Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, June 28, 2012

Supreme Court upholds key part of Obama health law

June 28, 2012, 9:25 a.m. Updated June 28, 2012, 11:12 a.m.

Advertisement

— The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the vast majority of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, including the hotly debated core requirement that virtually all Americans have health insurance.

The 5-4 decision means the huge overhaul, still taking effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care.

The ruling hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in approving the plan. However, Republicans quickly indicated they will try to use the decision to rally their supporters against what they call "Obamacare."

Claire McAndrew of Washington, left, and Donny Kirsch of Washington, celebrate outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012, after the courts's ruling on health care.

Claire McAndrew of Washington, left, and Donny Kirsch of Washington, celebrate outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012, after the courts's ruling on health care.

William Temple, of Brunswick, Ga., waits outside the Supreme Court a landmark decision on health care on Thursday, June 28, 2012 in Washington.

William Temple, of Brunswick, Ga., waits outside the Supreme Court a landmark decision on health care on Thursday, June 28, 2012 in Washington.

Stocks of hospital companies rose sharply, and insurance companies fell immediately after the decision was announced that Americans must carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

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

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

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

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

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

Kennedy summarized the dissent in court. "In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety," he said.

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

In all, the justices spelled out their views in six opinions totaling 187 pages. Roberts, Kennedy and Ginsburg spent 57 minutes summarizing their views in the packed courtroom.

The legislation passed Congress in early 2010 after a monumental struggle in which all Republicans voted against it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Thursday the House will vote the week of July 9 on whether to repeal the law, though such efforts have virtually no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has joined in calls for complete repeal.

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

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

Democrats said Romney, who backed an individual health insurance mandate when he was Massachusetts governor, will have a hard time exploiting the ruling.

"Mitt Romney is the intellectual godfather of Obamacare," said Democratic consultant Jim Manley. "The bigger issue is the rising cost of health care, and this bill is designed to deal with it."

More than eight in 10 Americans already have health insurance. But for most of the 50 million who are uninsured, the ruling offers the promise of guaranteed coverage at affordable prices. Lower-income and many middle-class families will be eligible for subsidies to help pay premiums starting in 2014.

There's also an added safety net for all Americans, insured and uninsured. Starting in 2014, insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for medical treatment, nor can they charge more to people with health problems. Those protections, now standard in most big employer plans, will be available to all, including people who get laid off, or leave a corporate job to launch their own small business.

Seniors also benefit from the law through better Medicare coverage for those with high prescription costs, and no copayments for preventive care. But hospitals, nursing homes, and many other service providers may struggle once the Medicare cuts used to finance the law really start to bite.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to the new insurance coverage under the law, and will remain one of the biggest groups uninsured.

Obama's law is by no means the last word on health care. Experts expect costs to keep rising, meaning that lawmakers will have to revisit the issue perhaps as early as next year, when federal budget woes will force them to confront painful options for Medicare and Medicaid, the giant federal programs that cover seniors, the disabled, and low-income people.

The health care overhaul focus will now quickly shift from Washington to state capitals. Only 14 states, plus Washington, D.C., have adopted plans to set up the new health insurance markets called for under the law. Called exchanges, the new markets are supposed to be up and running on Jan. 1, 2014. People buying coverage individually, as well as small businesses, will be able to shop for private coverage from a range of competing insurers.

Most Republican-led states, including large ones such as Texas and Florida, have been counting on the law to be overturned and have failed to do the considerable spade work needed to set up exchanges. There's a real question about whether they can meet the deadline, and if they don't, Washington will step in and run their exchanges for them.

In contrast to the states, health insurance companies, major employers, and big hospital systems are among the best prepared. Many of the changes called for in the law were already being demanded by employers trying to get better value for their private health insurance dollars.

"The main driver here is financial," said Dr. Toby Cosgrove, CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, which has pioneered some of the changes. "The factors driving health care reform are not new, and they are not going to go away."

Justice Ginsburg said the court should have upheld the entire law as written without forcing any changes in the Medicaid provision. She said Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce supports the individual mandate. She warned that the legal reasoning, even though the law was upheld, could cause trouble in future cases.

"So in the end, the Affordable Health Care Act survives largely unscathed. But the court's commerce clause and spending clause jurisprudence has been set awry. My expectation is that the setbacks will be temporary blips, not permanent obstructions," Ginsburg said in a statement she, too, read from the bench.

Comments

Alyosha 1 year, 9 months ago

It's simply incorrect, and evidence of ignorance of our country's history, and specifically the actions of the Founders, to believe and assert that the Federal government has not now, nor ever asserted, such power to compell citizens of the States to purchase something.

To believe so is to assert that you have a better understanding of the Constitution and a better understanding of the powers of the Federal government than they who fought the Revolutionary War and instituted the United States Constitution.

I respectfully suggest that George Washington had a better understanding than you with regard to what the Founders intended and with regard to the powers of the Federal government.

For instance, Congress enacted, and George Washington signed, an act mandating that "every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder."

Moreover, "In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...] Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams."

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

Everyone is free to disagree with the policies enacted in the PPACA, but to assert that it is an unprecedented power grab, or unconstitutional, or something only Hitler would like, puts you firmly in opposition to the Founding generations' understanding of the Federal government's power.

Between George Washington and those who think they know better than he about the meaning of the Constitution and the powers therein, forgive me if I don't give credence to you, but rather give my credence to President Washington's actions and insights.

0

jjinks 1 year, 9 months ago

How in the hell do any of you that are for this know what you are talking about? Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what is in it, what kind of leadership are you folks willing to follow? When your parents get old and they tell you "well they are too old to contribute to society anymore so they are dead" let's hear how damn much you like it then. The goverment just took complete control of your life and you're all for it? I guess the dumbing down of America has been completed and we will be considered a Socialist country from now on until Comunism takes complete control. The old saying "watch out what you wish for" has come true and you are about to find out what and who you have voted for. We just lost our Supreme Court and now what do we have to keep us from going down to the kind of society only Hitler would want? This is a dark day in America and you all will soon find out why. Your life as you know it has changed forever. You don't even know what is in this unconstitutional law but you're soon going to be reading the whole 3000 pages word for word.

0

deec 1 year, 9 months ago

I've received 4 robo-calls from the Citizen-United funded astro-turf pro-Mitt anti-Health-Care propaganda forces since the decision yesterday. These people must be desperate and desperately well-funded.

1

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

This tax on people who refuse to have health insurance, is just a freeloader tax. The rich who don't' have insurance can afford the tax, and the ones who just run to the ER for free care, will have to get a cheaper car and take care of themselves for a change. It cracks me up that conservatives talk about personal responsibility, but they think it's ok that we have to continue paying for the health care of people who would rather buy a fancy car than buy health insurance.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

The firebreathing GOP "leadership" are displaying intemperance, red-faced anger, and blind hatred.

People are tired of this nonsense. The GOP may pander to their 25% base with their apoplectic ranting, but most people want to move on and see this SCOTUS decision as confirming the ACA law and settling the matter.

1

hotmess 1 year, 9 months ago

I think Roberts strategy is brilliant...... thinking of the quote, 'give them enough rope to hang themself'

20 trillion debt by 2016. Sounds OK.

0

Linda Endicott 1 year, 9 months ago

Oops...I meant 1% of 0 is still 0...

0

Linda Endicott 1 year, 9 months ago

What if someone has no income? 0% of 0 is still 0...

I mean someone who is an adult but a dependent of someone else...they don't do taxes every year...would the person who has them as a dependent be liable for buying the insurance? Or the person themselves?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 9 months ago

The prognosis from the model in Massachusetts isn't promising for "those that can afford it." I believe all we need to do is look at all of the other Government programs that are so successful. Not one Government program has cost what they said it would....always more just as it did in Massachusetts. No Government program ever ends the Government just keeps getting bigger without any concern for cost.

"Spending per member year for privately insured health care services in Massachusetts grew faster than spending in either Medicare or MassHealth from 2007 to 2008. The sharp acceleration in spending for privately insured services from 2008 to 2009 indicates that the difference between private and public spending growth rates may be widening further." - Massachusetts Division of Health Care Finance and Policy • June 2011

The cost will rise for Middle class Americans. They will be trapped and all it does is line the pockets of the Insurance corporations and they know that the "people who can afford it" will pay. They're pigeon holed. They make too much money for the subsidized health care and due to the Government's mandate their costs will rise. What is happening in Mass will happen nation wide.

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/docs/dhcfp/cost-trend-docs/cost-trends-docs-2011/health-expenditures-report.pdf

0

Topple 1 year, 9 months ago

So why is it being prohibited that women pay higher rates than men? Does this mean that Obama will be stopping auto insurance companies from charging men higher premiums? I'm pretty sure Insurance is a safeguard against risk, and insurance companies specialize in setting prices on assuming the risk of covering an individual. Should someone who is expected to cost insurance companies X dollars pay the same premium as someone expected to cost 1.5X, or 2X?

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

Jesus, the GOP firebreathing is just amazing. They are apoplectic. I keep expecting them to lapse into speaking in tongues.

Much of what is being said by the GOP "leadership" is intemperate, embarrassing, and below their offices as elected officials. Conservative? I think not.

There are about 25% of Americans who eat this up and get similarly apoplectic.

I really believe the other 75% are sick of arguing over the ACA, see this SCOTUS decision as confirmatory and final, and want to move on to more pressing issues such as the economy.

0

purplesage 1 year, 9 months ago

All three branches of our federal government have now acted contrary to the will of the people whose votes elected them and whose tax dollars pay thier salary. It is time to clean house in Washington - but do we have replacements?

And our Kansas Insurance Commissioner, singing the praises of ObamaCare needs to be replaced, too.

0

Armored_One 1 year, 9 months ago

The problem isn't the cost of health insurance.

The problem is the cost of health care.

Maybe doing something about paying a couple of bucks for an aleve in the hospital, as opposed to paying a couple of bucks for a small bottle of aleve at wally-world would go a lot further to addressing the problem.

But as I am sure someone, or even possibly multiple people, will point out, I obviously don't know what I am talking about.

0

Mike Ford 1 year, 9 months ago

before this ruling I wrote a lte to the UDK when Mr. Roberts came to the Lied Center assailing him for his misinformation to the justices when he was a clerk involved the City of Sherill V. Oneida Indian Nation case about a decade ago. Those people wrongly assumed he had knowledge about Indian law because of his work in the Venetie case as an attorney for the State of Alaska and he misinformed them about aboriginal land claims in New York State thinking they were the same there as they were in Alaska. They are not the same due to the Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act of 1972. He told the justices to not pay attention to the violations of the Indian Non Intercourse Act of 1790 in the early 19th century by New York State and dismiss the assertions by the Oneida Nation because they'd waited too long to sue. Ironically these tribes were not allowed to sue from 1790 to 1973 due to the immunity from lawsuit that the offending states of Maine, Connecticut, New York, and South Carolina enjoyed until the US Government joined the tribes to sue the states for violating the 1790 act mentioned above. When Mr. Roberts wrongly informed Justice Ginsberg on the info above all that was said following was let congress fix it. He and Scalia and Alito and Thomas love screwing over tribal interests. The Prairie Band Pottawatomi Nation was a victim of their treatment in the Wagnon V. PBPN gas tax case some years ago. It's laughable that he passed this in order to hang the tax moniker on Mr. Obama. Burning down the building to save the yard no less......

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 9 months ago

Quotes from today:
CNN: "Mandate Struck Down"
Van Summers (on Twitter): "SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this Commie country. I'm going to Canada."
Michele Bachmann: "The SCOTUS decision on Obama care was unconstitutional." (I think she wants to buy Civics lessons.)

1

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 1 year, 9 months ago

"R_I, isn't it a little hot to be fishing today?" - autie

I guess sorta. Only one nibble, and no bite until the sun went down and it cooled off.

0

Carol Bowen 1 year, 9 months ago

"Insurance companies recorded their largest quarterly net gains of the past 10 years since the law was signed in 2010, said Peter Gosselin, the author of the study and senior health care analyst for Bloomberg government.

During that time, the Standard and Poor's 500 Managed Health-Care Index went up 36 percent."

If the insurance companies are making record profits, why did their stock go down today?

0

pace 1 year, 9 months ago

We have been picking up the tabs for those who can afford insurance and don't buy it. Most of them walk away when a bill surprises them. This is a win, for the tax payers, for the people who paid insurance and suddenly were kicked off for a multitude of "excuses" for people who change employers, for small business. For a healthier American workforce. Win, win. win.

2

ssteve1 1 year, 9 months ago

So, here it is. Another "choice". Will you buy health care OR will you buy health care? Freedom of choice. Oh, goodie.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

For another reason, I give high praise to the Supreme Court. Two major decisions announced this week, and not a single leaked "inside source" giving us the information ahead of time. We truly didn't know until the court released the information. Good for them! Other branches of government should pay attention to this example of doing the right thing.

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

Before today, I believed tha Justice Roberts was a pawn of the right wing.

I am eating crow today.

I came to believe that our nation has been invaded by a plague of dumb people and it is similar to the plagues mentioned in the Bible. Today Judge Roberts gave me hope.

For years, decades, I listened to the right wing talk show celebrities and believed their BS, but eventually I realized that they were wrong and that did not effect the gazillions they were making from my stupidity.

I hope that all Americans wake up and realize that the politicians have become literal slaves of the system. We are the only ones who are still frree.

Reject their billiion dollar ad campaigns. Vote for America. Vote for Freedom. Let them know you cannot be bought.

You are a PROUD American.

1

Mike Ford 1 year, 9 months ago

I've heard waaaaaaaaaagh from the archie bunkers all day......awwwwwww... I've heard KMBZ all day waaaaaaaagh.........waaaaaaaagh......

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

I wonder if down the line somewhere, if the powers determine that your healthcare costs are say $200/week and your unemployment check is $350/week. Since you are required to own health insurance, and the government controls your check, I wonder if the deduction is automatically made? I dont know much about this yet, but nothing seems to add up for those who don't already have a policy and need one.

I would think someone with a pre exhisting condition has mixed joy in that they now can get the insurance they need, but take a huge pay cut to get it.

I can not imagine this not costing everyone around $800/month. Not many people I know have that much extra at the end of the month.

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 9 months ago

Scalia should resign. He is unfit for the Supreme Court.

2

Satirical 1 year, 9 months ago

I wonder if ObamaCare will eventually go down as the largest tax increase in US history.

President Obama - before he was just good at spending, but now it is clear he is a true liberal (tax and spend).

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

I just left a post, but it doesn't appear. I will try to respond to booyalab again, but if it shows up twice, I apologize. Anyway ...

Booyalab, you are incorrect. While I cannot speak for all liberals, I know that I certaintly recognized the healthcare law as a form of tax prior to today and I am definetly a liberal. This is what I wrote back on April 7: "I'm not a judge, so I honestly can't say for sure. I do know, however, that I must pay taxes. Taxes are clearly an example of the government telling me what to do with my money. Does it matter if I give them the money to buy what they want me to have for "my own good" then if they tell me to pay for it directly? This notion of the government not telling me what to do with my money except in the case of buying insurance is laughable. They do so all the time.

Of course, the purchase of insurance is a bit different, but in the end, it is just another tax. From what I can tell, taxes are constitutional. That is how it can be legal ... maybe.

Again, I am glad it is going to the Supreme Court. Let them settle it." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/apr/07/health-care-case-has-democrats-reeling/#c2014024

So you see, booyalab, you are wrong. No need to continue to repeat that false claim.

0

JackMcKee 1 year, 9 months ago

The problem with this country is that totally clueless, kneejerk, partisan ideologues like Lateralis can vote.

1

booyalab 1 year, 9 months ago

So liberals, if the Obamacare tax isn't so bad.....why were you all so insistent that it wasn't a tax before today?

0

tbaker 1 year, 9 months ago

The 2012 election is now the 2010 election redux. The democrats thought passing ObamaCare was going to give them a boost in 2010. A lot of independants and swing voters hated this law then and now they are really going to be energized.

0

BornAgainAmerican 1 year, 9 months ago

This opens up a whole 'nuther can of worms. In the simplest terms, the mandate could not be enforced through the commerce clause, but the mandate can be enfroced as a tax. I think Obama just stumbled onto another tool to advance his Socialist agenda. Will there now be a mandate to eat healthy with taxes being levied if you don't (Because "it's the right thing to do")? Since we are now in the business of taxing behaviors that this administration considers "the right thing to do" where will it stop? Will it stop?

0

Liberty_One 1 year, 9 months ago

Well, congratulations folks, your buddies at the insurance companies will get their government handout. Oh? You didn't realize this isn't "free" healthcare but just a huge handout to Big Insurance Companies? Silly rabbit, don't you know who wrote this bill?

0

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 1 year, 9 months ago

"At least maybe I won't have my premiums assaulted so much on an annual basis to help cover the cost of all the uninsureds that walk through the door of the local ER.....why shouldn't they pay if they can? and why shouldn't we cover them if the can't?" - autie

If you look at when health care cost started it's exponential climb, it is in 1965.

What started out as a program to provide dialysis blossomed in to Medicare. How was Medicare structured? To imitate private comprehensive health insurance. No other expense is financed trough a bloated and extremely complex and expensive system of insurance, private or governmental. A health insurance mandate will just continue to feed the problem. Health insurance is the problem, both private and government. Methods to control costs will fail because there is a disconnect between what is provided and how it is paid for.

There is no competitive pressure to keep costs in line.

2

tbaker 1 year, 9 months ago

After actually reading the opinion, one really interesting thing is the court did hold that States CAN opt-out of the huge MEDICARE expansion required in ObamaCare. If a State opts-out, and refuses to pony-up the State's portion of the MEDICARE expansion, then ObamaCare is just not going to happen in that state. Kansas joined the lawsuite against ObamaCare, so it's pretty easy to figure out which way our state will likely go.

What vexes me is the largest tax in the history of the world is now supposed to be paid by the people who can least afford to pay it - the people without health insurance. The very people Mr. Obama claims he is trying to help are going to be so screwed by this.

With just 133 days to go to the election, I can not imagine something that would so enflame and galvanize opposition to the Mr. Obama. This SCOTUS decision is going to end up hurting his campaign.

2

DillonBarnes 1 year, 9 months ago

I wish I could take solace in knowing that this was the end of all this, but I know it's not. I'm already sick of the "he said it wasn't a tax" arguments. They will stick to that argument for years and repeat it over and over again. You can argue the merit of the law, or if you're not smart enough, you can keep saying, "he said it wasn't a tax."

3

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 9 months ago

My 'mistake'. Flex in a complex intellectual nuanced manner said Obamacare "is not a tax".

0

Richard Payton 1 year, 9 months ago

On MSN.com the poll ask, Do you think the Supreme Court made the right ruling? The poll showed 60 percent, no 30 percent yes, and the rest unsure. I voted yes. This issue is far from over and I'll let the journalist explain why for the next few days.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

Man, I feel sorry for part timers, contract labor, and for the many full time employees on the verge of being fired. Be careful what you ask for. If this is not repealed, the only way it can get close to breaking even is by rationing. You will now get to watch your mother die as the rationed care will go to an illegal as they are both equal in the eyes of the government and the illegal has the ability to work and maybe pay taxes.

End of life posters in some cases will be required, regulation of your personal habits as they apply to health costs are on the way. Many things are now an option for big brother to intrude on your personal liberties.

I could care less either way as I pay my own way, but you that are close to paycheck to paycheck, might consider going to the drug store and getting a big jar of vaseline. Say goodbye to your income tax return and many of the other freebies those making less than 80K a year receive.

1

autie 1 year, 9 months ago

At least maybe I won't have my premiums assaulted so much on an annual basis to help cover the cost of all the uninsureds that walk through the door of the local ER.....why shouldn't they pay if they can? and why shouldn't we cover them if the can't?

2

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

So shall we revisit some of the recent predictions on this one???

Glad to see the law found to be constitutional. It looks like our President knows a thing or two about the Constitution after all.

1

somedude20 1 year, 9 months ago

If your car is good enough to insure, then you are as well!

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

Next comes free health care vouchers to buy your insurance for all the moochers.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 1 year, 9 months ago

If you don't buy your own insurance, then there goes your tax return and you will be running from the IRS.

0

observant 1 year, 9 months ago

Here come the fear mongering nutcases posts.

3

Lateralis 1 year, 9 months ago

Every employer that has 50 - 55 employees just laid off 6 employees.

0

Richard Payton 1 year, 9 months ago

Next mandate will be the requirement for all citizens to buy a gun for protection. This was the tripe being aired on 103.7 FM talk radio.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 9 months ago

How are we going to pay for this?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 9 months ago

My Canadian friend needs his MCL repaired. 3 months and still waiting for the surgery. Meh...the government just keeps giving him pain pills.

1

autie 1 year, 9 months ago

R_I, isn't it a little hot to be fishing today?

2

Bob Harvey 1 year, 9 months ago

Well I agree that it will be interesting. For those who have had hundreds of visits to the ER with no thought of payment, welcome to the world of actually paying for your care, albeit small. For those that have complained about not being able to get insurance when they finally have needed it...no worries, you will now have to have it even before you get sick. Isn't that a kick in the shorts?

"For those that like their current insurance, you can keep it". Uh, probably not so much when employers start dropping their coverage since it will be cheaper to have everyone on the government's plan rather than the company's.

Again, interesting times ahead.

0

observant 1 year, 9 months ago

Can't wait to hear from all the GOP/Teabaggers on this forum trying to explain how wrong their predictions were. But I'm sure we will have to wait until they get their blood pressure down and get all the Fox talking points read so they know what to rant about.

4

RETICENT_IRREVERENT 1 year, 9 months ago

So how do I get in on this death panel action?

1

autie 1 year, 9 months ago

My conservative friends will have to sit down and take a deep breath. Then have a popsicle, it is a cool treat on a hot day.

a single payer plan lives unprecedented Dewars bless us all

0

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 9 months ago

This is 'great' news. Now 'everyone' will be taxed instead of the 1%.

0

jhawkinsf 1 year, 9 months ago

Once again, those pundits who think the Supreme Court is bought and sold according to their own preconceived notions have been fooled. The fact is, the court is a diverse group making decisions based on their best and honest interpretations of the Constitution.

4

Liberal 1 year, 9 months ago

Wow, this is going to get interesting... Will it rally the republicans for November.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.