History in the making

Newt Gingrich will never get a job writing for David Letterman, but he did come up with a rather piercing health care quip Friday night before the South Carolina Primary.

“Why is President Obama for young people being allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26? Because he can’t get any jobs for them to go out and buy their own insurance.

“I mean I have — I have an offer — I have an offer to the parents of America: Elect us and your kids will be able to move out because they’ll have work.”

Gingrich and colleagues believe in the trickle down theory of economics — let the economy run free and job creation will follow. Everybody who wants to work will be able to work and be able to afford their own place. Little pink houses for you and me.

Whether you buy that or not, Gingrich certainly hits a nerve on the issue of adult children moving back home. The phenomenon of “Boomerang Kids” has been going on since the start of the recession in 2007.

Among men 25-34, 19 percent were living with their parents in 2011, compared with 14 percent in 2005. Ten percent of women in that age group were living with parents, up 2 percent, according to U.S. Census data cited by CNN Money.

What’s interesting is, with pension benefits getting cut and the possibility of reductions in Social Security and Medicare, there’s an assumption that more seniors will have to move in with their kids. Looks to me like we’re getting ready to create the ultimate Sandwich Generation — middle-aged couples who have to accommodate the housing needs of their adult children and their aging parents at the same time.

And the American housing market may be in the early stages of adapting to this trend. Bloomberg published a story in November about “a growing line of new homes marketed to multigenerational families.” It’s a category that increased 30 percent from 2000 to 2010.

Home builders are offering new digs with two master bedrooms, two living rooms, and two washer-dryer sets. Built-in mother-in-law suites attractive to the 40-something buyers who can then turn around and use grandma and grandpa as built-in babysitters. Or, as they get a little older, a place for their young adult kids.

There were 5.1 million households in 2010 that consisted of three generations, up from 3.9 million a decade earlier. Fifty-one million families are housing at least two generations, up from 42 million.

Great big pink houses for you and me and also ma and pa and 20-somethings Bud and Sis.

In this new vision of America, everybody pitches in. Bud brings in the firewood and grandpa is more than happy to tell stories about the olden days, while grandma teaches Sis how to cross-stitch.

Bud, who has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, is more than happy to contribute most of his weekly $325 paycheck from shifts at the corner 7-Eleven and grandpa, his $41.25 monthly interest payments from his 401(k).

So who has it right? Is American business ready to tap into a new multigenerational trend of extended family housing, or will Newt and his compadres come to our rescue and help us continue to live our lives of independent bliss?

Or, will both versions turn out to be a little too optimistic?

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/genista/4854034/

 

Practical steps to boost environmental health; PLUS: Bring on the bumper stickers

So many social and scientific/ health issues are interconnected. Political decisions determine access to health care, so it’s not a wild leap to say that making a trip to the voting booth is part of self-care, a sort of wellness program accomplished by filling in a little round circle with a No. 2 pencil.

Here’s another example. NASA scientists have concluded that enormous health benefits could be realized by eliminating certain common pollutants that not only directly harm personal health, but also are factors in global warming.

Research led by Drew Shindell of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York identified 14 things that could be done to control black carbon and methane. These alone would have sweeping impacts on global warming, respiratory illnesses and other diseases, and crop yields around the world, according to NASA.

Black carbon is produced by burning fossil fuels. It triggers respiratory problems and cardiovascular disease, and leaves a dark film on ice and snow, which reduces their ability to reflect heat. Methane is a greenhouse gas that damages crops and can also cause health problems.

“While carbon dioxide is the primary driver of global warming over the long term, limiting black carbon and methane are complementary actions that would have a more immediate impact because these two pollutants circulate out of the atmosphere more quickly,” NASA says.

One idea is to capture methane that would otherwise escape from coal mines, oil facilities and long-distance pipelines. Another, focusing on black carbon, is to install special filters in diesel engine vehicles and ban agricultural burning.

Instituting the changes could increase crop yields by 135 million metric tons per year by 2050, the researchers said.

* * *

Speaking of health issues, how sick is the American political system when a handful of voters can control the entire electoral process that eventually produces the leader of the Free World?

The Christmas trees were barely out at the curb when Republicans in Iowa went out to vote in the country’s first 2012 presidential caucus. The voting at homes, schools and churches followed what seemed like dozens of debates between this year’s crop of GOP contenders.

The sifting and winnowing process has now begun — by the media, I mean.

Certainly not by the voters, since 122,255 showed up in Iowa and 248,485 turned out in New Hampshire. That’s a total of 370,740 people. Doing a little scrap paper calculation, if roughly 55.4 million Republicans voted in 2004 (39 percent of the vote total), that 370,740 represents about .67 percent of the party.

Nevertheless, New Hampshire hadn’t even finished the country’s first primary before newspapers, blogs and TV commentators were throwing around words like “inevitability” and declaring that Mitt Romney was “too far ahead to catch.”

Used to be, poiltical parties let the people have a little input before the coronation. Heck, if for no other reason, just to make it look good, like folks actually had a say. It’s still the middle of January, and the only thing left is to print the bumper stickers.

Think this is what the Framers had in mind?

Photo: DonkeyHotey/ Wikimedia Commons

 

The eternal cheeseburger

A Canadian nutritionist left a fast food cheeseburger stored for a year, and its appearance remained basically unchanged, according to a Montreal newspaper.

“Obviously it makes me wonder why we choose to eat food like this when even bacteria won’t eat it,” said Melanie Hesketh, who had the plate out on her kitchen counter when journalists arrived. She said the beef patty shrank, but still looks edible. It “still smells slightly like a burger,” she told the Montreal Gazette. “It hasn’t changed much.”

I don’t know much about Hasketh’s experiment, which she conducted as a heads-up to her kids, ages 13 and 15. But I will point out that when I buy fresh bread from the bakery — not the stuff in the bread aisle of supermarkets — it starts to get mold on it in about five days, if I don’t put it into the refrigerator or freezer.

She believes that the high salt content is what preserves the sandwich.

She said: “I’m going to keep it forever — it’s a good conversation piece.”

* * *

Briefs have been filed in the Supreme Court lawsuits over the Affordable Health Care Act. The plaintiffs’ brief can be found here; and the governments brief can be found here.

The court will hear three days of testimony starting March 26. A ruling is due in June.

The pivotol questions are whether the government can require Americans to purchase health insurance and if not, does that negate the entire Obama Administration initiative?

The court could also kick the can down the road, to 2015, by falling back on a Civil War era law that requires tax implications to be involved before a court ruling. Americans could be penalized in 2015 if they declined to purchase health insurance.

There are several ways of looking at the issue. One is that Americans have been required to purchase retirement insurance for years: Social Security. They have also been required to purchase senior (65-plus) health insurance: Medicare.

Another viewpoint surfaced at a press conference last week. On Friday, an administration official was asked “the broccoli question” originally posed by a New York Times story.

The question is whether the government, if they can mandate health insurance, can also require people to eat broccoli.

The official said the question is “wildly unrealistic,” which is true. Then he went to say that federal law already requires people to make some purchases. “If you buy a car you have to buy the seat belts, too,” he said.

This where the administration errors, and I hope it comes up with better anologies in its presentation to the Supreme Court. Because nobody is required to buy a car. You can bike it, walk it, or take public transportation. But all adults would be required to purchase a health insurance policy. Apples and oranges.

I’d like to see health care become accessible to everyone, will the administration’s argument really hold water?

 

Team loyalty: Why fans get so fired up

On a plane from South Florida to Baltimore before Christmas, I sat in the row in front of a guy who was a hard-core Ravens fan. He struck up a conversation with his seat-mate, another Ravens fan, and bemoaned the fact that he had left in a rush that morning and forgot to pack his Ravens jersey.

Sure, he could wear another one that Saturday when the Ravens played the Cleveland Browns. But the one left behind, he said, was the lucky jersey because every time he’d worn it, the Ravens won. When we landed, he got on his cell phone and told the other party: “Unfortunately I forgot to bring my jersey ….”

I understood because I’m an NFL fan — although with a few reservations. Growing up in Wisconsin in the ’60s, Green Bay Packers worship was mandatory. (There was a rough 20-year run from 1970 to 1990.)

I have to admit however, watching all the hoopla over the last weekend of the NFL season, wondering exactly why people get so fired up about a bunch of multi-millionaire hot-shots who have precious little loyalty to their franchise and can’t wait for free agency.

It’s showbiz, I know. Strictly entertainment, but much harder on the budget than going to the movies to see the latest Tom Cruise flick.

Try taking a family to a football game and you’re apt to run up a bill that comes to hundreds of dollars just for tickets alone, plus a hefty parking fee and wildly inflated prices on snacks and drinks. Still, even with the hobbled economy the stands are filled for almost every game, no matter what day of the week.

Researchers have studied this stuff. They found that loyalty to a sports team is much stronger than consumer brand loyalty and that many people will stick with a team that loses season after season. That’s not terribly surprising although Florida fans are notorious for only hopping on to the bandwagon for winning teams. (This doesn’t apply to college sports.)

What I did find interesting though is that baseball apparently inspires far more blind loyalty than football. And football isn’t even in second place — basketball is.

A “Fan Loyalty Index” was developed in 1997 based on a survey of major league baseball fans. The mean index was 100, meaning that fan support was average. That applied to the Colorado Rockies and Pittsburgh Pirates, for example.

At the top of the scale were the Chicago Cubs at 132. And ironically, the White Sox staked out the bottom of the list at 73. This, even though the White Sox have put together some World Series teams and the Cubs haven’t mustered a championship run since 1945.

I was stunned a few years ago, when I visited Boston for a convention, at the level of enthusiasm for the Red Sox. They are as serious about their baseball in Boston as they are on the North Side of Chicago.

After an early season losing streak, the Boston Globe looked at this issue last spring. They quoted Kevin Quinn, a professor at St. Norbert College, who pointed out: “Humans are inherently tribal creatures, and this is a way to have a tribe.”

Also, people are looking for drama, something sporting events tend to offer over the course of a season. Broadcasting teams are focused on storylines, constantly reminding viewers what’s at stake with every play. And a big part of that is the role of the underdog.

“For a team to be lovable, it helps not to be great or too great, but rather to have a chance to win or get lucky,” Lawrence Wenner, of Loyola Marymount University, told The Globe.

So. Don’t expect to see a lot of general fan passion for a Green Bay return to the Super Bowl. If the Broncos and the Lions can make it past the first round of the playoffs, watch for sales of Detroit and Denver team jerseys to spike.

Even in professional sports, everybody loves a Cinderella story.

Photo: Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, site of the Feb. 5 Super Bowl. Via Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicballphotography/3065261493/

 

Looking at the future through a cloudy crystal ball

Life in the future will be incredible. Flying cars. Robots driving buses. Exoskeletons that allow you to lift a car up as easily as picking a book off a shelf.

These are a few of the futuristic predictions in a new batch of documentaries that focus on man merging with machines, technology that produces self-aware computers, and medical advances that extend human life beyond imaginable limits.

I’ve been watching some of them on a very good website called Topdocumentaryfilms.com. If you’re into reality TV, but are sick of Storage Wars and Pawn Stars, I’d highly recommend this alternative. You can watch documentaries on all kinds of topics from health to art and politics.

No, not all of them are good, but there are some interesting selections. I recently watched one on planned obsolesence, called The Light Bulb Conspiracy, that was terrific.

What struck me about the futuristic films is how similar many of them are. They share the same themes I mentioned above, so assuming that great minds think alike, surely a lot of these 21st century trends are right around the corner for us. Right?

Then I remembered that the 20th century futurists were often well off the mark. Suspension bridge apartment houses. Robots that respond to verbal commands by 1960. Clothing with “electronic belts” that allow people to automatically adapt to changes in the weather.

This 1957 Soviet vision of the year 2000 showed women “cooking on a marble top that remains cold to the touch, even though the food is cooking!” The cooking is actually controlled by punch cards.

A YouTube visitor commented: “Excuse me while I go take my infra-red roasted chicken from my glass oven.”

Back to the 21st century. With so many futurists onboard with concepts like humans merging with robots, and medical advances leading to near-immortality, we might conclude that something quite different is in store.

Technology no doubt marches on, but fate has its own game plan. Round and round it goes, and where it stops nobody knows.

*

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the researchers who developed an airborne version of the deadly H5N1 influenza virus in the lab. They created a mutation that nature itself has been thus far unable to produce. Ferrets exposed to it were able to transmit the new strain, a version of bird flu, from cage-to-cage.

The question many have been asking: What happens if this thing somehow gets out of the lab — or someone learns to duplicate it and decides to unleash it on an unprepared world?

The bird flu is a deadly agent, killing 60 percent of the people it infects. But H5N1 is not easily transmissable in its present form and usually only those who handle infected chickens or other birds are at risk.

So. Why deliberately create an airborne version? The argument is that it would allow other scientists to study it and develop preventive techniques should the mutations occur naturally.

But now a government advisory board has asked scientific journals not to publish details of the experiments. Officials are concerned that the information could be used by terrorists to trigger a worldwide epidemic. It’s the first such request on record.

The panel, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, an arm of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), made the request to two prestigious journals — Science and Nature. Advocates of the censorship believe that the conclusions should be published, but not experimental details “that would enable replication of the experiments.”

The board can’t force the journals to take the action, but editors are considering it. They want guarantees that the government will allow “legitimate scientists” to access the information around the world.

As more researchers obtain the information, however, the number of potential sources for something to go wrong grows. Essentially, the genie has been let out of the bottle and cannot be coaxed back in. So maybe the NIH should turn its attention to funding vaccines for this new mutated H5N1 virus. Seriously, get to work.

Because there’s a little axiom called Murphy’s Law, and it doesn’t take a scientist to see how it may apply here.

Photo via Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/96khz/3127953038/

 

National Safety Board calls for roadblock on cell phones

Cell phone use while driving was back in the news last week after the National Transportation Safety Board called for a 50-state ban on all use of “portable electronic devices” while driving.

No state bans all cell phone use but nine currently prohibit the use of handheld phones and 30 ban cell phone use by new drivers. Thirty-five states outlaw texting.

I live in Florida, one of the rare states that have no restrictions on cell phone use whatsoever, and the practice seems to be epidemic. I believe that people deliberately wait until they’re in the car to make their calls because it’s the sort of “multi-tasking” that saves time. There’s nothing else to do in the car anyway, so why not make use of the time and return phone calls?

On a routine 20-mile drive I conducted a random count and found about one in four drivers yapping on the phone.

I’m an offender myself, but I do it hands-free, and I won’t text while I’m on the road. (As you’ll see below, there’s good reason to not even do hands-free. The best bet is to pull over.)

For a complete run-down of state laws — and it’s a hodge-podge — check the Governors Highway Safety Association website.

You might think that the NTSB would be wiser to press for a 50-state cell phone ban that still allows hands-free use, as they have in Maryland, California and seven other states.

But a study last year by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that state bans like the one in California don’t reduce crashes. Apparently, the risk of a crash for distracted driving is the same for a hands-free cell user as it is in someone holding the phone.

Also, the law is unevenly enforced.

It’s temping to conclude that if you’re using a hands-free device it’s basically no different than talking to a passenger in the car. But I think what happens is that cell phone users are mentally “transported” to another place, perhaps visualizing the person they’re talking to. Their brain is not sifting through and analyzing the visual information coming at them from the road.

Will the NTSB recommendation lead to cell phone bans throughout the country? I’m betting that it won’t.

It’s now so ingrained in the culture that people will use a cell phone even if it’s against the law. According to the NTSB, the cell ownership rate in the U.S. “exceeds 100 percent.” I assume that means that every adult in the country has a cell phone, and some have two.

It may be up to the insurance industry to curb cell phone use. Just like health insurers give discounts to non-smokers, auto insurers could offer discounts to drivers who agree not to use a cell on the road.

If they violate the agreement — records are available and can be subpoenaed — they have to pay a financial penalty.

Money talks, and it doesn’t need a cell phone to communicate.

Photo: A road sign warns of a ban on texting in a Texas town. Via Flickr.com.

 

Researchers ferret out deadly flu strain in lab

It’s flu season, as anyone can tell by driving by their neighborhood pharmacy and seeing the signs for “flu shots” all day, every day.

People don’t seem too worried about the flu this year. In fact, the 2011-2012 season has gotten off to a slow start, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

No states have reported widespread illness to the CDC, although the number reporting sporadic activity increased slightly last week from 28 to 30.

There is a corresponding lull in media coverage about the flu this year.

It’s been two years since the last pandemic scare over H1N1, commonly known as the swine flu. You might recall that an outbreak in Mexico triggered a panic, causing schools to close and public assemblies to be canceled. People rushed to get vaccinated. The media recycled the old stories from the 1918 outbreak that killed 50 million people.

H1N1 did spread globally and was officially declared a pandemic by the CDC and the World Health Organization. The illness killed 18,000, but the number of cases started tapering off in November 2009. It never was as deadly a variation as many people thought.

In truth, health officials have always been more worried about the H5N1 avian flu, which has been plaguing parts of Asia and the Middle East over the last 10 years. Fortunately, though, the virus can’t be passed easily from human-to-human, although it’s happened in rare cases. Instead, it’s spread more commonly to people who handle chickens and other fowl.

The theory has been that if H5N1 developed mutations allowing airborne transmission, it would also become less lethal. In its present form, it kills about 60 percent of those infected.

The biggest story of the 2011-2012 flu season may be that researchers have proven that theory to be wrong.

An article published Friday in Scientific American says an international ruckus is being raised after scientists created a laboratory version of the H5N1 that can easily be transmitted through the air without losing its virulence. It involved a combination of five mutations.

They used ferrets to test the virus since they react to the flu in a similar way to humans. They found that the virus was passed from animal-to-animal from their own cages. “A significant portion of the infected subjects died,” the magazine reported.

The researchers, from the University of Wisconsin and the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, have had trouble publishing their findings.

First, there’s the worry that biological terrorists could get their hands on the information and unleash an epidemic.

There’s also the issue that nature has been unable to accomplish this on its own during the last decade, and our top scientists have given it a helping hand. The virus now exists where it did not before, and maybe I’ve watched too many movies but accidents do happen. Things can go wrong and a secure lab may not be as secure as everyone thought.

Proponents say creating the new virus gives researchers an opportunity to study it and minimize its impact before it appears naturally.

But in my imagination, I see Michael Crichton and Ken Follett picking up a pair of scissors and carefully snipping out the magazine article, to be placed prominently in their ideas file.

We can only hope that fiction doesn’t one day become reality.

Photo: H5N1 or Avian influenza virus (Wikimedia Commons)

 

Physicians group scolds HHS over basic benefits plans

How will the basic benefits package be defined by the Department of Health and Human Services for the new federal health care law that takes effect in 2014? That’s the important question that HHS is deciding now, and all sides are weighing in.

The issue is what plans will be offered in insurance exchanges that states are required to create.

The Institute of Medicine, a private nonprofit organization that offers government officials what it calls “unbiased and authoritative advice” on health care questions, recommended an essential benefits plan similar to what small businesses offer.

But 2,400 health care providers signed a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius voicing strong objections to the IOM recommendation. The letter was sponsored by Physicians for a National Health Program.

The providers, most of them physicians, want heftier benefits for the exchanges, like the kinds of policies offered by corporate employers, rather than the more skeletal packages of small businesses. Neither the IOM or the providers who signed the letter were specific about what their recommendations would include.

Many smaller employers offer high deductible plans, making the first $3,000 out of pocket for their workers.

The question is not what’s ideal, but what’s realistic. Let’s face it, the country will be lucky to have any national health care framework in place after the Affordable Health Care Act goes through the meat grinders of the 2012 elections and the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is how sausage is made in our system, but will what we have in the end even qualify as sausage?

Providers who signed the letter would like something that has been and will no doubt continue to be out of reach in the U.S.: “Our patients urgently need what people in these other nations already enjoy: universal and comprehensive coverage in a nonprofit system that prioritizes human need over corporate profit.”

Sounds nice, but why the overreach? It seems pointless.

Having a high deductible health care plan is far better than having no plan at all. Even for people struggling financially, facing a $3,000 or $5,000 health care debt beats looking at a $50,000 bill that ruins them financially for life.

For now, get what you can and run with it.

*

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the obesity rate of Americans 20 and older has risen to 29.5 percent, up from 21.8 percent in 2000.

Actually, the Centers for Disease Control puts the percentage at 33.8 percent for all adults. If trends continue, half of adults will be obese by 2020, according to a Harvard University study cited by the WSJ.

Why? I’ve yet to see a convincing study explaining the obesity phenomenon. The CDC says: “Overweight and obesity result from an energy imbalance. This involves eating too many calories and not getting enough physical activity.”

No kidding, but that doesn’t get to the root of the problem. It’s easy to blame it on the proliferation of fast food, and that may be part of it. But I don’t believe it’s the root cause.

Americans have less time to prepare food at home so takeout is a quick alternative, especially since it’s so cheap. I’ve wondered, shopping at supermarkets recently, if it’s not become more expensive to buy food, bring it home and prepare it, than it is to go through the drive-through.

Not to mention the time spent slicing and dicing, boiling and broiling, shaking and baking. Followed by the time spent on clean-up, as opposed to sweeping a bunch of bags and cartons off a table and dumping it all in the trash.

And then the crushing blow of putting freshly cooked food on the table and your kids take two bites and decide they have a really important paper to write.

Something is out of whack, all right, but it goes way beyond the imbalance of “eating too many calories and not getting enough physical activity.”

This problem is systemic. It needs to be analyzed and addressed at many different levels.

Photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianclarkmbbs/3061919849/

 

Psychologist combs emails, texts for unvarnished truth

Your mother may have told you: Don’t believe everything you hear. As you know, that could easily be expanded to: Don’t believe everything you read.

Especially if it’s in an email or text message, a new study shows.

The research, conducted by Robert Feldman, a professor of psychology, and graduate student Mattityahu Zimbler, at the University of Massachusetts Amhurst, was published in a recent issue of the Journal of Appied Social Psychology under the absolutely delightful title: Liar, Liar, Hard Drive on Fire: How Media Context Affects Lying Behavior.

They looked at communications between 110 pairs of same sex college students who “talked” for 15 minutes face-to-face, via text message and via email. The exchanges were later analyzed for inaccuracies.

Fewest inaccuracies (or lies, if you will) were tossed around during face-to-face time. Honesty took a hit in text messaging and instant messaging but email apparently won the Pinocchio Award for deliberate misinformation.

The more disconnected people are, the more inclined they are to stretch the truth, the researchers said.

“The Internet allows people to feel more free, psychologically speaking, to use deception, at least when meeting new people,” they said.

Professor, where do you feel Facebook fits into the picture?

Feldman, dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at UMass Amhurst, surely has an opinion. He is known as an expert on lying and is the author of the 2009 book, The Liar in Your Life.

In fact, his website is all about lying and explains that Feldman has studied lying for the past 25 years. That’s a lot of deception under the bridge.

I recommend the Q & A section in which Feldman discusses: “Why do people lie so much?” and “What’s the biggest misconception about lying?”

He replies: “There are actually two. One is that there are certain cues that always betray a liar, and that we can spot them and use them to identify liars. As I discuss in the book, no single or even combination of verbal or nonverbal behaviors invariably indicate when a person is lying. And many of the cues we think are associated with lying are unrelated to deception. So it turns out we’re not very good at telling when others are being untruthful.

“The other misconception is that we are relentless truth-seekers. It turns out that in many cases we accept and even embrace the lies of others. In some cases, it is simply expedient to accept others’ lies. And when lies are consistent with the way we wish to view ourselves (as smart, competent, successful people), we’re often motivated to believe the lies to which we are exposed.”

Like if someone says to me: “Hey! Nice column this week!” That’s an honest, gut-level reaction. No seriously, thanks.

I think.

The real $64,000 Jack Nicholson question is, can you handle the truth? If so, perhaps the best approach, at least with email and texts, is to assume everything is a lie and then look for the tiny grains of truth within it.

Sift and winnow, winnow and sift. And before you know it, you’ll have the unvarnished truth before you, as Richard Nixon used to say.

If you have the curiosity and courage to look.

 

How will the Supreme Court handle the challenge to health care reform?

The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics but it is not. The past decade is filled with examples of 5-4 decisions, starting with the stopping of the Florida recount in 2000, in which Republican-appointed justices and Democratic-appointed justices took opposing sides.

So looking at the landmark health care case that’s coming up in March, which will decide the fate of the Obama Administration’s reform law, one would tend to give the advantage to opponents.

The court seems poised to strike down the individual mandate, after which the rest of the law would crumble.

Under that scenario, John Roberts, Jr. (Chief Justice), Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. would provide the majority vote to scrap the mandate; while Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would provide minority support.

This is the same lineup that tossed out the McCain-Feingold law last year, ruling that the government can’t ban political spending by corporations during elections. A good example of a 5-4 decision right along party lines.

But the judicial debate over the health care law will be more complicated. There are really three issues to be considered. One is whether the federal government has the power to require all of its citizens to purchase a health insurance policy. Another is whether the government can mandate Medicaid increases on the state level — something that would need to happen in order for low income residents to be covered under a Medicaid plan.

And finally the court must decide whether if one or both of these provisions is unconstitutional, the rest of the provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act would still stand.

But there’s one additional twist. Since the reform law imposes an income tax penalty on people who don’t buy a health insurance policy — and that penalty won’t go into effect until 2015 — court members could rule that the mandate provision can’t be considered for another three years.

That’s based on an 1867 law that prevents courts from striking down tax laws before they go into effect.

Arguments will be held in March, with a decision due by June, just when the presidential election really begins heating up.

The latter is the most likely outcome, in my view. The Supreme Court often kicks the can down the road, ruling on very narrow points that have only a technical effect on current law. Not always, granted.

My bet is that the court upholds the Medicaid provision requiring states to beef up their budgets. If that’s unconstitutional, why wouldn’t the entire Medicaid program be unconstitutional?

But they’ll put the individual mandate question on hold until a suit is brought by a taxpayer or group of taxpayers arguing that they can’t be penalized for failure to purchase a commercial product.

That solution would take the court out of politics during what promises to be a very bitter and hard-fought election. Health care will remain a front-burner issue.

Whatever happens, look for one- or two-vote margins. The court is just as partisan and split as the rest of the country.

For a more indepth look of the upcoming court decision, see this analysis published by Kaiser Health News.

Photo via Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/5554047867/