Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images

The Supreme Court is seen on June 18, 2012. The high court is set to rule within days on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The Supreme Court of the United States – as much as campaign spending, the news media, and political ads on television – is a force shaping the 2012 presidential campaign.

That’s not only because the justices will soon decide the fate of both the Affordable Care Act and the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but because the court’s docket for its term beginning in October has a number of contentious cases on it. Among them: the use of racial preferences in admissions to state universities, the ability of U.S. citizens to challenge the validity of the government’s use of electronic surveillance to detect terrorist threats, and whether federal law allows suits in U.S. courts over alleged human rights violations committed in foreign countries.

Other high-profile cases dealing with same-sex marriage, campaign finance, the Voting Rights Act, and an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote have a good chance of being added to the docket before October.

Election Day seems likely to serve as a referendum on the court itself, especially if the justices strike down all or parts of President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the health care overhaul.

Obama has signaled that if the justices struck down the law, he would make “judicial activism” a theme of his campaign. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he already complained about the court loosening campaign finance rules in its Citizens United decision.

And after the justices heard oral arguments in the health care litigation, Obama told reporters, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” He said conservatives had complained for years about “a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Obama would take up that conservative grievance and ask voters to give him a second term put his imprint on the court.

And that appointment power is what’s looming over voters’ choice of Obama versus Mitt Romney; the ability to select successors to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy -- the three oldest justices on the court, all of whom are over the age of 75.

As is almost everyone else in Washington, several former Justice Department officials and law professors who spoke at a panel discussion Tuesday sponsored by the progressive-leaning American Constitution Society speculated on what the court might do in the landmark health care case, which could be announced as early as Thursday.

Paul Wolfson, who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court and clerked for Justice Byron White, said the provision in the ACA which expands Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people, is more significant than many observers have noticed.

“In terms of the progressive policy objective of making health care universally accessible and affordable to all Americans, the expansion of Medicaid is equally as important, if not more important” than the insurance purchase mandate that most commentators have focused on.

That provision expands the Medicaid-eligible population by one-third and imposes a uniform income eligibility standard in every state (135 percent of the federal poverty line) -- which means that middle-class people in poorer states will be covered. The states challenging that part of the ACA claim that they are being coerced into going along with the Medicaid expansion, even though most of the most is being borne by the federal taxpayers.

Washington attorney Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration and a supporter of the ACA, hazarded the guess that the justices will affirm the health care law.

“I’m wondering whether the court might possibly do something undramatic” and that would be to focus on the government’s argument that a person is complying with the law if he pays the penalty for not purchasing health insurance. Since the penalty (or tax) for not buying insurance is so small, Dellinger said, a majority of the justices might see it as not too much of an infringement on individual rights. “The penalty is OK, but the mandate isn’t” because it “would preserve the idea that you can’t be forced into a transaction” is how Dellinger summed up this possible ruling. That, he said would leave the law intact.

But another lawyer on the ACS panel, Patricia Millett, a former lawyer in the solicitor general’s office during the Clinton administration who has argued 31 cases before the high court, said it was clear from the justices’ questions during oral argument that the difficulty of removing one section of the law which the court found to be unconstitutional without damaging the rest was weighing on their minds: “Do we then create a Frankenstein of a statute that functions in a way that Congress would have never wanted?”

Looking to the new term that begins in October, Dellinger said it’s likely the court will address the constitutionality of Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman. He said that provision of DOMA undermined the existing laws in a handful of states that do allow same-sex couples to marry -- because it deprives those couples of federal benefits, including those protected under the federal estate and gift tax exemption.

He was bullish on the court striking down Section 3 of DOMA: “The DOMA case is a very powerful case to go to the Supreme Court because states’ rights and gay rights are on the same side.”

Dellinger said it was “a troublesome fact” that the ideological alignment on the court was so often the five appointees of Republican presidents (Scalia, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts) opposing the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents (Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). “For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alignment of ideology and political party,” he said. Formerly there would be at least a few justices such as Byron White who, although being appointed by a Democratic president, turned out to be conservative on some issues, or like John Paul Stevens who although appointed by a Republican president turned out to be liberal on some issues.

But former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued both the Arizona immigration case and the ACA cases before the court, pointed out that in the current term of the court there have been several unanimous decisions such as in the Texas redistricting case, a religious freedom case, a search-and-seizure case including GPS devices, and a major environmental case on the Clean Water Act.

These were “tremendously important and consequential cases,” Clement said --  all were voted 9-0 by the justices.  

ORLANDO -- Mitt Romney tied President Obama's signature health reform law to the anemic hiring situation among small businesses on Tuesday, calling the 2010 law the "poster child" for harmful policies enacted during this administration.

"Obamacare," Romney said near the close of his remarks on a factory floor here in a crucial swing state, "is the poster child for a piece of policy that’s made it harder for businesses to hire people, so we’ve got to get rid of it, among other good reasons."

Aides said that Romney's renewed focus on "ObamaCare" anticipates a Supreme Court ruling on that very law this month. Romney has long been haunted by the strong resemblances between the law he signed as governor of Massachusetts (including an individual mandate), but has long since vowed to repeal the president's law should he be elected.

Today's events -- and ones like it in the coming weeks -- allows Romney to get out in front of the Supreme Court ruling, and outline his alternative plans for reforming health care.

To that end, Romney described some of his preferred solutions, such as block-granting Medicaid money to states and allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines were specific. Others, such as Romney's desire to see health care act more like a market, and allowing states to experiment with their own reforms lacked specificity.

Any effort to replace the law, Romney said, must come after its repeal, a process he said again today he would begin on the first day of his administration -- a line that always gets cheers in Romney's stump speech, and today led to a standing ovation.

Romney also used an answer about the law that Obama gave on Monday to further his case that the president is "out of touch."

The president told a reporter from NBC affiliate KTIV in Sioux City, Iowa that it would be "hard to explain" why a business might have had to move from one state to another due to the health care law, because the law didn't govern that type of business. Republicans, including Romney today, pounced on the comment.

"Just yesterday, the president said something else that shows just how out of touch he is," Romney said. "He said he didn’t understand that Obamacare was hurting small business, he doesn’t understand that Obamacare impacts small business, and you have to scratch your head about that because about a year ago the Chamber of Commerce did a survey of some 1,500 small businesses and of those small businesses, three-quarters, 75 percent, said Obamacare made it less likely for them to hire people."

Romney recast his criticism of President Obama as "out of touch," last Friday after the president told reporters that the private sector was "doing fine," and today he continued to work that line of attack today.

"The president, as you know, said last week that the private sector is doing fine. He is so out of touch with what's happening across America, to say something like that. He went on, of course, this was not just one line taken out of context. He went on to describe why he believes that therefore we should provide another stimulus to hire government workers," Romney said, going on to describe how his own interactions with Americans as he travels the country have made him, not the president, more in touch with the concerns of average folks.

But the Romney campaign has also been forced to defend Romney's own response from last Friday, when he appeared to suggest that the message of the Wisconsin recall was not to hire more teachers, firefighters or police.

"He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people," Romney said in that interview

Today, Romney told Fox News that Democratic accusations he would want to cut firefighters or teachers were "very strange."

“That's a very strange accusation. Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn't pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that's completely absurd," Romney said. “[President Obama]'s got a new idea, though, and that is to have another stimulus and to have the federal government send money to try and bail out cities and states. It didn't work the first time. It certainly wouldn't work the second time.”

Romney had no more to say on the matter when asked by a reporter at his event today today if he thought Democrats had taken his remarks out of context.

"I'm not going to talk about that," Romney said, moving along the rope line.

NBC News has obtained a list of talking points being distributed to the offices of House Republicans by Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office in preparation of the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law.

The list sheds some light on how Republicans plan to react in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, or just pieces of it.  According to a GOP aide, Speaker Boehner discussed these talking points during the GOP conference meeting this morning.

The talking points say that Republicans will not introduce a massive package to replace the entire law if the Supreme Court strikes it down, but instead will "enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms" in its place. 

Republicans use the mantra "Repeal and Replace" when talking about Obama's health care law, but have yet to introduce any real legislation to take it's place in the event the law were to be struck down.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE TALKING POINTS:

- Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

- Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes. We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support.

FULL LIST OF TALKING POINTS:

TALKING POINTS: WHAT WILL REPUBLICANS DO IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN ALL OR PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW?

·    The president's health care law is making things worse -- driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.  The only way to change this is by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety.

·    Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

·    Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes.  We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support. 

·    Health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people.  The number-one health care concern of families and small business is the cost of health care, and Republicans' health care reforms will lower costs.

·    Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions made for their families.  Republican health care reforms will ensure families and doctors make health care decisions -- not Washington.  

·    We want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctor of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctor feel is best.  Those decisions shouldn't be made by Washington.

Forget a president's first 100 days. Mitt Romney's first television ad of the general election, "Day One," comes as close as anything in describing the most urgent priorities of a President Romney upon taking office.

The ad is running in five swing states, and the presumptive GOP nominee's campaign is putting $1.3 million behind it; a Spanish-language analog is running in North Carolina, with a much smaller ad buy behind it.

Nonetheless, Romney's ad is meant to drive a three-point plan: 1. Approve the Keystone Pipeline, 2. Introduce tax reform, and 3. Begin dismantling and replacing President Obama's health care law.

In short, Romney's message is about jobs, taxes, energy and health care.

So what do we know about the specifics of Romney's three-point plan?

Keystone -

Republicans, including Romney, have vocally criticized President Obama for rejecting an initial proposal by the TransCanada Corporation to build an oil pipeline through the central United States. The administration rejected the project out of environmental concerns and because it felt Republicans were rushing its approval of the project, at the expense of due diligence. (TransCanada has subsequently re-applied for a permit to build a pipeline along new routes.)

Romney invoking the example is meant to address the issues of jobs and energy.

TransCanada and supporters of the pipeline -- who range from Republicans in Congress to the organized labor community -- contend the project would create at least 20,000 jobs. The project's most ardent supporters claim these, in turn, would lead to additional job creation.

As for energy, it's much more difficult to say what the effect of building the Keystone Pipeline would have on the price of oil. Its mere approval could conceivably diminish speculation that drives up oil prices, but gauging the direct impact is difficult. Moreover, the pipeline would take years to become fully operational and deliver excess supply to gas stations in the U.S.

"Taking advantage of our energy resources is one of my priorities," Romney said Friday in a conference call with supporters. Among his other plans for his first day in office, Romney said he would also allow expanded permits for oil and gas exploration on federal lands. Romney said, for instance, he would authorize drilling on the East Coast's Outer Continental Shelf.

Tax reform -

The centerpiece of Romney's plan would include a permanent, across-the-board reduction of 20 percent for all income tax brackets.

He's also on the record supporting a number of other tax cuts, including maintaining current tax rates on investment income, eliminating the taxes on estates, cutting the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, among other reforms.

The impact of these reforms on the rising national debt -- something Romney routinely decries -- is much more opaque, though.

Romney has said eliminating some tax deductions, combined with economic growth and cuts in spending would make the impact of his tax plan deficit-neutral at a minimum.

"One thing I'm also going to to do is work with Congress to limit the deductions and exemptions and special deals that are in our tax code," Romney said on the conference call.

But the former Massachusetts governor hasn't specified the exemptions or deductions he would eliminate beyond a select few (for instance, the mortgage deductions associated with a second home). Romney has previously said that the wealthy might shoulder a greater tax burden under his reforms, though he hasn't said how. (An analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has suggested that might not be the case.) The Romney campaign also hasn't provided a detailed enough tax plan in order to subject it to static or dynamic scoring of its impact on the deficit and debt.

As for the spending side, Romney's website offers some additional details, but not enough to necessarily account for the total impact of his plan -- either on jobs, or the deficit.

The "issues" section of Romney's website includes an additional "Day One" promise: to send Congress a bill slashing non-defense discretionary spending by five percent across-the-board.

Other parts of Romney's site detail areas he would cut, and the savings associated with each of those cuts. Those savings include the elimination of subsidies to programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, and cuts in subsidies to Amtrak or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

"There are items that I like that I will stop funding," Romney explained during the call.

Health reform -

Romney's new ad calls for not just the repeal of "ObamaCare," but its replacement, as well.

If part or all of the law were allowed to stand following the Supreme Court's ruling next month, Romney would have some options to undo the law on his first day in office, but they would be limited.

The former Massachusetts governor has said his ultimate goal is to return health care decisions to individual states, and create incentives for more efficient health care delivery.

Romney repeated his promise to issue a waiver to states, allowing them to duck some of the requirements of health care reform that conservatives find most onerous. But many other parts of the law would remain in effect, and would require legislative action to both enact a repeal of ObamaCare and a subsequent replacement. That could conceivably pass the House if it were to remain in Republican control, but unless Republicans were to somehow win a 60-seat majority in the Senate this fall, the GOP would need to attract Democratic support for Romney's alternative.

* * *

There are other things Romney said he would do on his first day, among them labeling China a currency manipulator and putting a hold on regulations enacted by the Obama administration.

Democrats have contested Romney's ad, with the Obama campaign labeling it as full of "empty promises."

"We know why Mitt Romney didn’t keep his promises- his business experience wasn’t in strengthening companies and creating jobs for long-term economic growth. It was in reaping quick profits for himself and his investors at the expense of workers and communities," said Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the president's re-election. "These are the values that he wants to bring to the White House by giving more budget-busting tax cuts to the wealthy and letting Wall Street write its own rules—the same formula that benefited a few, but crashed our economy and punished the middle class."

A Democratic super PAC, American Bridge 21st Century, also produced a parody ad concluding of Romney's first-day plans: "We'll pass."

The White House today defended the performance of its solicitor general during the three-day Supreme Court hearings on the health care law, saying it has “complete confidence” in his abilities.

“Mr. Verrilli is a very talented advocate and a skilled lawyer,” White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest said, referring to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. “He's one of the brightest legal minds in Washington, D.C. And we've had complete confidence in his performance before the Supreme Court.”

Verrilli’s job defending the law’s individual mandate on Tuesday was panned by many critics on the left after he faced a tough line of questioning from many of the justices.

Earlier on Wednesday, the White House released a statement from White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler in support of Verrilli, leading reporters to ask Earnest why the White House would release such a statement if not to defend Verrilli’s performance.

“Because somebody asked,” Earnest responded.

He also said the White House remains confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold the health care law’s constitutionality, noting that several lower courts, known for their conservative positions, found the individual mandate –- the focus of conservative legal opposition to law –- to be within the federal government’s constitutional powers.

“In fact, there have been lower court cases on this very issue, on the Affordable Care Act, where conservative judges have posed difficult, tough questions to Department of Justice lawyers. And at least in a couple of those cases, these conservative judges, despite their tough questions, ended up ruling, ended up upholding the Affordable Care Act,” Earnest said.

But when asked what the administration would do if the Supreme Court does, in fact, overturn the law when it makes its ruling in June, Earnest said the White House has no contingency plans and is “focused on implementing the law, and we are confident that the law is constitutional.”

Other notes from the White House:

• The Department of Interior today took an incremental step in its plans to expand offshore drilling, announcing that it will begin exploring the environmental impact of doing seismic research in mid- and south-Atlantic waters. But drilling is still a long way off: the plan under which new research is permissible does not include the sale of any new leases to drill off the East Coast. Such leases would not be available for sale until 2017 at the earliest.
• The White House also declined to comment on accounts from the French government that it is in talks with the U.S. and Britain related to tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Earnest said that while the strategic reserve remains “on the table,” “anybody who tries to convince you in this government or any other government, frankly, that specific decisions have been made or actions have been proposed is -- is not speaking accurately.”

Mitt Romney’s performed a disappearing act of sorts during three days of hearings before the Supreme Court on President Obama’s health care law, arguably the most high-profile of issues during the 2012 election, and the motivating issue for conservative primary voters.

Romney has held just one public event, a speech at a medical device company outside San Diego, over the course of three days of oral arguments before the high court.

The Republican presidential frontrunner has good reasons to be off the trail. He’s spent the past few days raising needed money to finance his campaign, and because there is no primary until April 3, Romney is able to use this week for some down time.

But as the fate of Obama’s signature health reform law is being litigated in both the court and in the national media, Romney, perhaps by coincidence, largely ducked out of public view.

Romney’s stop Monday at Nuvasive, a spinal-surgery device company less than 10 miles from Romney's La Jolla home, included only perfunctory criticism of the health care law. The ex-governor decried the law's tax implications and said as many as 30 percent of Americans would likely lose their employer-based insurance once the law were fully in effect.

But Romney, who has famously had to wrestle with the similarities between Obama’s law and the reforms Romney had signed as governor of Massachusetts, neglected to make any direct call for its repeal, or concrete mention of how it would be replaced.

In fact, Romney, who stood in front of a giant banner reading "Repeal and Replace Obamacare," and had the same printed on a podium placard, did not once make mention of the Supreme Court case being argued that very day, the outcome of which might render the law moot before a Republican nominee is even decided. Indeed, his last major health care event came on Friday, when he held a "repeal and replace Obamacare" event in Louisiana.

The court’s decision will likely come at the end of its term in June, and the combative tone of oral arguments during the last 72 hours have led court-watchers to speculate that the court is likely to strike down part, if not all, of the law.

But regardless of the decision in June, the court’s ruling is sure to re-insert Obama’s health care law into the presidential debate. And at this juncture, it appears that Romney is the Republican likely to be left standing as Obama’s challenger when the decision lands.

It’s concerns about Romney’s ability to prosecute the case against “ObamaCare” (as conservatives have derisively called it, a term the Obama campaign recently embraced) that have prompted Rick Santorum, Romney’s primary campaign rival, to ratchet up his attacks against the former Massachusetts governor.

“There's one candidate who is uniquely disqualified to make the case. It's the reason I'm here and he's not," Santorum said on the steps of the Supreme Court on Monday, looking to drive home his point in literal fashion.

The perils of discussing "Obamacare" for Mitt Romney have been well-documented. His Massachusetts health care law, and the individual mandate upon which it rests, has been widely credited as the intellectual forebear of President Obama's federal legislation, leading White House senior adviser David Plouffe to even label Romney the "godfather" of the president’s plan.

(Romney said in response yesterday to Hugh Hewitt: “I can tell you one thing. If I'm the godfather of this thing, then it gives me the right to kill it.”)

And while Romney has pledged time and again to issue waivers for states to opt out of Obamacare, and then to eventually repeal it, any mention of the law so hated by conservatives inevitably invites comparisons with Romney's law in Massachusetts, and distracts from the governor's core message of economic expertise and of the necessity of replacing President Obama.

That’s part of the reason why Romney, at his stop on Monday, focused primarily on the economy and Obama’s controversial comment to his Russian counterpart. Any day when Romney is forced to talk about health care, it’s a day when he must play defense, and is forced to pivot away from his core message about jobs and the economy.

What’s more, Romney’s prescriptions for health reform in the absence of Obamacare – either because of its Supreme Court review, or a repeal effort – can seem somewhat vague. He wrote of the "need to limit Washington's control by spurring competition, creating maximum flexibility and enhancing consumer choice" in a USA Today op-ed. The solutions are intended to be market-based, but the candidate sometimes struggles to convey his vision for national reform.

Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Romney was pressed on how he might help Americans get coverage if Republicans were to achieve the repeal of the president’s law, which guarantees coverage of individuals who suffer from pre-existing conditions.

His response – including his suggestion that those who wait until they’re sick to obtain coverage might be out of luck ("Hey guys. We can't play the game like that") – drew sharp criticism from Democrats and a pointed follow-up from Leno, who said he had auto-industry friends who were very happy to finally get any kind of coverage under the president's health plan.

"We'll look at a circumstance where someone is ill and hasn't been insured so far, but people who have the chance to be insured, if you are working in the auto business for instance, the companies carry insurance, they insure their employees, you look at the circumstances that exist, but people who have done their best to get insured are going to be able to be covered," Romney offered in response. "But you don't want everyone saying I am going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance, that doesn't make sense. But you get defined rules and get people in who are playing by the rules."

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision… And such a decision would have two consequences: 1) feed the perception that the Supreme Court is as partisan as the other branches, and 2) satisfy no one… Yesterday was a bad day for the mandate… Team Gingrich beginning to accept reality?... New WaPo/ABC poll: Romney unfavorable rating at 50%... Boehner scolds Romney for criticizing Obama while abroad… New Quinnipiac polls: Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA… RNC staffing up in battleground states… Team Santorum narrows the ad-spending gap in Wisconsin (but just slightly)… And Biden to talk manufacturing in Iowa.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Members of the public wait on the sidewalk to be allowed inside to watch the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012.

*** Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision: Yesterday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court raised the distinct possibility that the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire health-care law -- could be decided by another controversial 5-4 decision. Such an outcome, especially after other 5-4 decisions like Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, would have two potential consequences. One, it would feed the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is as partisan as Congress and increasing parts of the media; in other words, these nine justices (either trained at liberal law schools or members of the conservative Federalist Society) are essentially political actors wearing black robes. And two and most importantly, a 5-4 decision would satisfy no one. If the court strikes down the mandate and the health-care law by that narrow margin, liberals and Democrats would blame it on the conservative justices. If the mandate and law are upheld by a 5-4 decision, conservatives would point their fingers at the liberals and the unpredictable “mushy” swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. That’s the problem with a split decision: The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus.

*** A bad day for the mandate: Make no mistake: The mandate had a VERY bad day yesterday. As the New York Times writes, “Predicting the result in any Supreme Court case, much less one that will define the legacies of a president and a chief justice, is nothing like a science, and the case could still turn in various directions. But the available evidence indicated that the heart of the Affordable Care Act is in peril.” Liberals and Democrats are holding out for hope with Kennedy’s sentence at the end of yesterday (“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely, proximately, very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries”), as well as with Chief Justice John Roberts’ tough questioning of the plaintiff’s attorney. The backseat “oral arguing” on the Democratic side is quite loud; the grumbling and handwringing about Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s apparent inability -- at some points -- to make what some folks thought were easy rebuttals to the cell phone, broccoli and funeral analogies seem to frustrate not just those in the blogosphere but also in the White House. That said, plenty of Verrilli supporters out there who say folks are overreacting and point to the tough questioning the government received on the D.C. circuit and yet they still prevailed. As our friends at SCOTUS Blog note, Verrilli had the tougher case to make; Paul Clement had the easier one.

*** Beginning to accept reality? The breaking news from last night -- that Newt Gingrich’s campaign is laying off a third of its staff, replacing its campaign manager, and lightening its traveling schedule -- signals that Gingrich is getting closer to accepting the reality of a candidate who has won just two contests. Per NBC’s Alex Moe, “Gingrich’s campaign has been struggling to stay afloat financially for several weeks — posting slightly more debt than cash on hand in the last FEC filing for February. The former House Speaker, though, continues to promise he will go all the way to the Republican convention in Tampa this August unless another candidate obtains all 1,144 delegates beforehand.” Gingrich’s travel schedule is going to be so light at times that the question is going to be asked: Is he truly an “active” candidate or closer to being a candidate that “suspends” its operation? He’s sort of in between at this point.

*** Mr. Unfavorable? A new Washington Post/ABC poll has some rough numbers for Mitt Romney: “In the new poll, 50 percent of all adults and 52 percent of registered voters express unfavorable opinions of Romney, both higher — although marginally — than Obama has received in Post-ABC polling as far back as late 2006. However, the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is on the other side of the ledger: 53 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the president; for Romney, that number slides to 34 percent.” The good news for Romney: The general election is seven months away. The bad news: It’s seven months away. By the way, the Politico story on the proposed car elevator for Romney’s oceanfront home in San Diego is another one of those bad two- or three-word story for Romney, meaning it only takes two or three words to tell a negative narrative. The others: Swiss bank account, dog on roof, Etch A Sketch -- and now “car elevator” Too be sure, Obama has his as well (Obamacare, “flexibility,” etc.). But that is a lot of negative shorthand for a potential presidential challenger at this point in time.

*** Boehner scolds Romney for criticizing Obama while abroad: This story got lost in yesterday’s news, but it was pretty significant in our eyes. NBC’s Luke Russert reported that House Speaker Boehner took a dig at Romney for criticizing Obama while he was overseas. "Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "No.1 geopolitical foe" of the United States. By the way, Romney has an op-ed in Foreign Policy Magazine -- entitled “Bowing to the Kremlin” -- that doubles down on his criticism of Obama.

*** Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA: A series of new Quinnipiac battleground state polls shows Obama leading Romney in Florida (49%-42%), Ohio (47%-41%), and Pennsylvania (45%-42%). The president also is ahead of Santorum in all three states by a slightly larger margin (50%-37% in Florida, 47%-40% in Ohio, and 48%-41% in Pennsylvania). What’s fueling Obama’s lead? Quinnipiac says it’s female voters, who back Obama over Romney or Santorum by six to 19 points in these three states. But also, don’t miss the political party fav/unfav numbers. The GOP is SO under water in all three states that its favorable rating is below 40% in FL and OH, and it’s at 41% in PA… Dems are an average of five points better in all three states. So while the Obama White House had a really bad day at the Supreme Court yesterday, it can lick its wounds with these poll numbers, plus the Washington Post/ABC survey on Romney’s standing.

*** RNC staffing up in battleground states: The Republican National Committee is beginning to deploy staffers to key battleground states, RNC Political Director Rick Wiley tells First Read. The RNC already has staff in Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, and it will send staffers to Colorado, Michigan and Nevada by April 1. And by the end of next month, it will deploy staff to New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Of course, the RNC is playing catch-up here to the Obama campaign’s large organizations in these states and beyond. “Every day it’s the RNC’s job to keep our sights focused on President Obama to remind voters why we need a change in the White House in November,” Wiley says. “Running against the Obama campaign that spends every moment worried about re-election, it’s important we get started building out our ground game and contacting voters now so we are ready when our nominee walks in the door.”

*** Team Santorum narrows Romney’s ad-spending edge (just a bit): Yesterday, we wrote that Team Romney (campaign plus Super PAC) had a nearly 10-to-1 advertising advantage over Team Santorum in Wisconsin. But that margin has been narrowed somewhat after the Santorum campaign placed a $143,000 cable and broadcast buy in Wisconsin. It’s now almost 5-to-1, with Team Romney at $3.1 million and Team Santorum at $670,000. And in the final week of ad spending (March 26 to April 3), it’s 3-to-1, $1.9 million vs. $624,000.

*** On the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: Romney raises money in Dallas, TX… Santorum holds two "Rally for Rick" events in Wisconsin, one in Sparta and the other in Onalaska… And Gingrich gives a speech at Georgetown University in Washington, DC

*** Biden to talk manufacturing in Iowa: Also today, Vice President Biden delivers the third of his campaign speeches framing the general election. Biden gives this one in Davenport, IA and the topic is manufacturing. Per the advanced excerpts, Biden will say: “I’ve come here today with a simple message:  Manufacturing is coming back. And that’s good news for America, and for America’s middle class.” More: “Mitt Romney has been remarkably consistent -- as an individual investor, a businessman, as Governor of Massachusetts, and now as a candidate for president. Remarkably consistent. Consistently wrong… When he was governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature that would have stopped the state from outsourcing contracts overseas.  That resulted in millions of dollars flowing to companies running call centers in India.” 

Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 6 days
Countdown to Election Day: 223 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Updated at 6:45p.m. ET Two years after a hard-fought victory, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment -- the health care reform law -- seemed at risk of being struck down as the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday.

“I think it’s very doubtful that court is going to find the health care law constitutional,” NBC’s Pete Williams reported after watching the two hours of oral argument before the high court. “I don’t see five votes to find the law constitutional.”

While it's difficult to know for certain after Tuesday's oral arguments, the conservative justices appeared skeptical of the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Court observers caution that one shouldn't read too much into what any particular justice says during oral arguments; a justice will sometimes test out a theory and his or her comments don’t necessarily indicate which way he or she will decide.

But there were few encouraging hints for the Obama administration from Justice Anthony Kennedy, a potential swing vote on the court, or from any of the conservative justices.

“It’s risky to predict, but if I had to predict right today, I would say the law is in trouble,” Williams said.

The court is expected to hand down its ruling in June.

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, who was in the court room Tuesday for the arguments, said it was “very worrisome” for the Obama administration’s side of the case. 

The fate of the health care overhaul hinges on the issue the justices weighed during the argument Tuesday morning: does Congress have the power to force individuals to buy a product they otherwise would not have purchased?

Much of Tuesday’s battle focused on the extent of Congress’s reach under the power to regulate interstate commerce which the Constitution assigns to it.

Court signals it will decide constitutionality of insurance mandate

The four liberal members of the court seemed inclined to accept the administration’s s argument that Congress has ample power under the commerce clause to require uninsured people to join the insurance market. 

But Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing the case for the Obama administration, was “hunting for a fifth vote -- and it really wasn’t at all obvious where that might come from,” Goldstein said.

Verrilli tried to defend the requirement that uninsured people purchase insurance. “Everyone subject to this regulation is in -- or will be in -- the health care market,” Verrilli told the court. “They are just being regulated in advance. That's exactly the kind of thing that ought to be left to the judgment of Congress and the democratically accountable branches of government.”

But Verrilli came under constant pressure from the conservative justices.

Kennedy asked Verrilli at one point “Can you (the government) create commerce in order to regulate it?” Verrilli replied, “That's not what's going on here, Justice Kennedy, and we are not seeking to defend the law on that basis.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Kennedy and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Kennedy told Verrilli at another point that the high court “must presume laws are constitutional. But, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in ... a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

Justice Kennedy “seemed to have grave concerns,” Williams reported. It did not seem during the oral argument that Kennedy “found the justification that he needed” for the law, Williams said.

Read the transcript of Tuesday's arguments here (.pdf)

Chief Justice John Roberts told Verrilli that the Obama administration’s argument was built on the idea that people can’t control when they enter the market for health care or what they need when they enter that market.

“The same, it seems to me, would be true, say, for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever,” Roberts said. “You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will…. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?”

Listen to that exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Verrilli insisted that the two cases were different. 

In the same vein as Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito said the market for health care was no different from the market for burial. 
“I don't see the difference,” Alito said. “You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care, almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What's the difference?”

Verrilli said “one big difference, Justice Alito, is you don't have the cost shifting to other market participants.” 

Listen to that exchange between Justice Alito and Donald Verrilli here (.wav)

Alito shot back, “Sure you do, because if you don't have money then the state is going to pay for it.” Or he added a family member is going to pay.

Making the most vigorous defense of the law was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said enactment of the health care law was akin to the creation of Social Security in 1935. 

Art Lien/NBC News

Paul Clement argues on behalf of the respondents of Florida.

“Congress, in the '30s, saw a real problem of people needing to have old age and survivor's insurance,” she said. “And yes, they did it through a tax, but they said everybody has got to be in it because if we don't have the healthy in it, there's not going to be the money to pay for the ones who become old or disabled or widowed. So they required everyone to contribute.” 

Ginsburg said Social Security caused “a big fuss about that in the beginning because a lot of people said -- maybe some people still do today -- I could do much better if the government left me alone. I'd go into the private market… I'd make a great investment, and they're forcing me to paying for this Social Security that I don't want; but, that's constitutional.”

If Congress wants to address the problem of the uninsured then, Ginsburg said, “Social Security is its model.”

Listen to that exchange between Justice Ginsburg and Paul Clement here (.wav)

Arguing on behalf of Florida and 25 other states was Paul Clement, the former solicitor general in the Bush administration, replied to Ginsburg that Congress could have raised taxes in order to pay for the uninsured -- instead of forcing people to buy insurance. “We could have a tax that's spread generally through everybody to raise the revenue to pay for that subsidy. That's the way we pay for most subsidies.”

Both conservative and liberal justices seemed to agree that Congress could require people who showed up at the doctor’s office for treatment for purchase insurance -- but the conservative justices seemed entirely unpersuaded that Congress could force people to buy insurance before they had any medical need.

Art Lien/NBC News

Attorney Michael Carvin represented the National Federation of Independent Business during the proceedings.

In what might be an encouraging signal for supporters of the health care law, Kennedy did display some concern about younger people who chose to go uninsured.  

In questioning attorney Michael Carvin, who was representing the National Federation of Independent Business, Kennedy raised the possibility that federal intervention might be justified.

“The young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries,” Kennedy said. “That's my concern in the case.”

Carvin replied that “it would be perfectly fine” if Congress allowed insurers to gauge actuarial risk for young people, but the 2010 law prohibits them from buying “the only economically sensible product” -- catastrophic insurance.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

Health care overhaul supporters rally on the sidewalk outside ongoing legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on March 26 at the Supreme Court.

Updated at 6:45 p.m. ET After the first day of oral arguments in challenges to the landmark 2010 health care law, it seems clear that Supreme Court will not let a procedural tax issue stand in the way of deciding the constitutionality of the law.

“If there were any members of the court who were looking for an off ramp – who did not want to decide this case now during an election year, this would have been the way to go,” said NBC's Pete Williams after hearing the first day's arguments. But “none of them seem to want to take that,” he said.

At issue Monday was a law called the Anti-Injunction Act. Does that law require that those who challenge the penalty for failing to buy insurance actually pay the penalty first? That won’t occur until 2015, after the insurance purchase requirement takes effect.

The question hinged on the justices accepting the contention that the penalty is effectively a tax.

After hearing Monday’s argument, Williams reported that “there didn’t seem to be a single member of the Supreme Court that bought that argument.”

“I don’t believe there’s a single justice on the court who believes that it’s a tax. End of that question. So we’re obviously going to go on to the main event which is the individual mandate which will be argued tomorrow,” Williams said.

Monday’s argument was the prelude for the main event: Tuesday’s two hours of argument over whether Congress has the power to require that almost every American purchase health insurance.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the justices, "This case presents issues of great moment, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court's consideration of those issues."

Read the transcript of Monday's oral argument

One justice, Samuel Alito, focused on the apparent inconsistency in the government's argument that the penalty is not a tax, under the terms of the Anti-Injunction Act -- and yet the government also will claim in Tuesday's oral argument that when Congress created the individual mandate and the penalty for failing to buy insurance, it was acting under its constitutional power to tax.

Art Lien/AFP/Getty Images

This courtroom sketch by Art Lien shows Solicitor General Donald Verrilli speaking to Justice Antonin Scalia on March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court.

Verrilli said, "Congress has authority under the taxing power to enact a measure not labeled as a tax ... ."

In a question to Verrilli, Alito said, "Today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?"

Verrilli replied, "No, Justice Alito, but the Court has held... that something can be a constitutional exercise of the taxing power whether or not it is called a tax."

Click here to listen to that exchange between Verrilli and Justice Alito

He said, "the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct tomorrow is different from the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct today. Tomorrow the question is whether Congress has the authority under the taxing power to enact it" and the precise words used in the law don't have a crucial effect on that question.

At least two justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seemed to accept the government's contention that the penalty was not a tax, with Ginsburg saying "this is not a revenue-raising measure, because, if it's successful, they won't -- nobody will pay the penalty and there will be no revenue to raise"

Click here to listen to that exchange between Long and Justice Ginsburg

Since the plaintiffs challenging the ACA had not made the Anti-Injunction Act argument, the justices appointed lawyer Robert Long to argue for the position that no one can file suit against the ACA’s individual insurance mandate until after the penalty on those who fail to buy insurance has been assessed.

As soon as President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law, several states and private organization filed suits to overturn it, arguing that the Constitution gave Congress no power to force people to buy insurance.

Long pointed out in his brief that the text of the ACA says the penalty imposed on people who don’t purchase health insurance shall be “assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes” -- so it is effectively a tax.

Long also said if Congress had wanted to create an exception to the Anti-Injunction Act in this case it would have done so when it passed the ACA in 2010.

 Related: Individual mandate will be in Supreme Court spotlight

He argued that for the Supreme Court to decide now on the constitutionality of the ACA “would be contrary to the policy that courts avoid deciding constitutional issues unless it is necessary to so do.”

Art Lien/AFP/Getty Images

This courtroom sketch by Art Lien shows attorney Robert A. Long speaking March 26, 2012 as he argues his case before the Supreme Court.

nd it would premature, he said, for the court to act since it’s possible that Congress “could amend or repeal the Affordable Care Act at some point before penalties are assessed and collected, beginning in 2015. An amendment (to the law) could avoid the need for this Court to decide the constitutional issue presented in this case.”

But despite those arguments there’s tremendous pressure on the high court to resolve the uncertainty over the health care overhaul now -- since many of the provisions of the law are interrelated and the court itself has created the expectation that it will finally settle the constitutional issue.

Recommended: Health care ruling could send fight back to Congress

Arguing the case on Monday for 90 minutes were Long, Verrilli, and former Assistant Attorney General Gregory Katsas, now in private practice, representing the state of Florida and other states and the National Federation of Independent Business.

NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

People have accused President Obama of flip-flopping on issues like gay marriage (his stance is "evolving") and keeping the prison at Guantanamo Bay open (he tried, but ran into opposition in Congress). But the really fundamental flop for him is on the individual mandate, the subject of tomorrow's oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

American Crossroads is out with a video highlighting that today, showing Barack Obama in his own words arguing with himself before the Supreme Court.

When Obama was running for president, he spent months campaigning against Hillary Clinton with the biggest distinction between them (besides Iraq) being the mandate. Clinton's team argued fiercely that the only way to cover everyone and control costs was with the mandate. Obama, however, likely realizing the general-election politics of requiring people to buy health insurance, disagreed and said it was possible to cover everyone without it.

Crossroads' tag line in the video is "Obama was right on the individual mandate...before he was wrong."

Of course, then by that standard, Mitt Romney is still wrong, because he defends the mandate for Massachusetts (though he now argues it is OK for states to make those decisions at a local level and not federally). And wrong, too, would be the Heritage Foundation, which first floated the idea of a mandate and became the conservative alternative to the plan then-First Lady Hillary Clinton put forward in the early 1990s.

FRANKSVILLE, Wis. -- What started as a good day for Rick Santorum took an abrupt turn on Sunday after the GOP presidential candidate grew frustrated with reporters asking him to clarify his remark that Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to take on President Obama.

During his final campaign stop of the day here, Santorum said of Romney, “Pick any other Republican in the country, he is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama." The comments, Santorum would clarify, were in reference to the similarities between Romney's and the president on the issue of health care. It is a common critique he levels against his chief rival, but never has the former Pennsylvania senator called Romney the "worst Republican in the country" to go head-to-head with the president.

When pressed by reporters to clarify his statement, Santorum said, “On the issue of health care. That’s what I was talking about, and I was very clear about talking about that. OK? Come on guys, don’t do this. I mean you guys are incredible. I was talking about Obamacare, and he is the worst because he was the author of Romneycare.”

But the questions struck a chord with Santorum, and when he faced the same question again, he used a profane word and accused the media of "distorting" his speech.

However a press release sent out from the Santorum campaign shortly after the rally here seemed to double down on the candidate's comments. "Rick Santorum spoke plainly and clearly that of all the Republicans in the field, Mitt Romney is the worst possible candidate to take on Barack Obama, because Mitt Romney authored the blueprint for Obamacare and the issue of healthcare would be off the table," the release said.

Santorum has done a lot of clarifying lately, with recent comments suggesting Obama would be a better choice than Romney in a general election and saying the unemployment rate will not affect his campaign. In both cases, he accused the media and his opponents of taking his words out of context. But in both cases, the Romney campaign used his own words against him.

Sunday's remarks were no exception, with Romney spokesperson Ryan Williams telling reporters, “Rick Santorum is becoming more desperate and angry and unhinged every day...He’s panicking in the final stages of his campaign.”

Before his last event, Santorum had been all smiles on the trail the day after receiving nearly double the amount of support Romney did in the Louisiana primary.  Along with two rallies today, the GOP hopeful also fit in brunch at the Machine Shed and, for the second time in as many days, a few frames of bowling. In an earlier rally in Fond du Lac, WI, Santorum drew an overflow crowd.

But by Sunday's end, Romney advisers were using the hash tag "Tantorum" to draw attention to past instances of the former senator losing his cool. The response blasted out by the Santorum campaign no mention of his use of a not so family friendly word.

Santorum heads to Washington, DC where he will spend Monday before returning to the Badger State later in the week.

Two years ago today President Obama signed the health care reform act into law, leading up to one of the most intense votes in the history of Congress.

Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi worked furiously to gather the necessary votes – all from Democrats – to pass the unpopular Senate version of Obama’s top domestic priority through the House. Democrats had just lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate thanks to the election of Scott Brown in a Massachusetts Senate special election, giving them no choice but to pass the Senate bill.

It was late winter in 2010, and centrist Democrats from politically divided swing states were on the spot, Pelosi and Obama both pleading for their support, lest the controversial bill die in Congress.

Two votes they targeted were freshman Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye, from the purple state of Virginia. After being coy for weeks prior to the vote, Perriello would eventually support the legislation, though Nye would not.

They would both lose their re-election bids in 2010, an election cycle defined by Republican-fueled backlash against the new law.

Two years later, both Perriello and Nye –although they took opposite sides on the legislation – agree in arguing that the law was never properly debated; they say the heat of the moment hijacked thoughtful consideration of the bill.
 
While there are popular elements of the health care plan, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 42 percent of Americans would like to see the entire law repealed.

Perriello and Nye have since rebounded from their losses and are both still involved in politics. Perriello works for the liberal think tank Center for American Progress. Nye, a former foreign service officer is a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund. NBC News reached out to both men to ask for their recollections of one of the most hotly contested pieces of legislation in years.

Perriello was quick to say he had no regrets about his vote , saying: “It was the right thing to do, 85 million people now get free preventative care, 2.5 million young adults can now stay on their parents plan until they’re 26. You can see it’s already starting to work.”

Democrats had grumbled during the fight in Congress over the law that their party’s messaging effort was suspect at best. Perriello said the rhetoric of the battle shifted the discussion away from cost and delivery – the crux of the issue, in his view – and toward the bill’s political ramifications. He conceded the vote probably hurt him in his bid for a second term, but he asserted he was “done in more by the bad economy than anything else.”

The spring of 2010 was one of the more charged political environments in recent congressional memory. Tea Party groups on the right and liberal groups on the left staged massive rallies on Capitol Hill, and members of Congress received death threats over the health care law.  In one instance, Perriello’s brother discovered his gas line had been cut during the middle of the day in an act of vandalism, according to Albemarle County Fire Marshal’s Office

Like Perriello, Nye blames a vitriolic atmosphere surrounding the debate for suppressing any discussion about substance.

 “It was a very complicated bill,” he said. “There were elements that I liked but the debate grew so heated that we could no longer have a reasonable discussion about effective change.”

Nye still has no regrets about “voting no with my constituents” but said he regrets that “the debate showcased deep divisions in the country that made people extremely distrustful of government.”

Nye agreed that the poor economy was probably the biggest single factor in his losing re-election; however, he said a failure of messaging on the healthcare issue by Democratic leaders significantly hurt the party’s prospects in 2010.

“People were saying that the health care law was socialism. However, if you vote against an individual mandate, you’re essentially saying that you the individual are not responsible for your health and instead it should be left up to the state. They [Democratic leaders] never effectively made that point, that the mandate empowered the individual more than the state. It really hurt us,” he said.

Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law. The debate is starting to resurface but the intense vitriol of the spring of 2010, as of now, does not seem to be making a return.

There’s still aggressive messaging surrounding the law, though, and it’s a centerpiece of this year’s presidential campaign.

A super PAC affiliated with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), for instance, produced a new web video today depicting “Uncle Sam” going to the doctor’s office with a doctor sternly saying, “You’re living on borrowed time. Get rid of Obamacare.”

And the Department of Health and Human Services, the cabinet office in charge of carrying out most of the health care law, is up with a separate video that’s heavy on human emotion and light on stats and figures. Labeling their campaign as the “MyCare” series, the HHS ad portrays the stories of three women whose lives have benefited from the health care law.