In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog says Roberts' vote "saved" the Affordable Care Act.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

 

The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for religious beliefs and financial hardship.)

 

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

 

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

 

Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

 

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision will most likely slow momentum for that move.

 

Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.

 

Only about 6 percent of the population will actually be required to buy health insurance or face a tax under the mandate, since most people already have coverage or will get it through Medicare, according to the Urban Institute.

 

Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.

 

Despite this intentional front-loading of consumer friendly, popular provisions of the law, the American public is pretty evenly split on the law's benefit. Slightly more people wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law than uphold it in a recent poll.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html

 

Ummmm, yeah, I don't know what to say. So I will just smh.

Listen bud, if you want to talk politics you're gonna have to learn to at least make the original post unbiased.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret I learned when I was oh... 14? You're not always right.

Ummmm, yeah, I don't know what to say.

 

Precisely.

I love the irony of the Jon Stewart facepalm, by the way.

I find it odd that Roberts would write the opinion, when he did not share an opinion with the other 4 justices.

I find it odd that Roberts would write the opinion, when he did not share an opinion with the other 4 justices.

 

I think he realized that if he has going to vote with Obama, he needed to control the message and wrote to express himself, rather than simply appearing to go along with the liberals. Pretty smart move, in my opinion.

This should be no surprise at all. The Supreme Court was certainly not going to reverse the crowning "achievement" of a US president's term, especially after considering all of the political capital he invested into it.

 

The way that Roberts and Kennedy went is surprising, and most expected the mandate to go the other way until this morning.

 

I also don't think SCOTUS cares about the President's accomplishments as much you seem to. If anything, the typical criticism is that personal politics sway their decisions, rather than the particular president's actions.

commerce clause took a hit though, so there ya go.

I don't think the commerce clause defenses are bogus given current jurisprudence. Hell, the clip from the dissent gave a pornography-know-it-when-you-see-it explanation, that these lines are difficult to draw, but this law clearly crosses it. Pretty weak reasoning, IMO.

 

I can't disprove your thoughts on Roberts, of course. But, I don't see why we could care enough about Obama to potentially sacrifice his own legacy. This may well be SCOTUS's biggest/most controversial decision during his tenure as chief justice. And he probably wouldn't be upset about Obama having to deal with such a catastrophe.

commerce clause took a hit though, so there ya go.

 

That certainly appears to be the case. I'm not necessarily upset, since healthcare is maybe the area with the best argument that it causes sufficient cost and other externalities so as to justify such large-scale government action.

commerce clause took a hit though, so there ya go.

 

That certainly appears to be the case. I'm not necessarily upset, since healthcare is maybe the area with the best argument that it causes sufficient cost and other externalities so as to justify such large-scale government action.

I see it differently. I think that now that if politicians want to engineer a larger entitlement/welfare state, they will have to do so now more directly under the auspices of taxation. In fact, that might be the one positive thing to take away from the ruling.

I don't see those points as mutually exclusive. Both seem like reasons that we shouldn't expect entitlements to expand quite as much beyond Obamacare, and that is something of which I am generally in favor.

 

Boehner saying this takes away your ability to choose your doctor....that's just flat wrong, correct?

 

DEATH PANELS!!! j/k

If the mandate is actually tax, shouldn't it have been struck down for originating in the Senate?

"Insurance" by definition isn't a requirement-so it just seems kinda weird how you could fine people for not having it...

Well because the world is changing. 'Insurance' is no longer insurance by definition itself.

 

Oh the times they are a'changin'.

Deregulate the industry. Get the government out of my Medicare.

 

No, but seriously, actually deregulate the whole health system.

 

Ideally, I'd like the relationship between insurance and the public to work on the basis of a contract, where there's risk and uncertainty for both sides. Meaning, one would sign a contract for a specific period of time with their insurer to be insured throughout that time. The insurer would, by the terms of the contract, be liable for whatever was agreed upon. The contract would be based upon need and the price of the insurance would vary depending on the coverage. It at least provides stability to the individual.

Deregulate the industry. Get the government out of my Medicare.

 

No, but seriously, actually deregulate the whole health system.

 

Are you comfortable with a society that turns away emergency patients until they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources or insurance? That's just one of the things you have to accept if you want a fully deregulated system. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just leaving it to the markets.

Deregulate the industry. Get the government out of my Medicare.

 

No, but seriously, actually deregulate the whole health system.

 

Are you comfortable with a society that turns away emergency patients until they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources or insurance? That's just one of the things you have to accept if you want a fully deregulated system. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just leaving it to the markets.

That's not what happened to patients before the government hijacked the health care system.

I'll assume you're correct, but that's no guarantee it wouldn't happen now. I can't imagine it not happening in at least some places.

Deregulate the industry. Get the government out of my Medicare.

 

No, but seriously, actually deregulate the whole health system.

 

Are you comfortable with a society that turns away emergency patients until they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources or insurance? That's just one of the things you have to accept if you want a fully deregulated system. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just leaving it to the markets.

That's not what happened to patients before the government hijacked the health care system.

I'll assume you're correct, but that's no guarantee it wouldn't happen now. I can't imagine it not happening in at least some places.

 

Just curious.. Where and for what reason?

Deregulate the industry. Get the government out of my Medicare.

 

No, but seriously, actually deregulate the whole health system.

 

Are you comfortable with a society that turns away emergency patients until they can demonstrate sufficient financial resources or insurance? That's just one of the things you have to accept if you want a fully deregulated system. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as just leaving it to the markets.

That's not what happened to patients before the government hijacked the health care system.

I'll assume you're correct, but that's no guarantee it wouldn't happen now. I can't imagine it not happening in at least some places.

 

Just curious.. Where and for what reason?

Penguino is right that this isn't the heart of the debate. Nonetheless, without any legal compulsion or financial incentives, it shouldn't be surprising that some would decline to offer valuable services (especially where they could potentially have legal liability). I don't know particularly where. But there is no guarantee of charity.

You have it backwards. Doctors have an ethical requirement to render aid. Only when government requirements supersede practitioner intent does systematic denial of aid occur.

They still have that ethical obligation either way...

Wanna be paying a fine is probably still cheaper than paying health care for most people who don't have it? Also, you obviously cannot force people to buy it who cannot afford it, which is most likely the majority of people who don't have it. Lastly, how the heck do you enforce it? This won't change anything.

I'd love to see some statistics on that. Yes, I'm sure there are some people who are really that bad are prioritizing things, but I have a hard time believing that the majority of people without health insurance can afford it.

Very good coverage costs me $110/m. I could go cheaper if i wanted. There are plenty of single people with jobs that don't pay for insurance because they spend that money on HBO and drinks at the bar. They see themselves as young or they just can't manage their money. Then something happens and they are screwed. I have no sympathy for these people.

 

 

Nothing wrong with that. Health insurance should always be a option. Car insurance is mandatory for a reason, because if you get into a wreck or cause a wreck, well, you gonna need it.

 

If left with a option of health insurance or gee say, something fun, I'm going with something fun probably. And I am young 24. Now Dental insurance and car insurance people should have.

Very good coverage costs me $110/m. I could go cheaper if i wanted. There are plenty of single people with jobs that don't pay for insurance because they spend that money on HBO and drinks at the bar. They see themselves as young or they just can't manage their money. Then something happens and they are screwed. I have no sympathy for these people.

 

Health insurance should always be a option. Car insurance is mandatory for a reason, because if you get into a wreck or cause a wreck, well, you gonna need it.

But if you go to the emergency room you can just pay cash? Regardless of your opinions on healthcare, this analogy is like, rather ridiculous.