So do my older kids lose healthcare if this is overturned?

[adigal]

I have a son, 21, graduating from college this May and another son, 20, who took time off from college. Both are insured now under my husband and I, under Obama's healthcare plan, and will be insured until the age of 26 if they are not able to get jobs with health insurance. Will this or the preexisting condition changes be revoked if the SC overturns the case in front of them, or is it only mandates?

[atreides1]

1. Looks like it

[a kennedy]

2. No, your son will be covered as it is law now....

the justices are deciding the parts of the act that will come into effect in 2014 is my understanding. edit for spelling

[orwell]

5. The problem is if the mandate is overturned...

...it is unclear whether the other provisions will be separated or the whole act would be in jeopardy.

Insurance companies will argue that without the mandate, the other provisions would be too onerous to comply with with raising premiums substantially.

That is why the mandate was included. It allowed coverage extensions without exorbitant premium increases by bringing younger/healthier payers into the pool.

[HockeyMom]

3. Out of luck with pre-existing conditions?

Out of luck with contraception coverage?

[adigal]

4. OK, thanks! I hope they don't lose coverage

and the poor people with preexisting conditions don't either,

[AlinPA]

6. Last week a republican on Bloomberg News said the whole law would go down if the SC rules

against it.

[Xithras]

7. The only correct answer is "We don't know".

The Affordable Healthcare Act infamously contained no severability clauses, which means that it's an all-or-nothing proposition. Taken literally, it means that EVERYTHING goes if the mandate is struck down. On the other hand, severability of the law is one of the subjects being raised before the Supreme Court, so even if they rule against the mandate, it's entirely possible that they may leave much of the rest of the law intact.

We won't know until they issue their ruling.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Indeed 'secerability' is of the issues being argued before the court.

This article contains discussion of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/opinion/the-severability-doctrine.html

Note that the Obama administration is arguing _against_ severability.

[TheMastersNemesis]

8. I Would Not Trust The Court

I would not trust the Court because they could strike down the whole law as unconstitutional. We will know soon. And if the mandate goes the law would be severely weakened. Roberts and the Court has gone way overboard in the past. If they were to be disposed to go as far as they did with Citizens United they could put Medicare and Medicaid under the umbrella and abolish those programs as well. They don't need a reason to do such a thing. They are a renegade super RW court. They can do what they want and they can use the law as they please and the GOP is fully supportive and even want 9 extreme justices.

That is why we see so many personhood laws being proposed. The churches want to get personhood to the court in the hopes that 6 Catholic judges three who are extreme Opus Dei Catholic will declare personhood valid. I was raised Catholic and they preach personhood at conception. And they favor the child over the life of the mother IN ALL MEDICAL DECISIONS. To wit. If a doctor told the family that a fetus only had a at least a one in a quadrillion chance of survival and the mother had 100% certainty of death, the mother MUST BE SACRIFICED AS A MORAL IMPERATIVE. And I can tell you the Church takes the stand that nonbelievers should be required to follow Catholic practice in public policy. The bishops of the Catholic church believe that homesexuality should be outlawed and sex outside of marriage should be outlawed and that ALL contraception of all kinds including mechanical should be unavailable for everyone in the US. That includes all forms of sterilization.

The Church also teaches that couple are morally bound to have ALL the children they are capable of. And the fundamentalist churches completely agree with the Catholic Church on such matters. They all say NO sex unless approved and the GOP supports that as well.

Now if the American people cannot understand what a GOP victory will mean in the end I simply do not know what they would understand. And they call it FREEDOM.

[adigal]

12. This would be the death knell of the Republican party

if they go so far as to mess with Medicare and Medicaid. Striking down this entire law might be their death knell as well. Something like 14 million people have insurance now, due to the preexisting rule being thrown out. In an election where only 110 million people vote, 14 million pissed off people is a lot of people!!
Thanks for the information. I was a Catholic, no more, thank God!!

[Politicalboi]

10. So we're trusting the same group

Who made corporations people under the Constitution. I wonder who they will side with. The people, or the insurance companies?

[sadbear]

11. I would suspect that everyone's premiums would rise drastically

Those now paying will have to pay for everyone else covered by the law and those who are now paying nothing will continue to pay nothing.