Awaiting a court decision: Would consumers love the law if they suddenly lose it?; The market can fix health care

The Washington Post: Will We Love The Health Care Law If It Dies?
I still harbor the perhaps naïve hope that some conservative justices -- Anthony Kennedy? John Roberts? -; will pull back from judicial activism and allow the voters to decide the fate of the health-care law in this fall's elections. And here is where the court's reintroduction of the health-care issue into the political debate could be turned into a blessing by allies of reform, provided they take advantage of the opportunity to do what they have never done adequately up to now. They need, finally, to describe and defend the law and what it does (E.J. Dionne Jr., 6/24).

The Washington Post: The Fate Of Health Care Shouldn't Come Down To 9 Justices. Try 19.
But how many people should it take to come up with the final word on such questions? Our highest court is so small that the views of individual justices have a distorting and idiosyncratic effect on our laws. The deep respect for the Supreme Court as an institution often blinds us to its flaws, the greatest of which is that it is demonstrably too small (Jonathan Turley, 6/22).

USA Today: If ObamaCare Survives, Legal Battle Has Just Begun
Even if the Affordable Care Act survives its first Supreme Court test -- a ruling is due as early as today --the lawsuits won't end. Citizens have already filed challenges to what critics call the law's "death panel" and its impact on privacy rights, religious liberty and physician-owned hospitals. Still another potential lawsuit poses as great a threat to the law as the case now before the high court (Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, 6/24).

Richmond Times Dispatch: Health Care Reforms: Distortions
Washington has distorted incentives to produce economic outcomes people would not choose themselves. Nothing prevents insurance companies from letting policyholders keep their children on their policies until age 26 -- or 36, or 46 -- right now. And if there were widespread consumer demand for such a benefit, then insurance companies would provide it. But there is not widespread consumer demand for such a benefit, because most young adults enjoy exceptionally good health. Most of them need insurance only for emergencies and catastrophes (6/25).

The New York Times: Awaiting The Supreme Court's Health Care Ruling
If I had to bet, I would put my marker on the ... striking down of the individual mandate only. The majority of the justices may sincerely believe that the Commerce Clause does not authorize the mandate. In addition, some may not be averse to giving the president a little slap in the face. In any event, striking the mandate would not do much damage to the rest of the bill. That is because the penalties for disobeying the mandate now written into the statute are relatively low (Uwe E. Reinhardt, 6/22).

Sacramento Bee: No Turning Back On Health Reform
So, at the California Endowment -- along with legions of advocates, stakeholders, consumers and health providers -- we are feeling the anxiety and pressure of this moment. We cannot waste the opportunity to make our existing health system -- or non-system -- more accessible, more functional, more cost effective, more productive and more prevention-oriented (Robert K. Ross, 6/24).

Minneapolis Star Tribune: We Will Survive The Supreme Court
As we await the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the rhetoric of the statute's supporters is growing increasingly heated -- almost panicky. … Even President Obama and members of his administration have gotten into the act, solemnly warning of the consequences to the court itself should the statute be held unconstitutional. To which I say: Lighten up! (Stephen L. Carter, 6/24)

Reuters: Three Likely Winners In Health Care
The one thing the Supreme Court will have no impact on as it decides the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is the immutable trend in U.S. health care: the growing cost of caring for an aging population. A handful of industries will remain profitable despite the thorny politics of health care policy, and the best way to view this volatile situation through the lens of stocks is in the long term (John Wasik, 6/22).

Philadelphia Inquirer: Handicapping The Supreme Court Ruling
So, what's the bottom line? The most likely outcome is a narrow holding in which the mandate goes, but most of Obamacare remains the law of the land. It will then be up to Congress to amend the law to comply with the Court's ruling. It's anyone's guess as to how that would turn out. Few people seem willing to hazard predictions on the politics involved (Robert I. Field, 6/22).

Chicago Sun-Times: Savage Says: Don't Do Anything Rash In An Uncertain World
Why does it matter to the markets? Aside from the obvious impact on everyone's personal health insurance situation, this ruling -- unless the law is completely upheld -- will likely to throw the health care issue back into the hands of Congress in an election year. That means nothing is likely to get done. Some insurers have already said they will adhere to parts of the law -- including keeping young adults on their parents' policy. But everything from state Medicaid budgets to corporate planning will be impacted by this ruling --further slowing the economy and job creation (Terry Savage, 6/24).

iWatch News:  Flip-Flop On Health-Care Reform Casts President As Modern-Day Julius Caesar
As President Obama read former Aetna CEO Ron Williams' op-ed inThe Wall Street Journal renouncing his support for a key provision of the health care reform law, he must have felt like Julius Caesar when Caesar realized, as he drew his last breath, that his close friend Brutus was in cahoots with his assassins. ... The fact that it was published just days before the Supreme Court was expected to rule on the constitutionality of the mandate made it clear that Williams was not the trusted advisor the President thought he was (Wendell Potter, 6/25).

Detroit Free Press: Uninsured Millions Depend On Court's Support
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide within a matter of days whether the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, and some political pundits believe that President Barack Obama's re-election prospects depend on a favorable ruling. We're not sure about that, but there's little doubt the court's ruling could be a life-or-death issue for the 50 million Americans who currently lack health care coverage, most of whom would remain uncovered if justices send a now divided Congress back to square one (6/24).

San Jose Mercury News: Obama Health Care Reform Opponents Should Watch What They Wish For
Barack Obama's opponents have invested more than $200 million in convincing Americans to oppose his health care reforms. It's working. On the eve of the Supreme Court's ruling, a majority say they hope the court strikes down the president's signature domestic achievement. It's a classic case of: Watch what you wish for. The alternatives under discussion are far worse unless you're rich and can pay out of pocket for whatever care you need (6/22).