Supreme Court upholds centerpiece of Obama healthcare law

[Chris the Chees]

'A sharply divided Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law that requires that most Americans get insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's majority in the opinion.

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," he concluded. The vote was 5-4.

In another part of the decision and in a blow to the White House, a different majority on the court struck down the provision of the law that requires the states to dramatically expand the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor.

The upholding of the insurance purchase requirement, known as the "individual mandate," was a major election-year victory for Obama, a historic ruling on the law that aimed to extend coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The 2010 law constituted the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years.

Critics of the law had said it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and in the business of the states.

Twenty-six of the 50 U.S. states and a small business trade group challenged the law in court. The Supreme Court in March heard three days of historic arguments over the law's fate.

The court's ruling on the law could figure prominently in the run-up to the November 6 election in which Obama seeks a second four-year term against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who opposed the law.'

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85R06420120628


It seems that the Republicans have had the 'Waterloo' they were looking for in full (House, Senate, and now the Supreme Court), but that they lost.

I wonder what Romney will do now, built a campaign to pull down a law that is basically his own anyway?

Is this the disintergration of this current generation of GOP politicans?

[The Decider]

Wonderful news! Most Republicans were predicting a victory. Not so. The law has passed constitutional muster.

[Senor Hoint]

Just heard Mitt's statement on the radio...he lied several times about the law, which is even funnier since he passed basically the same exact law when he was governor of Massachusetts.

[Zeebadee]

So, what else will the government now decide we need to buy under threat of a new "tax"??

[Senor Hoint]

So, what else will the government now decide we need to buy under threat of a new "tax"??

Why aren't you trying to get the individual mandate for car insurance repealed? Why no rhetoric about how the federal government wants to get between you and your car?

[crimethinker]

I don't like the law. A public option would be great, even with the mandate, but forcing people to buy private insurance from the notoriously scheming and price-gouging insurance companies? No thank you.

[Zeebadee]

Why aren't you trying to get the individual mandate for car insurance repealed? Why no rhetoric about how the federal government wants to get between you and your car?

With car insurance, I'm not being forced to pay for coverage for someone else.

[crimethinker]

With car insurance, I'm not being forced to pay for coverage for someone else.

What? Isn't it the same as health insurance? You pay into a pool, and when you have need of it, you take some out. There's nothing different with health insurance.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

Why aren't you trying to get the individual mandate for car insurance repealed? Why no rhetoric about how the federal government wants to get between you and your car?

The requirement for car insurance is not propagated by the federal government, but rather by state governments. Now, I think all 50 states have some form of law mandating that you either have vehicle insurance, prove that you can cover the cost of an accident for which you are liable personally, or pay a fee (so there is an individual mandate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...pulsory_States

From my understanding of the federal individual mandate in the health care law, the individual mandate is necessary to ensure that the other provisions of the law - no rejection by companies of those that need insurance (for example due to "pre-existing conditions,") - can function. Or at least that's what insurance companies claimed during its passage - that without young, healthy people being required to buy insurance and pay the cost of healthcare for older or ill citizens, the companies couldn't possibly make a profit (or, they claimed, even recoup their costs).

In other words, the individual mandate is basically necessary because private insurance functions rather like a giant Ponzi scheme. And because a public option is obviously "Socialist," and couldn't be passed.

But I do wonder about why one could argue for an identical law on the state level, and then oppose it on the federal level - it's not like states are any more (or less) apt to corruption and inefficiency than the federal government, and it's not like the functionality of the law in say, Massachusetts, is any different than the function of the federal law. The only difference is the scale, and arguably the economy of scale would make a wider system (federally mandated) more cost-efficient.

[Dan74]

With car insurance, I'm not being forced to pay for coverage for someone else.

Car insurance and health insurance are hardly comparable. You have a great deal of control over your car insurance payments. You don't for your health insurance payments. No matter how healthy you try to keep yourself, anything can happen.

[Zeebadee]

What? Isn't it the same as health insurance? You pay into a pool, and when you have need of it, you take some out. There's nothing different with health insurance.

But my pool is made up of insured in a similar state as myself. Theoretically, there are no high-risk drivers in my pool, and my pool doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.

[Angry Citizen]

I don't like the law. A public option would be great, even with the mandate, but forcing people to buy private insurance from the notoriously scheming and price-gouging insurance companies? No thank you.

The law accounts for that. One of the best things about the PPACA is that it essentially turns insurance companies into quasi-nationalized, highly regulated entities. They're allowed to make a profit, but at least 80% of the company's expenditures must be in the form of medical care - BEFORE they can pay employees, pay for advertising, pay rent on buildings, etc. I'll be very surprised if these people can manage to eke out much of a profit at all. The days of evil insurance companies ruining our lives are over.

This is such an interesting ruling. Not only is essentially all of the law upheld as constitutional, but it was upheld solely because John Roberts, one of the more conservative voices and a Bush Jr. appointee, decided to let it through. Buyer beware, mes Republicains.