Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the vast majority of the U.S. Affordable Care Act, including the controversial individual mandate.

The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a 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.

Justice Roberts announced the court’s judgment allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The court found problems with the law’s expansion of a health care program for the poor, known as 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.

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

The U.S. healthcare system’s biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years, the law aimed to provide medical insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans and to slow down soaring medical costs. The United States spends more on healthcare than any other nation, but about 50 million of the roughly 310 million Americans have no insurance at all.

Shares of hospital chains jumped on Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.

Hospital company Community Health Systems Inc jumped 10%, while Tenet Healthcare Corp rose almost 11%.

Shares of health insurers were mixed. Large diversified companies such as UnitedHealth Group Inc and WellPoint were off about 1% and 4% respectively, and insurers that specialize in Medicaid, such as Amerigroup Corp , were up more than 4%.

Obama seeks re-election on Nov. 6 against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping the law and replacing it with other measures even though he championed a similar approach at the state level as Massachusetts governor.

Republicans and Democrats alike eagerly awaited the ruling and were sure to try to use the court’s decision to their political advantage in the coming months.

A key component of the law was challenged by 26 of the 50 states and by a trade group for small businesses on the grounds that Congress exceeded its powers under the U.S. Constitution by requiring people to obtain insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.


Obamacare upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court | News | National Post
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Well... now the people will be forced to pay for Health Care. Not the so called "poor" mind you. They have always had Free Health Care. They won't be paying for anything as long as they stay on welfare and this is great incentive to do so.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Please explain what you mean. Thanks.

Okay. The crowning achievement of Obama's health care law was the reducing the population of uninsured Americans (mostly poor people who can't afford it). The last estimate I saw was 30 million. This alone would mean the U.S.'s population would wind up being something like 99% insured. Furthermore, 100 years of established legal precedent in the U.S. says the government has the right and ability to regulate commerce, while the entire history of the U.S. says it's precedent for the government to impose taxation. (Health care is a major part of U.S. commerce, and the law makes use of taxation.)

Faced with that incredible good and established precedent, opponents of the law chose to go with a slippery slope argument, essentially saying if the government can mandate the purchase of health insurance, then they could mandate anything. The slippery slope argument, the same argument wherein it is said if gay people are allowed to marry, then people could be allowed to marry animals or relatives. That argument.


Opposing facts and established law, critics of Obama's health care law offered a slippery slope case.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Okay. The crowning achievement of Obama's health care law was the reducing the population of uninsured Americans (mostly poor people who can't afford it).

Honestly Icaraus... you're not bright. Really.

The POOR PEOPLE HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE!

This "Mandate" will force people who do not have health care and have a job (any job mind you) to buy health care or face a penalty.

Nobody is getting FREE HEALTH CARE unless you are on Welfare... and they always did.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Honestly Icaraus... you're not bright. Really.

The POOR PEOPLE HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE!

This "Mandate" will force people who do not have health care to buy health care or face a penalty.

Nobody is getting FREE HEALTH CARE unless you are on Welfare... and they always did.


The approximately 40 million Americans who were uninsured before Obama's health care law were uninsured because they were poor and couldn't afford it. I'm glad you brought this up because it references another significant achievement of the law: fixing Medicaid, the U.S. government insurance plan for the poor. Why does that need fixing? Because it's definition of "poor" is crazy, and narrow, and that's why you can say with a straight face "POOR PEOPLE HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE".

The truth is only the people who fit the government's narrow definition of "poor" have Medicaid, and Obama's law does the right thing be expanding eligibility for Medicaid. Poor people weren't getting Medicaid because they were unjustly being ruled as not being poor by the government.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The approximately 40 million Americans who were uninsured before Obama's health care law were uninsured because they were poor and couldn't afford it. I'm glad you brought this up because it references another significant achievement of the law: fixing Medicaid, the U.S. government insurance plan for the poor. Why does that need fixing? Because it's definition of "poor" is crazy, and narrow, and that's why you can say with a straight face "POOR PEOPLE HAVE FREE HEALTH CARE".

The truth is only the people who fit the government's narrow definition of "poor" have Medicaid, and Obama's law does the right thing be expanding eligibility for Medicaid. Poor people weren't getting Medicaid because they were unjustly being ruled as not being poor by the government.

Bright one... these "poor people" as you are calling them now are going to have another bill. A nice big bill too. If they don't pay it the government will come after them and make them pay a penalty. What don't you get?
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Bright one... these "poor people" as you are calling them now are going to have another bill. A nice big bill too. If they don't pay it the government will come after them and make them pay a penalty. What don't you get?

I get that 30 million poor Americans will now have health insurance when they didn't previously. This is mostly because of the Medicaid expansion, which as you mention earlier is free. However, other people in this 30 million that don't fit even the expanded eligibility for Medicaid will be mandated to purchase insurance, which will now be more heavily regulated by the government. However, even if those people are too poor to purchase insurance, they will be exempt from any penalty. That's one reason why Obama's law will only lead to 99% of Americans insured instead of 100%. Some people will take advantage of them being exempt from getting it.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
I get that 30 million poor Americans will now have health insurance when they didn't previously.

But they are going to have to pay for it... or else the government will make what you are calling poor people pay make them pay with fines. Just another bill that the so called poor will have to burden... while the REAL POOR gets a free ride as they always have.

However, other people in this 30 million that don't fit even the expanded eligibility for Medicaid will be mandated to purchase insurance, which will now be more heavily regulated by the government. However, even if those people are too poor to purchase insurance, they will be exempt from any penalty.

lol. We'll see how many are exempted from this government mandate and the penalties. If you're working... you're going to be paying. If you're working and refuse... Uncle Sam is going to get their money one way or the other... plus a little extra.



That's one reason why Obama's law will only lead to 99% of Americans insured instead of 100%. Some people will take advantage of them being exempt from getting it.

Yes and Congress and Unions, etc.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
But they are going to have to pay for it... or else the government will make what you are calling poor people pay make them pay with fines. Just another bill that the so called poor will have to burden... while the REAL POOR gets a free ride as they always have.


As I said before, most of the 30 million who will be getting insurance through Obama's law will be getting it through the free Medicaid.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
As I said before, most of the 30 million who will be getting insurance through Obama's law will be getting it through the free Medicaid.

Most huh? We'll see about that. If you have an income, you're paying.

And it isn't free that is for sure.
 

Icarus27k

Council Member
Apr 4, 2010
1,508
7
38
Yes and Congress and Unions, etc.

That silly argument? As if the individual mandate (the mandate to have health insurance) has anything to do with Congress or unions, groups that already have insurance.

It's like saying, "that group of people that are already taking actions that comply with the law? They are going to be exempt from penalties for violating the law". Again, this shows how ridiculous the criticisms of the health care law are. They don't even understand what they are saying.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
That silly argument? As if the individual mandate (the mandate to have health insurance) has anything to do with Congress or unions, groups that already have insurance.

It's like saying, "that group of people that are already taking actions that comply with the law? They are going to be exempt from penalties for violating the law". Again, this shows how ridiculous the criticisms of the health care law are. They don't even understand what they are saying.

Oh please... listen to the one that is saying poor people can now afford Health Insurance when poor people always got it for free.

The government is going to force people who have a job and for some reason do not have health insurance to buy it. Believe me... if you have a job you are going to be buying health insurance. Don't think for a minute that they are going to give people who are struggling with the bills they have a break. If you are poor and on welfare you have free insurance as always.

And I misunderstood the exempt part of your post because most of your posts don't make much sense.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional."- Senator Rand Paul

I don't think the Senator understands how something is deemed to be constitutional...