Health Care Reform Individual Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Jun 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    Posted: 06/28/2012 10:22 am Updated: 06/28/2012 1:36 pm

    By MARK SHERMAN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.

    The decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.


    Breaking with the court's other conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

    The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.

    The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.


    The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.


    Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

    "The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding," the dissenters said in a joint statement.

    Republican campaign strategists said presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the court's ruling to continue campaigning against "Obamacare" and attacking the president's signature health care program as a tax increase.

    "Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause," said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. "This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history."


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/health-care-reform-supreme-court_n_1585168.html
     
  2. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

  3. Mordeci

    Mordeci Banned Member

    I liked the end result I am not crazy on how they got there. I think the argument was good enough to rule it legal under the commerce clause, Roberts didnt need to bring tax law into it, but he did for a very specifc reason. Since Roberts he and the other conservative judges have been limiting the far reaching power of commerce, what happened here is quite intresting, he ruled commerce isn't a good enough reason keeping with what he has said, however it is clear that he also had no intention of letting his court strike down the only health care law on the table, mostly because my guess is he didn't want to be "that guy" so what he did was he used congresses powere to collect taxes as the reason the individual mandate could stand, which was not an argument the Obama adminstration made because many legal experts thought it a very weak argument. Kennedy (who was orginally thought to be the swing vote, not Roberts), Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wanted to strike down the law as a whole, limiting congresses commerce power. Ginsberg, Kagen, Sodymour, and Bryer, wanted to expand commerce power and would have voted to keep it under the commerce clause. Roberts split the diffrence and kept a law he was afraid to strike down, one (I think) personally he dosen't agree, with but at the same time kept every single commerce case he presided over until now, as good law by making this case which is really about commerce, a non-commerce issue, by bringing tax law up. The liberal Justices desperete enough to keep the health care law legal, signed on, but in reality its a weak argument, or at least the weaker argument.

    That said I am extremly happy about the decesion, I am still fearful about the Roberts court but today they made the right decision, even though they probably only made it because Roberts was afraid to strike it down, which makes even more sense considering Scalia dissent. 1) its written like a majority opinion, 2) he calls Ginsberg opinion the dissent, which probably means they had the votes to strike down the law, Roberts got scared and changed his vote. Its still a good thing he did, but it shouldn't have gotten that far.
     
  4. red ribbons

    red ribbons Well-Known Member

    It's a noose around my neck as a cancer survivor! I already lost my oncologist of 10 yrs. because of Obama. As many doctors as can are retiring. It's a black day in America. You can rejoice all you want but when your time comes you'll see what socialized euthanasia is!
     
  5. TheLoneWolf

    TheLoneWolf Well-Known Member

    My personal belief is that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. I do believe that health care in this country was in need of an overhaul and I think there are a lot of good things in the health care law that was passed... but provisions like the individual mandate seem to me to be a violation of personal freedom. Forcing individual citizens to buy private insurance? I'm sorry, that doesn't seem right to me. Granted, it might seem like a necessary evil considering all of the people who choose to go without insurance and then put a strain on the system when they do require medical attention and are unable to pay for it, but I just think there was a better way to go about fixing this problem. Other parts of the law have insurance companies scrambling to raise their rates to cover what they believe will be future losses as a result, and without a viable public option to compete with these companies or any reforms intended to keep costs down, health insurance will eventually be too expensive for the average person to afford. I'm not saying I support the Republicans either, nor am I criticizing the health care systems that they have in place in countries like Canada and the UK, but as an overall package, I do think this particular health care reform bill was bad for the U.S. and the way we currently handle health care in this country. I'm sure it was passed with the best of intentions, but it may end up paving a road to hell in the long run.
     
  6. jxdama

    jxdama Staff Member Safety & Support

    i think roberts and obama are dictatorial scum.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.