individual mandate survives as a tax
Mandate held as constitutional, with Roberts joining the left wing on the court
Medicaid provision limited but not invalidated
From Scotusblog: "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."
I'm confused, does this basically mean that Obamacare was upheld?
CNN has mandate as struck down - I'm getting info from Scotusblog
From Scotusblog: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
So, was the Obama administration lying when they told everyone it wasn't a tax to get it passed, or when they told the SCOTUS it was a tax to keep it in place?
Can we lift the ban on profanity just for today?
How about "both," Butch?
Okay eagle, the next question is can we call him "Liar-in-Chief" now without being called racist?
Forcing this widely "unpopular" law, down our throats, despite overwhelming opposition to it........is a giant step towards the next revolution.
I hope they make Obama "eat it" this November!
The negative reaction to Obama at the polls may be the only good thing about the SCOTUS ruling. This is a sad day for America.
193 pages is all it takes to tax us for something we didn't do...
No. Remember, during the last D primary cycle Joe Biden was called a racist for calling Obama "articulate."
The latest news is saying that states can opt out of Obamacare and not be penalized for it...this is confusing.
You know longer live in a free country that allows you to decide on the most basic of things. We have opened a pandora's box. Anything pushed as a tax or penalty that can be contrued as a tax is now legitimized.
Forget him, traitor thy new name is
And the stock market is dropping....
If it is true that states can opt out, what's the point of the entire exercise? Honestly. None of this makes any sense.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012
MHPC Statement on Supreme Court Decision to Uphold Obamacare
PORTLAND - The Maine Heritage Policy Center's Joel Allumbaugh, Director of Health Reform Initiatives at MHPC, issued this statement on the Supreme Court decision that has upheld the Affordable Care Act.
“This is a sad day for Mainers. Obamacare will drive insurance rates up, tax Maine employers and threaten the viability of our private insurance market. By upholding the ACA, the Supreme Court has approved federal legislation that assaults personal liberty, costs $2 trillion and creates a massive expansion in entitlements.”
“This unprecedented attack on an individual’s freedom to choose a consumer product is a blow to free enterprise and market-based competition. Mainers will now be coerced by the federal government into buying an expensive health insurance plan that they do not want.”
Peter Steele, Communications Director
The Maine Heritage Policy Center | PO Box 7829 | Portland, ME 04112
From Roberts' opinion:
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enactthe challenged provisions.
Mike, this from Scotusblog re your point:
Here is the money quote on the fifth vote to hold that the mandate is not justified under the Commerce Clause (recognizing that doesn't matter because there were five votes under the Tax Power): "The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated." That will not affect a lot of statutes going forward.
Apollo, states can't exactly opt out of Obamacare - the court simply held that they cannot be penalized for not adding new programs. They can keep their old funding levels, instead of losing them.
Should anyone encounter our Chief Justice while he is out and about near his home here in Maine, please be sure to thank him for hastening the destruction of America which was begun by two branches of the Roosevelt family.
This will turn out to be a better thing than many are thinking right now.
Those "freedom lovers" who already despise Obama, Congress and liberal academia, for all of their "socialist" ideas will now be motivated to despise them even more....if that is possible.
Actions have consequences and this action will have more negative consequences, for the liberal agenda, than they can imagine through their present gloating.
The is a "made for agenda" for the Tea party activists and progressive-resistance movement.
Obamacare is now being rightly called the largest tax increase in history...
Sometimes I hate hate it when I'm right......I wonder how much my premiums will go up...... I feel a total screwing sneaking up on me. to say nothing about having to listen to the crowing and self applause of the left on this.....oh well as working taxpaying folks we should just bend over and enjoy it.
A vote for Angus is a vote for Obamacare. Lets make sure everyone knows that.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2011
CONTACT: Brenda Kielty
Attorney General Schneider Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Health Care Decision
AUGUSTA – Attorney General William J. Schneider announced today that the United States Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, largely upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including in particular the individual mandate. However, the Court specifically sided with the States regarding the efforts of the federal government to use Medicaid funding to force the States to expand programs beyond their own policy choices.
“The Supreme Court today held that the penalty that an individual must pay for refusing to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power,” said Attorney General Schneider. “The individual mandate does not withstand constitutional scrutiny if Congress uses the Commerce Clause as the source of its power, and the mandate could not have politically withstood the opinion of the American people if it had been branded a tax when the law was being devised.”
Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for the provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
The Court held: “What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.” In doing so, the Court protected the States’ rights and prerogatives.
“The expansion of Medicaid on the backs of state budgets through all-or-nothing bullying tactics was rejected by the Court,” said Schneider. “We are carefully reviewing the decision to evaluate how this will specifically impact Maine.”
Attorney General Schneider and 25 other state attorneys general, the National Federation of Independent Business and four individual plaintiffs in State of Florida, et al. v. United States Health and Human Services, et al., challenged the federal health care overhaul law as an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce powers of Congress.
Brenda L. Kielty
To The Attorney General
6 State House Station | Augusta, ME 04333
207.626.8577 (direct) | 207.287.3145 (fax)
email@example.com | www.maine.gov/ag