You can now read 10 articles in a month for free on BostonGlobe.com. Read as much as you want anywhere and anytime for just 99¢.

The Boston Globe

Nation

Health care hearings begin with legal issue on taxes

Supporters and opponents of the health care reform law argued outside the US Supreme Court.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Supporters and opponents of the health care reform law argued outside the US Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is plunging into a three-day debate on the Obama administration’s overhaul of the nation’s health care system. In the opening minutes, the justices are asking pointed questions about a legal issue that could derail the case.

Eight of nine justices fired two dozen questions in less than a half hour at Washington attorney Robert Long. He was appointed by the justices to argue that the case has been brought prematurely because a law bars tax disputes from being heard in the courts before the taxes have been paid.

Continue reading below

Under the new law, taxpayers who don’t purchase health insurance will have to report that omission on tax returns for 2014 and will pay a penalty along with federal income tax. At issue is whether that penalty is a tax.

Three days of hearings will determine the fate of a law aimed at extending health insurance to 30 million more Americans.

The nine justices began hearing arguments a little after 10 a.m. after Chief Justice John Roberts announced the day’s decisions by the court on other cases.

Outside the court building Monday morning, about 80 supporters of the law walked in a circle holding signs that read, ‘‘Protect my healthcare,’’ and chanting, ‘‘Care for you, care for me, care for every family.’’ A half-dozen opponents shouted, ‘‘We love the Constitution!’’

A decision is expected by late June, in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which all of Obama’s Republican challengers oppose the law and promise its repeal, if the high court doesn’t strike it down first.

People hoping for a glimpse of the action have waited in line all weekend for the relatively few seats open to the public. The justices allotted the case six hours of argument time, the most since the mid-1960s.

Nurses Lauri Lineweaver and Laura Brennaman, who are completing doctoral degrees, had been waiting since noon Sunday and got tickets to see arguments. ‘‘It’s an honor to be in the court,’’ said Lineweaver, 35.

The court will release audio recordings of the arguments on the same day they take place. The first time that happened was when the court heard argument in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the 2000 presidential election. The last occasion was the argument in the Citizens United case that wound up freeing businesses from longstanding limits on political spending.

Outside groups filed a record 136 briefs on various aspects of the court case.

The biggest issue before the court is Tuesday’s argument over the constitutionality of the individual insurance requirement. The states and the National Federation of Independent Business say Congress lacked authority under the Constitution for its unprecedented step of forcing Americans to buy insurance whether they want it or not.

The administration argues Congress has ample authority to do what it did. If its action was rare, it is only because Congress was dealing with a problem that has stymied Democratic and Republican administrations for many decades: How to get adequate health care to as many people as possible, and at a reasonable cost.

The justices also will take up whether the rest of the law can remain in place if the insurance mandate falls and, separately, whether Congress lacked the power to expand the Medicaid program to cover 15 million low-income people who currently earn too much to qualify.

If upheld, the law will force dramatic changes in the way insurance companies do business, including forbidding them from denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions and limiting how much they can charge older people.

The law envisions that insurers will be able to accommodate older and sicker people without facing financial ruin because of its most disputed element, the requirement that Americans have insurance or pay a penalty.

By 2019, about 95 percent of the country will have health insurance if the law is allowed to take full effect, the Congressional Budget Office estimates.

Reams of court filings attest that the changes are being counted on by people with chronic diseases, touted by women who have been denied coverage for their pregnancies, and backed by Americans over 50 but not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, who face age-inflated insurance premiums.

Republicans are leading the fight to kill the law either by the court or through congressional repeal. They say the worst fears about what they derisively call ‘‘Obamacare’’ already have come to pass in the form of higher costs and regulations, claims that the law’s supporters dispute.

The White House says it has little doubt the high court will uphold the law, and that even its opponents will eventually change their tune.

‘‘One thing I'm confident of is, by the end of this decade, we’re going to be very glad the Republicans termed this ‘Obamacare,’ because when the reality of health care is in place, it’s going to be nothing like the kind of fear-mongering that was done,’’ said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the president, said Sunday in an interview with ABC’s ‘‘This Week.’’

Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the insurance requirement is unconstitutional.

Loading comments...

You have reached the limit of 10 free articles in a month

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week