BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate As A Tax

[Skinner]

Source: Think Progress

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate in Obamacare, paving the way for full implementation of the law in the states and ensuring that millions of uninsured Americans haves access to affordable coverage. The court upheld the provision as a tax. The Medicaid expansion is limited, but not invalidated, the court found. In short: “the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.” Roberts joined Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/28/507940/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-as-a-tax/

---

[hlthe2b]

25. Hold off... CNN IS WRONG. SKinner will correct his post, I'm sure.

[rurallib]

33. listening to Steph, I am stunned looks like big victory for Obama

[Ganja Ninja]

89. It would be a big victory for Romney too were it not for Obama Derangement Syndrome.

[zanana1]

101. You watch Stephanie Miller too, huh?

I love her. As a matter of fact, today I love everybody!

[Ganja Ninja]

110. Actually I wasn't watching or listening this morning.

Why did she say the same thing?

[zanana1]

347. She says "Obama Derangement Syndrome" alot. nt

[liberalmuse]

107. Now I'm waiting for RMoney to take credit...

And start calling it "Romneycare". He is a piece of work, that one.

[Ganja Ninja]

156. That's the problem with ODS, he can't.

They've made such a stink over this that if he takes any credit it will hurt him more than it will help. This might have even have knocked him out of the race for all practical purposes.

It might even be helpful to start referring to it as ObamneyCare from here on out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

186. Get out of my head! That's exactly what I was thinking. He will definitely start taking credit for

it. What an asshole. Can't stand this bitch!

[Kennah]

326. If Romney takes credit for ACA, then he might be the first GOP Presidential candidate ...

... to get 10% of the vote.

[tavalon]

328. Truth from the lying Romney

His memory HAS been restored! Hallelujah!

It is, in fact, Romneycare. Unfortunately, it was all Obama could do to get the POS legislation from Massachusetts passed. I like the term ODS, though. I'm fascinated by how much certain people hate Obama.

Oh, wait, I see I have a reading disorder - you said you're waiting for him to start, not that he has started. My world has been restored to balance - Romney = lying POS. Whew!

[Volaris]

244. Agreed. He was too stupid to own it from the beginning

as the REPUBLICAN solution that it is. That's HIS fuck-up, and I have NO qualms about now using it against him.

[Myrina]

169. No, its a big victory for the insurance industry.

Say goodbye to whatever extra change you had in your sofa cushions: you're going to need it for groceries once you get finished paying your mandated premiums.

[Mz Pip]

176. That it is

but it's a start. If ACA had been struck down no one would have toughed the hot potato that health care reform would have been.

This is a starting point and hopefully we can work towards single payer.

[progressivebydesign]

197. I'd rather my neighbors bought insurance and got healthy...

... than refusing to buy insurance, waiting until something becomes acute, and having the hospitals and taxpayers pay 100x what it would have cost the insurance company had the person gotten basic insurance.

It's not like NOT buying insurance makes people well... they get sicker, and truly we all pay for them (but we pay MORE for them because they are not doing the basic stuff.)

[christx30]

262. We should

Come up with a list of other things that we can mandate people buy, or pay a large fine.
How about bicycles so people will be healthy? $100 fine for failure to do so.
Internet access, to stay current on world events? $600 for failure to do so.
Organic food, for health and environmental reasons? $300 per year for failure to do so.

There are a ton of things that we can force people to do and buy, for their own good and the good of the community. We can micromanage the life of every man, woman, and child in the country.
If Republicans get into office they can mandate Bibles and guns.
Not one dollar will ever be spent again that isn't on taxes, or mandates. It's the best thing for any free society.

[dixiegrrrrl]

280. Great idea...I would not mind having a gun. Will there be discounts for the elderly and blind???

Usually anyone over 65, or blind, or elderly, get a lot of discounts. ( I no longer have to pay propety taxes here, for instance)
Mandated gun purchases...with senior discounts...a winner!

[Lionel Mandrake]

304. Mandated guns for the blind?

What a great idea! Makes me feel safer just thinking about it.

[Son of Gob]

290. I'll take RW False equivalency for 800 Alex.

me -> you -> me ->

[tavalon]

329. Hah!

Better than I came up with.

[Zoeisright]

267. Exactly.

[Ikonoklast]

205. You are deliberately ignoring the the subsidies, the mandated cost controls, and the rebates.

The health insurance industries have just been turned into a public utility whose profit margins are now controlled percentage-wise by the Federal Government.


YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE FROM ANYONE, PERIOD.

Just saying it does not make it so, no matter how many of the naysayers repeat incorrect information.

If you do not take responsibility for your own health care and can afford to do so, you will be taxed so that others aren't on the hook for your selfishness.

If you cannot afford the insurance, the federal government will subsidize your premiums.

Is it was such a big win for the health insurance industry, why in God's name would they spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat the ACA???

[treestar]

240. Exactly, geez, why aren't the insurance companies all for it then?

this talking point is one of the most ridiculous in the universe. It bears no scrutiny and falls down immediately. Yet they keep it up and keep saying it like a mantra that will somehow come true if they just repeat it often enough.

[Bully Taw]

279. Because...

This is a win-win for the insurance industry. If ACA passes, they have some level of government intervention, but they also have a whole new revenue stream, either from those that have to buy insurance, or from the government subsidies.

If the ACA fails, they continue the status quo of sucking you dry and denying coverage every chance they can.

The only way they lose is with a single payer system, which we should have held out for. That was the bait in the bait and switch that resulted in the "victory" of the ACA.

[treestar]

297. It is not a win for them

1. They are against it and have been against it
2. They have to insure people they did not want to insure
3. There are caps on their profits.

Takes scales from eyes and forget left wing (right wing) talking points on this. Be against it, but it is NOT a win for insurance companies.

Insurance is means of spreading risk. It is not evil in itself.

[tavalon]

330. Then the insurance companies are as stupid as rocks

They spent a load of money to try and insure (pun intended) that this did not come to fruition. It doesn't make sense for them to lobby against if it was so great for them. They could have kept their lobbyists and their money at home.

I'm not saying it's a great plan. It's Romneycare, regurgitated. But it is an overall win for the people, even though it is far from what we liberals wanted. Heck, if not for Obama Derangement Syndrome, the conservatives could have used this legislation as a windfall.

[heaven05]

228. huh

huh??? if you drive a car, even if it is a no fault state, each driver is mandated to have insurance by that state. insurance companies make a killing on safe drivers and government is making us get it... this VICTORY will go a long way towards protecting ALL americans including you.

[Maraya1969]

261. The mandated premiums are not going to be that much

when you consider how much the government is going to kick in depending on your wage. This is another bullshit talking point of the republicans and it is bullshit.

[Bully Taw]

268. Unfortunately...

I cannot get excited about this. The ACA is not what we really need, which is a single payer system. We are just putting more money in the hands of insurance companies, and they will figure out how to whittle down what care they will offer to the people added under this program, and everyone else.

Also, I can't really celebrate because this survived SCOTUS as a tax. A tax on mostly the low income, unless they buy the insurance that they couldn't afford in the first place. The Repugs will be using this in an election year to push the President on his pledge to not raise or impose new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Well, he may be calling it a victory, but SCOTUS called it a tax, and it WILL be imposed on those making well under $250,000 per year.

I keep feeling that I have been sold out for political reasons. we are being given a pig's ear and being told it is a silk purse. Healthcare reform was supposed to help lower-income people. This just takes more of what little money we have and puts it in the hands of the insurance industry, or the government.

[caseymoz]

295. True, but I think it's a necessary step.

Once people have health care without the looming threat of bankruptcy, they're going to try to fix it rather than repeal it. They'll hold Congress' feet to the fire to do it.

It's better than the other way, in which the SCOTUS knocks down the mandate. You know if they didn't pass the mandate, they're won't pass any other overhaul of health care, including single payer.

Any way you slice it, this is a major defeat for conservatives, and maybe not a total victory for progressives, but at least there's still something to fight for. Otherwise, we would have had to leave the battlefield.

[area51]

308. "Once people have health care without the looming threat of bankruptcy..."

You're kidding, right?

You do realize that most of the medical bankruptcies are for people with medical insurance?

Because this country decided that health care should be for-profit, denial of claims is rampant, as claim denial means more profit.

We need single-payer health care to save lives.

[caseymoz]

319. Not kidding. You just don't understand the statistic.

What you say is true mostly because most people have health insurance.

I'm informed that 16.7 percent of people in the US are without coverage.

This means if the percentage of insured declaring medical bankruptcy is less than 83.3% of all medical bankruptcies, having health insurance helps. In fact, if it's in the low fifties, it helps an awful lot if it doesn't prevent it completely.

Not only that, I think this law takes care of those with inadequate health insurance, too. Inadequate policies of, say, $10,000 are disallowed in it. So, a good percentage of the insured who would have have bankrupt without the law now won't be.

Where the hell did I say we didn't need single payer? Find where I said that. If you could quote me saying that, you may bring the argument up again. You won't find it though, because I didn't say it. Be informed I agree with you on that 100 percent about single payer, so please don't bring up that straw man again.

My point was: the Supreme Court ruling in favor of this law was infinitely better for getting single payer than having the law struck down. That's a no-brainer. If they set a precedent knocking this down, single payer would be dead for your lifetime and maybe for your children and grandchildren's lifetimes, too. Don't even fool yourself about that.

And, as I said, because we actually have a medical system now, we can adjust it and revise it into single payer. Alternately, you can't mold nothing.

[tavalon]

332. You know what's funny?

You're arguing with people who for the most part, wanted single payer health care. We just think this "better than nothing" health care bill is well, better than nothing.

[tavalon]

331. You are right,

and that is why we liberals hated it, but it's not as regressive as it could have been (with subsidies) and we weren't going to get single payer because our owners and their lick spittle lackeys in the Congress don't want us to have it.

This isn't a win/win for the insurance companies so that, if nothing else, gives me heart. But I'm not a fan of Romneycare either, but I hate the fascist weasel (Romney) and I want him to fail in his imperialistic desires, so I dance on his grave and I'm not unamused that he was hoisted on his own petard.

[daybranch]

341. what we can do now and in the near future

It was called a tax by Mr. Roberts as a weasel worded token to his corrupt republican legislators to allow them to say Obama raised taxes, even on the poor. I have no idea whether or not you are truly low income but I recognize many people who have lost their jobs are having to choose between food and housing or health insurance. If you favor the public options or medicare for all which would be supported more directly as a tax and more directly administered by the federal government, and you have the resources to work for this things (many low income do not have the resources -time, money, education etc) you believe in, I would say find a progressive candidate to support in the democratic primary and push the debate and the selection towards your goals which appear consistent with Progressive ideals. This works very well in primaries because the number of voters is usually small and the very committed have the chance to greatly influence the results. That is what I am going to do. But until we can do better -until we select and elect those with the goals you have, lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Work for the President and election of Democrats everywhere.

[caseymoz]

294. But I don't think this arrangement will last.

Once people do have guaranteed health care without the necessity of bankruptcy, they're going to try to fix it rather than lose it. Conservatives will lose on repealing it as they always do on Social Security.

I'm hoping this and this is just a stop on the road to universal health care.

[davidpdx]

39. Yeah, I think emotions are running high for everyone

[flpoljunkie]

50. Yep. First, but wrong!

[cyberswede]

51. ...but it never hurts to tell the Rs to fuck off anyway. :)

[freshwest]

235. Skinner must have seen this picture:

Madame Speaker looks happy there...

[hlthe2b]

237. LOLOL the look on his face is tremendous...

[freshwest]

270. Okay, Boehner, repeat after me, 'Yes, Madame Speaker.' Get used to it...

[TomClash]

2. Amy Howe on Scotus says it survive as a tax nt

[ET Awful]

57. Which was exactly my argument all along

If that's how the decision actually reads, I feel entirely vindicated in the argument I've been making since the bill passed.

[Eric J in MN]

98. Me too.

I've been saying since the bill passed that taxing people more if they don't buy insurance is within Congress' power-to-tax.

[yardwork]

126. That's a reasonable explanation that I like much better than the way I'd been looking at it.

I still think that this is the wrong approach to our healthcare system crisis. Instead of pooling everybody's taxes and providing universal healthcare for all, we're forcing people to purchase healthcare access from for-profit corporations. It's a bad approach, but it's the one we've had for decades. This is just the next logical step in it.

I'm relieved that the Supreme Court upheld this law, even though I think it is a flawed and fundamentally wrong-headed approach to the problem. It's the only approach we've got for now, though.

I believe that Roberts voted for this to support corporations. I believe that the other four justices voted for it to support Obama and the Democrats. It's interesting to me that Kennedy voted against it. The entire Supreme Court is one politicized mess. I wish that we could fire them all and start over. I wish that we could start over with a better approach to healthcare in this country. If wishes were horses...

[rurallib]

3. I bet it was 5-4.

[flpoljunkie]

71. Scotus blog just reported that vote was indeed 5-4.

Roberts voted with the liberals on the court.

[flpoljunkie]

94. Kennedy: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

[Taverner]

113. It gets weird - Kennedy against, CJ Roberts for...

In fact, Roberts wrote the brief

[Blasphemer]

178. Not surprised

Based on his questioning, as it was reported weeks ago. Also, he's probably far more likely to be concerned about his image and perceived SCOTUS hypocrisy than the other four conservatives.

[robinlynne]

223. EXACTLY. Robert reich wrote an article predicitng that ROberts would vote with the liberals only bec

because the Supreme Court has such a tarnished image among the American people, that the people would not tolerate one more 5-4 vote along party lines!!!!

[Sirveri]

243. Either that or he's in the pocket of big insurance and they love the mandate.

Oh no, you mean my business only gets a 20% profit margin! I know some local small business owners who would kill for that. Obviously he couldn't totally make it a corporate wet dream, so they decided that the mandate was worth more than the drawbacks.

[On the Road]

269. It is Not a 20% Profit Margin

it is a requirement that no less than 80% of premiums (85% for large insurers) must be spent on claims. Costs must subtracted from the remaining 15-20% (or less). It is entirely possible for health insurance companies to lose money and even go bankrupt under those conditions.

[Sirveri]

276. I'm willing to bet they'll still make plenty of money.

overhead for medicaid/care is only like 2-3%. Pretty sure these big companies will happily pay their employees less and work them more hours than the government so they can pocket a bigger chunk of change at the end of the day. And they managed to get the medicaid expansion shut down so that the private insurers don't have to compete in the republican dominated states, at least for the poor who are at 133% of poverty line.

My main point is that Roberts is not our friend, and I have no reason to believe that he ruled in any way for our benefit, maybe he's just trying to make it look like the court is still non-partisan, but either way he is one Justice who isn't on our side. Maybe I am just being paranoid and extra wary, but he's earned it.

[On the Road]

287. They May Indeed Make Money

but will be prevented from making the types of common in the last decade. They are not (as you originally indicated) guaranteed 20% profit margins.

Not that insurance providers haven't made excessive profits in some cases. In the mid 00s, my doctor dropped Optimum Choice because they routinely denied payment for treatment that was justified in his opinion while only spending 65% of premiums on care. That will no longer be possible.

The 2-3% Medicare overhead is not a comparable percentage, since it is skewed by the age of the people covered:



People of Medicare age have medical expenses at least three times the median age. An administrative cost of 2.5% for a 70-year-old would equate to 7.5% for a 40-year-old. By comparison, the justifiably criticized Optimum Choice had 8% administrative costs in this case (MD 2008):

http://uhcrights.com/mdi/documents/MDI_state_spec_requirements.pdf

If Medicare for all is ever instituted (as I hope it will be), that 2-3% is going to rise to be more in line with the rest of the industry.

----

As far as the reason for Roberts's vote, it is immaterial. But do you really think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito resisted corporate pressure while Roberts succumbed to it?

[Sirveri]

316. Why would the overhead rise?

I didn't really follow that, just because they cost more... I guess that sort of makes more sense, but they're also filing less claims and thus require less workers to process those claims, also there is the previous point that they can pay their employees less and work them harder hours than government employees. But you raise an interesting point.

But my main issue is with Roberts. I'm going to look his gift horse in the mouth, because I'm pretty sure it's filled with Trojan soldiers or bombs or something.

I'm pretty sure that the Republican owned gang of Justices all talk to each other about how they're voting and why and what they hope to accomplish.

It could be that this will now be used in attack ads against Obama so the Republicans can call it a tax (though this is probably not a primary reason for his crossing the aisle and will happen anyways).
He could just be trying to restore public confidence in the court (Robert Reich hypothesis), but doesn't seem like a big enough reason.
This could be a backdoor to attacking the Commerce clause in the future
They might just like the mandate, and the best Robert could do was to kill the medicaid expansion in the red states to force those people into the private sector (I'm leaning towards this).
They could just like having the ability for the government to compel product purchases as being legal in the future for future candidates. You are now compelled to buy a charter school education. You are now compelled to buy housing. This is basically what Scalia argued about Broccoli though.

Obviously the right choice is to levy taxes, and then to use those taxes to provide services, but that's not on the table here.

You don't need Scalia and Thomas and Alito to vote in favor, 5-4 is enough to get the job done. Though I do wonder why they didn't have one of the older Justices cross the aisle in this case, then if needed they'd have more ammo for an overturn when they retired.

I fully expect that the health insurance companies are already trying to figure out loopholes in the law to exploit it. If they can't then they'll punch holes in it later on with backdoor modifications from their legion of in pocket politicians (sadly on both sides of the aisle).

And you're right I originally indicated that it was profit not overhead, I knew better but was in a rush, and for that I apologize since it was confusing.

[tavalon]

333. Roberts is an evil, evil man

but I'm just confused by this. The thing that makes me sure that insurance companies don't want this, is that they poured money into Congress, in a huge way, to stop this legislation. Why do that if they were going to profit from its passage? Roberts worried about his image with whom? The voters? That doesn't make sense. The whole darn thing doesn't make sense.

[TheKentuckian]

342. You are drastically undervaluing the cartels influence on the bill

While overvaluing the money, a lot of which was spent to influence the bill rather than to kill it and the total spent compared to the take brought in. 16% or more of GDP flows through their hands, if they thought that the gravy train was going to get killed or even take a serious hit, how much would it really be worth to them to derail it? Surely more than a year's resources and certainly a months worth but they did no such thing nor did they flood the airwaves anything like they did during the last battle over reform.

I also think it is off base to look at the cartel as one mind, they pull in more than a single direction and they certainly came nowhere near pulling out all the stops and they most certainly had tremendous input and even direct influence over drafting the bill. The "stakeholders" (the insurance cartel and the pharmaceutical industry) were at the table and stayed there. No doubt there are provisions the cartel hate but in no small measure this is their bill.

[tavalon]

343. You have made at least 4 good points in 2 paragraphs.

I yield. I forgot about the stakeholders at the table. Damn, I forgot that.

[On the Road]

350. The Overhead Doesn't Rise in Absolute Terms

but the overhead on a patient with $100,000 of medical claims is not a hundred times as much as a patient with $1,000 worth of expenses.

To put it another way, let's say average overhead is $200/year for a patient. That is 2% for a patient with $10,000 of claims. That same $200 is 10% for a patient with only $2,000 of claims. Overhead stays the same but the amount paid in claims changes.

It's not exactly that simple, but the age group covered by Medicare has at least 3x the average medical costs of working-age people, so it will probably lower the percentage of overhead.

As far as Roberts's reasoning goes, nothing that he's said is difficult to believe. You really think this is an orchestrated good-cop-bad-cop decision?

[Sirveri]

351. I don't know what to think, other than that I don't trust Roberts.

He has never done anything for our benefit before, why did he suddenly turn around and start now?

[nanabugg]

189. I laways knew who Kenndy really is and how he thinks about Obama. nt

[BlueDemKev]

208. You know what, Kennedy....

GO FUCK YOURSELF!!

You may have once been a respected independent jurist but apparently you have been poisoned by the tea party's rhetoric after Obama was elected in 2008. How you could vote that the ENTIRE LAW was invalid is the biggest crock of shit since your disastrous opinion in Citizens United.

I resent the fact that I am still forced to pay for your health insurance and medical care thru my tax dollars. Hang up your robe and retire to your million-dollar home in California.

[heaven05]

233. race

I think kennedy is the finest supreme court justice money could buy and the fact that our president was for this bill.

[JHB]

206. It's more the "non-conservative wing" than the "liberal" wing...

The conservative wing is simply that far right.

[Lisa D]

4. On Scotus blog

It says the mandate survives as a tax

[uponit7771]

6. +1

[truth2power]

27. That's wht they're saying on NPR. Calling it a tax. n/t

[tavalon]

334. It is a tax.

So?

[truth2power]

353. I'm not complaining that it's a tax. Just saying. eom

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks for being the first to post this in LBN.

Now, we can begin the discussion of what it will mean.

[Harmony Blue]

7. This is what happens

when you try to compromise.

Confusion abounds.

[Inuca]

8. SCOTUS blog says that

The individual mandate survives as a tax

Also

So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

[okieinpain]

59. lol, oklahoma better get their butts in gear. they put

off setting up their exchange because they thought the obamacare was going to get struck down. lol. stupid repugs.

[tavalon]

336. It worked in Massachusetts

Of course, they call it Romneycare there. Same thing. I would so like to see Obama use this as a rope a dope talking point at a debate with Romney. Put 'em up side by side. They are kissin' cousins, as we use to say in the south. Great Goddess, I miss Molly Ivins, she would have bust a gut over this and us with her.

[tavalon]

335. Joins is a pretty strong word

Occasionally consorts with might be more apt.

[Skidmore]

9. ABC just reported that SCOTUS upholds the mandate with a 6-3 decision.

Saying that the court says the government has the right to levy a tax for health care.

[maddezmom]

23. Wow

thanks for the update.

[liberalhistorian]

64. Holy shit, that 6-3 margin was exactly

what Robert Reich said it would be, and he also said Roberts would be in the majority. While I like Reich and desperately wanted to believe him, I thought he was being overly optimistic and the chances of it being struck down were too high with this particular court. So glad to see him vindicated. Makes me wonder if he knew something we didn't?

[Warren Stupidity]

86. It was 5-4 as reported by Reuters. 6-3 was for the other decision reported at the same time.

[Marrah_G]

99. Whoa

I was really expecting them to shoot alot of it down.

Wait... the Gov has the right to levy a tax for healthcare.... would that wording not open the door a lot for single payer in the future?

[harun]

130. I think that door is now open. Only have to fight through 50 million

Republican's to get through it though.

[lunatica]

164. I hope so

It simply makes sense. That's how Social Democratic countries pay for benefits. It makes sense to spread the cost around so no one gets hit hard and no one gets left out.

[klook]

171. First broccoli - then single payer (n/t)

[BootinUp]

253. Squash comes after broccoli.

[tavalon]

337. Oh, I hope so.

I really, really do. I would give up my union mandated health care for medicare for all, in a New York minute. Of course, if Eric Cantor (the bespectacled bitch, as the Rude Pundit called him) is to be believed, my health insurance is already gone, destroyed by the evil of Romney, er Obamacare. Luckily, I'm not that gullible. But, I would happily pay my monthly tax to have every American (and even illegal aliens - what a stupid, alienating phrase) covered.

I think that might be a fundamental difference between true Democrats and true Republicans. I believe in We The People, and they believe in Me, Myself and I. I don't think those are reconcilable nor do I think a "third way" is anything but a breach in what true Democrats believe. But then again, I think the "third way" has destroyed the Democratic party and that's one reason I don't identify with the Democrats any more. I'm a Socialist now, so why wouldn't I want socialized medicine?

[tosh]

10. LOL! Polyconfusion!

Edit to add: Twitter #WTF

[LuckyTheDog]

11. CBS News says the opposite

[Jon Ace]

15. So does ABC (n/t)

[davidpdx]

20. Yes, it is CNN is saying something different

It's driving me nuts. Not that it was that far of a push.

[Mira]

12. Obama so needs a second term.

The Supreme Court is the ultimate proof that Stupid is as Stupid does.

[BamaFanLee]

54. And a third, and a fourth, and a fifth

We need to set the wheels in motion to change the Constitution and make this happen.

[Mister Ed]

143. Perish the thought

It's for good reason the Constitution limits presidents to two terms. Were there no term limits, a president could amass sufficient power to bend the laws his way and virtually guarantee continuous re-election.

Neither Obama, nor any president, should ever become a de facto president-for-life.

[JHB]

215. IIRC, the "good reason" was a posthumous potshot at FDR

Yes, there are good reasons for limiting presidential terms, but the driving force behind amending the Constitution to codify it (rather than the informal tradition Washington started) was a final middle finger by the Republicans to the late Franklin Roosevelt.

[Mister Ed]

248. Regardless of origial intention, it's a good law. Contemplate thirty years of a Bush presidency.

I think the Bush/Cheney administration demonstrated amply that they had no scruples in their boundless quest for power.

It takes an awful lot of legislators, with an awful lot of support from an awful lot of people, to amend the U.S. Constitution. I doubt that so many of the people and their leaders were merely intent on flipping FDR off posthumously.

[gopiscrap]

222. I agree in fact I would be for one 5 or 6 year term and that would be it

[Downtown Hound]

321. I used to think so

But the truth is, Bill Clinton would have probably beat George W. Bush in 2000, had he been allowed to run. And that would have saved this country 8 of the most disastrous years in its history.

Food for thought.

[Autumn]

252. Two terms are more than enough for

any President , Congressman or Senator.

[loyalsister]

277. Careful what you wish for

The reason congress is such a mess is because novices have influence. The way they have behaved is very similar to what happened the first session after term limits were implemented in MO

[Autumn]

278. My opinion is that the reason congress is such a mess is because

there are too many entrenched politicians and we all know most of them support and pass legislation that benefits them, IMO and they spend more time campaigning than working.

[loyalsister]

289. Do you think they would spend less time campaigning if the were term limited?

What happened here is reps and senators spend their time in public office jockeying for a job with a golden parachute. Lobbying, for example. When they know they will be leaving, and their terms in office will simply be a bullet point on their resume, they have no incentive to make any commitment or efforts to make good policy.

[Autumn]

301. Of course they do. Do you think they have

incentive to make any commitment or efforts to make good policy now? They don't, they love that revolving door. My opinion is the less time in office the less it benefits them and the better for us. Our politicians are true welfare queens.

Strom Thurmond, what can I say? He served 48 years, about 44 years too long. Yeah I'm all for term limits.

[loyalsister]

313. Why don't you move to Missouri and watch it in action

We went from having competent legislators to young people who were there to vote for whatever crap was put out there as long as they could get the job they wanted after the fact. We now get stuff like naming official Missouri turtles and fish. Special license plate slogans, requirements for when and where to wave the flag, etc....

Strom Thurmond had despicable philosophies, but he did know what he was doing for most of his time in office. I'm sure it would have benefitted his constituents if he had retired earlier.

When then Senator Obama was getting started, one of the first people he went to for advice and education was Robert Byrd because he knew he had the institutional memory to help him learn the procedural rules.

[Raggaemon]

136. Second term & change of congress

If president Obama is re-elected ( he will be ), he'll be faced with the same recalcitrant tea-bag fringe, and they'll go even further to obstruct, they do not care what the election results will be.

We lost ground in 2010 during the mid-terms when far too many Obama voters stayed home leaving him to fend for himself, the right was motivated to put an end to a type of "change" that didn't mesh with their ideas about the right order of things for THEIR country, having Barack Obama sitting at the head of the table was asking too much of them.

We HAVE to vote the tea-bag fringe out of congress and keep the senate as well, but I am concerned that now after the SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Care Act that more fake right-wing grassroots movements will emerge with even more funding to push their propaganda and racial hatred.

[abelenkpe]

218. Exactly

We do need to regain the house and keep the senate.

Welcome to DU!

[Happydayz]

266. I think the teabaggers would've been more motivated had it been struck down

They and the rethug media would be going on a victory lap, right this minute had HC been struck down. I think they consider any blow or disrespect to Obama and his administration a victory for them. Just like how they became extremely happy and raised lots of money for Joe "you lie" Wilson when he yelled at the president. Anything they see as a shot at Obama, increases the crazy in them 10 fold.

[tavalon]

338. Change to Congress

I could not agree with you more. I've been staying away from DU and why I didn't resist the urge tonight, I know not. But anyway, before today, I said President Obama could phone it in. As of today, that's a guarantee. And while I have some issues with the way the our POTUS has been in office, I am interested in seeing what might change after he doesn't have a re-election to worry about. I so want him to go for a legacy greater than being the first black President.

Interesting spin I hadn't considered about the SCOTUS ruling. Rabid Rightwingers uniting instead of eating each other alive. I do prefer to see them contorting themselves to eat their own tails. It's amusing. I hope you are wrong on this point.

Wouldn't it be sweet, though, to see President Obama debating Romney and asking him why he was so against this legislation when it is modeled so closely (near identically) to what Romney got passed in Massachusetts? Priceless, in fact. And I don't doubt that our President would do that because Candidate Obama is an amazing creature. Not at all like he governed this four years. Actually, my hubby pointed out that he is already in that mode with his almost weekly "mini emancipation proclamations", he has gotten the gay and latino vote back. If he would do something or even say something about the abysmal destruction of students via predatory student loans, he would get back the army he allowed to go fallow in 2008 back. By army, I don't mean the military, but rather the youth, those who voted the first time and in droves in 2008, who mistakenly tried to punish him in 2010.

[TomClash]

13. Medicaid limited but not invalidated

per Scotus

[Lisa D]

14. Mandate is constitutional

Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the court--per SCOTUS blog

[Misskittycat]

19. MSNBC now says it's upheld

[Inuca]

16. Looks like CNN was in too much of a hurry

I hope...

[Hoyt]

30. Yep, they gotta read more than one sentence in these opinions.

[jpak]

17. Reuters says upheld

http://www.reuters.com/news/world

[HereSince1628]

21. Confusion reigns...how typical.

[hlthe2b]

18. NO!!! It was not. It survives under tax authority of Congress, but not as a commerce issue.

CNN IS WRONG

[Ian David]

22. Stephanie Miller says A.P. says it was upheld, but redefined as a tax. n/t

[Lisa D]

24. The bottom line:

The entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. --per SCOTUS blog

[cal04]

26. BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate As A Tax 5-4 Roberts

this is just mentioned on ABC and they're saying a sweeping victory for Obama
The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate in Obamacare, paving the way for full implementation of the law in the states and ensuring that millions of uninsured Americans haves access to affordable coverage. The court upheld the provision as a tax. The Medicaid expansion is limited, but not invalidated, the court found. Roberts joined Sotomayor, Bryer, Ginsburg, Kagan.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/28/507940/breaking-supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-as-a-tax/


Supreme Court Health Care Decision: Individual Mandate Survives
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1585131.html

The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.

The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the majority.

[Skinner]

37. Thank you!

I've been trying to get a link from somewhere, and nobody had it.

CNN Screwed it up big time.

[cal04]

42. You're very welome! It's live on ABC

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/live-news-6046305

[JohnnyLib2]

28. Ye Gods, is this operation Chaos?

[MidwestTransplant]

29. CNN IS A GETTING KILLED. 5 Mins behind the news. Unreal. Don't they watch other channels?

[liberalhistorian]

78. Hey, c'mon now, give 'em a break.

Celebrity news and gossip is so much more important, and you can't expect them to be able to focus on trivial stuff like this after putting forth their best efforts to bring us the latest Bieber and Beyonce hair styles and fluffy-puppy-rescue stories. Priorities, man!

[MidwestTransplant]

108. Drudgereport had the correct news well before them. Then I had to turn to Fox to find out certain.

Wouldn't surprise me if a pig flew into my window today.

[Maven]

257. Yeah...they take their cues from FAUX.

[PoliticAverse]

31. Entire ACA upheld (but limits on the Medicaid penalty to states)

[dipsydoodle]

38. 1015: Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog writes

Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog writes: "The bottom line: the entire Affordable Care Act is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."

[PoliticAverse]

82. They can't penalize states that don't participate in the medicaid expansion. n/t

[okieinpain]

32. what the hell, it's 2000 all over again. yes, no, yes, no. lol n/t.

[liberal N proud]

34. According to the live blog it was upheld

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

[Sienna86]

35. Initial post quoted CNN and was wrong. Thanks for your edit.

Upheld under right of Congress to tax.

[BamaFanLee]

36. The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

[Jon Ace]

40. Justice Roberts for Democrat of the Year!

[Volaris]

68. I can't imagine the gnashing and wailing going on in Freeper-ville,

They probably calling C.J. Roberts a traitorous commie-pinko bastard or some such nonsense...

(On Edit)...Sooooo, I just checked over there, yeah, they are pretty sad today.
Someone compared Roberts to David Souter...(we should be so lucky if that's how it turns out when the history books are written)

[tavalon]

348. Yeah, one vote does not a Souter make.

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. CNN is wrong. The health care law was upheld in total

I cannot believe they have not yet changed their headline. Unless they are trying to spin it?

Defining it as a tax versus a mandate is semantics.

[highplainsdem]

43. Both CNN and Fox had banners at first saying it was struck down, then had to reverse that,

once their reporters got far enough to realize it was struck down under the Commerce clause but still upheld as a tax.

[bullwinkle428]

44. DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!!!!11!1!!1!1!

[BlueDemKev]

212. We project Gore has won Florida, No wait--Bush has so hes' elected, uh, hold on...we retract that...

If CNN had simply waited until after Roberts had finished speaking instead of starting their report after he read the first two sentences of his opinion, they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves!

[hifiguy]

45. I am less surprised that I thought I might be

I saw an interview with Roberts on CSPAN a few months ago and he seemed to at least have some sense of the legacy of the Court. The man is not a fool, and I do not think he wanted history to remember him in the same way it remembers Roger Taney, who wrote Dred Scott.

[Volaris]

84. Agree. And it might just be possible..

that he is smart enough politically to know what kind of political weapon he would be handing Liberal-Democrats (a damn-good argument for straight Single-Payer, and FUCK the Ins. Industry) if the deal that got cut was struck down.

[groundloop]

100. I must say, my opionion of Roberts is changing

Scalia, Thomas, and the others not so much.

[Kencorburn]

146. I always assumed, for that very reason, that he would vote for upholding the ACA. Although I am

surprised at Justice Kennedy. There is also the very subtle tool they handed Romney by calling it a tax. Kind of slick, when you take into account how the ditto-heads will respond.

[rdking647]

46. surprised but happy

[Volaris]

47. I think President Obama just got re-elected=)

[progressivebydesign]

211. except for the SC calling it a "tax" - the wingnuts will go to town on this.

Even though having people buy basic insurance will save them BILLIONS in the long run because people won't be using the emergency room as primary care, nor waiting until they're acute to see help. Even the most catastrophic policies include basic health care screenings and some well care. This is a win for everyone.. even the right wingers who think they'll some how pay more. They'll pay much less for uninsured folks, but they don't get that.

[harun]

238. I said back when they were debating the ACA they would be better off saying

it is a tax.

It actually helps our cause tremendously. We'll never get freeperland to go along with anything we do. Not unless it is cut taxes and start wars. So we might as well start selling the idea that we need to tax people to pay for health care. It is kind of how it works.

Repugs are the idiots who based their whole propaganda campaign on no taxes and war. That is their problem to try and sustain it. It is our fight to beat them and pass good legislation.

[Volaris]

239. see post 173=)

responses have to be MUCH simpler for the knuckle-drager's to process them heh.

[Lisa D]

48. The money quote:

from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it. -- per SCOTUS blog

[Maeve]

49. I am shocked! wow, in a few years, I'll have health insurance again!

Wait to hear how Fat Tony squeals on this, tho!

[frazzled]

105. You win prize for best remark in this thread

Congratulations: stay healthy for the next 18 months, and then you can feel safe again!

[Maeve]

247. Seriously--we buy catastrophic insurance now at about the same cost we will pay in 2014

for full coverage...according to some estimates...Hubby lost day job last year and all the benefits. We're getting by, but we know how close we are to disaster.

[Myrina]

170. ... too bad you won't be able to afford to eat, though ...

.... gotta pay that mandate ....

[rgbecker]

256. $95 if you make more than $40,000/yr.

Oh, that's going to hurt.

[Walk away]

318. I already pay $850 a month for inadaquit health care coverage...

this HAS to be be better!

[okieinpain]

52. drudge says upheld. lol. cnn sucks, liberal media my butt. n/t.

[dhill926]

53. Does CNN have any credibility left?

No.......

[tosh]

55. LOL again! Twitter is on fire with CNN #FAIL

[Harmony Blue]

56. Massive victory!

Huge momentum has swung in favor of the Democrats.

[Lisa D]

58. The court reinforces

that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. -- SCOTUS blog

[warrprayer]

60. YEE -HAWWW!

Fuck you, RETHUGS!!!!

[FailureToCommunicate]

61. Supreme Court hints you don't need to pay (this) tax if you feel it's wrong...

Well, there goes the Pentagon budget!

[Lisa D]

62. The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion

is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." -- SCOTUS blog

[gkhouston]

85. So, the states can choose not to pay for oral contraceptives (for any reason) and can't

be penalized for doing so, and the insurance companies just got a near-guaranteed customer base. No wonder Roberts is down with it.

[Lisa D]

63. The critical detail

is that you cannot take away the existing Medicaid funds.--SCOTUS blog

[FailureToCommunicate]

65. Sounds like Robert Reich had it right about the decision...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002865198

[harun]

120. I think so as well

[Lisa D]

66. The court holds

that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power. -- SCOTUS blog

[zanana1]

67. I GET TO LIVE!!!!!

Without special assistance for my Part D coverage, I wouldn't be able to afford my heart meds. I can look forward to a life that extends beyond Christmas! YAY!

[leftyohiolib]

125. i am so happy for you and people in your situation its making me tear up

[JNelson6563]

187. I am happy to read this!

And who knows how many others like you have been saved today! Big victory!

Glad you're here with us for a long time to come!

Julie

[Smilo]

194. I am so glad for you (and the rest of America)

[dana_b]

296. any negative feeling, thought,

issue that I have had about this act means nothing compared to this. I am so happy that it will help you and many others.

[gauguin57]

69. Thank you to Chief Justice John Roberts.

I probably won't say that often. But thank you.

[RedSpartan]

73. Hear, hear!

[RedSpartan]

70. A tip of the hat.

Whatever my other disagreements with him (and there are many), a tip of my hat to CJ Roberts on this one. Credit where it is due. Thank you, sir.

[Lisa D]

72. Justice Ginsberg makes clear

that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn't. Her opinion on Commerce does not control. -- SCOTUS blog

[alfredo]

74. Screen capture of CNN's fuck up

[RedSpartan]

77. And Gore wins Florida!

Well, he did...

[Puzzledtraveller]

80. LOL

[NBachers]

109. They finally changed it to: "Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4"

but still have the pictures of the eight teabaggers

[Odin2005]

230. THAT BELONGS ON FAIL-BLOG!!!

[alfredo]

258. I put that up on FaceBook as soon as I saw it. I hope it spreads

far and wide.

[JDPriestly]

302. The decision is well written in my opinion -- relatively easy to read.

The Roberts decision does not start until page 1. That is important if you are not used to reading these things.

I think everyone should try to read this -- especially those who do not like the bill. The mandate is discussed in a very clear manner.

[alfredo]

340. I'm going t try to read it today after a photo walk this morning.

[unhinged1]

75. states can opt out???

MSNBC is saying that?

[siligut]

95. I heard that too, on CNBC

Still figuring it out. They keep saying that it is a tax, not a penalty.

[missingthebigdog]

123. States can choose not to expand medicaid

States can choose not to expand medicaid eligibility. In so doing, they will be ineligible for the federal funding provided for in the act. They will not, however, lose their existing federal funding.

[beac]

134. WELCOME to DU!!

[unhinged1]

175. thanks

=)

[Samantha]

323. Opt out from the the Medicaid portion or the entire Act?

It has always been true that a state could opt out from the entire Act if it created legislation similar enough to the Act that the same consumer protections were in place. If they did, they could get funding for their individual program. Approximately 9 states have begun doing this (or are seriously studying it), and I am envious of those people who live in those states. The programs being implemented, such as in Vermont, are the same as single payer.

But states can also decline the Medicaid portion of this Act. What the Federal Government cannot do is cut off the current aid it is giving to those states which do this, but should a state refuse to accept the funds for the Medicaid portion of the Federal law, they will not receive the increased funding provided under that law. At its inception, the Federal Government will fund Medicaid at the state level I believe at 100 percent for 3 years; then it starts to gradually drop down to like 95, then 90 percentages (approximately). I am not sure quite where it levels off. It seems to me this is so generous that any state that declined it would probably be one with a Republican Governor who did so for political reasons, not economic ones.

Regarding all the discussion on this thread about labeling the penalty a tax, the Dems always knew it was the equivalent of a tax but thought for PR reasons it would be better to call it a penalty. As time progressed in the negotiations of enacting the Federal legislation, the Dems did whittle away at the amount of the penalty (and/or tax) clauses, stripping the IRS of the ability to for instance attach a person's wages for non-payment or taking assets. They did so (whittled away) because the Dems from the beginning were always against a mandate -- it was the Republicans who insisted on it. The penalty is waived for those making small salaries, and kicks it at a certain level of I think about $40,000 yearly. At that point, if one does not buy coverage, he or she will be penalized/taxed about $100. No pay - no problem.

Attorneys defending the Act, said even if it were found to be not Constitutional to enforce the mandate because those judging read the Commerce differently, the fact of the matter was that that penalty was indeed a tax, just not labeled as such in the wording of the legislation. And the Federal Government is empowered to levy taxes. Roberts agreed with that argument.

Those judges in fact reading the Commerce Clause differently bought the plaintiffs' assertions that people not now covered were not participating in commerce, and thus they could not be fined.

See -- pretty simple right?

Sam

[Lisa D]

76. In his opening statement in dissent,

Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."
--SCOTUS blog

[RBInMaine]

102. SAD that Kennedy would rule on it this way. So glad that Roberts was actually fair on this one.

[Lisa D]

131. Yes, I'm disappointed in

in Kennedy, too. Thought he might want to be on the right (left?) side of history.

[leftyohiolib]

246. if you're a 14yo murderer he'll change the law of the land for you but if get cancer you

can just go fuck yourself

[JDPriestly]

303. That is precisely what deciding against the law would have meant for so many Americans.

I am curious as to what this will mean for those many, many Americans who have only been able to afford catastrophic insurance -- a bandaid for really serious situations -- but not healthcare in any sense of the word.

[Lisa D]

79. The only effect of not complying with the mandate

is that you pay the tax. -- SCOTUS blog

[Evergreen Emerald]

81. Pete Williams (NBC) is spinning this wrong--political

He is suggesting the mandate has been struck down, and turned into a tax, taking the teeth from the bill. He is wrong. It is semantics.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. The mandate always was a tax.

The USSC simply ruled that as a tax it was entirely within the power of congress to legislate. But indeed desperate spin is ongoing.

[Shadowflash]

83. so, If the court has upheld that a tax for health care is legal...

...Does this bring us closer to eventual singe payer?

Medicare machinery is already in place and now a tax for health care has been upheld. How far away can it be?

[PoliticAverse]

106. There was never any serious doubt that a health care tax is legal...

that's what Medicare is. The question was if the penalty associated with the mandate was a tax.

[KansDem]

87. KnR!!!

[fifthoffive]

88. Per SCOTUSBlog

Tom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

[LaurenG]

90. Awesome that Roberts cared so much! I am thrilled

now my own family members can get health care! My son and his wife and my sister who is really sick!

[Glaisne]

91. Let us remember

That this ACA law, especially the mandate is a pro corporate law. It came out of right wing think tanks and was supported by corporate republicans. Corporate conservative Gov. Romney adopted for MA. It hands millions of customers to the insurance industry. Given the pro corporate leanings of the court it is not too surprising that they decided for it. Only when Obama supported it for his health care plan did the rethugs turn against it due to their Obama opposition disorder.

[Volaris]

149. Corporate conservative Gov. Romney adopted for MA.

And now, as THE legal model for American Health Reform, he can't dodge it anymore. In that sense, he gets to own this. The first moment he opens his mouth about it NOW, the Obama campaign can tear hem apart on it, and its not just semantics anymore. Now its LAW. And that Romney-bot motherfucker doesn't possess a working adaptability circuit, you watch, he will crash and burn on this; Obama will eat him alive come debate-time.

[LaurenG]

157. +1 We need a like button for posts here. nt

[FailureToCommunicate]

150. "Obama opposition disorder" Good one. And sadly, that is the reality behind all

the celebrating.

[JonLP24]

158. Exactly

Also insurance lobbyists prefer mandates to any other kind of health reform for the reason you described.

[Dragonfli]

255. I remember, also, they likely already have the army of lobbyists ready to start deregulation

They will legislate out everything the lobbyists want out, just like they did with bank regulation.

I give it 2 years before the loss ratio bit disappears entirely from the law.

[Javaman]

92. Holy shit!!! Yayyyyy!!!!!

Thank everything that is good in this world!!!!

[Lisa D]

93. In plain English:

The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding. -- SCOTUS blog

[Bolo Boffin]

96. SCOTUSblog's plain English account:

"The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."

[Lisa D]

103. To answer a common question:

Yes, the whole ACA is constitutional, so the provision requiring insurers to cover young adults until they are 26 survives as well. -- SCOTUS blog

[PoliticAverse]

112. Entire court decision (.pdf) here...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

[Lisa D]

135. Thanks! n/t

[Raggaemon]

104. But they're still reporting it incorrectly

I was watching the various TV news reports about the SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and dammit none of the reports mentions the fact that the tax penalty has no teeth. The ACA has two provisions that say, if someone chooses not to purchase health insurance and is fined, the IRS will make an "attempt" to collect the fine amount ( approx. $100 ), however, if the person refuses to pay, there are no legal consequences or levies applied.

I'm sure the Obama naysayers view is based on mistrust believing that the Obama administration will implement changes if he's re-elected to actually enforce the collections of fines against people choosing not to buy insurance. I'm still trying to figure out why someone who could afford health insurance would decide against buying it ? I wonder if they think being "forced" to buy homeowners insurance is just as unconstitutional ?

Why is it that people will only hear and read about these most important components of the arguments over the "public mandate" largely through progressive news outlets ?

SHAME ON THE SO-CALLED MAINSTREAM NEWS MEDIA !

[christx30]

273. I didn't have

Health insurance for 3 years because to insure myself and my wife would cost about 50% of my check. Technically I could "afford " it, but then I wouldn't have been able to pay rent or buy groceries. Getting it for yourself through your work is cheap. Getting it for yourself and your unemployed partner is expensive as hell. So I just did without until my wife left and I got another job. Now I got insurance just for myself and she is still without. But for those 3 years, it was a bill that we didn't need. When I got pink eye, I got over the counter remedies. Never went to the ER, even when I got gall bladder disease. I'm glad I. Have it now. But it was way too expensive.

[mountain grammy]

111. Robert Reich rules the day

Second term, second chance! Mr. President, bring this man into your cabinet. Let's get progressive and watch those local elections.

[FailureToCommunicate]

147. Welcome to DU!

[kjackson227]

159. +1

[Ganja Ninja]

114. And the crowd goes nuts!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900385/posts

[LaurenG]

236. The thread is gone it says "pulled" It must have been pretty bad, nt

[duhneece]

115. One of the few times in my memory, I'm watching Fox and enjoying it

I'm switching back & forth, from MSNBC to CNN to FOX to ....
Except for having to see Rove's face (which is so unpleasant), I'm actually sort of enjoying watching Fox. Weird.
They seem really upset that 'their' guy Roberts voted with the left on this as on the Arizona immigration ruling.

[Kencorburn]

153. No longer on Fox. They are throwing a tantrum, and switch to Murdoch talking to Cavuto. n/t

[lonestarnot]

116. Oh yeah!

[hue]

117. This is AWESOME!!! Thank You Chief Justice John Roberts!! Wonderful news!!!! n/t

[crunch60]

285. I'm not thanking Roberts for anything. He wouldn't have voted with

the liberal side of the court, if that vote didn't profit him or his buddies in the Insurance Lobby in a big way.

No one in my mind, has "dirtied" up the court, like John Roberts. Citizens United has devastated this country.

[johnd83]

118. I think this will actually help Obama get reelected

contrary to what a lot of people are saying. People like a winner. All the uncertainty about the court decision made him look weak. Now he will appear to be the winner.

[hue]

127. I imagine the 1% are now pissing their pants!!! Lol!!!

[nineteen50]

185. the 1% would have lost too much pork to allow it to be struck

[Javaman]

119. I have held off my few bucks that I can afford to contribute to Obama's campaign until now. :)

It ain't much but he's getting my dollars.

[GoCubsGo]

121. I'm not surprised.

Roberts lets his buddies in the health care industry keep their windfall, and the other 4 partisan turds can have it both ways. Their corporate buddies keep their windfall AND they can go on record as opposing President Obama. It's a win-win for Fat Tony and his flunkies.

[mountain grammy]

133. Roberts decided he was rich enough.

you are so right on! but a good decision none the less.

[nineteen50]

184. Stephens did this for the corporations all that pork could not be ignored

[chelsea0011]

122. Maybe having an elitist Harvard Law grad who was on law review mattered to

have as POTUS? Sarcasm on only the elitist.

[DCBob]

124. 5 edits!! HA!

A bit too fast to the post!

Regardless this is great news!! There is hope for America.

[skeewee08]

128. That's what i'm talking about

[Roland99]

129. How many Freeper/Teabagger heads are exploding right now?????

ah ha ha ha ha ha

[beac]

142. And, lucky for them, they can't be denied coverage in future due to

their pre-existing condition of "detonated cranium."

[Roland99]

151. HA!

[Volaris]

160. They're sad over there today...their tears taste soooooo yummy...

[harun]

132. Roberts FTW, errrrrr ok, we'll take it.

[Mr. Sparkle]

137. You can always count on Roberts to side with Big Business , who in turn love the mandate.

This is a great win for the President.

also the debate on Justice Anthony Kennedy must surely be over now, he is definitely a corrupt conservative.

[crimson77]

139. Just heard the Republican's new mantra "biggest tax increase in US history", That could cause a prob

[Evergreen Emerald]

152. Ha ha...I guess there are always stupid people who would buy that argument.

Cracks me up the pretzels they are turning into to spin this as a mixed opinion.

[crimson77]

166. Can you answer a question for me, that no one is answering.

Does congress now need to levy this tax? meaning does this Republican congress have to now write a bill about this tax?

[Evergreen Emerald]

174. Nothing has changed. The law remains the same.

The "fine," "mandate," "tax," is semantics.

The issue--that has not changed--is that it is a tax, a mandate, a fine without a consequence for non-failure. There was no teeth to the mandate written into the law. Never has been.

I suppose, the Congress could create a consequence for non-payment (IRS, criminal, civil sanctions)...but as written, there are no consequences.

[Volaris]

173. Not if your response is the following...

"I'm fine with having my taxes raised, in order for the Govt. to accomplish useful and necessary things."

If you get good at disarming a knife-wielding opponent, knives aren't NEARLY as dangerous anymore.

[progressivebydesign]

216. Reality? it's going to SAVE their whiney asses BILLIONS. Or would they rather pay for the uninsured

I can never understand WHY republicans act like they know anything about money. They fight this stuff.. and have no clue (or refuse to admit) that as taxpayers we are paying SOO much more for uninsured people using actue care because they can't see a primary doc.

It's insanity. This is a tax ONLY to the people that have not purchased health insurance. It is a REDUCTION in taxes for everyone else. And this is the truth. It will save States billions overall... someone who gets basic coverage will be able to detect problems early. They will be able to see a DOCTOR for things, instead of using the ER which costs thousands.

This is also a victory for hospitals.. they lose billions in indigent care and uninsured care. They can spin it however they like, only the biggest brainwashed idiots will think this is a new tax in the TRUE Sense of the word. It's like calling the fact that we have to have car insurance a TAX.

[jefferson_dem]

140. Excellent!

Landmark win for America!

[tinrobot]

141. The Supreme Court just saved a lot of lives.

Glad they did the right thing.

[Lisa D]

144. Essentially, a majority of the Court

has accepted the Administration's backup argument that, as Roberts put it, "the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition -- not owning health insurance -- that triggers a tax -- the required payment to IRS." Actually, this was the Administration's second backup argument: first argument was Commerce Clause, second was Necessary and Proper Clause, and third was as a tax. The third argument won. -- SCOTUS blog

[kdmorris]

145. That is indeed good news n/t

[4lbs]

148. How ironic that it was Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote

The same Roberts that Obama voted NO on confirmation, and the same Roberts that flubbed Obama's inauguration.

[Warren Stupidity]

165. Big money backed the mandate.

They want this legislation to stand. It bakes in the for profit health insurance industry. Big money is not completely aligned with rightwing radicalism. The republican party has at least three clear factions, fundaloons, radicals, corporatist centrists. There are many subthemes within these divisions. One thing for sure, they will as a party rally around this decision and run against it, despite the fact that the most conservative rightwing court in modern times upheld it.

[suffragette]

234. Good points all and Roberts is all for big money

And most of the media won't call them on the contradiction you describe in your last sentence either.

[VWolf]

168. And FR is in meltdown mode:

Will John Roberts be remembered in history the same as Benedict Arnold?

Ick. I feel dirty.

[klook]

190. Some hilarious stuff over there today.

"Why the hell do I keep on supporting Republicans?? WHY?"

-- My question exactly.

"This is no different than when the Supreme Court upheld slavery, and condemned people to slavery based on the color of their skin. Now, they have upheld slavery of the ENTIRE American people to the Government, by saying that it is constitutional for EVERY American to be FORCED into a purchase agreement."

-- How do they choose whether to invoke slavery or Nazism? They must flip a coin every time.

"Eff John Roberts. He knew The Kenyan is not a Natural Born Citizen, yet he swore him in. And now this??"

-- Obviously it's a double-cross. Roberts is in cahoots with the International Communist-Jewish-Nazi-Kenyan-Feminist conspiracy!

"Roberts had a huge deposit made in a Swill bank account for him. He is set for life."

-- SwillBank, a proud member of the Swillmart family! (credit: Bruce McCall, Zany Afternoons)

"Time for a revolution. Our forefathers did so for much less tyranny."
and
"It is time for revolution/violent opposition, then gallows."

-- Uh, last time I checked, advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government was considered treason. Too bad FR doesn't have a sarcasm tag.

"How is he a traitor? He will be remembered as a great progressive just like Bush was!

That’s the whole point here. The GOP and DEM party are infected with the progressive disease.

Bush enabled the housing crisis...
Bush abandoned the free markets...
Bush enabled the bail-outs...
Bush enabled Obama to get elected...
Bush nominated Roberts...

Now Roberts just finished what Bush started...the total destruction of America."

-- When G.W. Bush is condemned as a progressive, this is moving into a very weird area.

[progressivebydesign]

220. Why the fuck do they care? They have insurance or medicare.. this tax doesn't affect them.

well, actually it HELPS them.. but Rushbo will not tell them that. This "tax" does NOT apply to people who don't need to purchase the insurance.. and only saves the rest of us billions because of the costs of the uninsured's ER visits and delayed health care.

I love when FR freaks out.. they're so cute!

[VWolf]

254. LMAO @ "Swill back account"

"s" and "l" are on opposite sides of the keyboard.

[muriel_volestrangler]

193. Just their thread titles are deliciously over the top

"We plan to fire the liberals in our company"
"The SCOTUS Just Woke Up a Sleeping Giant (Vanity)"
"Stocks, Gold, Oil - All Crashing in wake of Obamacare Decision (US Economy, RIP)"
"Stock market tanks on Supreme Court Decision (going vertical)" (a lie, of course)
"My Flag Is Now Flying Upside-Down"
"OBAMA HAS PASSED THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN US HISTORY"
"Today is The Day U.S. Citizens Became Slaves of Their Government"

Trust FR to run around with their hair on fire ...

[newspeak]

217. FR must be clueless

since this was a heritage foundation idea (hey FR, right wing think tank?), FR should be deliriously happy. Oh, wait, a repug didn't do it; therefore, it must be some kind of sochalist idea. If, and I mean IF they keep the insurance industry honest, it might be something. But, right now we can barely afford the highest deductible health care. Hubby and I are waiting to see how it plays out; or if the bill within the next few years winds up having every regulatory measure stripped from it; but it still will be mandatory.

Haven't forgotten little boot's greedy, sociopathic "screw you seniors" big pharma bill. It's good politically for Pres. Obama; I just don't know if it will be better for the insurance industry or for the people.

[progressivebydesign]

226. wow...Do they understand the provision? It doesn't affect them.

But it actually helps the corporate health care (aka the economy) by removing billions in uninsured health care costs that are passed on to EVERYONE (even Freepers,) in the form of TAXES and higher health care and insurance rates.

Is stupidity a pre-existing condition??? Someone needs to school those fools... this is a victory for the anti-tax crowd, too.

If it's a Tax, then buying car insurance is a tax. Do we have any decent media left to point this out? To get the numbers on what the taxpayers pay for the uninsured? And how much hospitals lose every year??

[47of74]

202. Ah....RimJob land

Source of sooooooo much comedy!

[iandhr]

154. YES

[NRaleighLiberal]

155. Happy Happy! Joy Joy!

Just found out - was out watering.....whew!

[Nye Bevan]

161. Excellent. Many congratulations, Mr. President. You did it!

Now lets FUCKING BOMBARD THE AIRWAVES with how Romney wants to allow insurance companies to discriminate based upon pre-existing conditions, and re-impose lifetime maximums.

Romney is toast now. Oh and I assume he now hates John Roberts? AWKWARD.......

[Beacool]

162. The Supreme Court will surprise all the time.

The running commentary was that the individual mandate would be struck down, but it was upheld.

Who expected it?

[nineteen50]

183. Everyone that followed the money.

[LibertyLover]

163. That's why we elected a Constitutional scholar!

It helps when drafting laws. This is very good news.

[kwenu]

167. Congratulations to the President, Democratic members of Congress, and the American People!!!!

Fantastic win for the American People!!!!

[cyberpj]

172. Naive here, I guess, but those who do not pay the penalty can't be sent to jail

so what's the incentive to participate?

snip-
"NBC Pete Williams reported that Roberts reasoned that “there’s no real compulsion here” since those who do not pay the penalty for not having insurance can’t be sent to jail."

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12457822-supreme-court-upholds-health-care-law?lite

[PoliticAverse]

188. The only collection mechanism is the penalty can be deducted from any income tax refund

that you are receiving.

[blackspade]

177. Waa...Huh!? Did hell just freeze over?

Because in KY it is supposed to be over 100 today!

I have to say, even with my deep reservations about the ACA law, I couldn't be more pleased with this decision.
I have to ask though, what is the conservative angle that the corrupt 5 are working?

[nineteen50]

179. No surprise just follow the money through the corportist justice

Stevens. Was always about the money too much for pharma and the insurance companies to give up .

[allan01]

180. re:BREAKING: Supreme Court Upholds Individual Mandate As A Tax

and i bet u that slush rimshod , bill o liely and others are foaming at the bit. fantastic , fantastic!

[joanbarnes]

181. The $upreme Court answers to their 'handlers.' Health insurance companies surely wanted it so.

[Zambero]

182. The position Romney finds himself in

By betting that the SCOTUS would kill the ACA, Romney had taken the position that the entire act should be repealed. Now that constitutionality has been upheld, Obama can specify everything that would occur if Romney was to have his way: re-opening the Medicare part D "donut hole", removing adult children from their parents' policies, foregoing state insurance pools to keep costs down, having pre-existing conditions preclude the ability to purchase affordable incurance, less access to preventive care, and so forth. Romney also gets spread thinner if he decides to make this an issue, in a year when the economy is supposed to loom as the deciding issue. Abortionmania has already pulled Republicans off track. Add a few more non-starters to the list and the lack of focus could really enforce the notion that overplaying one's hand is not good politics.

[patricia92243]

191. Hubby says Congress could just go remove the law???? Is this so?

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. Presumably the pre-existing conditions section would have to pass the Senate

and so a Senate with just 41 Democrats (inc. Bernie Sanders) could filibuster it. Unless the Republicans went nuclear after winning the Senate majority, and abolished the filibuster too.

[Rochester]

196. It is. The Republicans want to do exactly that. So we must fill Congress with Democrats

and send Obama back for a second term.

Once the major provisions of the law actually take effect, and Americans get used to it, I suspect it will become politically much harder to tamper with the law - not that that will stop the Republicans from trying.

[Rochester]

192. I'm surprised... but very happy!

[ellie]

198. Thank God almighty.

[alp227]

199. Another Republi-CON failure.

Adopting a theme from an earlier post I wrote:

-the government did not shut down
-the US did not default on the debt
- millions of transportation workers won't get laid off and get mad at EVERYONE (including Obama) if any of the previous three scenarios were true, Romney would be pretty much handed the election this year.
-and...the supreme court UPHELD the ACA...with the unlikeliest of all justices, JOHN ROBERTS, as swing vote!

Since the senate will fortunately not vote for any tea party legislation from the house, expect the CONS to take possibly treasonous steps to generate an October Surprise and make Obama lose the election. Heck, with JOHN BOLTON being foreign policy adviser to Romney, something like a secret trip to Iran will not be surprising.

[AverageJoe90]

264. If they wanted to pull off on October Surprise, it'd have to be a LOT bigger than......

the '79 Hostage Crisis and they'd have to start acting NOW. Carter was a good guy but never quite as popular as Obama.

[alp227]

284. Indeed. Going to WAR would be greater.

And happy 1st anniversary on DU!

[progressivebydesign]

200. If we're forced to buy insurance to drive a car, or buy a home, then why not health insurance?

Because if they ruled the other way, you KNOW that the lawsuits would start to remove mandatory car and home insurance and the insurance industry would be screwed.

Seriously, I have no problem with people having to buy insurance. We spend billions and billions on uninsured people who do not buy insurance for a variety of reason (some because they can't or some because they don't want to spend the money because they think that they'll never get sick.)

We already pay so much for uninsured people who use the emergency room as a primary care physician, and we pay through our insurance and health care costs, for all of the people that come in with acute care and no insurance or govt assistance.

The thing is that this will also mean that more options will be created, with pools for uninsured and high risk people.

Of course you also wonder if the SC is thinking that by calling it a "tax" it'll just piss everyone off and it will backfire on President Obama's campaign. I'm SURE that RMoney is already putting together ads about the "biggest TAX in history!!!" As well as Rove and his minions..

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

219. You don't need insurance to drive

You can choose to walk, take public transportation, hitch a ride, get a bicycle, stay home.

You don't need insurance to buy a home, assuming you buy it outright. If you get a loan, the mortgage holder will probably require insurance. But again, you can always rent.

Health care is different. You can't choose to not use it. You may be unconscious, take to a hospital without regard to your wishes. You may change your mind, once you realize that a broken bone is not like a minor case of poison ivy. But almost everyone will use a hospital or urgent care clinic at some time.

I like that everyone should have health insurance. It's my second-favorite solution, right behind single-payer "socialized" medicine.

[savalez]

201. How they voted

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/06/us/scotus.healthcare/?hpt=hp_t1

Interesting choice of photos. Happy and caring vs confused and angry.

[Third Doctor]

203. Great news!

I love seeing those tea bagging idiots so dejected. How can Romney, who can pay for his healthcare out of his pocket but does not have to I bet. have any credibility in this area?

[BlueDemKev]

204. Thank God Almighty! We are free at last!!

We are free from having to worry about having our health insurance coverage cancelled AFTER we become sick. Free from being denied coverage because of some "pre-existing condition."

Thank God, oh Thank God!!! And a deep expression of gratitude to Chief Justice Roberts!

[grahamhgreen]

207. As predicted. Because it mandates trillions to big insurance that they will use to

Eliminate the reforms in the bill over time.

[crunch60]

286. Exactly!

[Kablooie]

209. It was sure a narrow victory though.

Roberts didn't agree with the commerce clause that the 4 liberal judges thought applied.

The 4 dissenters didn't agree with either the tax or commerce clause.

By the skin of our teeth.

But it PASSED anyway!

[TeamPooka]

210. Winning!

Feels good!

[eaglesfanintn]

213. I'm sure

the Rethuglicans that on Monday were saying how great the Supreme Court is are now screaming about "activist judges" and "2nd Amendment remedies".

[EnviroBat]

214. I'm headed out to the car to listen to Limbaugh have a stroke!

I hope his fat fucking head explodes!!!

[hwmnbn]

221. K&R

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

224. Gobsmacked!

I've been switching between MSNBC and FoxNews, to see if the interpretation of the court's action is the same, if not the level of enthusiasm for the decision.

What a day this is!

[Odin2005]

225. Roberts is Justice #5? HOLY FUCK!!!

[MrsBrady]

320. i know...

i was just as surprised as you when I heard.

[Proles]

227. This is a big effin' deal!

Hurray for Obamacare! It's nice to win one finally.

Is it a perfect bill? No. But without the mandate, healthcare reform would be a lost cause for a long, long time.

I imagine the republicans crying right now. Their one major campaign point is weakened, and the Democrats are now more emboldened I would imagine.

[The Stranger]

229. Good grief, Pelosi is such a completely ineffective, uninspiring and shitty public speaker.

Unbelievable, she just doesn't have it. Thanks god we have Barack Obama.

[The Stranger]

231. She sucks so bad that they news channels had to turn away from covering her.

No emphatic pause, no prepared talking points, no change in tone, no eye contact, no charisma.

She sucks sucks sucks sucks sucks.

[juajen]

274. Bullshit!

[The Stranger]

310. I agree - she's Bullshit!

Sad, isn't it, that we can be better represented?

[clang1]

232. The RIGHTS labeling of HEALTHCARE reform as 'OBAMACARE'

was nothing more than an insult to the American People. Tyranny.



AMERICANS are the ONLY peole in the World that DO NOT want Universal Healthcare? Tyranny.
BECAUSE THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. IT IS NOT EVEN LOGICAL TO THINK IT IS TRUE. Tyranny and Deception.













Meanwhile.....The Progression continues......


PAUSE.....Something good happened today.....


The Progression continues......

[kiranon]

241. Thank you Chief Justice Roberts. n/t

[90-percent]

242. Hallelujah

This is one of the more happier days in my life. I’ve worked reasonably hard all my life to be solidly in the American Middle Class. I grew up in the middle class, maybe just a schoosh above the center of the middle. I am 58 and have been laid off 3 times and quit once in the last three years and have held on desperately to my life savings, which consists almost entirely of our primary residence we own outright. My wife once had a thriving self employed business, but she’s suffered serious health issues the last 6 or 7 years and our savings have gone away in the last three.

WE NO LONGER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT LOSING EVERYTHING WE’VE WORKED FOR OUR ENTIRE LIVES in the event of continued or new serious illness!

I’m consulting presently and the money is good enough to maintain our standard of living and continue to pay our $1050 per month COBRA bills. I’m happy with that for now.

We all no longer have to worry about health insurance pre-existing condition DEATH PANELS vaporizing everything we’ve worked our entire lives to get! And now I can devote more of my life to righting this slide into FULL BLOWN PLUTOCRACY in America. And that we all better do right this minute, gang. This Election Cycle will be a BLOODBATH of CORPORATE PROPAGANDA that will require the AID OF ALL GOOD AMERICANS TO COME TO THE SERVICE OF THEIR COUNTRY. This election is the most important of our lives, gang!

We need to annihilate once and for all the CITIZENS UNITED CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE ruling from the Supremes. We need to restore the principals of Progressiveism that is the root of MIDDLE CLASS PROSPERITY. We need to punish all the banksters and Wall Streeters that wrecked our economy. We need to CRUSH CORPORATE GREED and unhealthy concentrations of wealth. We need to help those lives ruined by unjust foreclosures and medieval drug laws and three job economic servitude. We need to show America is still a beacon of hope in the world for the good of all humanity, not a morass of 300,000,000 selfish I GOT MINE AND SCREW YOU greed heads.

LASTLY, WE NEED TO RID OUR INSTITUTIONS OF ALL THE SOCIOPATHS THAT HAVE TEMPORARILY CAPTURED THEM!

Better Education, media, infrastructure, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and a better future are not as far away as they seemed only a day ago.

Let’s do it, gang!


-90% Jimmy

[ronwelldobbs]

245. Although I prefer Single Payer, it is nice to see our side win one for a change.

[Joey Liberal]

249. People are not happy in Oklahoma

The republimonsters are in a bad mood today here in Bible Land (Oklahoma). It's interesting because there are so many Okies that have no health insurance. But then, Hee haw is still a top rated TV show here .....

OBAMA 2012!

[Scurrilous]

250. K & R

[TBF]

251. A good start -

and we keep working towards universal health care.

[Politicub]

259. I'm not able to get anything done at work now...

because I can't stop reading about the decision on DU.

Our president rocks the house!

[cbayer]

260. Yes We Can!!

[caroll31]

263. Yes

We can now move forward toward better access to care in the U.S.

[mirrera]

265. Parents phoned excited that we might finally afford more than catastrophic insurance...burst bubble

I hated to be a downer but I had to share with my parents my understanding of how this law would work for our income level, as I understand it, and I hope I am wrong.

First I am thrilled for those people it helps, and I love making Republicans cry! The big but that I have is for families like mine. We are the people that Obama talked about on the campaign trail, 'people with such high deductibles that their health insurance is really glorified house insurance'.

With a husband that builds houses, rentals and a small web business, we are well above the governmental idea of poverty. Yet the reality is with a 150 year old farmhouse and 2 sons with college expenses & debt, affordable insurance for us is $500.00 a month. Our insurance has a $10,000.00 deductable on each of us with a cap at $20,000.00. We get absolutely nothing for that except 100% coverage after the deductible, and 80% of emergency room fees if we are admitted (which has come in handy).

We are not happy about it but at least our house is safe. My husband used to work collections for a bank and heard heartbreaking stories of loss due to healthcare costs. We eat from the health food store, avoid processed and fast foods, and wish we could get a write off...but hey I am a socialist and would gladly pay higher taxes for free college and free healthcare.

When this new law got passed there was a government web site where you could log in and see what the "affordable" health care might look like. I went through the steps at that time and unfortunately it looked like $900-$1500 per month was considered affordable.

I looked at my husband and I said &quot non ladylike expletive) are we like the only people this law is going to hurt?" It looked to me like we would not be able to find a high enough deductible to keep our costs at $500 (which we struggle to pay). It looked like we might end up having to drop insurance AND pay a fine!

I hope I am wrong, and my parents assured me that if it turns out that way— that borderline incomes like ours fall through the cracks— Obama will try and fix it. I hope so!

If anyone knows the name of the site I am talking about I would love to prove myself wrong on this...for instance i remember wondering what kind of income they meant, adjusted or gross? I think I put in gross, so fingers crossed!

I just know that the governmental charts for poverty and what is considered affordable, is far removed from reality. Just look at the minimum wage!

For now I will just wait and see, be glad for those with serious need, and try and stay healthy!

[sinkingfeeling]

292. If you are within 400% of the federal poverty level, you have 70% of

the premium paid for by the affordability credit.

[mirrera]

314. If my level is over 400% ( I do not qualify) their rubric sucks! n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

344. Wow, your income is over $88,000 and you can't afford $900 a month to

cover 4 people?

[mirrera]

345. Where do you come up with 88,000.00? That would be awesome!

Where do you see $900.00 for 4 people? Dirigo health in Maine was over $900 with very high deductibles and no wellness visits or check-ups. Real health care that actually covered wellness and sickness is more in the $2000 - $4000 range. $900 for 4 people with real health care, I would really try to pay that, even with my much lower income.

Once we had a 'cadilac plan' and it covered everything you could imagine. We tried to price it out with Blue Cross or Anthem and we were at $5000.00 a month and still did not come close to what was offered through this big bank.

[sinkingfeeling]

352. 400% of the FPL for a couple is $88,000. You said you were above that.

[Hissyspit]

293. You can use this calculator:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

[mirrera]

312. "Based on your income, you probably would not qualify for federal assistance to offset the cost of..

that plan"

Thanks for the link... putting in a very low adjusted gross income we do not qualify for help. This web site does not list any plans or examples of an affordable plan.

I know Maine, where I live tried a 'public option' called Dirigo health and the cost was $900 per month without real coverage, high deductible, etc.

I am telling you, we are the fake middle class. Educated, brought up in the 50s to feel entitled, try to give our kids what we had, and in debt up to our eyeballs and one check away from disaster!

[kpete]

271. A VERY GOOD DAY

!!!

PEACE & HEALTHCARE
FOR EVERYONE

kpete

[YvonneCa]

282. A VERY...

...good day, indeed.

[groovedaddy]

272. Something tells me that if this SCOTA decision on healthcare

had been about single payer, it would have gotten the thumbs down from Justice Roberts. As it is, large insurance companies had a big say in how this law was written. Without their consent, this law would never have passed Congress OR gotten the seal of approval from Roberts. That said, it's still a BIG WIN for President Obama. My hat's off to him for at least taking some big steps in the right direction.

[quakerboy]

275. I wonder how

they decided which conservative would vote for it? The mandate was too choice to let go down, but they got in their little lick against Medicaid.

But how did they decide which conservative would be the swing vote? Did the draw straws? did roberts get defaulted to as the chief justice? Was there a series of epic duels to the death using Guantanimo detainees as surrogates? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Seattle Blue]

281. Bumper sticker idea for today:

OBAMA CARES
W/MITT WE GET JACK @#$%

[dash_bannon]

283. I'm unemployed...

I'm unemployed. The idea of being forced to by private insurance on a limited income does not excite me.

At present, private insurance costs around $300-$1200/month.

Even if we lower premiums down to $90/month, how is someone on a fixed or limited income going to afford that, especially if there's a penalty for not buying insurance.

I see this as a pyrrhic victory until we get single payer for all.

Aside from the mandate, the rest of the bill was pretty good.

[bettydavis]

288. Scalia sites Jim Crow laws to SUPPORT his Arizona decision...

Scalia is surely nuts. read this very interesting piece. How do we impeach this freak.

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-freed-blacks-arizona-immigration-dissent-210600521.html

Also RT BIG PICTURE had interesting segment on Scalia possible impchmnt too:

&list=UUY8x1K2FMBw-jm-WCPbcHEg&index=1&feature=plcp

[caseymoz]

291. HOLY SHIT!!!!! Roberts does have restraint!

He does take it seriously! Unlike the four clowns.

Man, he's going to feel alone in Washington now. I'm hoping Dubya gouges his own eyes out.

[RainDog]

298. k&r n/t

[Kteachums]

299. All I can say is thank you!

Yesterday I told everyone to think positive because we have a President that is a genious! I knew he would have carefully studied every bit of that legislation and he would have thought through the possible legal predicaments. Thank God it was upheld today! Children can stay on their parent's plans. People with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. Insurance companies can not drop people because they are ill. The law is right and I believe the justices ruled for the people! Now we need to get the information out there before the Republicans start lieing again. God bless our President!

[may3rd]

300. How much is the tax going to be ?

[SunSeeker]

325. About $90--and there is no mechanism for enforcement

Lawrence O'Donnell did a great explanation of that tonight. The tax is only on those (it will affect about 1 % of the population) that can afford to but won't buy health insurance. The normal IRS enforcement remedies of liens and wage garnishments were explicitly made unavailable. Apparently all the gov't can do is take the $90 out of any tax refund if you have a tax refund coming to you.

[lamp_shade]

305. What a day!! What. A. Day.

[politicasista]

306. Today was a good day

[AJTheMan]

307. I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting Roberts to be the deciding vote.

This is awesome news nonetheless. It just worries me that now the Republicans will have more solidarity and could take the WH.

[Brooklyn Dame]

309. It has been a great day -- if only just to see the GOP so thoroughly miserable!

YAY, Team LEFT!

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/06/obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land-the-battle-begins/

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

311. Is that edit CNN?

[Atypical Liberal]

315. Personally, I think this may not be the great news it is cracked up to be.

Let me preface - I'm all for socialized health care and believe we should have a single-payer system like Canada does. My wife is Canadian as is her whole family and I'm all for it. I'm thankful my children are Canadian by their mother.

But I'm not very excited about this mandated insurance coverage.

I lost my job back in the beginning of May. COBRA insurance for my family would have cost $900 a month. Alabama unemployment pays a maximum of $265 a week. COBRA would be barely affordable if we paid no other bills but it with the unemployment money. And of course you have to pay for things like your house payment and food out of that money.

So now the government is going to tell me that I have to buy insurance that I can't afford?

Moreover, I think that by passing this as a TAX this is going to seriously hurt President Obama as there goes his argument that he won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K a year. I already heard Republicans crowing this on NPR this evening on the way home from work.

[FreeState]

317. Um no...

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/28/what-supreme-court-health-care-law-decision-means-you

Will I still have to buy health care by 2014?

Yes. Today's decision means that the individual mandate -- which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face a penalty -- remains in place. If you don't purchase health care by 2014, the penalty will be as follows: $285 per family or 1% of income; By 2016, $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.

[Atypical Liberal]

346. Isn't that what I said?

Again, sounds like you are telling me if I don't buy health insurance because I can't afford it you are going to penalize me financially anyway.

So not only can I not afford the $900 a month for the insurance, but on top of that I'll get to pay $2085 a year as punishment! What a help!

[happyslug]

322. I have read the opinion, and it reads like a Roberts vs Ginsburg situation

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

This is NOT a 5-4 decision, but a 4-1-4 decision, with Roberts being the one. His opinion, when he gets to the heart of the issue, is more an attack on Ginsburg then anyone else. Ginsburg, Somomayer, Bryer

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and
III–D.

Translation, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor supported parts I. II. and III-C ONLY.

III-A, III-B and III-d. Were agreed to by Roberts, Breyer and Kagan BUT NOT Ginsburg or Sotomayor, through Ginsburg and Sotomayor concurred in the result (upholding Obamacare Under III-C of the opinion).

Parts III-A, III-B and III-D was agreed to by Roberts, Breyer and Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Aleito and Kennedy.

III-A and III- B was that Obamacare was NOT constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Scalia, Thomas, Atilto and Kennedy Concurred with this opinion of Roberts. Thus all BUT Ginsburg, Somomayor and Kagan voted that the Commerce Clause can NOT be used to justify Federal universal medical coverage.

III-D was that Congress's re-write of Medicaid was so severe it FORCED States to comply, and that FORCE was Unconstitutional. It was constructional for the Federal Government to agree to PAY the extra costs of Medicaid (increased from roughly 65% of the property level to 133% of the poverty level) , but the Federal Government could NOT FORCE the state to agree to the 133% poverty level limit. As pointed out above, this was agreed to by Breyer, Roberts, Kagan, Scalia, Thomas, Atilto and Kennedy.

Part III-C is the Section of Robert's opinion that says Obamacare is Constitutional under the TAXING power of Congress.

Ginsburg in her dissent was joined by Sotomayor AND Kagan (but Kagan only as to Parts I, II, III and IV of Ginsburg opinion, Kagan rejected Part V of Ginsburg's opinion dealing with issue of Medicaid. Sotomayer and Ginsburg rejected the idea that Obamacare so rewrote Medicaid that it violated the Rights of the States, i.e. Congress could NOT force the States to fund Medicaid to 133% of the poverty level.

Reading Robert's opinion, he was more interested (after going through the normal clap trap justices write about deferring to Congress on Political matters, which he did in parts I and II of his opinion) in attacking Ginsburg's position then anything else. Roberts attacks Ginsburg much more then he attacks dissent of the four conservatives justices. It almost reads like, "This is what the law is, and how dare you show me that I am wrong".

Just pointing out HOW the decision came out and who voted for what.

[SunSeeker]

324. K&R

[Kennah]

327. Wait, so Roberts is now the swing vote? Who the fuck slipped me a Jeffrey!?

[bread_and_roses]

339. I, for one, welcome our Corporate Overlords stranglehold on our health care

It keeps things neat and tidy, what with their already controlling all other of life's essentials - food, energy, and soon water. Leaving out health care would be inconsistent - messy! And I do applaud our POTUS for assuring our Overlords' rights to profit from our blood and bones - for what else do we live, but to create more wealth for the "wealth creators?"

[hughee99]

349. I know this has been discussed for some time now,

but if a penalty for not complying with a federal mandate is a "tax" and not a "fine", then does that mean any similar "fine" is really a "tax" and agencies (like the EPA, for example) that determine and impose those fines are setting "tax" policy without a congressional vote?

I haven't seen anyone talk about this yet and was curious if it had been addressed already.