the markets and many participants in the process are starting to believe that the court will rule against the mandate but leave the rest of ACA intact (see Could The Small Cap Health Care ETF Be A Great Pick?).

In fact, Intrade, an online prediction market, currently has the chances of the individual mandate being ruled unconstitutional (before the end of the year) at roughly a three-out-of-four rate. Additionally, a poll of legal experts now expects the Supreme Court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, although not by a wide margin.

While it is also possible that the Court can postpone the decision to later on in the year, many view this as unlikely. Probably also out of the cards is the Court postponing a decision due to the 'Anti-Injunction Act' suggesting that the ruling will be coming sooner rather than later for Obama's hallmark piece of domestic legislation.

Stock Market Impact

Follow this link:

Health Care ETFs in Focus on Obamacare Supreme Court Decision

by Ken Alltucker - Jun. 26, 2012 11:25 PM The Republic | azcentral.com

The U.S. Supreme Court's highly anticipated ruling on the nation's health-care law is expected Thursday, and the justices' decision will have a profound impact on the way Americans get health care.

The nation's high court could keep intact all -- or just part -- of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010. Or the court may strike down the entire law.

Even if the Supreme Court tosses out the act, thorny issues remain, including access to care for the estimated 50 million Americans without health insurance, spiraling health costs, affordability, quality, and waste and abuse in the system.

Here are some possible outcomes of the Supreme Court's ruling:

Question: What happens if the law is upheld in its entirety?

Answer: Arizona consumers would keep early benefits of the law, such as some preventive health care covered at 100 percent and rebates from insurance companies that did not spend at least 80 percent of premiums on medical care or quality.

But the big changes won't come until 2014, when most Arizonans would be required to obtain health insurance. Now, about 1 out of every 5 Arizonans does not have health insurance. Most of these uninsured people would get health insurance through expanded Medicaid coverage or through a health-insurance exchange that matches consumers and insurance companies.

Hospitals, doctors, health insurers and employers have made significant changes to prepare for the law. Arizona hospitals, for example, have started new programs that emphasize a coordinated and team approach to health care. Some health providers will be paid based on how well they keep people healthy, not the traditional fee-for-service model that pays doctors or hospitals based on tests and procedures.

While consumers, employers and the health-care industry have adjusted to the law, the political battle is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Follow this link:

Bracing for big health-care law ruling