The Supreme Court heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the individual mandate for two hours on Tuesday. The New York Times reports that on the second day of the landmark case, “a lawyer for the administration faced a barrage of skeptical questions from four of the court’s more conservative justices.”
On Twitter, the fate of the healthcare law appeared grim:
After a day punctuated by seeming skepticism from Supreme Court conservatives about the constitutionality of requiring Americans to buy health insurance, the justices will turn their attention on Wednesday to how much of the 2010 health care law might survive if they strike down that mandate.
If the court invalidates the insurance requirement, the White House and a divided Congress would be left to pick up the pieces.
Mayor Ed Lee has reached an agreement with California Pacific Medical Center officials over their plans to build five new medical facilities in San Francisco, including a massive new hospital on Van Ness Avenue, which will see the medical group contributing more than $115 million toward affordable housing, Muni improvements and other public benefits. That is on top of spending more than $86 million in charitable health care annually for a decade, city officials said.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments today over a proposed expansion of Medicaid that will determine the fate of billions of dollars in health care funding slated for California. One Kaiser Family Foundation estimate shows that if the law stands, California may see an additional $45 billion to $55 billion in federal funds from 2014 to 2019.
The U.S. Supreme Court today will consider how much of President Barack Obama’s health-care law must be thrown out if the justices decide Congress can’t require Americans to buy medical insurance. The debate on so-called severability took on added significance after questions from justices yesterday indicated a majority might strike down the insurance requirement. Today’s session will conclude three days of hearings, six hours in all, the longest in 44 years.
States are complaining that the U.S. government made them a health care offer they can’t refuse — but they’d sure like to. And on a doubly busy Wednesday ending three days of hearings, the Supreme Court has another issue to consider: If justices throw out a key piece of the health care law, should they keep the rest of it? First up, the question of what to do if the court rules unconstitutional the requirement that people have insurance or pay a fine.
Older patients with clogged heart arteries may face a little lower death risk over time if they have bypass operations instead of angioplasty and stents to fix the problem.
Researchers compared these approaches using Medicare records on 190,000 patients, the largest study ever of this issue. Death rates were similar one year after either treatment, but lower after four years among those who had bypass surgery.
The Food and Drug Administration issued guidance that aims to elaborate how the agency evaluates the benefits and risks of medical devices during the pre-market approval and de novo processes.
The pre-market approval process is used to review high-risk medical devices. The de novo process is used for low- and moderate-risk devices that are not “substantially equivalent to existing devices.”
Imagine a prostate cancer therapy that has almost no side effects. Hospitals say it exists and they’re vying to be among the first to offer it. Too bad the treatment may not work as well as advertised and could boost America’s already spiraling health care costs. The technology uses narrowly focused proton beams to deliver precisely targeted blasts of radiation. The particle beams are delivered by 500-ton machines in facilities that cost from $100 million to $200 million, and can require a football-field sized building to house.
A free “Diabetes Care 101″ session today will highlight the latest information on causes and treatments for the disease.
The Sacramento County In-Home Support Services program hosts the event with Tami MacAller of the California Diabetes Program.
MacAller will answer questions about diabetes management and offer caregiving tips for those looking after a diabetic loved one.
The session takes place from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. at 3701 Branch Center Road in Rosemont. For more information, call (916) 876-5173.
Doctors in the Inland Empire say they are bracing for when they must handle more patients and potentially less reimbursement.
Under the Affordable Health Care Act, which takes full effect in 2014, medical insurance would be a requirement, which would translate into a spike in new patients for providers.
The Supreme Court is taking up the issue this week.
Federal health care reform — if it stands — should have little effect on the county’s Health System budget because it is already a disproportionately large Medi-Cal provider. But some unknowns remain such as how significant a number of people who will be unable to or unwilling to comply with insurance requirements, said Director Jean Fraser. “The United States has never done this and neither has San Mateo County,” Fraser said.
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices Tuesday laid into the new requirement that Americans have health insurance as the court began a much-anticipated second day of arguments on President Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.
Even before the Obama administration’s top lawyer could get three minutes into his defense of the mandate, the justices accused the government of pushing for excessive authority to require Americans to buy anything.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. faced a withering barrage of questions Tuesday from Supreme Court justices about what limits would remain on congressional power if federal lawmakers can force Americans to perform an act such as purchasing health insurance.
All three attorneys supporting and opposing the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act faced skeptical justices and tough questions during the two hours of arguments, but Verrilli, arguing for the Obama administration, struggled to come up with a precise definition of the principle that would limit Congress’ powers.
The future of America’s health care system could be decided by Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court justice from California who has become the court’s all-important swing vote.
Comments from the bench by the justices are not always a sign of how they will decide a case. But it was evident during Tuesday’s oral arguments on the federal Affordable Care Act that four liberal justices are inclined to find the law constitutional while four conservative jurists are very skeptical of the act’s mandate that nearly all individuals either have insurance or pay a financial penalty.
President Barack Obama’s health care law would not automatically collapse if the Supreme Court strikes down the unpopular requirement that most Americans carry medical insurance or face a penalty. The overhaul could still lurch ahead without that core requirement, experts say. But it would be more like a clunky collection of parts than a coherent whole.
The legal fate of President Obama’s embattled healthcare law has always turned on winning over the center of the Supreme Court: JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy.
But as the court considered whether the federal government could require most Americans to get health insurance, Kennedy appeared to deal the president and his allies a heavy blow.
Palm Drive Hospital, again in financial trouble and facing a $750,000 deficit, will be looking to its fund-raising arm, the hospital care foundation, for help.
“We are going to dig ourselves out of this hole using a lot of tools. The affiliation with Marin General, sound business practices, increased revenue and a strong relationship with the community through the foundation,” said Chris Dawson, treasurer of the Palm Drive board. “They have to be part of our future.”
With adequate preparation, community hospitals that lack cardiac surgery can safely perform elective angioplasties or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with no increase in either patient mortality at six weeks or adverse cardiac events at nine months, compared with hospitals that do, according to a large and potentially controversial report.
There was no prospective bride yet for a possible future arranged wedding with the Salinas Valley Memorial Healthcare System (SVMHS) after the board of directors deliberated late Tuesday night without a decision by press time.
Check The Californian website at www.thecalifornian.com for the latest news.
The initial six potential candidates were cut to three by a unanimous vote of the board last week.
In a recognition of the nation’s surging Hispanic population, federal researchers reported Wednesday that obesity and diabetes rates have climbed for Mexican-American adults just as they have for other people in the USA.
About 40% of Mexican-American adults were obese in 2010, up from about 35% in 2006 and about 21% in 1984, according to new government data.
Some Republicans were given hope by the questions asked by justices during the second day of the Supreme Court arguments on the federal healthcare law, while Democrats sounded defiant.
“I would say that the government today had a tough day,” Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) said at a news conference after witnessing the second day of oral arguments on constitutional challenges to the law.
The House Democrats’ budget introduced this week would cancel the $1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction moves scheduled to begin in January, which include cuts of up to 2% in Medicare provider payments.
The blueprint for future spending would replace those cuts with alternative “targeted spending cuts and revenue increases,” according to a summary of the measure.
As a child, Lyudmia Shnaydman survived the horrors of World War II, though she lost her entire family. As an older adult she suffers from no fewer than four serious, chronic health problems. Now the state of California is giving her nightmares.
Next week, the state has told Shnaydman, she will lose her access to adult day health care under tighter eligibility rules adopted last year.
With the fate of President Obama’s health care law hanging in the balance, a lawyer for the administration faced a barrage of skeptical questions on Tuesday from four of the Supreme Court’s more conservative justices, suggesting that a 5-to-4 decision to strike down the law was a live possibility.
Predicting the result in any Supreme Court case, much less one that will define the legacies of a president and a chief justice, is nothing like a science, and the case could still turn in various directions. But the available evidence indicated that the heart of the Affordable Care Act is in peril.
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices tore into the Obama administration’s signature health care law Tuesday, posing the question: If the government can make individuals buy health insurance, why can’t it make them buy cell phones or even burial insurance? When they vote together, the five conservatives are a majority of the nine-member court.
Broccoli, the nutrient-rich vegetable derided by President George H.W. Bush two decades ago, found respect at the U.S. Supreme Court during debate on the federal health-care law. The often-steamed cultivar, part of the cabbage family, was mentioned eight times yesterday, as Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts and Solictor General Donald Verrilli argued about the reach of insurance mandates during a second day of debate on the law pushed by President Barack Obama. Bush, in 1990, declared “I don’t like broccoli.”
The Supreme Court concluded a marathon public debate on health care Wednesday with justices signaling an ideological divide that could topple some or all of the the sweeping reform bill championed by President Barack Obama.
Officials at California Pacific Medical Center and the city of San Francisco say they have reached a proposed development agreement that would allow the Sutter Health flagship hospital in San Francisco to build its controversial $1.7 billion hospital at the site of the old Cathedral Hill hotel.
In return, according to the agreement’s executive summary, CPMC would guarantee to provide $1.1 billion in community benefits over a decade, including $115 million to mitigate traffic, affordable housing and other neighborhood impacts.
The Tehachapi Valley Healthcare District Board of Directors held its regular monthly meeting on March 21 at the Golden Hills Community Services District building with all board members present. Chief Nursing Officer, Juliana Kirby introduced Dennis Martinez Medical Director of the Emergency Room and Doctor Ron Ostrom of Buena Vista Emergency Medical Services that has been hired by the Hospital to provide Emergency and Hospitalist Services to the Board. They will begin service on April 1.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the requirement that nearly all Americans purchase health insurance—a possibility that seemed as likely as ever after Tuesday’s arguments—the justices must then decide whether to torpedo the entire healthcare reform law or just sever the insurance mandate.
The Supreme Court has scheduled 90 minutes of arguments Wednesday morning on this “severability” question, seeking to answer how much of the 2-year-old Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would be affected if the mandate falls.
In one of the most anticipated Supreme Court hearings in years, the justices on Tuesday offered sharply divided views on the controversial individual mandate provision at the heart of the 2010 federal health care reform law.
The fate of the individual mandate — requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a financial penalty — may be in jeopardy, and perhaps with it the entire law’s other 450 or so sections, based on tough questions of the government by the court’s conservative majority.
It boiled down to a debate over broccoli. And bread. And burial plots. If government can tell people to buy health insurance, Supreme Court justices wanted to know, what else could it make them buy? Throughout Tuesday’s hearing on the health care law, the justices and lawyers argued about the perfect product to illustrate the limits of the federal government’s power over interstate markets.
Most people who oppose the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate do so because it’s such a grave affront to our constitutionAfter all, a Congress that can force you to buy health insurance can also force you to buy solar panels, newspaper subscriptions and gym memberships.
But let’s be real. The reason the ACA forces every American to buy health insurance is that the law makes it a raw deal for people to buy it on their own.al tradition of limited government.
One afternoon in 1934, Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone decided to quietly help Labor Secretary Frances Perkins out of a jam.
Her quandary was how to write a Social Security law that would survive scrutiny by the court’s conservative bloc. Stone, a progressive, pulled her aside during a tea party at his home, glanced around to make sure he wasn’t overheard, and whispered, “The taxing power of the federal government, my dear; the taxing power is sufficient for everything you want and need.”
Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over the “individual mandate” contained in the 2010 health care law came down to one core question: If the government can require you to buy medical insurance, what else could it make you buy?
Skeptics of the mandate suggested a range of possibilities. Cars? (Justice Antonin Scalia) Cellphones to dial 911? (Chief Justice John Roberts) Burial insurance? (Justice Samuel Alito) Broccoli? (Roberts and Scalia)
The vast expansion of Medicaid in the 2010 healthcare reform law put Washington on a collision course with cash-strapped state governments, which have been scrambling to reduce the cost of the joint federal-state insurance program for the poor and disabled. That conflict reaches the Supreme Court on Wednesday, when lawyers for 24 states will seek to bar Congress from adding millions of Americans to the program’s rolls.
We hope the Affordable Care Act is upheld — and that lawmakers will later do more to contain costs.
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments on one of the more important and controversial issues to come before justices in a decade — the constitutionality of the nation’s landmark health care law.
Though we have taken issue with various parts of the broad 2010 legislation, we support the individual mandate, which is at the core of questions before the court.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday began hearing three days of arguments over the nation’s health care reform law as the court began the momentous task of deciding whether the law – or which parts of the law – will pass constitutional muster. Given the court’s earlier decisions and the authority Congress has under the nation’s founding document to regular interstate commerce, we think that the chances are good that the justices will uphold the law. That would be the best outcome.
As I write this column hundreds of protestors on the steps of the Supreme Court are expressing their positions on what has become known as Obamacare or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as it is officially called. The Senate passed it on December 24, 2009, the House passed it on March 21, 2010, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.
The House Republican budget is devastating to America’s fragile recovery and to middle and working class families.
This is a budget that preserves billions of dollars in Big Oil subsidies while slashing education investments nearly in half, that gives the average millionaire an extra $150,000 windfall in tax giveaways while gutting nearly half of the federal government’s commitment to Medicaid, and that makes it easier to ship jobs overseas while destroying over a million American jobs in transportation, research, health services and other vital sectors.