Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: individual mandate UPHELD by SCOTUS

Posted 2 years ago on June 28, 2012, 10:16 a.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

93 Comments

93 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If the healthcare law didn't make massive profits for insurance companies, do you think it would have gotten the same ruling or even passed in congress?

We shouldn't be giving tax payers dollars to for-profit insurance companies that just suck up money that could be going to healthcare. The money should be going straight to healthcare. Why are we subsidizing insurance companies? If we all have to pay into a system, which this is essentially doing by requiring people to have insurance... why not just make it based off taxes and cut out the middleman and have all the money going to healthcare? -because Congress is bought

in 2016 people like me will be forced to pay a 695 dollar fine or buy healthcare. You're talking about fining people for being alive.

This bill does not cover everyone either. What about the millions who still can't afford insurance but make more than the minimum amount to qualify for benefits?

We need real universal healthcare like a massive branch out of medicare. Not supposed "reform" that makes stocks rise for insurance companies and massive profits for them in the future.

[-] 3 points by docgee (11) 2 years ago

I agree! What's more I think this is a decision that could easily backfire on the Democrats, since it will provide Romney and Co. with a social mandate of their own, i.e., saving middle income people from being forced to buy something they can't afford. Too many people are opposed to the mandate simply because they are convinced they can't afford it. These people would normally vote for Obama but now they'll be voting for Romney. This is a Pyrrhic victory and it will backfire. I hope Obama enjoys it while he can.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

I already am enjoying it! I have already benefited from the ACA and so has my 22 yr old son. :D

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed. Medicare for all! remove fica caps (but cut fica for under $50k annual inc) tax fin transactions and cap gains over $200k. That'll do it.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

In complete agreement with you. We are all going to have hell to pay with this. More unemployment will result due to so many small businesses closing, those who cannot currently afford healthcare will still find it unaffordable OR they can opt for a ' cheaper' plan that will obviously provide less coverage. I personally don't want to pay one penny into the current failing healthcare system and don't know why anyone would. Michael Moore is desperately trying to paint a pretty picture of this ' successful' event but unfortunately, I am wearing 3-D glasses, not rose colored.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

YES this bill is seriously flawed
and we MUST recognize that MEDICARE for all is the answer
but unless we vote out the Rs, it will never happen

[-] 3 points by CriticalThinker (140) 2 years ago

Well, the elitists wanted Glass Steagall repealed, they wanted tax breaks for moving operations offshore, they wanted their neocon wars, they wanted to tell us to "get a bath, then get a job, in that order", they want to abrogate 1st Amendment rights for the 99%, and on and on and on. Did they think the people wouldn't find another way to maintain a dignified life?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

health care should be free and not dependent on insurance

the middle man is unnecessary

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

if I could use a larger font to say YES
I would

[-] 2 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The decision is now available online:

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

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I was unable to open this pdf. file for some reason. Here is another location to read the decision:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/29/us/29healthcare-scotus-docs.html

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link Teck, can always count on you to have the best information. I read your argument for the Freedom of speech post a few days ago, and no matter what everyone said, you were right on. It is sad that so many people want to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, but they never want to understand that just because you interpret something one way that does not mean everyone else must interpret it the same way. Again thanks for the link. I just got off work so your link will be my first reading of how the bill was interpreted. Which five justices affirmed the bill?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion."

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Every pseudo, political pundit needs to read Tech's link. Maybe then they will recognize that even ROBERTS, C. J. believes that "[t]o an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not metaphysical philosophers. Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 673 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). As we have explained, 'the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take.' South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 449 (1905). The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this understanding. There is no reason to depart from that understanding now."

Love it or hate it, but dem da rules.

Sourced from Tech's Link.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Roberts started out with a little civics lesson that a lot of people here would benefit from reading.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I don't understand.

Is it good that SCOTUS upheld the mandate?

Is it bad that SCOTUS didn't uphold withholding of fed medicaid contribution to a state if that state does not implement the medicaid expansion part of Obamacare?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Valid questions. Another:

Is it good that the rejection of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause could be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws?

Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Haven't we used the right of congress to pass taxes to justify Social Security, Medicare, and so forth. Seems tried and true. Commerce clause was always a stretch I've heard but I don't understand all this legal mumbo jumbo.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

The programs you mentioned are NON - PROFIT. Big, big difference !!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Agreed. non profit is different than private for profit. But the use of tax policy to provide a benefit (SS, Medicare) or incentivize the use of a benefit (private health insurance) I suppose is close enough to be constitutional.

I think we should just remove the fica cap (maybe cut the fica tax for under $50K annual income) so wealthy people pay more, also tax every fin transaction and cap gains income over 100K to pay for medicare for all. Just eliminate the private ins industry their gauging is crushing American families and business.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

My concern is that a for-profit system is going to have shareholders expecting a return on their investments and insurance companies finding clever ways to accommodate that expectation, exploiting this windfall, while paying their executives exorbitant salaries. They've sure done it before. Corporations are all about the money! Greed is why HC is so expensive. We're #1 in cost - #37 in care. The ACA does nothing to address culture; the delivery system, or remove the vampires that INCREASE our HC costs.

Watch the videos on these pages, for some good ideas on culture and the delivery system:

http://www.dylanratigan.com/2012/04/10/spend-less-get-more-the-best-solution-for-any-health-network/

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/dylan-ratigan-show/46997529#47880533

Besides, do you realize how many people that are living paycheck to paycheck, in this economy, with declining wages, that cannot afford health insurance, but will be deemed "making enough", thereby having to pay a penalty or tax (and receive nothing for the tax). Everyone's debt and expenses are different. The way I see it - It's a blow to the middle class.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Major improvements are required. not the least of which is real universal coverage.public option and elimination of private health insurance corps.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

One possible rationalization for the individual mandate was the Commerce Clause, based on the idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make you buy something when it says:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

That concept was shot down in the ruling, when the court said, 'no, the penalty is really just a tax, and Congress can levy a new tax if it wants.'

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

So when I pay my compulsory auto insurance in California, I'm really paying a tax?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The part that's a tax is the penalty for not having insurance. It's a tax that you can avoid by complying with the requirement. I dont know about acalifornia, but in Florida, the penalty for not having auto insurance is losing the driving privilege, not a fine.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

That much I got but they still upheld the mandate based on it being seen as a tax. (guess the 1% corp health insurers are happy!)

The medicaid expansion in the ACA was struck down? Or SCOTUS decision allows states to opt out without losing all of their fed medicaid funds. So that could kill the funding mechanism and maybe the bill. No?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It allows the states to opt out of expanding Medicaid to cover more poor people. It won't kill the bill. Even if the bill isn't financially sustainable (debatable, obviously) it still stands. That's why fiscal conservatives are so worried about the true cost of the bill. There will be a lot of new debate now over the true cost.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I have seen some non partisan statements that the bill saves money. I suppose it is so massive and somewhat in the future that it is hard to say.

I believe that more people covered should cut expensive ER costs. Which should cut down on some medicaid/medicare cost shifting by Hospitals to make up for uncovered ER care.

Really everyone should have insurance (I prefer cheaper public insurance) Otherwise you are being irresponsible and kinda free loadish.

And I think private insurance charges so much more because there has to be profit, high exec payroll, advertising. and so forth. Get rid of private ins industry. it's crippling American families and business.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Now would be a good time to have all of the good ideas that the GOP insisted on being in the Affordable Care Act, removed. Then they could include them in the Replacement Affordable Care Act that they have been talking about.and they can run on that package.

That should get rid of most of them, the GOP members of Congress, I mean.

No doubt it would improve the ACA if those provisions were removed. I watched the markup sessions on CSPAN and it wasn't a pretty sight.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

SCOTUS put the penalty back on?

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Wouldn't you know it. Obama is taking credit for the health care bill.

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

Wonderful. Now, all we need is $1,760,000,000,000.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

the non-partisan evaluation of the whole bill says it will save money

but I'm sure your fox numbers are more accurate

[-] 1 points by Justoneof99 (80) 2 years ago

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) updated estimates of the budgetary effects of the health insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), March 2012. Save money? Are you kidding?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Yes they did uphold the tax on the middle-class. More extraction !! But don't even consider raising taxes on the rich.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

it's not a tax

it's a private to private insurance companies

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Read the ruling.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

from Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion:

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.

[-] 0 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Funny, yesterday it was a fine.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

Why can't we sign a waiver, so as to not have personal mandated healthcare? Then this mandate would be fair, but it wouldn't be a mandate, but more of a suggestion.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

we cant do that because the house and the senate and the president and the supreme court specify the law of the land The uninsured who get medical care today
do you know who pays for their care? do you?

[-] 1 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

Yeah, taxes that I already pay not additional taxes coming in 2015.

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It is just a suggestion. That's why it was upheld. There are no criminal penalties or anything else for not carrying health insurance. But there is a tax for people who don't carry health insurance. It's not a criminal offense. You just have to pay the IRS like any other tax.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A mandate is a suggestion? It is more than a suggestion if a penalty is assessed. Based on this ruling, Congress could mandate the purchase of almost anything, and all who did not comply would pay a penalty.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

"... Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance."

[-] 1 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

Thank you for informative reply. It seems a game of semantics. Money out of my pocket for not buying something is money out of my pocket. If my religion does not allow me to use western doctors, thus not needing the insurance, will I get taxed extra because of my faith's restriction?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Does anybody not see that as regulations increase, our freedoms decrease? At the present rate of government encroachment, we will not be able to take a single step, draw a breath of air, or speak a sentence without bumping into the wall of legislation that encircles us ever more tightly.

The very laws meant to protect us have become the cell walls of the prison we call Democracy.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

This will absolutely galvanize the right for the election and it will hurt Democrats for years to come. Medical care is about to become scarce, rationed and political.

If you're a white male you'd better start saving up for that hip replacement now. :)

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"white male"? What does race, or gender have to do with it.?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

He'll need that hip replacement from the long years of having his head buried up his ass.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO!!!! That's good.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

"Medical care is about to become scarce, rationed and political."

Medical care is already scarce, rationed and fully available only to those who can afford it. And since this law regulates insurance, not control health care, health care is not politicized by it.

[-] 1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Hey, it survived, you don't have to pretend anymore! You are going to live the dream. :)

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Unfortunately, the Medicaid provision, which was critical in making the law more universal in coverage, was struck down. The middle class benefits, but not the poor.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28253) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is a start - a work in progress - much needs fixing/improving - the 1st step has been taken - now we need to continue to push forward.

Address this issue and all others like the movetoamend - remove corpoRAT personhood State by State campaign.

Move to amend is building up steam.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

No, only the part where the federal government can punish a state for not expanding Medicaid by withholding all funds was struck down. The federal government can still punish a state by withholding new funds, but not all funding.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The problem is, it doesn't force the states to expand Medicaid. Withholding new funding is no incentive to expand coverage for for the poor.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Yes, the states now have an opt-out from Medicaid expansion.

[-] 0 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Well, it never was about coverage really, any incidental delivery of health care is just that. Just think, we'll all have a government counselor now!

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28253) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hey - epa1nter - good to see you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Thanks, DKA. Goo to see you, too. I'll PM you later.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28253) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You have been missed.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Do you know anything about this law?
Or do you get your brian from fox

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Fox has never offered any Brians to my knowledge but I don't watch TV news so I don't really know. If you hear of them passing out any Saras, let me know! Luv me some Saras! :)

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

There you are.

I believe your question has been answered. Sotomayor = Roberts.

Obama = Romney.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

brilliant evaluation
I would add santa claus = easter bunny
and
up = down
and
fox = accuracy

[-] -1 points by JusticeF0rTrayvon (-58) 2 years ago

And you = smart.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Maybe now it is time to really learn about ObamacareS.

[-] -1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 2 years ago

John Roberts vote saved it. Does this mean you'll shut up about Repubs and Supreme Court nominees?

[-] 5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

nope. they saved the right wing gift to corp 1% health ins industry. The progressives caved in and gave up the better approach of single payer/public option. So SCOTUS is still right wing tool.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

If SCOTUS was RW you freakin idiot, they would have voted it down.

Without going into all caps.....for the millionth time....CORPORATISM/FASCISM is neither l or r !!!@!!!!1!!!!!!!!

Wtf is the matter with you idiots that you cannot get your simple minds out of l vs r thinking!!!!!!!!!!

It is destroying our ability to think, to reform, to DO ANYTHING~!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

insults=weak arguments. The political spectrum (Left and right) is simply a method of illustrating the variety of political thinking. It has been with us as long as humans have interacted. To suggest L & R does not exist is dishonest. Sorry. That denial prevents recognition of the problem and therefore any reform/progress. Our problems are rooted in the 1% getting all their right wing policies passed, and the weakness of the left/progressive movement. If we (OWS) can contribute to the resurrection of a left/progressive movement we can replace/repeal right wing policies with progressive policies. In the case of Health care that means a single payer/public option. Please stop bullying people who simply disagree with you.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Listen, there is difference between being frustrated with a very shallow thinking public and bullying.

Governments have been dividing people since, well, almost ever. Most issues are not black and white, l vs r, right vs wrong, good vs evil.

But that is how they frame them, because when the public thinks in that very shallow manner, it is very easy to control their emotions, which is the main goal of government-managing public opinion- in order to maintain their control.

Most things political have a wide variety of solutions, and the fact they divide us in a nice line in the sand on all of them is very telling....typical power tactics.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Wow! You are so generous in educating me. Thanks. I would add (in my generosity) When you call people idiots it simply reflects your inability to handle opposing opinions. No issues will be resolved if people w/ different views can't communicate in a civil way.

"most issues are not good and evil" ok. But good and evil exist right? And guess what! the political spectrum (which simply illustrates the views that define public interaction) has NOT been rescinded! L & R do exist. We disagree!

In the case of health care" the Left wants a public option for all people! The right wants private insurance for those that can afford it, the right also attacks and wants to eliminate any health insurance programs (medicaid, medicare) for those who cannot afford private insurance.

Sorry I see that real difference as generous/fair (left) and selfish/greedy (right). I see that as good (left) & evil (right). How do you see it.? Is some shadowy govt agency trying to get me to see things that way? Or are things that way? Please refrain from name calling.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Listen, Im not saying that l vs ri doesnt exist. Of course it does. And its by design.

Your reactions to the rights views are just as skewed as the rights reactions to universal healthcare.

Healthcare, like every other issue in this idiotic, divided country, has multiple sides to it, multiple solutions, and a ton of ways we can make the system better.

But like everything else, you are either on the D side of the R side. And the conversation is never about what your own side is doing, its always about what the other one is doing (the enemy). Its very predictable and it is VERY hard for a nation to imporve this way.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

(My side) Dems have moved right for 30 years! They have betrayed their progressive principle! They have lost their backbone in standing up to the right, they have caved in and voted for right wing policies. And this is at the root of our problems. Weak progressive/left movement to prevent right wing policies that benefit the 1%. This is me stating honestly the weakness of "my own side"! Furthermore part of the lefts weakness comes from the apathy of the people of the left. We've been demoralized for 30 years. The left wing politicians have been abandoned by its supporters and those pols have simple been bought off.

If there is a strong progressive movement (OWS?) we may give the left a backbone again. We may drag politicians back to the left. But we must grow, be clear about what we believe. Get money out of politics, end citizens united, end corp personhood. and protest/pressure all pols to pass progressive policies.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Again, you are confusing fascists/corporatist policy with conservative policy.

There is nothing conservative about corps partnering with the gov. There is nothing conservative about banking screwing us all, and then bailing them out.

The majority on the right tends to confuse corporatism with the left, just like you but vise versa. Its by design.

The minute the people realize that they have all been being played by this l vs r thing, and start pointing a collective finger at the entire gov in general, is the day the gov wakes up and says Oh shit!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

The repubs betrayed their conservative principle when they created and passed the bank bail outs. But that was just them giving their constituents a last minute financial gift (later to be recovered through political contribution). Dems naturally support corp regulations and higher corp taxes (when they don't betray their progressive principles). Repubs are naturally against corp regulations and ligher corp taxes. That should make it clear for you. We must get the dems to not betray the preferable progressive approach. Put whatever label on it you want.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Dammit. You really do pay attention, VQ.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

But it still is a political victory for Dems. I always felt that the Dems compromised on this critical issue in order to get our foot in the door. I believe they already have plans to get us to a single payer/public option. So the work goes on.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

BUt it is still better than if it were struck down. Right wing tool or not, tens of millions more people will soon be able to have health coverage now. (If Romney doesn't win the election and repeal the law as he promised).

Like you, I would have preferred the single payer option, but this is still a vast improvement over doing nothing. There is a very, very long way to go, but the road is measured in individual steps, and this was one such step in the right direction: millions of more people getting affordable health care. Maybe the glass is still half empty, but it was 3/4 empty before today.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I agree completely. We got our foot in the door with this health care law. I believe the dems will continue to attempt to implement some sort of public option.

In fact this law expands medicaid in order to cover more people. This SCOTUS decision actually takes a hit at this portion of the law (since it does not enrich right wing 1% insurance corps) But I suppose there is a plan to prevent the gutting of medicaid (public option) expansion. We'll see.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The expansion of Medicaid was essentially struck down by Roberts. The ruling made mandating states to expand coverage virtually unenforceable.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Something will have to be done. Haven't heard what the strategy is. But they only have a year or so. definitely have to do something next session.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

We're stuck with it now. Obama proposed it; congress passed it, and the SC blessed it. Good luck getting that changed. We must obey or pay.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Medicare for all! Tax the wealthy and big corps. to pay for it.!

[-] 4 points by MaryS (678) 2 years ago

Maybe when hell freezes over

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LOL. Agreed!

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

When they overturn the corporate personhood from Santa Clara County.

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

I am having an iconoclastic moment. Hyperventilation. Got a paper bag?

Did Roberts cave to InsCos pressure because they need the mandate? Did he choose that over politics?

Or could it be that he was honest. I said long ago it was easily legal if you call it a tax. But apparently that was a political decision to call it a penalty rather than tax.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the dems passed the bill in congress

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

thank you for asking
NO
Mussolini made the trains run on time

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Does it let them off the hook for every other horrible decision they have made in lock step so far? One single rebulitard got it partially right and that lets the the other four off the hook? In your dreams. Btw, Roberts and the other four also struck down the one single provision that would help the poor - increased mandatory medicaid coverage. With one more democrat-appointed judge on the court, that provision would have stayed. (And we wouldn't have Citizens United, The destruction of class action, strip searches allowed for jaywalking, and so on.)