The U.S. Supreme Court Rules On The Affordable Care Act
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-28/us-supreme-court-rules-affordable-care-act-0
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.
No MLBB for you Justice Roberts until you get off those meds?
i get that people don't like to be told what to do, but aren't there other things that we are required to buy, like car insurance? how is that different?
But Amerika is a democracy and without a Poll Tax or other such Qualifier any Body can vote... . Citizens United -- the party w/ the biggest microphone wins -- ask states rights Montana... .
The view of Roberts is short sighted. In the opinion, he says, that the mandate is justifiable under the power of Congress to tax, but not under the Commerce Clause. Jokingly, some have said that because the Commerce Clause is not invoked, Justice Scalia's "broccoli" example becomes moot - that Congress could not mandate one to buy broccoli.
My question is, "why not"? If Congress wanted to mandate that one buy broccoli - or pay a fine to the IRS, why couldn't they?! And if the fine/tax were high enough, people would have little choice but to purchase the evil weed.
Justifying the mandate under the taxing power as opposed to the Commerce Clause is a distinction without a difference.
Countless times I've heard Republicans say that businesses need more certainty in order to start investing in this economy again. Now GOP Congress is saying that it will repeal ACA? Just when SCOTUS reduced uncertainty, GOP Congress is just raising uncertainty back up to its previous level. I say leave it alone. Let the dust settle for a little while before stirring it up again.
Erin H,
This has already been explained multiple times here. You are not REQUIRED to buy a car - you can take a bus or walk. The alternative to paying the fine or buying insurance under ACA is to commit suicide or move out of the country.
Finely, as a member of the middle class, I now feel MY taxes will be used to help pay for MY health care! I have paid property taxes to help protect my local hospital, state taxes to help run it and higher health insurance to pay for the uninsured. Health care is already legislated ad nauseum and so often not for the consumers benifit. Let comsumers run with it on a level field!
Please, no more broccoli references. The broccoli market isn't one-sixth of our economy and growing, and there are no market failures in that market. Scalia and everyone else is totally mistaken in making that comparison.
A bus? Greyhound or Trailways bus? If a man had a mule he'd not need no car insurance,eh? TEA Party take us back to a time that I'm glad is now long past -- Get REAL -- Real Solutions?
Most property tax pays for our neighbors public school education?
The Affordable Care Act is not affordable. Keeping children on parents' insurance until age 26 is a great entitlement...but at what cost. Ensuring that individuals with pre-existing medical conditions can obtain health insurance is a great entitilement...but at what cost. Expanding coverage of low income Americans through expansion of Medicade is a wonderful benefit...but at what cost to general tax revenues. Inviting 40 million Americans into a health care system with run away cost is sure to result in greater taxes and cost for everyone. Let's fix the cost problem first and then move on with equitable health care coverage for all Americans.
I have a question, I don't fully understand how the individual mandate affect a person, who maybe unemployed or underemployed?
davidhhearn wrote:
"Please, no more broccoli references. "
Broccoli, broccoli, broccoli.
It's called a principle, david. It doesn't matter what the "market" is or isn't or how big a part of the economy it is. It's the principle.
Interesting that the relative market sizes of healthcare and broccoli are what you pick out to respond to and not the point of my post. Argue against the point, david. This is a distinction without a difference.
Keeping children on the parents insurance must make business sense else... ?
America's chose to pay for our health care PROCEDURES through employer-employee insurance taxes... . Insurance goes back to our founding fathers. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... . we got lo'ts of ducks in this big ole nation... .
RobertLongView wrote:
"A bus? Greyhound or Trailways bus? If a man had a mule he'd not need no car insurance,eh? TEA Party take us back to a time that I'm glad is now long past -- Get REAL -- Real Solutions?"
Many people do not own cars and do not have to buy car insurance. It is a choice.
Address the principle, Robert. Address the point. This is a distinction without a difference. You have two choices under ACA. Move out of the country or stop breathing. Lovely.
Freedom is dead.
I'm confused about whether the Medicaid Expansion is or is NOT an entitlement? If states can CHOOSE whether or not to participate, then it is NOT an entitlement, correct?
The size of the market AND the existence of market failures is the point. It is a long established economic principle that correcting market failures is a legitimate and necessary function of government. ECON 101.
great visual up at Prof Cole’s
Supreme Court declines to take US Health Care in Direction of Sub-Saharan Africa (Map)
http://www.juancole.com/2012/06/supreme-court-set-to-take-us-health-care...
Sarah's death panels,eh? You can buy insurance and they will hook you up at your local hospital -- no need to leave the country -- but if you must by all means LEAVE... .
ecgberht. The court ruled the government cannot require you to buy health insurance but they can force you to pay a tax penalty if you do not. They could do the same with broccoli. How is this any different from the 10 percent tax penalty for an early withdrawal of my money from my 401k?
But congress can rewrite the 401k rules for any reason at any time -- just hope your side is the majority w/ the White House... .
One thing for sure were going to hear a lot more than just about the "FREE" stuff this summer and fall. Historically we can't be too surprised by the unconstitutional progressiveism displayed by the court today but boy it's sure disappointing.
The Republican backed mis-information campaign has already begun. The first two Republicans on MSNBC this morning after the ruling repeated the statement that "now everyone who has health insurance will lose their coverage" and "will be forced to acquire government health care" .... both of these statements are untrue. If the Democrats don't start shouting the benefits of this law they will definitely lose in November. The Republicans have had two years to spread lies which are now considered "facts" (repeated often enough, lies become facts).
Although this is good news for Americans, the Democrats have a LOT of work to do to get the truth out there or they will lose both houses and the Presidency in November. Or have they forgotten how the Republicans energized the crazies in 2010?
In regard to the SCOTUS decision Professor Juan Cole said this at his website Informed Comment
"Well, we dodged the bullet of looking like Zimbabwe on this issue. But we still need a single payer system. And the court exempting states from medicaid expansion could leave millions uninsured."
http://www.juancole.com/2012/06/supreme-court-set-to-take-us-health-care...
Can your guest address his medicaid claims..
OK. So, I would like to know which of your panelists will purchase MY health insurance for me and my family.
Thanks.
Will this decision focus and energize the forces of anti-tax philosophy in such a way as to undermine re-election efforts of legislative supporters?
Interested in a clarification, though the 'insuring a car' mandate analogy has been said to not be the same, I have a question on the "mandate."
Isn't the Medicare deduction in my payroll check a mandate? Whether "you" use Medicare or not we all pay into the fund. Mandate?
When the folks opposing the law framed the requirement of being forced to buy health insurance a mandate and "unconstitutional" isn't the legal precedent already there?
To me it feels like what the Court has said is: In regards to health care, we're all in the same boat together as a nation. Now whether that boat is sinking or has a bunch of issues that need to be fixed is a different matter all together. I am pleased that the it pushes us to come up with solutions that will work for all of us, and not just the lucky few.
Repeal AH-CA flip-floppin’ POTUSC Romney and the TEA party – now that’s a pair… .
Currently I manager 60 part time associates, most with part time insurance. They struggle with finding doctors that accept their insurance. A major drug store chain just dropped a major insurance company forcing people to find new pharmacies. What does the new Affordable Care Act do to address accessability to doctors and drugs?