Heads are going to roll DAMN GOOD victorty for all of us!
It was not held under the commerce law but under the tax laws. Now we will see if it stands. Im sure it has just now become a HUGE political fight for the presidential slot. Actually, I was good with the Medicare for all idea! lol
I am surprised that Roberts was for it. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision I think it is obviously not a purely partisan decision and that's a very good thing. Had the mandate been struck down and a "liberal" Justice had crossed over I would feel the same way. I think it's a good thing for the Court.
I agree Mike, It does show that they are neutral. They even went on to say they had no personal remarks one way or the other. Just handed down the decision. And to think Obama voted against Roberts? Wow, truth is stranger than fiction.
i just don't get the argument of why passing this is bad....I mean everyone should have medical. What's wrong with that?!
here'a a lil more info
» Comments | Post a Comment
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.
The decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in 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 also hands 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.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court's 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.
"The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding," the dissenters said in a joint statement.
Adults and children can no longer be discriminated against! Kids already in effect, adults by 2014
By 2015 for Doctors, will be reimbursed by the success of the doctors care. This is a good thing!
By 2016 if you can afford to buy insurance and have not, a penalty of 2% of your income. And it is not punishable by jail. I think the first time you get penalized 1%, second 2% or something like that.
McConnel is having a stroke! Let the spin begin.
It's a travesty that 75% of the American people didn't want this, yet it passed.
Our country is being destroyed from within.
"By 2016 if you can afford to buy insurance and have not, a penalty of 2% of your income. And it is not punishable by jail. I think the first time you get penalized 1%, second 2% or something like that."
How will a homeless-jobless person afford to pay this 1% and 2% penalty?
Key word, if you can afford it, if not there are subsidys and an extension of medicaid and medicare.
"...if you can afford to buy insurance..." oh yeah, a homeless-jobless person won't HAVE to buy insurance, because they can't afford to.
It'll be free... paid for by me.