Thread: Individual Mandate has been struck down

David Martin, Executive Vice President
Media Research Center

June 28, 2012

kathye,

The Supreme Court has made a shocking ruling to uphold ObamaCare—one of the most expensive, intrusive, and liberty stifling pieces of legislation in American history.

As we told you before, the media played a role in deceiving Americans about the impact of this horrific law, regurgitating verbatim every lie told by the Obama Administration.Every promise the media and the Obama Administration made about ObamaCare—that it would make healthcare cheaper without increasing taxes or deficits, that you could keep your doctor, that businesses would not be hit with crippling regulations and taxes—has been broken.

Despite the media’s best efforts to mislead Americans and unapologetically carry water for the White House, Americans still overwhelmingly oppose socialized medicine. But the Supreme Court’s ruling will almost certainly re-energize the Obama Administration’s propaganda campaign, with their loyal sycophants in the liberal media leading the charge.

That is why it is so critical that we keep up pressure on the national “news” media to Tell The Truth about ObamaCare. Please help us spread the word and make sure to get your friends and family involved in the campaign to hold the media accountable for lying about ObamaCare.

Thank you.

David


MRC Action

Kevin Russell Contributor

Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 11:16 am
Email Kevin
Bio & Post Archive »
Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion

The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated. The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is.

The votes for this outcome are divided among several opinions. Three Justices – the Chief, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer – took the position that depriving a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion would exceed Congress’s power under the Spending Clause. Although Congress may attach conditions to federal funds, they concluded, it may not coerce states into accepting those conditions. And in this case, taking away all the states’ funds for the entirety of its Medicaid program just because it disagreed with a piece of the program would be coercive. But the remedy for that constitutional violation is not to declare the expansion unconstitutional – such that even states that want to participate would not have the option. Instead, the plurality held that the provision of the statute that authorized the Government to cut off all funds for non-compliance with the expansion was unconstitutional. The result is that states can choose to participate in the expansion, must comply with the conditions attached to the new expansion funds if they take that new money, but states can also choose to continue to participate only in the unexpanded version of the program if they want.



Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have held the entire expansion program constitutional, even the provision threatening to cut off all funding unless states agreed to the expansion. Their votes created a majority for the proposition that the overall expansion was constitutional, and that states could choose to participate in the expansion and would have to comply with the expansion conditions if they did.



But there was still no majority about what to do about the states that do not want to participate in the expansion – the Chief Justice’s 3-Justice plurality voted to strike down the provision allowing the Government to withhold all funds from states that reject the expansion; Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor voted to uphold it.



The deadlock was broken by the dissenters. Justice Scalia – writing on behalf of himself, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito – agreed with the Chief’s plurality that the threat to withhold all funds was unconstitutionally coercive. But they would have held that the consequence is that the entire expansion program should be stricken. The result would have been that even states that wanted to participate in the program could not. The plurality’s approach of simply striking down the provision that allowed withholding all funds if the state refused the expansion was, in the dissenters’ view, tantamount to rewriting the statute.



At this point, that meant that there were 2 votes to uphold the expansion in its entirety, 4 votes to strike the entire expansion down, and 3 votes to strike down only the provision withholding all funds for non-compliance with the expansion mandate. So where does that leave things?



Fortunately (for the sake of clarity at least), Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor resolved the ambiguity by voting with the plurality on the remedy question. That is, these Justices voted that if the statute was unconstitutionally coercive, then the remedy would be only to strike down the all-or-nothing sanction.



The consequence was a bottom line of 7 Justices – the Chief, Breyer, Kagan and the four dissenters – finding the expansion unconstitutional. But a different majority – the Chief, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan – held that the remedy for the violation was to strike down only the provision allowing the federal government to withhold all Medicaid funds unless a state agrees to the expansion.



Posted in Health Care

Recommended Citation: Kevin Russell, Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 11:16 AM), Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion : SCOTUSblog




Court holds that states have choice whether to join medicaid expansion : SCOTUSblog


Also



Lyle Denniston Reporter

Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 11:07 am
Email Lyle
Bio & Post Archive »
Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax

Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.

Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.

The decision to keep at least some foundation under the expanded coverage will lead almost certainly to renewed efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal all or most of the new law. And, of course, the Court’s decision is guaranteed to become a very prominent fixture of debate in this year’s continuing presidential and congressional elections.

Posted in Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius, H.H.S. v. Fla., Fla. v. H.H.S., Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 11:07 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/do...ate-its-a-tax/

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/do...ate-its-a-tax/

Originally Posted by kathyet

As usual obummer lied again

Since it is a tax it can be changed or thrown out. So Romney can strike it down!

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Originally Posted by googler

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Yea but were still stuck with them either way....flip side of the same coin.

What the health care ruling means to you
By Josh Levs, CNN
updated 11:06 AM EDT, Thu June 28, 2012
Watch this video
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

The Supreme Court's decision upholds the health care law
The requirement to have health insurance by 2014 remains in place
Insurance companies must cover people with pre-existing conditions
Small business owners and medical groups disagree over the impacts of the law

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act means that the predictions about how it will affect all Americans remain in place.

Read the court ruling (.PDF)

Here are some highlights:

The uninsured

The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate -- the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty -- although many are exempt from that provision.

In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
Ruling on individual mandate explained
Photos: Health care and the high court Photos: Health care and the high court

Health care exchanges, which are designed to offer cheaper health care plans, remain in place as well.

The insured

Because the requirement remains for people to have or buy insurance, the revenue stream designed to help pay for the law remains in place. So insured Americans may be avoiding a spike in premiums that could have resulted if the high court had tossed out the individual mandate but left other requirements on insurers in place.

Young adults

Millions of young adults up to age 26 who have gained health insurance due to the law will be able to keep it. The law requires insurers to cover the children of those they insure up to age 26. About 2.5 million young adults from age 19 to 25 obtained health coverage as a result of the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Two of the nation's largest insurers, United Healthcare and Humana, recently announced they would voluntarily maintain some aspects of health care reform, including coverage of adult dependents up to age 26, even if the law was scrapped.

People with pre-existing conditions

Since the law remains in place, the requirement that insurers cover people with pre-existing medical conditions remains active.

The law also established that children under the age of 19 could no longer have limited benefits or be denied benefits because they had a pre-existing condition.

Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.

It also established national high-risk pools that people with such conditions could join sooner to get health insurance. As of April, a total of only about 67,000 people were enrolled in federally-funded pools established by the health care law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

More than 13 million American non-elderly adults have been denied insurance specifically because of their medical conditions, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The Kaiser Family Foundation says 21% of people who apply for health insurance on their own get turned down, are charged a higher price, or offered a plan that excludes coverage for their pre-existing condition.

All taxpayers

No matter what the Supreme Court had decided, it would have been a mixed bag for all Americans when it comes to federal spending. There is heated dispute over what impact the health care law will have on the country over the long term.

The federal government is set to spend more than $1 trillion over the next decade to subsidize coverage and expand eligibility for Medicaid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law could reduce deficits modestly in the first 10 years and then much more significantly in the second decade.

The CBO said a repeal of the mandate could reduce deficits by $282 billion over 10 years, because the government would be subsidizing insurance for fewer people. But the nation faces costs in various ways for having people who are uninsured. The Urban Institute's Health Policy Center estimated that without a mandate, 40 million Americans would remain uninsured.

Meanwhile, the Flexible Spending Accounts that millions of Americans use to save money tax-free for medical expenses will be sliced under the law. FSAs often allow people to put aside up to $5,000 pre-tax; as of 2013, they were to face an annual limit of $2,500.

Small business owners

The rules and benefits small business owners face as a result of the health care law remain in place.

As CNN has chronicled, the law brought a mix of both. The director of the National Federation of Independent Business is one of the plaintiffs who pushed the court to strike down the law. Meanwhile, a group called Small Business Majority fought to protect the law, saying its loss could be a nightmare.

As of 2014, under the law, small firms with more than 50 full-time employees would have to provide coverage or face expensive fines.

All Americans, in lesser known ways

The massive health care law requires doctors to report goodies they get from medical supply companies; demands more breastfeeding rooms; requires all chain restaurants to list calories under every menu item, and includes numerous other provisions, which now remain in place.

Doctors and other health care providers

Health care providers have already begun making changes based on the 2010 law, and in preparation for what will go into effect in 2014. Those plans continue.

In the short term, doctors avoid "chaos" that may have resulted from the law suddenly being dropped or changed, according to Bob Doherty, senior vice president of governmental affairs at the American College of Physicians, who wrote a blog post on the website kevinmd.com this spring.

Medical groups have disagreed over the law.

How the Supreme Court Justices voted





What the health care ruling means to you - CNN.com

Historically this may make Romney's bid for the WH more difficult unless he flip-flops on repealing. If he maintains that stance, those who benefit will be out to vote for Obama in big numbers. Goldwater ran if I am correct, to oust Johnson's medicare plan. It is going to be an interesting election, again, we need a candid candidate in this election. However, Romney's side will now have most of health ins. agents, IMO, Muddy waters have just become muddier waters, as far as foreseeing the results of this election. The next three weeks will be very interesting watching public response.

Originally Posted by kathyet

Yea but were still stuck with them either way....flip side of the same coin.

I can either flip the coin and vote based on the outcome or just not vote at all.... Yea I think I know what I need to do to sleep well at night given no one is interested in doing more to get us out of this predicament.

Adam Winkler Guest

Posted Thu, June 28th, 2012 12:01 pm
Email Adam
Bio & Post Archive »
The Roberts Court is Born

Adam Winkler is a constitutional law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Today’s Supreme Court is often referred to as Anthony Kennedy’s Court. Although Kennedy is the swing justice who usually casts the deciding vote in close cases, the landmark ruling this week in the healthcare cases clearly mark the maturation of the “Roberts Court.”

Chief Justice John Roberts was the surprising swing vote in today’s Obamacare decision. Although he agreed with the four conservative justices, including Kennedy, that the individual mandate was not a regulation of interstate commerce, he voted with the Court’s moderates to hold that it was justified as a tax. Because people who don’t obtain insurance pay a tax to the IRS, the mandate was within Congress’s power to raise taxes for the general welfare. As a result, the Affordable Care Act was upheld.

With this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president’s signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn’t want to go there.

Roberts’ decision was consistent with his confirmation hearings pledge to respect the co-equal branches of government, push for consensus, and reach narrow rulings designed to build broad coalitions on the Court. He promised to respect precedent. His jurisprudence, he said, would be marked by “modesty and humility” and protection of the precious institutional legitimacy of the Court.

Today, the institutional legitimacy of the Court was buttressed. President Obama wasn’t the only winner at the Supreme Court today. So was the Supreme Court itself.

Roberts’ humble move was a surprise only because his oft-stated concern for protecting the Court by avoiding bold rulings doesn’t always hold. Despite today’s decision, the Roberts Court is hardly conservative in the sense of cautious or avoiding bold rulings. In contrast to an older conservatism that emphasized judicial restraint, the Roberts Court is not hesitant to forcefully asserts its power.

Since John Roberts became Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has issued one landmark ruling after another. The Roberts Court gave us Citizens United, which struck down longstanding limits on corporate political spending. This Court also allowed new restrictions on women’s right to choose; became the first Supreme Court in American history to strike down a gun control law as a violation of the Second Amendment; effectively outlawed voluntary efforts by public schools to racially integrate; and curtailed the reach of environmental protections.

In many of these decisions, the Roberts Court overturned or ignored precedent, including Rehnquist Court decisions less than a decade old. Prior to Citizens United, the Supreme Court had explicitly held in two cases that corporate political expenditures could be limited – the most recent of which was handed down in 2003. Six years before the Roberts Court upheld the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion, the Rehnquist Court, which wasn’t known for its liberal leanings, had overturned a nearly identical law.

Of course, the Roberts Court isn’t the first to overturn precedents and issue major rulings. Yet this Court has been uniquely willing to do so by sharply divided 5-4 majorities. The Warren Court’s Brown decision was famously 9-0. New York Times v. Sullivan, which freed up the media to discuss public figures, was decided by the same margin. Gideon v. Wainwright, on the constitutional right to counsel, and Loving v. Virginia, invaliding bans on interracial marriage, were also unanimous. Even Roe v. Wade was decided by an overwhelming 7-2 vote.

Perhaps as a result of the Roberts’ Court’s controversial 5-4 rulings, public opinion of the Court is at an historic low. Even after controversial rulings like Roe and Bush v. Gore, the Court still maintained high levels of public respect. But unlike the Warren Court, whose landmark rulings, though classified as “liberal,” didn’t match up with the platform of the Democratic Party – southern Democrats were the biggest opponents of Brown – its hard to ignore the consistent fit between the Roberts Court’s rulings and the Republican agenda.

Maybe that’s why recent polls show the Court’s public approval rating has dropped from over 80% in the 1990s to only 44% today. Three in four Americans now believe the justices’ votes are based on politics. Nothing could be worse for the Court’s institutional legitimacy.

Roberts may have voted to save healthcare because he wants to preserve the Court’s capital to take on other big issues heading toward the Court. Legal experts predict the Roberts Court will invalidate a key provision of one of the most important laws in American history, the Voting Rights Act, next term. And the Court is set to end affirmative action in public education. Both policies have been centerpieces of America’s commitment to civil rights for over forty years.

The Roberts Court has only just begun.

Posted in Post-decision Health Care Symposium

Recommended Citation: Adam Winkler, The Roberts Court is Born, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 28, 2012, 12:01 PM), The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog





The Roberts Court is Born : SCOTUSblog

Originally Posted by googler

I just wonder if he'll try to move away from this issue as quickly as possible given the Supreme Court basically made his RomneyCare equal to ObamaCare now. We couldn't have gotten to worse candidate to run up against Obama... wow...

I didn't vote for him so I don't feel bad about it.

Have you already forgotten that Romney said he will repeal Obama Care?

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Historically this may make Romney's bid for the WH more difficult unless he flip-flops on repealing. If he maintains that stance, those who benefit will be out to vote for Obama in big numbers. Goldwater ran if I am correct, to oust Johnson's medicare plan. It is going to be an interesting election, again, we need a candid candidate in this election. However, Romney's side will now have most of health ins. agents, IMO, Muddy waters have just become muddier waters, as far as foreseeing the results of this election. The next three weeks will be very interesting watching public response.

Why will it make it harder for him? Didn't I recently read somewhere that 78% of the population is against Obama Care? Romney has said he will repeal Obama Care. Furthermore, Americans don't like the thought of having their taxes increased. Personally, I think this ruling will help Romney, not hurt him.