Rancorous healthcare reform debate goes all the way to the Supreme Court

US PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare reforms will be put before the Supreme Court from today, with the verdict likely to play a crucial role in this year’s election.

Over three days, the nine justices – thought to be split down ideological lines – will hear evidence relating to the constitutionality of forcing every American to buy health insurance or pay a penalty fine, alongside other considerations.

If the court opts to strike down the bill, it would be a major blow to the White House and hand a much-needed boost to Republican chances in the presidential run-off.

To add spice to the ruling, it is due to come down in the summer, as campaigning between Mr Obama and his yet to be decided opponent is heating up. Aware of the likely impact of the decision, the Supreme Court has set aside six hours for arguments this week – the most time allotted in almost half a century.

Mr Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by Congress following a lengthy Washington battle in March 2010. Its intention was to overhaul America’s expensive and unbalanced healthcare system, under which some 30 million people are frozen out because of a lack of insurance.

The bill’s solution was to introduce an individual mandate which requires every citizen to sign up to a private policy or face a penalty fine. Those who cannot afford to buy insurance, and are not supported by the safety nets of Medicare and Medicaid, will receive federal subsidies.

The act also bars insurance companies from turning away customers on the grounds that they have pre-existing medical conditions.

But a hoped-for “public option” provider to take on insurers and drive down costs was jettisoned by the White House as it sought to get the bill through Congress. The concession failed to quieten complaints by Republicans that the healthcare bill represented a massive government over-reach.

The ensuing debate found its way to the Supreme Court through legal challenges by individual states. In court papers already filed, lawyer Paul Clement, representing those states, argued that the act represented a grab of “federal power that is unprecedented and unbounded”.