AP Images
In a narrow 5-4 landmark ruling, the Supreme Court decided to uphold President Obama's domestic crowning achievement, the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Chief Justice John Roberts, the swing vote, ruled in favor of upholding the health care overhaul.
However, there were four questions surrounding the ACA challenge. The main focus was on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which requires that the majority of Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The government argued that under the Commerce Clause, Congress can require everyone to purchase health insurance, because if they don't, the collective insured end up paying for it in the end...when the uninsured get hurt or sick.
Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, all rejected that argument. However, the Chief Justice wrote the majority opinion, siding with the Obama administration, under the argument that the ACA is a tax, even though it doesn't fall under the Commerce Clause. This is ironic since the government argued during the hearings that the ACA was not a tax, but hey, they got what they wanted. Justices Ginsubrg, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all agreed to uphold the mandate but for various reasons.
The Chief Justice believes that the mandate imposes a tax on those who do not buy health insurance and Congress has the power to tax that. Although the purpose of the tax is to have everyone buy health insurance and not raise money, Justice Roberts recognized the ACA as still a tax.
The ruling today drummed up conservative support to defeat President Obama in the 2012 race. During Mitt Romney's speech on the vote, he stated, "This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have replace President Obama."
The rally cry was heard; the Romney campaign has raised over one million dollars since the decision this morning, according to the campaign twitter account.
Leave a Comment:
If I might quote a friend: I think it's a bit premature to characterize Justice Roberts as a "mensch"
Of course, what is hidden here in the decision to approve the penalty only as constitutional under the taxing power of the Federal Government is the impact of the 5 to 4 vote against the Commerce Clause justification for constitutionality. You can bet that will be the crux of the decision being brought by the entities that are lining up to get to court against the Health and Human Services gilded govenment one size fits all mandated insurance programs coverage.
Too, it is unconstitutional to coerce the States to opt into expensive and large extensions of Medicaid, the core provision to getting up to 30 million more people covered by the (Un)afordable Care Act provsions.
And the losers here still appear the individuals and families covered by employer based health insurance and individually purchased health insurance that is efficient and affordable, and also the catastrophic only insurance covered young, health individuals, as they will not be able to keep the insurance they have. More and more small and large businesses are sure to recoil at the sticker stock of the increased premiums coming for the bells and whistles federally approved insurance policies coming down the pike, and will just stop employer paid health insurance, and take the cheaper route out by paying the penalty. And how many in the mid 20s to mid 50s folks are going to simply pay the individually penalty, and buy only relatively inexpensive catastophic insurance and take the risk of having to pay out of pocket for their occasional flu season needs or the twisted ankle issues? Add Medicare recepients to the list of losers, as the $500,000,000 (that billion) being taken out of that program for the next 10 years to pay for the subsidies and the costs of the medicaid extensions is still in the bill; constitutional too, as Medicare is a tax.
This thing is still a monstrosity, with folks lining up still for exemptions from some of its provisions, the unions being foremost in that effort. And it's treamendously expensive...and even the CBO is having difficulty trying to ascertain how they can even score it now.
This is sure to reawaken the Tea Party movement, folks too. You can bet on that! 2012 national election just took on a new look!
Are we talking about the same Law? Your interpretation of the effects of the Affordable Care Act sounds like something you heard on Fox News, in other words, it doesn't even resemble the reality of the law. If you currently have insurance through your employer, keep it. Insurance premiums are going to go much lower with more people in the pool. Your version of events makes it sound like we are headed for a catastrophe, when the opposite is true. Our nation's health care costs are going to drop dramatically.
CBO has now revised their estimated to say that over 10 years this "Un"affordable Care Act will cost $2.5 trillion, $800 of which will be paid by tax increases and 75% of those tax increases will be on the "middle class" with incomes under $200 a year, therefore making Obama to be a liar again with his plege that that group of taxpayers will suffer no new taxes..
This Obama Care is unaffordable.
Sorry, that was supposed to be "incomes under $200K a year" in the first sentence.
And Paula, you have a large dose of reality to wake up to! I cringe to think of the feelings of betrayal that you will have when the truth outs on the damage this bill is going to cause. Did you not hear about the utilization committee that will be in charge of rationing policies already dancing around the "advice" not to give women under 50 mamograhms as a routine preventative health procedure, and have now made it a gender neutral impact with the "advice" not to do the regular annual PSA (Prostate Specific Antigens) testing on males? Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer are the two leading causes of death in females and males, respectively, but the government's utilization committees see a "savings" from not doing the common clinical testing preventively as a "cost savings". And that's just two examples. What's next...Glucose Tolerance clinical evalutations to be recommended against, use of Physicians Assistants or Nurse Practioners instead of Physicians for annual physical exams and speciality care such as endicronology or cardiology?
Everything at the National Level dictating our medical care is going to become a regression to the mean guided by statistical correlations, instead of the interactions between patients and physicians. Don't believe it? Just wait and see!