Justices Questioning Briskly In Health Care Case By Mark Sherman | Associated Press | 03/26/2012 WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court plunged into debate Monday on the fate of the Obama administration's overhaul of the nation's health care system, starting with pointed questions about a legal issue that could derail the case. Eight of the nine justices fired two dozen questions in less than half hour at Washington attorney Robert Long. He had been appointed by the justices to argue that the case has been brought prematurely because a law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid. Under the new law, taxpayers who don't purchase health insurance will have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and will pay a penalty along with federal income tax. At issue is whether that penalty is a tax. Some of the justices reacted skeptically to the idea that the penalties encapsulated in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act were actually a tax. "What is the parade of horribles?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor, if the court decides that penalties are not a tax and the health care case goes forward? Long suggested it could encourage more challenges to the long-standing system in which the general rule is that taxpayers must pay a disputed tax before they can go to court. http://netscape.compuserve.com/news....htm&sc=+&photoid=20120326DCCD105&floc=NW_1-T ...... It will be interesting to see which side each justice falls into, according to their secret political beliefs, but the notoriety concerning this Affordable HealthCare Act which needs only a Single Payer clause to make it perfect, is what will promote more public scrutiny into the methodology of the Supreme Courts dealings. Is the Supreme Court capable of ruling objectively with the nation looking on? The mandatory healthcare clause is entirely justified as it is different than getting auto insurance.. You may not own, want, or have a car, thus will not need mandatory car insurance, but you will some time in your life need medical care and to wait until you need medical care to buy it is unfair to the millions of other payers. It is every payer that is certain to use it, paying into the plan that will keep it affordable for all. There are government subsidies for those unable to pay the premiums, so there are no losers, only winners with guaranteed healthcare for whatever illness besets them and not being subject to whims of incessant medical costs and raises by insurance companies for more and more profits. The Affordable Care Act has been in force for over a year now and will officially break out of the gate in 2014, and Americans have the best of it because we will now have affordable, fraud free services, the greatest physicians, surgeons, and dedicated medical help in the world. But will the Supreme Court scuttle it because of political beliefs, or will they take it head on and declare it is needed in this country, that the basis for keeping it affordable would be mandatory fees for every American, and that it should be Single Payer...just like the health insurance Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court now has. Lets see if the Supreme Court will now do its job...the job they were appointed for to actually do. They have the old law that says you must be a victim of the law before you can present it to the court; they can decide the Affordable Act is good for the country; they could kick the can down the road until after the elections before they rule on this important healthcare law. Existentially speaking, I feel they should decide on the authenticity of the bill NOW...judicially speaking they can wait for people to become victims of inherent taxation before acting, or they can politically wait until after the November elections
