tl;dr: The supreme court just accepted a case asking whether the tax penalty for not having health insurance is constitutional. Ruling is expected in June 2012.
Further, it's a very partisan issue. If the law is upheld, the democrats win, if it falls the republicans win - and this is particulalry notable because the timing for the decision leads into the heaviest part of the election season. It could have the opposite effect than what is desired for the elections though - if it's struck down and the healthcare law is gutted, that could call democrats to action to put people in place to fix the issues and restart healthcare. I'm not sure that the reverse would be true for republicans though.
I'm keen to see how this case plays out. The ability for the government to force citizens to purchase a service or good must be balanced with the freedom for people to choose how to spend their money.The Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals from just one decision... The decision, from a divided three-judge panel, said the mandate overstepped Congressional authority and could not be justified by the constitutional power “to regulate commerce” or “to lay and collect taxes.”
The appeals court went no further, though, severing the mandate from the rest of the law.
On Monday, the justices agreed to decide not only whether the mandate is constitutional but also, if it is not, how much of the balance of the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, must fall along with it.
Further, it's a very partisan issue. If the law is upheld, the democrats win, if it falls the republicans win - and this is particulalry notable because the timing for the decision leads into the heaviest part of the election season. It could have the opposite effect than what is desired for the elections though - if it's struck down and the healthcare law is gutted, that could call democrats to action to put people in place to fix the issues and restart healthcare. I'm not sure that the reverse would be true for republicans though.