photo: Andrew Sullivan's blog.
What Liberal Media?
I didn't expect that decision. I believed it would go 5/4 against Obamacare.
This is an important win for President Obama. I'd read on various news blogs and from pundits that if Obamacare were ruled unConstitutional, it would have implied that the president wasted the first half of his presidency on pursuing health care reform. And in turn that would have made Mr. Obama a loser in some voters' eyes. Now he's seen as a winner, again, and no more can his opponents label him as amateur or not knowing what he's doing. He deserves to be acknowledged as a very, very savvy politician. Good going for President Obama, and good for all Americans who have been helped by Obamacare. --SK
HuffPost:
"WASHINGTON -- The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.
The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the outcome
.
The decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius comes as something of a surprise after the generally hostile reception the law received during the six hours of oral arguments held over three days in March. But by siding with the court's four Democratic appointees, Chief Justice Roberts avoided the delegitimizing taint of politics that surrounds a party-line vote while passing Obamacare's fate back to the elected branches. GOP candidates and incumbents will surely spend the rest of the 2012 campaign season running against the Supreme Court and for repeal of the law.
Five justices concluded that the mandate, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain minimum health insurance coverage or pay a penalty, falls within Congress' power under the Constitution to 'lay and collect taxes.'
'The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause,' Roberts wrote. 'That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax.'
Victory for Obama, but Ruling Limits Medicaid Provision
By JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
"In a victory for President Obama and Congressional Democrats, the Supreme Court on Thursday left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy insurance."
From Talking Points Memo:
2. According to today’s statement, Mitt Romney supports virtually every provision of ‘Obamacare’ other than the mandate that he pioneered.
Interesting observation from the daily kos:
"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito,” reads the ‘Courts & The Constitution’ section of Romney’s campaign website.So to recap, Republicans nominated the Father of Obamacare, and has pledged to nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts, who upheld Obamcare."
Now go eat your broccoli, it's not only good for you, it's Constitutional, too.
37 comments:
Unlike many of my fellow Right Blogistanis, I am not upset at this decision, given it's basis.
Chief Justice Roberts did us all a favor by putting this under the power of taxation and explicitly rejecting the dangerous notion that this is authorized by the commerce clause.
The federal government clearly has the power to tax us and create programs. How they do it is a political question.
It's now back in the political arena where it belongs. The November election will be the final referendum on Obamacare.
I'm blogging on this tomorrow (Friday).
Very nice surprise. The president is having a decent summer politically. Housing is coming back some and his immigration move caught the GOP flat-footed.
Guess the leftists can't complain about the "conservative" court. This is a tax from a president who loves increasing taxes the problem is, this one will cost everyone.
Hopefully this will re-energize the responsible citizens of the country to vote this disaster out of office.
The national healthcare plan that costs everyone except the millions that are exempt. Another blow to small business because everyone else gets an exemption.
skudrunner, this was hardly a lopsided vote. So your snark doesn't work.
There is much that needs to be adjusted in the law, but it is a good thing.
We were the only western democracy without health care for our citizens. And our health care costs were far, far higher than any other western democracy.
The conservative solution: go to the emergency room, is no solution since THAT is a huge tax on all of us. That you and other conservatives don't understand that explains why you don't understand that we needed health care reform.
The mandate, BTW, is a conservative idea.
Thank you, Heritage Foundation and Mr. Romney.
"Stuart M. Butler, who at the time was Heritage's Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title "A National Health System for America."
The document was over 100 pages long, and envisioned a "consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive American health system" that would become "the model for the entire industrialized world."
It was a strictly conservative plan, as evidenced by the inclusion of the idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (the same thing Paul Ryan is now championing, in other words).
In his chapter "A Framework for Reform," Butler lists three elements which would be required to remold the American health care system into his conservative vision for the future. The very first of these:
Element #1: Every resident of the U.S. must, by law, be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs."
We needed to do this.
Healthcare for everyone is needed but exempting the large corporations and unions is just a slam against small businesses. If you have a business less than 50 employees than the employee must get insurance, if more than 50 the employer must provide but if you are a large company, McDonalds, GE etc, or a union you are exempt and if you are a congressman you are exempt, the good for all except me provision.
The ones who will pay for this tax is the small business and it will encourage businesses to stay below 50 employees. Everyone should have to pay this tax because It's the right thing to do
Here's what is crazy about this country:
A conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, Newt Gingrich--as recently as May 2011,--a conservative presidential candidate, as well as other conservatives, all embraced the individual mandate that a democratic president adopted [he did not originally want it, remember?] and included it in the ACA.
In turn, a number of conservative governors and lawmakers brought the case before the SCOTUS so that the mandate could be overturned.
The conservative Chief Justice voted with the liberals on the SCOTUS to find that the law is constitutional.
And now some rabid conservatives are calling for Roberts to resign or for his impeachment.
I'm getting dizzy from going in circles trying to understand what the hell conservatives want.
Do they even know?
The individual mandate is nothing but a tax and congress has the power to impose taxes.
What is not right is all the back door deals to get this tax bill passed.
If we are going to have national healthcare, shouldn't it be for all instead of just the little guy who will foot the bill for those who are poor.
Since "the great society" was created and the trillions poured into decreasing poverty the poverty level has not changed. This is just another tax to keep the poor in their place by a party who represents the poor. Politicians will always take care of themselves and to hell with the people they "represent".
Shaw... the conservatives were for this before they were against it... it is very simple to understand what they want...
If Obama is for it.... they're agin it!
Now I am off to Oaxaca to see first hand what voter fraud looks like as the country chooses between Pena Nieto of the PRI and Lopez Obrador of the PRD...
It will be a lot more fun than our election will be...
What is it with these ding-dong news organizations? They should at least take the trouble to find out what the news is before reporting it.
I can't imagine a blogger being so inept.
It's up to Democrats now, to make sure this program works for all Americans.I have my doubts because the insurance companies are still involved.
Democrats have been spending a lot of time simply defending programs against Republican attempts to eliminate them.
Distracting us from what needs to be done; all government programs need to be reformed, to work efficiently for America.
The math is inescapable, these programs (SS, welfare, food stamps, etc) are unsustainable without reforms.
Those reforms cannot be done with Republican majority in the House, or worse both Houses.
Democrats have the responsibility to make their programs work for everyone.
This medical plan now becomes a tax fight, and a 30 year history shows Republicans have been winning tax fights.
skudrunner,
"Republicans have falsely claimed the mandate was the “biggest tax increase ever in American history,” so of course, conservatives immediately jumped on the idea that the individual mandate was a massive tax hike on the middle class, reviving an argument Republicans have made since the law passed more than two years ago.
The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year.
The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent — according to a study from the Urban Institute. The number could be even lower depending on the law’s success: in Massachusetts, the only state with an insurance mandate, less than 1 percent of the state’s residents paid the penalty in 2009." --Travis Waldron
Here's a good synopsis of the Heritage issue you raise.
Heritage policy experts never supported an unqualified mandate like that in the PPACA [ObamaCare]. Their prior support for a qualified mandate was limited to catastrophic coverage (true insurance that is precisely what the PPACA forbids), coupled with tax relief for all families and other reforms that are conspicuously absent from the PPACA. Since then, a growing body of research has provided a strong basis to conclude that any government insurance mandate is not only unnecessary, but is a bad policy option. Moreover, Heritage’s legal scholars have been consistent in explaining that the type of mandate in the PPACA is unconstitutional."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/
So they did advocate a mandate, but nothing like what Obamacare contains. I'm not even trying to disagree with you, but rather to provide some context.
Also, that position paper was written back in 1988-1990. Much has changed since then. Conservatism has turned less progressive/statist and more libertarian, but not by much. :)
And you mischaracterize the conservative position. It's not emergency rooms.
Here is some food for thought on alternatives to a monolithic government "solution."
Somehow Obama can do no wrong. He said he would not pay for national healthcare with a tax, it's a tax, close gitmo, still open, if he didn't get the 800++ billion for the stimulus unemployment would go above 8%, it's there.
All these broken predictions lead to failure except in the eyes of the liberals who hold him accountable for nothing.
"the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year" you are referring to reduced contributions to SS, a program that is fiscally unsound. Good move to take a program that cannot be sustained and lower the contributions and call it a tax cut.
Roberts gave a brilliant opinion. He made it clear that commerce clause does not authorize Congress to compel you to act but it does authorize Congress to restrain your behavior.
He made it clear that the constitution gives Congress the power to decide how it wants to tax and spend. As well, Congress will suffer political consequences if the people find the tax too burdensome or the expense too burdensome.
By calling the mandate portion of the ACA a tax he allows for relatively swift reprisal to voters. Since the bill was pass under reconciliation with only 51 votes needed it can be repealed as a tax under reconciliation with only 51 votes.
No matter if the left or right or anyone in between is more or less happy about the details of the ACA, Robert’s opinion is hopeful in that it will support and guide future justices’ opinions to restrain future Congress’ from interfering with private persons.
As well, a lot will be said in coming days and weeks about the SCOTUS, by a vote of 7-2, giving power back to the states.
Well Shaw, unlike you I EXPECTED this decision. Not because I believe it the right decision but rather because judicially it was sound and has merit.
Silver framed it well I think and I for one am looking forward to his Friday blog post on the SCOTUS's decision.
I am a more than a bit troubled by the whack-a-doodles on the extreme right who are suggesting Chief Justice Roberts should be removed from the bench.
Romney is seeing this as a real opportunity I'm sure. His campaign will now become the campaign of repeal of ObamaCare. My advance prediction should Romney by some slim chance win the election... It ain't gonna happen.
And you can quote me on that...
RN,
I'd like to see your quote, that you predicted this decision.
Romney has all along made his campaign about repealing Obamacare. In fact, so did the whole group of Republican candidates.
Roberts is sly like a fox. Turning this into a tax issue gives a better chance of it being repealed.
Anon, I agree. He really thought this through. I think he was taking a long term view, as I said in my earlier post. He got four liberal justices to defend the commerce clause. By doing this he will guide future justices’ opinions to restrain future Congress’ from interfering with private persons.
As well, by making the mandate a tax he has thrown it back to the people. There is more to the courts decision than first meets the eye.
Anon, if serious do the research.
RN,
Making no sense again.
Unwilling to defend, or prove his words
EZ, RN and Anon ...
As a left leaning attorney who has studied these types of things said to me today:
"Roberts gets as conservative a ruling as he can for the long term, he increases respect for the Supreme Court, and he leaves it up to the voters, who should be the ones to decide what they want to do to fix our health care system, to fix it. Not a bad day's work."
"EZ, RN and Anon ...
As a left leaning attorney who has studied these types of things said to me today:
"Roberts gets as conservative a ruling as he can for the long term, he increases respect for the Supreme Court, and he leaves it up to the voters, who should be the ones to decide what they want to do to fix our health care system, to fix it. Not a bad day's work."
KP, your attorney friend is indeed as wise as many non attorneys. By which I do not mean any disrespect but that he is wise and possesses a great deal of common sense.
Thanks for sharing this experience.
KP has the read. Listen to him, liberals...
Obamacare is constitutional only because Roberts saved it by recasting it as a tax.
And the vulgar tweets coming from the DNC show the democrat party to be the collection of foul-mouthed imbeciles that it is.
I must say, the very first reaction I heard to the SCOTUS decision was Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard's tweet “It’s constitutional. Bitches.”
That is the type of thing I know our host here doesn't condone and is the kind of thing that will hurt America.
Leaving aside the merits of the health care reform bill, I had a gut feeling before the decision that if the bill was struck down it would have helped Obama and his re-election efforts; and if it was upheld that it may help Romney's election efforts. Time will tell, but these are crazy times.
Knowing what I know know I would not hire Gaspard nor employ him.
KP, And undoubtedly it would be the right decision.
Actually, the healthcare "mandate" is a tax cut. Have healthcare insurance, pay less taxes. Just like have a home mortgage, pay less taxes. Have children, pay less taxes. You are no more mandated to carry health insurance than you are mandated to get a mortgage or have children. You just happen to get a tax break if you have health insurance, a home mortgage, or children.
That is what the Supreme Court says.
RN, sure, Gaspard should have to job hunt. But to be fair, SF, I would not project his poor judgment on the entire Democratic party. His poor leadership skills, in this instance, underscore his animous and his need to embark on a job search.
That Twitter thing is proving to be a job killer :-)
Jerry, I think you mean having health insurance might reduce taxable income, as opposed to a tax cut or a tax credit?
KP: "I must say, the very first reaction I heard to the SCOTUS decision was Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard's tweet 'It’s constitutional. Bitches.' ”
To be fair, that's an old blogging expression that's been around for a long time--since at least 2003, and it was popularized by Dave Chappelle when he had a show on the Comedy Channel and did a take- off of a presidential presser announcing that the US was going to send a mission to Mars. The original expression is "Mars bitches!"
I've read and heard that expression to indicate that an extraordinary event or idea has happened or been introduced all over the internet and teevee since then.
The take-away that the American people have on the ACA is that it is constitutional.
What the Roberts ruling set out is something we in the blogsphere and policy wonks will continue to discuss.
I'm pretty sure the average American will understand this:
The ACA is constitutional and will leave it at that.
Silverfiddle: "And the vulgar tweets coming from the DNC show the democrat party to be the collection of foul-mouthed imbeciles that it is."
SF, it's difficult for me to take your complaint about the Democrats' vulgarity seriously since Andrew Breitbart, a guy you deeply admired, called Senator Ted Kennedy a piece of living excrement and other nasty things before the man was buried.
Breitbart's tweet included calling Senator Kennedy a “villain,” “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” and a “prick.”
Breitbart also tweeted: “I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement.”
Andrew Breitbart was not an RNC official. I suggest you go back and read your post on logical fallacies, especially false equivalencies.
Obamacare is only constitutional because Roberts made it so, saying it is authorized under existing taxing powers.
Obama's team lost this fight, and Roberts saved them.
The most important part is that the court in its ruling rejected this grotesque attempt to expand even more the commerce clause.
Silver said: "The most important part is that the court in its ruling rejected this grotesque attempt to expand even more the commerce clause."
Yes, this is a positive thing.
Shaw said: "We were the only western democracy without health care for our citizens."
I believe this not the best way to state this. I happen to know some American citizens who have received health care, so I'm sorry to say, we are a country with health care.
Silver, Saying it is only constitutional because Roberts made it so is............ I can't come up with a word...
When congress passes a law, they do so assuming constitutionality. Now people can challenge that, but the burden of proof is on the challengers, not those being challenged, or in this case, the health care act.
All the Roberts Court did was uphold what Congress understood was the constitutionality of the law that they passed.
Like all laws, we assume constitutionality unless and until the courts decide otherwise...
And yes, Roberts did save them, choosing to agree that the law is Constitutional, albeit differently than the admin had thought.
I had heard this line of reasoning though for months as a possibility...
"Obama's team lost this fight, and Roberts saved them."
It's always a "fight" and someone always wants to "win."
Of course no one stops to think that means we're always "fighting" each other.
As long as that childish attitude continues, we'll fight outselves right into obscurity.
Everyone seems to forget that the GOP did nothing to solve our health care woes while it was in charge of the WH and Congress for 6years, and it did a great job of shutting down any effort during the Clinton years.
But, hot damn! Can we fight!
It's really disgusting when you stop and think of the irony--people without health care in the richest country in the world have been at the mercy of corporations [insurance companies], and if they made the decision to drop your coverage, where were you supposed to go? The cemetary?
There's something morally wrong, IMO, with fat cats getting fatter off of people's misery and sicknesses.
Obama has initiated a law that will stop that. Good for him.
Dave and Shaw: The Obama dunderheads formed an unconstitutional argument, Roberts fixed it for them.
The Obnama dunderheads?
Right.
The bill got passed in one of the most contentious periods in US history, and the Supremes say it's constitutional.
Dumb like foxes, eh?
SF: "Obama's team lost this fight, and Roberts saved them."
The right is spinning faster than a neutron star.
The Obama team "lost" this "fight" by having the Supreme Court declare the ACA constitutional, therefore, no one can say the president tried to force an unconstitutional law on the people.
Only we bloggers who eat and breathe politics will be arguing over what the SCOTUS ruling "means." What the average voting American will KNOW is that the president's ACA is constitutional. And that's the most important take away from the decision.
To turn a victory for Mr. Obama into a defeat is the usual tactic of the right, but it's not gonna work on this issue. Too many Americans are affected by this law. All they really care about is the coverage they can get, and the guarantee that it's a constitutional law.
Post a Comment