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.
Free market health care is an oxymoron!
Excellent point!
davidhhearn wrote:
"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."
Hmmm. Interesting. Now we're getting somewhere. It's ok to force people to buy insurance or pay a fine as long as the "market" for it is in jeopardy. So when the energy "market" is in jeopardy, we can force people to do different things (turn off their lights after 10:00 PM?) or pay a fine. What a fascinating view of the Constitution.
I felt incredible relief this morning when the decision was announced. (Yes, it bordered on "giddy.") It felt like a weight had been lifted.
The reason? Over a decade ago my husband could not quit a hated job because our family so desperately needed the health insurance. One new job he was offered provided health insurance, but it was so woefully inadequate compared to the insurance we had that we would have quickly lost our house. Pre-existing conditions literally kept my husband captive to a job!
Also, my son and daughter, now in their 20's have been able to stay on our policy thanks to the Obamacare bill. My daughter has a pre-existing condition, and could not afford her own health insurance, so this has been a blessing.
I can just imagine how many families are in similar circumstances, and rejoicing at their new ability to be able to change jobs in the foreseeable future.
If this is left to stand as is, I predict it will be less than ten years before there is no company in America that provides health insurance as an employment benefit. As the coverage dictates of the law go into effect, (insure everyone, no lifetime cap, additional "free" procedures and prescriptions, etc) the costs of providing insurance will rapidly go up to the point where companies will gladly pay the penalty over paying the insurance premiums. Just about every portion of the law the liberals tout will increase the costs paid out by the insurance companies. Costs that will have to be passed along to their customers, most notably employers.
feldgary@gmail.com wrote:
"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?"
Because participation in a 401k is not mandatory, nor is taking an early withdrawal. Under ACA, if you are breathing, you pay.
wraith8 wrote:
"If this is left to stand as is, I predict it will be less than ten years before there is no company in America that provides health insurance as an employment benefit."
Oh, absolutely, wraith. This is just one step toward central control of your health care and therefore your life. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is kidding themselves.
btw, I'm listening to the President's speech right now and the "framed letter that hangs in his office". Liberals are kings of the anecdote. Never mind the fact that this bad policy and bad law makes us poorer as a free people, as long as you can play to the emotion, you do. It never fails.
Strange how the supreme court was able to switch the mandate from a penalty to a tax which the administration insisted many times it was NOT a tax. The Supreme Court legitimized the lying to the American people with it's decision.
Who needs health care insurance if you're born by a midwife to a stay at home-schooled mom and when you get bit by say yellow-timber rattle snake bite they lie you in a simple pine box. yeah, who needs insurance in Amerika -- you only need health insurance if you leave in some third-world country like Afganistan.
calm yourself!
RobertLongView wrote:
"Who needs health care insurance if you're born by a midwife to a stay at home-schooled mom and when you get bit by say yellow-timber rattle snake bite they lie you in a simple pine box. yeah, who needs insurance in Amerika -- you only need health insurance if you leave in some third-world country like Afganistan."
Yeah, Robert. Let's get with the MODERN idea of cradle-to-grave provision by the government! You know, like France, or Greece. The ideas of the Founders that one should exercise a modicum of personal responsibility and government should only protect their individual rights and protect them from foreign invaders are so OLD FASHIONED!
I don't understand many things and here's another. I'm reading about the Flexner Report which supported the elitism of the American Medical Association. There are many medical students who could flood the market. I believe we need more doctors from the United States. First, we need more Medical schools and fewer prisons, whose medical bills I am tired of paying over my own.
I Believe, tho can't prove, Greece became Greek because they choose not to pay taxes. Don't tread on me yellow-snake, the TEA Party mantra -- be like greece, America... .
at's all Franch to me, Cajun. On Ellis Isle the great lady Lee-Bear-Tea stands with open arms and all she asks is that you recite a pledge of allegiance in English, eh. No taxes America - just free lunches!
I cannot help but feel more reassured for this Novembers election that Obama will be gone. I truly wonder if this is the decision that Obama was hoping for.
"I Believe, tho can't prove, Greece became Greek because they choose not to pay taxes."
Yeah. I believe, tho can't prove, that the moon is made of green cheese.
Making sausage ain't pretty. A lot more people eat sausage than eat broccoli. But in the same cabbage family, sausage goes down pretty good with Kraut in New Amsterdam. MMMM, Good w/ a slice of blackberry Zonker!
Can you prove that an American even walked on the moon?
"On Ellis Isle the great lady Lee-Bear-Tea stands with open arms and all she asks is that you recite a pledge of allegiance in English, eh. "
No, actually she calls out, "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearing to be under the thumb of the State".
In 236 years we have traded one tyranny for another.
I got no use for Madison Avenue even if it is in Naw Yoke Citi. Go sell your TEA party snake oyl to some big fancy Popeye bloke. And your Mitts off my Medicare!
"ecgberht wrote:
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.
June 28, 2012 - 11:21 am"
As usual, thick-headed Mule, you have trod upon the whole row of Broccoli plants that I set out yesterday.
WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES.
"...nor has Congress the power to prohibit the manufacture of an article within the State. We were therefore thrown back upon the taxing power, and this bill is framed upon that."
http://books.google.com/books?id=GWU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Supreme+...
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Yea! Broccolli could be the healthiest food around -- just don't ask a Bush to endorse that thought! While we at it , Let's see, Ketch-up is a vegetable for our school lunches Reagan reasoned... . talk about missing the swift boat, lets see maritime insurance.... .
Without Medicaid funds looming over their heads, states are going to 'opt out' faster than lemmings over a cliff. The law is effectively dead.
You light weight, why didn't you go all the way and call them Nazis and really show how open to political discourse you really are?
It's interesting how Prof. Rossen and others proclaim Chief Justice Roberts' opinion to ultimately uphold the mandate as a tax is the highth of objective non-partisanship, when if he would have sided with the minority of the court, Prof. Rossen and others would reach the exact opposite conclusion. It is disingenious to assume, or expressly say, that the four liberal members of the court are simply being objective arbiters of the law in reaching their liberal conclusions when the conservative members are labeled as hyper-partisan (or worse) when they reach conservative conclusions. Fall out and reaction to this decision, including on this program, presupposes that a decision which liberals are happy with equals fairness, justice and objectivity, and when a decision which conservatives are happy with is rendered, the decision is unfair, unjust and obviously bent toward subjective conserative whim of the conservative justices. Justice Breyers', Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburgs' tendancy to be predictably liberal does just as much (if not more) to undermine the court's credibility as Justice Alito, Scalia and Thomas' tenancy to be predictably conservative.
"As usual, thick-headed Mule"
First, mchaun, is it your low self-esteem that requires you to add an ad hominem attack with every post? It does not advance your argument.
White Phosphorus Matches?! That's the best ya got?!
That doesn't address my point one whit.
RussN wrote:
"Without Medicaid funds looming over their heads, states are going to 'opt out' faster than lemmings over a cliff. The law is effectively dead."
Excellent point. Still need to study that part of the decision.
"wraith8 wrote:
If this is left to stand as is, I predict it will be less than ten years before there is no company in America that provides health insurance as an employment benefit...
June 28, 2012 - 12:15 pm"
I suppose one could make the same prediction about Employer Funded Pensions which is almost completely true already.
You had better think twice about attacks on Social Security considering how eager Businesses are to shed their responsibilities.
As the Republicans continue their race to the bottom for American Labor, we will continue to be stripped of Benefits.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Of course when my property tax pays for my neighbors' children's education, I benefit by having people who are educated to meet my needs like doctors, lawyers, dentists, pharmacists, policemen, firemen, teachers for my grandchildren, etc. All of us benefit from having an educated next generation.