The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On The Affordable Care Act

The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On The Affordable Care Act

The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The legal, political and practical implications of the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The decision is considered to be a major victory for President Barack Obama because it validates his signature legislative achievement. It is also one of the most important Supreme Court rulings in decades. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying the law was a valid exercise of Congress's power to tax. Today's decision will still require the health care industry and the government to address rising health care costs. And with Republicans vowing to continue to fight to repeal the law, health care will be front and center in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. Diane and her guests discuss the legal, political and practical implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

Guests

Jeffrey Rosen

professor of law at The George Washington University; legal affairs editor at The New Republic.

Susan Dentzer

editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, and an on-air analyst on health issues for The PBS NewsHour

Susan Page

Washington bureau chief for USA Today.

Supreme Court Decision On Health Care Reform

The full text of the Supreme Court opinion in National Federation of Independent Business et al. vs. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et al.:

Comments

Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.

Sarah Palin once claimed Obamacare would give us "Death Panels". The "Death Panel" is in fact the SCOTUS .This ruling will decide if millions of Americans live or die.

June 28, 2012 - 8:37 am

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed that you have become this emotionally dependent on the federal government, or is this just theatrics?

June 28, 2012 - 8:57 am

Patsy Nomore wrote:
Sarah Palin once claimed Obamacare would give us "Death Panels". The "Death Panel" is in fact the SCOTUS .This ruling will decide if millions of Americans live or die
The SCOTUS doesn't care about millions of Americans. They only care about American's million$.Mitch McConnell's next magic trick is to get them to declare that money is people too.

June 28, 2012 - 8:58 am

Big money, as usual, will decide the outcome. There might be some changes, of course. But when the dust settles, big money will be the winner yet again. SCOTUS is just one more segment of the government which isdependant on big money.

June 28, 2012 - 9:12 am

No,I`m not embarrassed by the government called the United States of America. We counted on our government to break away from a tyrant King,ending slavery,Fascism,Communism,disease,hunger.

I actually put my hand on my chest and PROUDLY Pledge Allegiance and sing our countries National Anthem when needed.It`s not just doing this act,but knowing what those words mean.

HURRY UP AND DIE,IS NOT THE UNITED STATES I KNOW.

June 28, 2012 - 9:12 am

Patsy Nomore wrote: "I actually put my hand on my chest and PROUDLY Pledge Allegiance"

Do you cough when the words "liberty and justice for all" come up?

cough! choke! O'er the land of the sneeze! hickup! and the home of the cough! hack! cough!.

June 28, 2012 - 9:59 am

Patsy Nomore wrote:
"We counted on our government to break away from a tyrant King"
Ummm ... there WAS no government then, Patsy. There were just a bunch of people who wanted to be FREE from tyranny and risked their lives to do it. You seem perfectly content to now live in the tyranny of the state.

June 28, 2012 - 9:45 am

While everyone should have the "right" to choose whether to have health insurance or not, health care providers should have the "right" to ensure they will get paid. The solution is to have those who choose not to have health insurance post a bond guaranteeing payment.

Just as those who try to defraud the government of tax revenues are denied bankruptcy forgiveness for those taxes, so would be the fate of those who incurred health care costs without insurance or a bond.

June 28, 2012 - 9:47 am

If the mandate and therefore the law is upheld in its entirety, it will be interesting to see what happens in the election. Polls show that people are against the law 2-1. If that is true, will they vote to put in Republicans who have vowed to repeal the law if it is upheld by the Court? Yes, the election is largely about the economy, but this could be a bigger factor than first thought IF the law is upheld.

June 28, 2012 - 9:47 am

Thank you Supreme Court Justices. God Bless the Supreme Court!

June 28, 2012 - 10:11 am

Removed until an accurate report is in.

June 28, 2012 - 10:19 am

In the race to report this news within seconds that many news sources got it wrong. Even your program - please have someone sit quietly and read and report back in a few minutes. Discuss the issues then come back and announce what the ruling actually says. I expect that of NPR! Thanks!

June 28, 2012 - 10:16 am

I don't understand why it's not unconstitutional to mandate, as is the case here in Ohio, that all drivers carry liability insurance; yet it's unconstitutional, in the ACA, to mandate that all patients carry health insurance. Please explain. Thanks.

June 28, 2012 - 10:19 am

Looks like Obama got his way, good for him today probably bad in November.

June 28, 2012 - 10:21 am

Most people don't seem to realize that we are already paying for uninsured people when they go to the emergency room or hospital. People that have insurance are paying more in hospital and insurance costs.

June 28, 2012 - 10:24 am

Those uninsured celebrate! The health insurance companies celebrate! Cccching! Serious pro life folks celebrate!

June 28, 2012 - 10:27 am

troys 38. Don't try to make sense. People put their fingers in their ears...I can't hear you.

June 28, 2012 - 10:29 am

in response to sicily- the reason they can manadte car insurance is because being a driver is optional. if you want to drive, then you need insurance. there is no option to be alive. that is my take on it...

June 28, 2012 - 10:30 am

Jeff Greenfield on twitter made interesting comment wondering if Roberts would have voted differently had he *NOT* been Chief Justice. "Where you stand depends on where you sit" aphorism seems apt.

June 28, 2012 - 10:33 am

Please clarify,

It is my understanding that the leader of the insurance lobby (I do not recall her name) dictated to Mr Obama that if it was not compulsary they would fight with every dollar they had and every lobby they control to defeat Obama. Basically ordering the President to make it mandatory.

June 28, 2012 - 10:33 am

Maybe we need to have a second look at Harriet Miers.

June 28, 2012 - 10:47 am

Looks like it was a case of a "switch in time saves nine", again!

The Supreme Court knows that they never straytoo far out of the mainstream as its prestige and mistique is what gives this branch its authority.

Rafael
Glen Burnie MD

June 28, 2012 - 10:46 am

There is definitely a tone in the air on this show that they are quite pleased with the ruling, Jeffrey Rosen is down right giddy!

June 28, 2012 - 10:57 am

Justice Roberts votes for the people and insurance corporations... win..win.Those uninsured celebrate! The health insurance companies celebrate! Cccching!
Serious pro life folks celebrate. Miracles will never cease...whee hee.

Last night on MSNBC's Lawrence ODonnells program he did a segment on how those who cannot afford the mandate will be unable to be fined. How this was eliminated from the health care act. Can your guest discuss this please

June 28, 2012 - 11:04 am

If I take money out of my 401k before age 65 I not only have to pay the back taxes but also have to pay a 10 percent penalty. How is the penalty for not buying health insurance any more of an attack on my freedom than the penalty for early withdrawal from my 401k?

June 28, 2012 - 11:04 am

It has always been hazardous to make political appointments to the Supreme Court. Something about the job causes people to rise above their political leanings and become the judges our forefathers envisioned. They are not to respond to popularity, the public will, or their own preferences. They are to use their very best understanding of the Constitution, both the historical document and the decisions of earlier justices, to determine when the political branches have overstepped their authority. It has worked out surprisingly well over the last 240 years.

June 28, 2012 - 11:05 am

This ruling proves we are a nation of laws, not political wind. I applaud Chief Justice Roberts for choosing the law over politics.

Now the hysterics on the right begin.

June 28, 2012 - 11:05 am

Polarized Politics as Usual –
That Flip Floppin’ Sound you hear is POTUS candidate Romney rolling over in his political grave… . But Justice is blind and Chief Justice Roberts – calls ‘em like he sees ‘em,.
Your Move, Fiscal Conservative TEA Party Folks, America awaits REAL Solutions to our Natiuon’s Health Care Affordable Insurance needs.
But for the “Regular Joes” it will appear another anti-tax Republican vs. the tax & spend Liberals scenario.

June 28, 2012 - 11:09 am

Just 100 miles west of Winston-Salem down in Dixie Land NC they are as conservative as you git. At's our man Burr's stompin' grounds, and they probably got one of his political hacks up in DC Land to call your show w/ such displeasure in Justice Ginsberg... !

June 28, 2012 - 11:14 am

I have to believe that Chief Justice Roberts's own experience with a diagnosis of epilepsy must have had some influence on his decision.

June 28, 2012 - 11:14 am

The Diane Rehm Show is produced by member-supported WAMU 88.5 in Washington DC.