It  is expected that the US Supreme Court will release its finding on  President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy, the Affordable Care  Act, some time within the next 2 weeks. USA Today and the New York Times  look at possible outcomes and implications beyond the political  fall-out that is expected no matter which  way the Court rules.

The  Supreme Court's decision this month on President Obama's health care  law is likely to take one of four basic forms. No matter what the court  rules, however, it won't be the last word.

The court can uphold  the entire law, strike down the "individual mandate" requiring most  Americans to buy insurance, strike down the mandate and related health  insurance changes, or kill the entire law.

Still to come: State actions. More lawsuits. The verdict from voters on Nov. 6. And more battles in Congress next year.

http://usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-06-16/health-care-law-supreme-court/55607156/1

The four outcomes that USA Today sees:

Option 1: Law upheld - A decision upholding the law would unleash a series of political, legislative and legal forces.

Option  2: No mandate - The verdict that would present the biggest  complications is also one of the most likely, if the justices' questions  in March prove prophetic: striking down the individual mandate  requiring most Americans to buy health insurance.

Option 3: More  provisions invalidated - Lawmakers would be under far less pressure to  fix what the court hands them if insurance protections for people with  pre-existing conditions and related changes are eliminated along with  the mandate.

Option 4: Law killed - The justices may decide to  strike down all the taxes, subsidies, mandates, coverage expansions,  insurance market changes and other provisions in the law. But some may  find their way back.

The NYT takes on the effect on Medicaid, the state-run medical program for the poor.

The  expansion of Medicaid — if it is upheld by the Supreme Court — is among  the most significant parts of the law, as it will provide coverage to  people with the greatest financial needs. Many health care advocates  support the expansion, saying it will allow poor people to receive  needed care, while many state officials, especially Republicans, worry  that it will bring budget-breaking new costs.

The expansion may  also strain the health care system, given the shortage in some places of  primary care doctors, who will be vital to expanded coverage.

The  Supreme Court, which is expected to rule on the health care law this  month, devoted more than an hour of argument to the Medicaid provision.

Medicaid  is jointly financed by the federal government and the states, with  Washington paying 50 percent of the costs in higher-income states and  about 70 percent in lower-income states like Arkansas. States have  historically had leeway to define eligibility and benefits within  guidelines set by federal law.

Under the new law, the federal  government will pay the full cost of covering those newly eligible for  Medicaid for three years, from 2014 to 2016, and the federal share will  then gradually decline to 90 percent in 2020 and later years.  Administration officials say this is a good deal for states, but it may  ultimately create new costs for states. Many state officials also worry  that Congress will reduce the federal share and shift more costs to the  states.

In challenging the constitutionality of the new health  care law, 26 states have asserted that Congress cannot force them to  make such a large expansion of Medicaid. The case raises profound  questions about Congress’s ability to attach conditions to money that it  distributes to states not only for health care but also for education,  transportation and myriad other purposes. At some point, the states  argue, financial inducement turns into coercion.

The expansion of  Medicaid would have a large impact in relatively poor states like  Arkansas, where current eligibility criteria for adults are strict and  chronic conditions like diabetes and obesity are widespread. (Arkansas  is less healthy than all but three other states, according to annual  rankings by the United Health Foundation.)

Other states that  expect large increases in Medicaid enrollment, like Louisiana and Texas,  are among the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit. In Arkansas, by  contrast, state officials accept the expansion of Medicaid.

The  new health care law will simplify eligibility, sweeping away many of  those categories in favor of a single standard. People under 65 will  generally qualify for Medicaid if their income is less than or equal to  133 percent of the federal poverty level (up to $25,390 for a family of  three).

In addition to the costs, state officials here are not  sure how they will cope with the expected surge in people eligible for  Medicaid, given that doctors and nurses are scarce in some counties.

http://nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-health-care-ruling-vast-implications-for-medicaid.html

From the Cornfield, for now, it is a guessing game of "what ifs". A decision is expected no later than June 29.