Healthcare reform challenge hinges on mandate argument.

USA Today (3/16, Wolf) reports that a key issue for the Supreme Court later this month when it hears arguments on the healthcare reform law challenge will be "whether requiring Americans to buy health insurance is a law with a 'limiting principle.' If President Obama's health care law -- his landmark legislative achievement -- is to withstand legal challenge, government lawyers must convince a majority of justices that the health care marketplace is unique," and by failing to purchase insurance, "millions of Americans transfer $43 billion in health care costs to others in the form of higher premiums." Opponents of the law "contend that the 'minimum coverage requirement' -- more commonly known as the individual mandate -- would set a precedent that could apply to vitamin supplements, daily newspapers or kidney donations."

        The Hill (3/16, Baker) reports in its "Healthwatch" blog, "The Obama administration has shifted its legal arguments as it prepares to defend the president's healthcare law before the Supreme Court." In brief submitted prior to oral arguments, government attorneys, who have previously "defended the mandate as its own regulation of economic activity," are "now stepping http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-honda-settlement-20120316,0,978510.storyexperts say the shift could steer the case in a direction that would make Justice Antonin Scalia more likely to uphold the healthcare law's mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance."

        McClatchy (3/16, Rau) adds that the individual mandate is seen by legal experts as "the most legally vulnerable part of the 2010 law," and notes speculates by health experts that if the Supreme Court strikes it down but leaves the rest of the law intact, and Obama is re-elected, he try fixing it through legislation that "would create financial incentives for people to not delay enrolling in insurance."