SALT LAKE CITY -- The Supreme Court will hear arguments relative to the legal merits of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2012 — roughly two years after the legislation was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The far-reaching consequences of the court’s ruling will likely impact both the cost of health care and the outcome of the 2012 elections.

While there are a variety of ways in which the court could rule, this article will briefly examine some of the consequences if the court rules that the legislation is constitutional.

Cost of health care

If the Supreme Court rules that ACA is constitutional, health care costs will likely continue to rise — although at a slower rate than if the law were determined to be unconstitutional.

Health care costs currently make up approximately 18 percent of gross domestic product. If expenditures continue on their current trajectory, “the share of GDP devoted to health care in the United States is projected to reach 34 percent by 2040.” In more intimate terms, the Department of Health and Human Services demonstrates individuals paid approximately $1,000 per year in health care costs in 1960, more than $7,000 per year in 2007, and are projected to pay more than $13,000 per year by 2018.

Simply put, this kind of a rise in health care costs is unsustainable — and these kinds of projections are part of the reason ACA was created in the first place.

Nevertheless, claims of ACA’s positive impact on the economy have likely been overestimated. Furthermore, the Obama administration recently acknowledged the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program (CLASS Act) is not financially viable and it was subsequently stripped from the health care legislation. This provision of the health care law was used to justify a savings of $143 billion over the course of 10 years.

#poll

Individuals would have been required to pay into the CLASS Act for several years before receiving any benefits, which enabled projections of cost savings on one hand and long- term insolvency on the other.

ACA focuses heavily on reducing the cost of health insurance — a factor that will likely result in reduced insurance costs. At the same time, the legislation fails to consider all of the factors that contribute to the spikes in overall health costs. To some degree, ACA functions more as a Band-Aid when surgery is the indicated solution.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court rules ACA is constitutional, health care costs will likely continue to rise — albeit at a slower rate than they would without the health care legislation.

2012 elections

If the Supreme Court rules that ACA is constitutional, Democrats will likely head into November with the benefit of added momentum.

Daniel Schnur, the communications director for John McCain in the 2000 election, says Obama’s willingness to let the Supreme Court look at the health care case before the 2012 elections is “the ultimate high-risk, high- reward gamble.”

If the Supreme Court rules against the law, it could handicap Obama’s chances for re-election.

On the other hand, if the court rules the law is constitutional, it could be a boon not only for Obama, but Democrats in Congress as well.

How likely is a ruling?

If the court rules for or against health care, it will impact the cost of health care and the outcome of the 2012 elections — along with a variety of other issues. Yet even though the court has accepted one of several related cases, how likely is it that a clear ruling will be forthcoming next year?

In general, the justices prefer not to get involved in politics (arguments or allegations of judicial activism aside). But it is difficult to deny politics — or at the very least, political ideologies — will play a role in the outcome of the case. Already, two justices with alleged conflicts of interest on opposite sides of the issue have declined to recuse themselves.

Related:

What happens if Supreme Court overturns health care law?

President Barack Obama entered the Oval Office in 2009 amidst rallying cries of hope and change.

While there are justifications for the decisions, the elephant in the room is that political ideologies will come into play in what is taking shape as a very, very significant case. As Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation said, this is no longer a debate about health care. "It's a debate about almost everything else."

Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker argues Obama’s electability may be a factor in whether the court issues a clear ruling. “If Obama looks like a lame duck (in February or March 2012), it will be a lot easier for the justices to dismantle his signal achievement; if Obama looks like a winner, some on the court may think twice about picking this particular fight with him.”

And if the justices want a way out, they have their choice of several options. Their review of the Anti-Injunction Act could provide them with an easy out by simply ruling the case can’t be challenged until citizens have suffered actual damages.

Additionally, there are two individuals associated with the case chosen for review by the court. The Obama administration has challenged the legal standing of one of those individuals, Kaj Ahlburg.

The individual the Obama administration did not challenge is Mary Brown, a small business owner who argued “she would have to divert funds away from her business to comply” with certain components of the law.

However, Brown recently declared bankruptcy due in no small part to business debts. The timing of her financial woes could pose a risk to a ruling by the court during the current session. Some legal scholars believe if she no longer owns her business, then she no longer has a dog in the race and legally has no standing to have her argument heard by the court.

If the court chooses, it has a number of options at its disposal to dismiss the case until a later time.

However, if the court does issue a ruling — either for or against the constitutionality of the health care law — it likely will have a monumental impact on the future of our country.

Among those issues that would be impacted by the ruling — one way or another — are the cost of health care and the outcome of the 2012 elections.

This is the second in a series of two articles addressing the consequences of the Supreme Court's decision on health care reform.

Kurt Manwaring is pursuing a graduate degree in public administration at the University of Utah. He is a consultant with Manwaring Consulting LLC and maintains a personal blog at www.kurtsperspective.blogspot.com.

Related topics