We can parse this throughout the day, but the Supreme Court just shared their decision on Obamacare and, roughly speaking, they:
- Upheld the individual mandate (and Chief Justice John Roberts, who was expected to rule against it, did not).
- Ruled that the Medicaid provision is limited, but not invalidated.
- For the most part, upheld the Affordable Care Act.
Whew!
There’s more, but I invite you to be careful if you’re following Twitter as the reports are all over the map. (As I’m watching C-SPAN I’m listening a woman shout into a microphone that “This. Is. Not. Over.” Good enough.)
Regardless, some 26 million Americans remain uninsured.
Onward, to a brighter tomorrow.
Dating Jesus 
I’m pleasantly surprised but very happy! Now let’s move it forward to those 26 Million!
Preeeeecisely. I still like ol’ Leftover’s idea: All in. Nobody out.
Not my idea.
I just think HR 676 is one way to realize that idea.
The PNHP response to the SCOTUS ruling today.
I just may steal this and make it a blog entry.
I’m a big fan of Don McCanne, MD. at the PNHP blog.
His reaction to The Supreme Court decision is a good companion to the press release…I think.
But…then…my people never have been big on incrementalism.
“The Court holds that the Anti-Injunction Act doesn’t apply because the label “tax” is not controlling.” Amy Howe
Kiss that DVD goodbye.
Mainly I guess I’m glad that The Loyal Opposition (that’s a joke) won’t have a turnover to use in their campaigning. As little as I understand about all of this, the plan isn’t good enough and I also still like ol’ Leftover’s idea.
For those among you who are either terribly interested in the exact details of the opinion, or not wanting to rely upon the media’s spins and interpretations (my guess is that Fox and others will turn themselves into pretzels spinning this), or if you are glutton for punishment (193 pages worth), here is a link (including dissents, etc.) to the Court’s decision today in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT
BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., aka the “Obamacare” decision.
I’m going to wait for a little help. Especially with the “a tax is a tax except when it’s not a tax” ruling on the AIA issue.
In the meantime, I’m allowing myself a fairly broad grin thinking about the prodigious pucker to some person’s privates caused by Roberts’ defection to The Left.
And I get to giggle a little about The Tea Party Networks’ “Dewey Defeats Truman” moments.
Sometimes it’s the little victories that keep you going….
I’ve said it before: It really is the little things.
After reading some more analyses the bloom has gone off my grin over Roberts…but I still got “Dewey Defeats Truman” to hold onto.
Did you see where CNN took a beating for tweeting (hate that word) early on that the ACA had been overturned? It took them maybe three minutes to say “Nevermind,” but yeesh.
Yeah…and the C-Span announcer kept calling Medicaid “Medicare” so I turned that one off.
I’ve been cruising through comment boxes and there’s a whole lot of general and misanthropic bullroar out there right now. It’s like a septic backup in the yard. Everything looks okay from the driveway…until you get your sneakers into it.
I’m still…aggregating…but don’t let anybody tell you Roberts didn’t know what he was doing.
I’ve been contemplating that, myself. Is he seeking to hand the November elections to his compatriots, by calling the fine a tax? Hmmm…politics is ugly.
Not just the November elections. He could be looking waaay past that. The way he avoided the Commerce Clause argument and the Necessary and Proper Clause argument, (is that a rejection?), and wound up with a definition of a tax not applicable within the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act…could…and…you know…I’m not a lawyer…cause some serious issues with the authority Congress uses to pass social welfare laws. Laying the foundation for real problems down the line…like what happened in Hosanna-Tabor.
But…I’m still aggregating…and I’m so paranoid….
Gutting the Commerce Clause is definitely a possible motive.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html
Oh, hell.
That’s about the size of it.
And the “win” on policy may not even be that great if Teapublicans spend the next two years chewing the ACA up piece by piece.
I just got to this sentence: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
REALLY? Isn’t it? Sounds like sour grapes from the dissenters to me. This is far from over. The battle will be renewed in 2015 when the first shared responsibility penalties are collected. And before that, in the November election, assuming Mittens continues to promise to repeal.
Mittens? Bring it.
Perfect. Thank you.
I freely admit that I might not understand properly what posters to this blog are meaning to say.
And, no, I do not trust Chief Justice Roberts. I think that, maybe, just maybe, he has a long-term agenda in mind (he being a rather young man with a LOT of expected time on the Court), he is setting up a long-term strategy for the rise of states rights (meaning, frankly, a lot of incredibly bad laws) at the expense of a cohesiveness of the United States… Sort of like Cessation from the Union many years ago….. But…
When he says “It is not our [the Supreme Court’s] job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” he is correct.
When he says “We [the Supreme Court] do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions” he is correct.