Updated 12:15pm PT
The Supreme Court heard two sets of oral arguments today in its final day of considering the health care overhaul. The second arguments were extended and wrapped up about an hour ago. In that session, the Court addressed the question:
Is the Medicaid expansion constitutional?
Remember that Medicaid is the health care plan for the poor and disabled that is run by individual states with both state and federal dollars. The Affordable Care Act expands those eligible for Medicaid to adults earning 133 percent of the federal poverty level. But in order for states to continue receiving any federal money for Medicaid, the ACA requires them to comply with this expansion. Twenty-six states have challenged this requirement saying that withholding all monies for Medicaid is coercive and therefore unconstitutional. Those states which support the expansion–including California–say that Congress can constitutionally attach such conditions under what’s known as the “Spending Clause.”
You can listen to the complete oral arguments about Medicaid expansion here:
Or read on for the complete transcript ... and for audio/transcripts of all the Court’s earlier sessions:
Original post 9:45am PT:
In the first set of arguments earlier today, the Court addressed the question:
If the Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional, Can the Rest of the ACA Go Forward?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. What about the rest of the ACA? If the individual mandate is struck down, can the rest of the ACA go forward? Earlier this morning the Court heard arguments to determine if the mandate can be "severed" from the Affordable Care Act, allowing the remainder of the ACA to stand.
You can listen to the complete oral arguments here:
Or read the complete transcript: