The Supreme Court Split The Mandate of The Health: In one of the most anticipated hearing in the Supreme Court during the year, a judge on Tuesday offered sharply divided views on the controversial provision of individual mandates in the heart of the Public Health Act 2010 federal reform.
The fate of an individual mandate - that most Americans have no health insurance in 2014, or face a fine - may be compromised, and perhaps, therefore, the whole law of the 450 or so other sections, based on the difficult issues the government of the conservative majority of the Court.
Jeffrey Toobin, senior analyst for CNN, said the questions on the oral arguments are often shown as the judges think, and on the basis of what he heard Tuesday a bill on health care reform may be a "serious danger".
Neither the judge nor the lawyers arguing before them said: "Obamacare" - as opponents called the law pushed through Congress, Democrats and President Barack Obama - President or by name.
But the judge seemed fully aware of the historical consequences of their decisions possible.
"Those who do not participate in the health system more expensive for everyone," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in support of the law. "This is not your free choice" to stay on the market for life, she said.
The young, especially the health of people who will be "donor subsidized" when they get older, said the judge Elena Kagan.
However, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared that the federal government "is a person to say that he is obliged to act" and buy insurance.
"It jeopardizes the relationship between the government and people in the deepest sense," said Kennedy.
If Congress can regulate, on behalf of Commerce said Chief Justice John Roberts, "all of Paris are open" on a number of areas, in accordance with the federal government.
Toobin four liberal judges of the Court - Ginsburg, Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer - is clearly in favor of the constitutionality of the law, while a conservative judge Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia seemed certain to be against the law.
With Justice Clarence Thomas was also considered a number of voices on the conservative side, this issue will be decided by the other voices of Kennedy and Roberts, Toobin said.
Kennedy, who many consider to fluctuations in the vote on the divided court, asked tough questions about the mandate, and seemed likely to object to its constitutionality, Toobin says, that means more than, perhaps, the conservative Roberts Liberals' best hope for the right service.
"I do not know if they have a fifth vote," said Toobin. "I think that Kennedy was a lost cause, after hearing his comments."
The argument Tuesday was the largest of the three-day marathon of the High Court this week, an investigation within the powers of Congress. This seminar was part of the legal history lesson in the game, sprinkle policy.
At least 17 members of Congress attended, and some members of the Obama administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder.
Administration officials, speaking on condition is not identified, said they expect that the Supreme Court to confirm an individual mandate, despite the tough questioning on Tuesday.
They noted that the same conservative judges on the difficult questions that challenge his way to the Supreme Court in the end of the mandate, and Roberts has two sides to their questions.
Outside the court, press conferences and demonstrations Tuesday reflects the partisan nature of the fight health care debate.
Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, and not in his attempt for the Republican presidential nomination in November, Obama told supporters of tea next to the building of the Supreme Court that the issue of freedom for individuals to determine their needs assistance.
"If the federal government can tell you if you do nothing, you have to do something, the federal government can tell you the truth," Bachmann said, later adding an appeal to the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional mandate.
She noted that two years after the signing of the Act, a measure of health "is not this country together."
"He divided us more than ever," said Bachmann, pointing to the close supporters of reform, against the demonstrators. "Look around you."
Previously, a cancer patient, said at a press conference, supporters of the law, which saved his life.
"Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, I get to my house to see if it goes bankrupt, my children will learn to go to college, and I'll live," said Spike Dolomite Ward applause.
Nine members of the bench, held Tuesday a two-hour arguments aimed at the political and constitutional implications.
Participation: The federal government can, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, to regulate the economy, "downtime"? Three federal appeals courts have affordable health law to be constitutional, and another said it was not the case, calling it "captures the spirit of its advanced features."
This "circuit split" all but certain that the Supreme Court will step and decide the case.
A coalition of 26 countries, led by Florida, these individuals may be forced to insurance, "product", they do not need or want to buy.
Ministry of Justice said that, since every American needs health care at some point in their lives, people do not "choose" to participate in the healthcare market.
Federal officials cite data for 2008 of $ 43 billion of uncompensated costs millions of uninsured people receiving health care - costs that are passed first to the insurance companies, and then passed to consumers.
In court, Attorney General Donald Verrilli Jr. to position the government efforts to instruct the trade that already exists, because everything is regulated by an articulated - whether the current health insurance system - participates in the healthcare market.
Scalia jumped in Verrilli asked: "Why did not the market (left) as a whole?"
"It is quite possible that everyone sooner or later, but not everyone needs a heart transplant, not everyone needs a liver transplant," Scalia continued. "Can you define the market, allowing anyone to buy food, sooner or later, so the market is defined as food, so that everyone in the market, so people can buy broccoli?"
Roberts said that the law applies to pediatric care and treatment, but not all, Americans need them, and indirectly subsidize them.
But Sotomayor said that the broad federal economic surveillance "for practically any product, directly or indirectly by government regulation."
"There is a limitation of the government in almost all economic decisions, because the government regulates so much," said Sotomayor, calling it "state of life that some are against," but it really is.
Ginsburg, meanwhile, is the relationship between health reform and Social Security, adopted in 1930 a financial incentive for older people who are subsidized by the young and old.
"If Congress does not see this problem when we need a group that will subsidize those who will have to get the benefits seems to me that you are the only way that you can do is say, if the government was their own, but it can not cover the private market, it can not attract private insurance companies, "said Ginsburg.
CNN / ORC International poll released Monday said that the law's health is becoming increasingly popular, especially among independent voters, and half of those surveyed still oppose. However, while many opponents of the measure think it goes too far, some who disagree do not think it quite liberal.
The study showed an almost equal distribution of the individual mandate, with 47% front and 51%, the difference in the margin of error for the survey. The study showed a gender gap exists on this issue, 58% of men against the mandate, while 53% of women support.
There is also a strong partisan division on this issue, with 71% of Democrats favor the mandate, while 78% of Republicans opposed. Among the independent 56% compared with the situation.
The warring parties do not agree on the mandate - known as "buy" or "minimum coverage" provision - designed to perform.
Supporters see it as a way to reduce healthcare costs among a large group of people, the availability of affordable, quality health care. They say that the regulation of trade and economy has long been a federal responsibility.
Opponents see the fundamental constitutional violations as infringement on citizens' lives, and the gap in the government long ago.
Most people will be covered by the authority, except for those whose religious beliefs are in conflict, and illegal immigrants and prisoners.
It will rely on government insurance for those who are covered by their health.
"This is a special case, and why you are so many states that are united in this process," says lawyer Paul Clement, who argued for the States this week. "These problems are really about whether the central federal government can control what he wants, or is there certain things that only national governments can regulate."
But supporters of the law that the federal government could take.
"The Congress finds it necessary to almost 20% of our economy, making health regulation and insurers can not discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, for example, and move the position of minimum cover. It is entirely under the authority of Congress," said General Counsel Elizabeth Wydra Center constitutional responsibility. "No one says that the right to charge all the time your neighbors if you decide not to take care to choose."
This is an individual mandate, which led to the greatest controversy. It requires almost all Americans to a certain level of production or dealing with a tax penalty of $ 700 per year.
On Monday, the judges quickly tired of the legal argument is dense if the individual mandate was "tax" that will keep the attention of key constitutional issues for several years.
There is a bit on the bench seemed to good to be approached slowly, hugging, and the number of judges have begun to question the argument Tuesday on the individual mandate.
It shows where the true goal of all, he will know his decision on the central office has a huge legal implications, and social policy. Tuesday in the case of the Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida (11-398).
The arguments concluded on Wednesday at two readings on the set, if the law should fail, if the individual mandate declared unconstitutional, and if the expansion of Medicaid covered individual erroneously states.
Usually takes about four cases, the court is expected by late June.
