Poll: Supreme Court Likely to Strike Health Care Law

The Supreme Court will soon announce its ruling on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law passed in 2010, and for many legal observers who have worked in the court and argued cases before the justices, the federal government's defense of the measure in March did not inspire confidence.

A new insider survey of 58 legal experts conducted after the oral arguments concluded found that most predict that the court will strike down the so-called individual mandate, a central provision within the law requiring that every American purchase a government-approved form of health insurance. The same expert survey was conducted before the hearings began, which found the opposite: Most thought the law would be upheld.

The survey was paid for the American Action Forum, a right-leaning organization and Center Forward, a centrist group, both based in Washington, D.C. It was conducted by Purple Insights, a bipartisan consulting firm. The pollsters received input from former clerks who have worked for justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum: Eleven clerked for traditionally liberal Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, 18 clerked for justices on the right, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarance Thomas and nine worked for Anthony Kennedy.



Using a scale from 0 to 100, the pollsters asked the 38 former clerks of current Supreme Court justices and 18 attorneys who have argued before the court to rate the probability that the individual mandate provision would be declared unconstitutional. The insiders provided an average rating of 57 percent, a significant jump from the pre-hearing survey, when the average was just 35 percent.

"This is a fascinating snapshot of how true experts believe the Supreme Court will act on the future of American healthcare," said American Action Forum President Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as Director of the Congressional Budget Office under President George W. Bush. "Experts believe the oral arguments revealed significant insights into the court's thinking."

The notion that the entire law would be struck down if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional received an average rating of 31 percent in the new poll, an increase of four percentage points from the pre-hearing survey. The average prediction that the law would remain even if the individual mandate is removed dropped to 21 percent from 36 percent in the new survey.

"I feel like a dope," one of the experts said in the comments section of the survey, "because I was one f those who predicted that the court would uphold the statute by a lopsided majority--maybe even 8-1. Although you never know, it now appears pretty likely that this prediction was way off."

After observing the justices during the health care hearings, seven out of ten of the experts said they felt the line of questioning "indicated that they were more skeptical about the law's constitutionality" than they expected. No one who participated in the survey said they thought the justices appeared "less skeptical" than they anticipated.

Although none of those polled have precise knowledge of how the justices will rule on the provisions related to the health care law, their predictions--especially given the significant drop on confidence after watching the oral arguments--could foreshadow the fate of the law.

At the latest, the justices will announce their decisions on the health care law on June 28, although it could come earlier.

Insider poll: Legal experts now expect Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


Insider poll: Legal experts now expect Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate | The Ticket - Yahoo! News






















.

If poll say so, it will be individual mandate that possibly to strike down as most part of law will stand.

In trade has it up around 80% as well

TXgolfer said:

In trade has it up around 80% as well

Click to expand...

We'll see.

Foxrac said:

... as most part of law will stand.

Click to expand...

If Romney will allow those parts to remain. So far he has said that he would allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to 26, allow people who already have a plan but have a pre-existing condition to keep the coverage when switching to a new job or a new plan. But it's Romney... He also wants to leave Medicare/aid up to the states with block grants and allow the free market to determine prices. I am concerned that quality will suffer and prices will go up when health care is left up to profiteering health insurance companies.

kristy2078 said:

If Romney will allow those parts to remain. So far he has said that he would allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to 26, allow people who already have a plan but have a pre-existing condition to keep the coverage when switching to a new job or a new plan. But it's Romney... He also wants to leave Medicare/aid up to the states with block grants and allow the free market to determine prices. I am concerned that quality will suffer and prices will go up when health care is left up to profiteering health insurance companies.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Romney will take promise because every presidents lied to us in past.

Most GOP in the congress don't want healthcare reform at all and they rather to let state to do it so they probably pass very slim healthcare reform that does nothing to relieve patients when deal with high cost of healthcare. Speaking about pre-existing condition, I posted article about GOP in the house don't want ban on preexisting condition.

Turning Medicaid into block grant is just other word for process to abolish the Medicaid, they start with political trick to weaker the Medicaid before they start to stop the fund that effectively kill Medicaid. I don't support this case and never trust politicians who want to change. I agree with you about quality of healthcare is greater concern. I don't think republican plans will goes pass in the senate due to filibuster.

kristy2078 said:

If Romney will allow those parts to remain. So far he has said that he would allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to 26, allow people who already have a plan but have a pre-existing condition to keep the coverage when switching to a new job or a new plan. But it's Romney... He also wants to leave Medicare/aid up to the states with block grants and allow the free market to determine prices. I am concerned that quality will suffer and prices will go up when health care is left up to profiteering health insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Obama took $500 million dollars away from Medicare by eliminating Medicare advantage plans (PPO/HMO's). That's a big blow to many seniors who are dependent on Medicare.

kokonut said:

Obama took $500 million dollars away from Medicare by eliminating Medicare advantage plans (PPO/HMO's). That's a big blow to many seniors who are dependent on Medicare.

Click to expand...

Not really, not all part of Medicare.

Many seniors will remain in Medicare with some financial adjustment by government.

kristy2078 said:

If Romney will allow those parts to remain. So far he has said that he would allow young adults to stay on their parents' plans up to 26, allow people who already have a plan but have a pre-existing condition to keep the coverage when switching to a new job or a new plan. But it's Romney... He also wants to leave Medicare/aid up to the states with block grants and allow the free market to determine prices. I am concerned that quality will suffer and prices will go up when health care is left up to profiteering health insurance companies.

Click to expand...

And there's more:

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

Click to expand...

Read more: Opinion: OBAMA'S MEDICARE SLUSH FUND MASKS OBAMACARE BEFORE ELECTION... - Obamacare - Fox Nation

kokonut said:

And there's more:

Read more: Opinion: OBAMA'S MEDICARE SLUSH FUND MASKS OBAMACARE BEFORE ELECTION... - Obamacare - Fox Nation

Click to expand...

That's just opinion and it is very biased article.

kokonut: Faux News?

PS: Obama is trying to tweak the system so more people get health care benefits, but Romney wants to get rid of Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibiliy age (oddly, he doesn't plan to do that until 2022).

kristy2078 said:

kokonut: Faux News?

PS: Obama is trying to tweak the system so more people get health care benefits, but Romney wants to get rid of Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibiliy age (oddly, he doesn't plan to do that until 2022).

Click to expand...

Both? At the same time?

Would rather him raise the age immediately so that people are unable to prepare? People are living longer....it only makes sense to raise the age unless you want to bankrupt the system even faster.

TXgolfer said:

Both? At the same time?

Would rather him raise the age immediately so that people are unable to prepare? People are living longer....it only makes sense to raise the age unless you want to bankrupt the system even faster.

Click to expand...

The bankrupt isn't existed for Medicare.

kristy2078 said:

kokonut: Faux News?

PS: Obama is trying to tweak the system so more people get health care benefits, but Romney wants to get rid of Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibiliy age (oddly, he doesn't plan to do that until 2022).

Click to expand...

I'm glad that you have ability to spot the bogus or biased article.

kristy2078 said:

kokonut: Faux News?

PS: Obama is trying to tweak the system so more people get health care benefits, but Romney wants to get rid of Medicare and raise the Medicare eligibiliy age (oddly, he doesn't plan to do that until 2022).

Click to expand...

It did not come from Foxnews. The source of that article came from the NY Post written by Benjamin E. Sasse, who is a former US assistant secretary of health.

Tweaking the healthcare system when we don't have the money? Makes sense. And you don't see why some of the countries in Europe are collapsing economically? The governments in Italy, Greece and Portugal borrowed feverishly to keep their public sector workers employed, finance their early retirements and prop up their pensions, and provide for their inexpensive health care. An impossible thing that Europe is just now finding out a bit too late for some countries.

Romney doesn't want to get rid of Medicare. He stated that numerous times. It is Obamacare that's ensuring the demise of Medicare.

kokonut said:

It did not come from Foxnews. The source of that article came from the NY Post written by Benjamin E. Sasse, who is a former US assistant secretary of health.

Tweaking the healthcare system when we don't have the money? Makes sense. And you don't see why some of the countries in Europe are collapsing economically? The governments in Italy, Greece and Portugal borrowed feverishly to keep their public sector workers employed, finance their early retirements and prop up their pensions, and provide for their inexpensive health care. An impossible thing that Europe is just now finding out a bit too late for some countries.

Romney doesn't want to get rid of Medicare. He stated that numerous times. It is Obamacare that's ensuring the demise of Medicare.

Click to expand...

Compare US with Europe is just apple to orange.

I don't take Romney's promise about Medicare.