The Supreme Court upheld the majority of the law. The biggie is that the individual mandate was upheld. Interesting thing is that it was NOT upheld under the Commerce Clause, but under Congress' right to tax. It is a new tax which the Obama administration boisterously said it was not, until they argued it in front of the court.
So the Health Law is totally Constitutional. Now for Republican "Plan B" . . . And hospital stocks just jumped.
Seems so. Interesting how Obama swore there was no tax increase involved but that is how they argued it's legality in front of the SCOTUS. Obama says it's not a tax Court says it is a tax
mostly so. The Federal govt. cannot withhold existing Medicaid funding if states decline to go along with the Medicaid expansion plan.
I am disappointed that the ruling came down to the wording, not the action itself. Is it a tax or is it a mandate? Roberts said that if the wording stated it was a mandate then it would be unconstitutional. So, the act of penalizing the uninsured is neither right or wrong, it is just how it is phrased? In my opinion, these justices cleared up nothing and took a cheap way out. I guess in these times, words speak louder than actions.
The mandate just doesn't have much teeth. If you don't get insurance you have to pay a fine. However, you can't be forced to pay the fine. There is no penalty for not paying the fine. The IRS can't collect on the fine by garnishment or recapture the fine by reducing your tax refund. The mandate has no teeth. The principle is upseting, but there really isn't much of a mandate to be upset over.
I think it was simply a matter of judicial restraint. Chief Justice Roberts himself wrote that the decision offers no endorsement of the law’s wisdom, and that letting it survive reflects “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation’s elected leaders. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” He isn't approving of the law. They are doing their job properly. They decided that it was legal and Constitutional.
Roberts is admirable. He seems to genuinely care about the law and his interpretation of it. I remember in his confirmation hearings he was a master at navigating that process as well. I respect the hell out of that guy.
Interesting that he said if it was worded as a mandate it would be illegal, but since it was a tax, it was legal.
