This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CORE OF OBAMA HEALTH CARE
Here we go:
- OBAMA'S HEALTH-CARE OVERHAUL UPHELD BY U.S. SUPREME COURT
- 5-4 decisions, with Roberts joining the court's liberals.
- Court says federal government can’t threaten to withhold money from states that don’t fully comply on Medicaid extension
- CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS SAYS MANDATE IS NOT A VALID EXERCISE OF CONGRESS' POWER UNDER COMMERCE CLAUSE AND NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE
- HEALTH LAW'S MEDICAID EXPANSION LIMITED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT -RTRS
- ROBERTS, JOINED BY TWO JUSTICES, SAYS MEDICAID EXPANSION VIOLATES CONSTITUTION -RTRS
- FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT, SAYING THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT GOES BEYOND -RTRSCONGRESSIONAL POWERS UNDER CONSTITUTION -RTRS
- ScotusBlog conclusion: So the mandate is constitutional
- The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read
- The ACA is upheld as a tax, not a penalty
The bottom line from the WSJ:
A quick overview of the ruling: A divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health-care law, in one of the most anticipated high-court rulings in a generation. The court said Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle. It upheld the mandate as a tax, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.
The ruling is a victory for Democrats and President Barack Obama, who had passed the biggest reworking to the health system since the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and faced the prospect of the court nullifying their effort. It also averts disruption for hospitals, doctors and employers who have spent more than two years preparing for changes in the law.
Even as the law’s fate was in doubt, the administration moved ahead with implementing its provisions. It has been negotiating with states to set up exchanges where consumers can buy subsidized insurance policies and sign up millions of lower-income Americans for Medicaid. Some states, including Florida and Texas, refused to cooperate because they expected the law to be overturned.
For Mitt Romney, the high court\’s decision basically means he won\’t have to change his stump speech. Expected to speak later today, Mr. Romney is sure to promise to repeal the law if he\’s elected. It also means he\’ll face less pressure to offer specifics on what he\’d replace the law with — a positive for a campaign that tends to shy away from details.
And more from the WSJ's Brent Kendall
More from inside the court, from our Brent Kendall, who will be going through the ruling line by line: The court’s ruling is largely a victory for the Obama administration. The court’s 59-page opinion rejects the government’s primary argument that Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce gives lawmakers the authority to require citizens to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But the court goes on to uphold the insurance mandate on other grounds. “It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance,” Chief Justice Roberts writes. “Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”
»
- 35200 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We'll all have to dip into our 0.01% "High Yield Savings" account to pay for this.
Good luck.
As long as you are only affecting poor people... aka fucking them over through taxation.. for whatever money they have, then of course it's Constitutional... Scotus...paid off...Now you'll have to buy whatever these assholes tell you to...
Feaking iPad....this thing sucks...sorry for the dupes.
The fact is, this is a global mark of contempt against freedom and the individual right of control over their own life and life in general, and if you buy sell or trade this market you vote against your own freedom and life because it allows this beast to live another moment.
Would somebody please provide me a calm, rational, reasoned explanation as to why ACA is bad for this country and Americans without being sarcastic, profane or regurgitating a soundbite? If this is a fiscal issue - some real numbers supporting your argument would be appreciated as would alternatives or proposed solutions to rising health care costs. I'm trying to keep this discussion civilized and constructive. There is enough emotional vitriol to go around.
Best, BBB
idk, greece?
It comes down to what you consider affordable? If you think your insurance premiums are going to go down, think again. What is taking place here is the people that currently have healthcare will pay for those who don't, mainly illegals and people that don't pay any taxes. The government will have full access to everyones healthcare records, your personal hygiene will not be personal anylonger. If you get diagnosed with a heart condition they will claim it's your own fault and you will not be covered. You say WHAT? They say here is your AMEX reciepts showing the salted peanuts you bought a CVS and the Rum you bought every week at the liquor store. Not to mention the frequent trips on your debit card charged at Mc Donalds. The insurance companies will refuse to pay because you were not living the lifestyle they deemed fit. You think this is crazy? You just wait... The controls are in place now and soon they will add all the legal clauses that will need to be followed in order to have a claim paid. Meanwhile the illegals will just walk into their state offices and be handed their insurance card for free along with their new snap cards. Don't worry though, we won't ask you for any immigration papers because that would be a truly unconstitutional thing to do to someone that has no Constitutional rights to begin with...
can't be done in a few short sentences, in this blog format. requires reading and understanding the founding documents, the concepts of inalienable rights, concept of private property, federal power that is strictly limited to what is clearly defined in the constitution and nothing beyond that, requires understanding 5,000 years of human history and how governments abuse subjects, how government power and control constantly increases in scope over time and what that creeping power ultimately leads to, and on, and on, and on. it requires understanding that the founding fathers studied so many of the failed and succesful governemnt structures of the past 5,000 years and read history's best philosophers (locke, hume, smith, plato, etc) and tried to take the best and remove the worst parts of prior governments in order to create one that had the lowest probability of ending in tyranny/despotism. it requires understaind that freedom, prosperity, and a multitude of other benefits of a civil socity rely on property rights and rule of fair, proper laws. aaaahh, i give up. it takes so damn long to explain.
Ask this: when the constitution's limits are breached, even in a way some consider good, then what are the limits of the governments power to do anything it wants? once the precedent is set that the constitution can be ignored?
answer: there are no limits. once breached there are no limits, the end result is only a matter of time.
It doesn't require math to understand the issue of freedom. To be free you have to be free not only to act, but free from the consequences of the actions of others. There has been a steady move in this country towards enacting as "rights" things that require one person to pay for a benefit to another. In other words the term "right" has been twisted to mean forcing one person to pay things another person gets. These are not inherent rights that exist when nobody is around, but rights that one person has to something that belongs to another person. It only requires a little forethought to realize that it is not right to ask one person to pay for something for another person, but have the person paying in a position to have no control over how much that other person costs them.
To provide an example, is it fair to make a person who eats healthy and works out every day, in order to control their health care costs, pay for someone who watches 6 hours a TV day and eats pizza and super-sized McDonald at every meal? Money simply cannot come with no strings attached. The strings must now come in the form of rules to help limit the libility of the responsible to the costs of the irresponsible. The inevitable consequences of the ACA is that we will eventuially need to regulte human behavior to limit the liability that one persons lifestyle creates for another person. It is a matter of justice that we must now make unhealth lifestyles illegal or rediculously expensive to protect one person from the consequences of another persons lifestyle.
So ends freedom. The dissapointing part of the SCOTUS ruling is not even the ACA, it is that now the tax code can be used in a nearly unlimited manner to eliminate individuals rights to their own money. Not even just income any more, but property. I can now make a claim on the money you have in a bank account because I can tax you if you don't do the things I want.
Hear hear. Condensed to: personal freedom -> good, government anything -> bad. Not always the correct call, but if you want to dummy it down to a simple guideline, it works to your benefit way more often than not...
Would somebody please provide me a calm, rational, reasoned explanation as to why ACA is bad for this country and Americans without being sarcastic, profane or regurgitating a soundbite?
You're a clueless idiot sheep, not worth anyone taking the time to explain anything to you. Just go the fuck away moron.
aren't congress people exempt from Obamacare and have a pension system totally different from social security? they get something better right, better than the plebes they lord over? they're on the inside, they're connected. so,...now all i have to do is get elected to congress. is that tough?
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
~George Orwell, Animal Farm
When "They" consider it appropriate "They" will find the POTUS is not a legal citizen and every law he's signed will suddenly be null and void. Martial Law until "They" straighten everything out -- in their favor of course.
ACA. It is a spawn of the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Financial-Insurance-Judicial-Media complex - it is a product of its genes...
The country's divisions remain fully operational and The Road to Serfdom the path, since FDR, of our now fully socialist government. The demarche taken by those of us who believe in a less gumby like interpretation of the Constitution will now be played out in the streets.
As an aside comment, off topic, Mr. Jamie Diamond was either lying or is a fool. His pronunciamento that he made a 2 billion dollar error has been eclipsed by the figure of 9 billion or four and one half times larger than his original statement. A fool or a lying prince of Wall Street? ..... you can bet he doesn't care. He's secure but far from safe.
well i guess i will be do my biz in alot different way. screw them
May I just add. Lap meet Dogs.
FTUSA. From an ex patriot.
Soetoro Care = Corporate Welfare
The Soetoro Care bill, written by lobbyists and never read by the Useful Idiot Obama Bin Lyin', was never anything but corporate welfare and a bail out of the criminal "Health" Insurance Cartel with its ridiculous 20% administrative over head rate...
Roberts: The Pure Fascist
It is no surprise Roberts, a corporatist and pure fascist (merger of state and corporate power to further the ruling oligarchy) would be in favor of this corporate rape of the taxpayers and the citizens at large...
His decisions have been outrageous, treasonous pro corporate from day one...
I believe the SCOTUS ruling was wrong and did insurmountable damage to our rights, but, the judicial precedent they used in coming to this decision relied heavily upon the court cases that ensued after the imposition of the same goddamned care plans were imposed upon the people of Massachusetts by none other than ROMNEY! Who was for Obamacare before he was against Obamacare.
Really, to inject partisan politics into this (and everything else) is fucking stupid, it will make things worse rather than solve anything at all.
I am just glad I do not have to buy into this obscene abortion of a care mandate.
Well, as a 54 year old tobacco user, though I am in excellent health at 6' 165 lbs. with good blood pressure, I just went to an e insurance website for shopping healthcare insurance plans, it found 164 plans in my area, almost ALL had 7,500 or 10,000 deductibles, and anything from 20% to 50% coinsurance. That is NOT healthcare insurance, that is catastrophic health disaster insurance. The best plan I could find had a $1,000 deductible (the lowest deductible) and a 20% coinsurance and it was $525 per month. Meaning $6,300 per year premiums plus $1,000 per year deductible=$7,300 per year plus 20% of any and all billing for care, so at least $7,300 and possibly a lot more if I were to fall ill.
Those not covered will face fines phased in between 2014 and 2016, PARDON me, a TAX, so if you don't pay you will be hunted as a tax evader by the IRS, but the point is if you refuse to pay so much for so little in return you will instead pay the "tax" and go onto government health rolls. Meaning that the sickest and most likely to be expensively ill like diabetics or the morbidly obese, will end up on government care and the government will presume the right to now dictate lifestyles to it's patients. Now when your doctor tells you to stop smoking he will have the power of the federal government behind him.
This will fail, a national healthcare system could in theory be done, but a hybrid private for obscene profit/government care system will fail every single time. The costs for this will quickly, almost instantly be out of control, and not a little out of control, it will destroy the economy.
I really have to look hard for the silver lining in all of this, but one thread of satisfaction comes from the very wealthy who are so rich they do not need insurance and would never deign to go to some hoi polloi run of the mill doctor anyway, will now be forced to pay a "tax" of as much as 2.5% of their total income if they do not buy insurance. So, insurance they will never use in order to avoid paying a 2.5% bump in income taxes.
There are 54 million uninsured people in the USA, the poor are already eligible for Medicaid, the remaining uninsured will be now forced to pay at LEAST the "TAX" to be enrolled on the new government system, do the math, 54 million times a couple hundred bucks per month that is now spent into the economy which will now be sent to the government. Those without insurance that are not poor but close to it will be poor by the time they pay for their new insurance mandate.
Interesting to compare the level of outrage over this decision to ZH reaction to the Citizens United fiasco. Most of you guys are so fucking knee-jerk.
I prefer to think of it as an ability to see what the power to regulate behavior through the tax code will be like in the hands of conservatives.
The ruling opens the door for next social policy improvement - a mandate to purchase retirement products offered by private providers. We are fucked.
The health care law can be repealed, but this court ruling cannot. It will now take a constitutional amendment to limit the taxing authority so that it cannot be used to render the rest of the constitution moot.
I am inclined to believe Obama just won a second term.
Is this good or bad? Well, the debt hole we're in isn't going to be fixed in the lifetime of anyone over 30, so it is of little import which party rules us.
During the Cold War and talk by the left of nuclear arms reductions their argument was succinctly,"Just how high can the rubble bounce?"
Now the argument about our debt burden is similar. Just how deep a debt hole can we dig? It took both parties to get us where we are so is there a real difference between them on how far the USA can slide? No.
We are on a verge of an economic collapse that could render all of this moot. The path of investing governments with more and more control of the economy has resulted in an economy that is going to fall appart. We already have an economy that the average person can not afford and we are choosing to solve it by making the economy even more unafordable. Eventually it will reach a breaking point and what matters is what we do when that breaking point arrives, Will we see the problem for what it is and roll back government power, or will they think it is just another problem government needs to solve.
Tragedy is visited upon the USA today as tyranny is officially sanctioned.
This is BS. I own a mall business and looked into health coverage for just myself. I didn't want to pay insurance just so if I went to the doctor I would have to pay the first five grand of expenses. I take care of myself, eat right exercise and avoid sick care and avoid as much of the trash sick additives they add to everything to make you sick. This shit is bullshit. I refuse to pay them one red cent. At some point you have to gather up your principles and draw a line in the sand. They have no right , I know it, they know it, and you know it. This is going to be the line in the sand that they want. They should know that just because they are out of touch with real America doesn't equate to untouchable. Where is your line at, and have you already drawn it?
I like your style. I am with you.
The comments continue to provide amusement. For those voting for secession, please be my guest and GO, south, I assume.
I suggest you call the new country Jaysusstan.
Last time I was in one southern state that shall remain nameless, only about 1 of every 5 locals I encountered had more than 3 visible teeth.
But hey, I get it; that's the price of freedom, right?
Please secede.
And, may the odds be ever in your favor... :-p
Visiting relatives I suppose.
The Northeastern US, the first bastion of socialism continues to foment anti Constitutional rebellion in favor of despotism. The coffle they wear will certainly enslave them, however they, being Lenin's "useful idiots" cannot see their own destruction. Too,too bad.
(yes I know you had to look up the word coffle.)
ha ha ha this decision got the yankee world in a tizzy! For once Eurozone comedy theatre is second base on ZH forum!
Benedict Roberts just simply sped up the process for economic decline. There were thousands of businesses around the country awaiting today's decision as to whether or not they will continue on pass this year. Many more are awaiting the November election.
Now we can foresee even higher unemployment, reduced tax reciepts, more people going on unemploymnent which will further strain government budgets.
Hope everyone is ready. Things are going to be getting real nasty as the money runs dry despite all the printing in the world. Cash will be king for a while but hold your PMs as long as you can.
Why bother working? So long as ya gots yer EBT and Medicare cards and Section 8 housing, the Nanny State's got ya covered!
Welcome to the slavery if you still haven't figure the shit out. I was wondering what Thomas Jefferson would do about it?
NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.
Professor Patrick Pullicino said doctors had turned the use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ into the equivalent of euthanasia of the elderly.
He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country.
It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.
It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours.
There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.
Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’.
He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.
Professor Pullicino revealed he had personally intervened to take a patient off the LCP who went on to be successfully treated.
He said this showed that claims they had hours or days left are ‘palpably false’.
In the example he revealed a 71-year-old who was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia and epilepsy was put on the LCP by a covering doctor on a weekend shift.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1z7AvlN3h
It is way past time to continue talking about repealing this and that.
The conversation needs to focus on rebellion against the tyranny that Jefferson,Monroe, and a good many of the founders of this nation knew would grow from any government ... we have arrived.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that: ""Congress can do whatever the fuck they want, just so long as they call it a tax!" Next up, abolishing the Supreme Court as an unecessary branch of Govt.
Lets just abolish the Govt. ... I'm looking at an ad next to this panel to contribute to Elizabeth Warren ... that must have been a real intelligent marketing person making that decision; however, I suggest that everyone seeing this panel click on it.