Upcoming Supreme Court ruling: GOP as 'dog that caught the car'; Growing concerns about mandate

The Wall Street Journal: GOPCare 
[T]he GOP may be positioning itself to become the dog that caught the car. Political and policy uncertainty is perhaps inevitable given the range of what the Court could do. But the Republicans need a more coherent strategy. ... An orderly unwinding of ObamaCare was always going to be difficult. But based on its disarray and confusion so far, the GOP may be making it harder (6/16).

The New York Times' Opinionator: Life After The Health Care Ruling
Within the next two weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision on the Affordable Care Act. If they accepted jurisdiction, the justices could uphold the law entirely or strike it all down, or they could zero in to reject the most controversial aspect, the mandate that individuals must have health insurance. What would the future hold if the individual mandate were struck down? (6/17).

The Wall Street Journal: Why I No Longer Support The Health Insurance Mandate
Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I am not a lawyer, or an expert on the Constitution. But as the chairman and CEO of a major health plan, I had a ringside seat to the entire health-care reform process. After much reflection, I have concluded that the federal individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014, will not be upheld. I don't say this lightly, as I have long been a vocal advocate of getting and keeping every American covered (Ron Williams, 6/17).

The Washington Post: The Folly Of Obamacare
We pay our presidents for judgment, and President Obama committed a colossal error of judgment in making health-care "reform" a centerpiece of his first term. Ahead of the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -; and regardless of how the court decides -; it's clear that Obama overreached. His attempt to achieve universal health insurance coverage is a massive feat of social engineering that, by its sweeping nature, weakens the economic recovery and antagonizes millions of Americans (Robert J. Samuelson, 6/17).

Politico: Health Insurance Isn't Like Broccoli
If we require people to purchase health insurance, the reasoning goes, with that nose under the tent, why not broccoli next? That logic comes as close to insulting one's intelligence as anything I can imagine. … Do those who suggest the possibility of a broccoli mandate really believe that there is no difference between broccoli and health insurance? Do they not recognize that an insurance mandate goes to the heart of creating actuarial insurance models that allow for universal coverage for health insurance for everyone living within our borders? (Tom Daschle, 6/17).

Kansas City Star: Health Care Law Is Already Improving The System
Much of the nation is on high alert in anticipation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of part, or all, of the sweeping health care reform law that President Barack Obama signed two years ago. The decision, which could be announced as soon as Monday, will have a profound impact on political fortunes, the insurance market and on people's lives. A ruling to invalidate the law, or even to strike down its most controversial provision, the individual insurance mandate, would be destructive. Among other things, it would increase the chances of more Americans being forced to go without health insurance (6/16).

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Supreme Court Won't Have Last Word On Health Reform
[T]he two of us don't see eye-to-eye on the legislation. ... However, despite our differences on ACA, both of us do agree that with or without ACA the soaring cost of health care will undermine the private health care marketplace and crowd out other important public priorities. ... We also agree that, whatever the Supreme Court decides, the delivery and financing of health care need to change in fundamental ways (Tom Horner and Tim Penny, 6/16).

Houston Chronicle: Court Will Examine Legality, Not Merits, Of Health Care Reform
Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), one thing is certain: it will not be based on an assessment of the merits of a national health care system. Rather, it will be a ruling about whether there is explicit constitutional authority for the way Congress chose to fund a system to make health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans (Jennifer S. Bard, 6/15).

The Hill: Defeat Of Health Care Law Would Erode Voters' Trust In Supreme Court
The hardball political fact is that attacking the court will help the president's campaign and it will damage the court for years to come. A CBS News/New York Times poll released last week shows most Americans already believe the ruling on healthcare reform will be based on justices' personal and political views. According to the survey, 55 percent of Americans believe the justices' political ties will play a role in the healthcare decision. An earlier CBS/New York Times poll ... found that 60 percent of Americans now believe that lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices are a "bad thing" (Juan Williams, 6/18).

The Fiscal Times:  Reform May Survive If Supreme Court Kills Mandate
If the high court follows the polls, it probably will rule the requirement that individuals purchase insurance – the mandate – is unconstitutional but leave the rest of "Obamacare" intact. A CBS/New York Times poll released earlier this month showed that 41 percent wanted the entire law overturned, 24 percent supported it fully and 27 percent supported it but wanted the mandate eliminated.  Pooling the latter two groups suggests there is majority support for the coverage expansion, insurance protections and delivery system reforms contained in the bill – as long as there is no mandate (Merrill Goozner, 6/18).

iWatch News:  Pledge To Honor ObamaCare Provisions Even If Court Strikes Down Law Left Much Unsaid
It was clear to me that UnitedHealth "declined" to make any company official available -; at least "on the record" -; Sunday night because "rude" questions would have been asked. So the stories that appeared Monday and over subsequent days did not have answers to critically important questions about whether the company would "honor" the many other provisions of the reform law that will benefit most Americans if the Court rules against it (Wendell Potter, 6/18).