@meatwnyc

Do you (or anyone else) have a source for this assertion?

"Medical bills are already the primary cause of bankruptcy, (not just number one but a majority, approx 62%)."

Yesterday, in my comment at 10:42AM, I was guessing that Roberts' vote was more a favor for the big for-profit health insurance corporations, but I also wrote:

"...I wonder what the fine print will show Roberts is saying and perhaps laying the groundwork for: Ways to limit the power of the Federal government to create universal health care...?
~~~Jun. 28 2012 10:42 AM"

After reading and hearing more about the decision, I'm now certain Roberts joined the 4 justices in favor of the Obamacare legislation due to first and foremost his desire to take on Congress's constitutional right to use the Commerce Clause as defined during the New Deal years. That is his first and foremost objective: Undermine the New Deal, wherever and however possible.

His second objective was, yes, to grant some big corporations a boon, as he views government as a means to assist the profit making ability of entities (aka corporate persons) and the wealthy.

Third, he wanted to make crystal clear that the mandate was a tax and that aids the Republicans in going after Obama and Democrats this election cycle. This may aid him in getting more justices who think as he does, and then the dismantling of all the great social safety net legislation can begin in earnest. An offshoot of calling the mandate a tax in tandem with his wording about the Commerce Clause is to move any social legislation into the tax increase arena, where the Republicans know how to fight it and have done so successfully. The R's will paint all the enabling legislation for Obamacare as new taxes going forward, even more than they've done already. This will assist them in killing or disabling the actual implementation They've done this with the SEC, the new Dodd-Frank regulations of banks, etc. Not all that new.

Roberts is not a centrist hero; he is a rightwing tactician and leader in changing how our constitution can be read and used in the future. He also plays a long, long game, putting in wording and laying groundwork for decision to overturn much of what has been done in the last three quarters of the 20th Century.

Sarcastically, I see him as wanting to take us back to somewhere between pre-Magna Carta and the Gilded Age.

Not so sarcastically, he absolutely wants none or as little as possible of that real Progressive legislation of the early 20th C. to remain and he wants to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the New Deal and following New Deal inspired legislation.

Time will tell -- and Roberts has lots of time left on the court.

Mandating health insurance for all doesn't shift the cost from the govt to the private health system, it justs turns the IRS into their collection agency.

If taxpayers don't have the choice to refuse your product, then it's not the free market so what excuse is there for your profits?

"The problem with our health system is that the most resources are spent on the sickest patients of whom pay the least in the healthcare system because of their illnesses."

If you believe the problem is that the sickest people need the most care and don't pay for it all themselves, I don't see why you'd support any sort of insurance system, it seems an argument for everyone paying out of their own pocket, in which case at least patients wouldn't be wasting their money on insurance company profits.

@Matt from Cali:

I'm in the health insurance business. The problem with our health system is that the majority of resources are spent on the sickest patients, of whom pay the least in the healthcare system because of their illnesses. That is the main problem that needs to be solved. This law, albeit flawed, helps alleviate that issue by mandating health insurance for those that aren't covered. By mandating health insurance for all, the cost of care for the uninsured now shifts in part from government to the private health system. That's a HUGE long term cost savings for taxpayers.

Until we fix 1)the problem of the first dollar, and 2)highly imperfect market information, none of this is going to matter.

Almost ALL taxes are mandates. If you don't support a war or go to war, you still have to pay for war. Or if you never drive, you still have to pay for bridges. Or use food stamps. And so on.

We live in a pluralistic society where most benefits are indirect. The mandate issue is a red herring. Now we can focus on the hidden mandates- like employer deductions for health care- which distort the system away from fair, universal and transparent.

Good idea for Obama to use his comments today to not only comment on the decision, but to clarify the effects of the law. Coupla things, though: He should have more directly addressed the "imposing on freedom" so-called argument. And he should have given Hillary dap* for having the foresight and/or courage to advocate for her mandate during the 2008 primaries.
(*dap= recognition)

sophia
the people who make seatbelts make money

What what?

Did Obama just say Romney is basically full of shat? He's striking down his lies!

I just listened to Mitt Romney's statement and I don't understand half of it as usual.

I still don't understand why Romney won't defend his own healthcare law in Massachusetts? In fact, why doesn't Romney run on anything from his record as governor of Massachusetts? This puzzles me to no end. Isn't "Obamacare" just like "Romneycare"?

@ladyjay114

Don't forget they get a pretty sweet tax deduction as well. And the fact that it's not included in employee income means middle class employees with company provided insurance are getting a pretty sweet hidden tax deduction, (one of the Simpson-Bowles covered items).

I am sick of the rhetoric from the right (e.g. the speech just given by Romney). How can they say that choice is being taken away from Americans? I know NO ONE who has choice in insurance. Most of us have to take what our employers give us or NOTHING (so I suppose that is a choice of sorts). I suppose the rich have choices in policies.

Furthermore, insurance companies are (and will remain) "between us and our doctors" so there is no government moving into a relationship between us. The dems have to get on this- they have to not allow the republicans to spin this in this outrageously inaccurate way. The democrats always seem to let this go on, to be ununified, to be victims of republican lock-step spin. They will lose if they don't take control of the debate.

Can Romney please explain how 20 million people are going to lose the coverage they want because of this bill???

Romney will repeal Obamacare because he claims it cuts Medicare?

Will he also publicly withdraw his support from the Paul Ryan plan because it cuts Medicare?

@Carol Morisco:

Employers don't have to pay for health insurance. But they offer it because (1)its an addition to the employees compensation package (2)better health care packages attract the best employees to their firms (3)it helps keep employees healthy and maintain productivity

I just heard Romney's comment. I hope someone fact checks his comments; it seems there were a lot of errors. Romney: what a waste of talent.

Buckling your seat belt doesn't cost you any money, and no one makes a profit from it.

Romney is such a robot. Everything he's saying sounds like rhetoric and lies. Right now he's rambling through talking points, vague nonsense.

What a despicable creature.

Wait, I thought Repubs love cuts! Especially on entitlements!
Pure scare tactics on Romney's part. Scare tactics, and hypocrisy. Shameful!

Again LadyJay - those are not private products...

What if U.S. health care was made not-for-profit as in other countries?

"The switch in time that saved nine" -- and 300 million other Americans as well.

Hey Brian,

Government does indeed penalize you if you don't do something.

If you don't file your taxes by April 15, you pay a penalty.

If you don't buckle your seatbelt, you pay a penalty.

You, and every other media personality, keep calling this a "victory" for Obama. I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember what happened in the election following the passage of this law?

Justice Roberts is playingt chess here. Nevertheless, Republican governors are now on the spot: They can now refuse to particpate in Obamacare, correct? Will they?

VLB - Your points are well taken: That's why we could have done the same as we already do with other "social contracts" Police, Fire, Defense etc. by having a public health option...

To all those that are distinguishing this law and Social Security because Social Security is (obviously) not run by corporations, unlike health care which will mandate everyone to be covered via private insurance:

We are already paying private insurance companies to cover citizens: Its called Medicaid and Medicare. These two programs are administered by private insurance companies all over the country.

@David from Fredericksburg

I agree: the government should do more to control educational costs. How's about the government pays for your medical education if you commit 10 years or something to working for a single payer public option?

I agree this wasn't a great bill in the end, it should've had a public option but instead it turned out to be a handout for insurance companies. But continuing to do nothing and maintaining a system that is great for insurance co and pharmaceutical co profits and mediocre for patients and doctors isn't a plan either.

The only serious plan to come out of the right is: obstruct and repeal.

@D From Brooklyn:

It won't make the poor poorer as most of those people are on Medicaid and more low income people will be on Medicaid as its expanded because of this law. The problem is actually going to be middle income people who don't have any insurance.

You can see how this has played out in Massachusetts. Middle income people who are not insured are paying the penalty, but they'd rather pay the penalty than pay insurance they can't afford since the penalty is much cheaper.

Mark - social security is NOT a private product. Thank you

Social Security dollars don't include a corporate tithe.

@ Mark from Dobbs Ferry

Social Security taxes don't get paid to a private (& for profit) company.

What about the social contract we have as a society? It doesn't seem to come up in this argument but I think it is important. We all bear the burden when someone decides to not have health insurance and goes to the emergency room for their care. We all pay taxes to have a certain quality of life that is what makes (or did) the US great. the government funds public education, security, roads, libraries, arts, etc. We could end up like Pakistan where the rich pay for these things just for themselves and everyone is left out in the cold without any services.

I disagree with the idea that we are being taxed into submission by the ACA. I see it as a tax credit for people who buy health insurance. If you choose not to buy insurance then you are not entiltled to the tax credit and your taxes are higher than someone who does buy insurance. How is this different than a tax credit for installing solar panels? Am I being compelled to install solar panels because I don't qualify for the tax credit? Am I less "free"? I don't think so.

Regarding the tax issue, makes more sense if you look at it in reverse:

EVERYONE is taxed. If you buy insurance, you get an exemption.

Question is, where do the tax dollars go? directly to health care, or mixed in with all the other taxes the fed collects?

This decision is the culmination of a huge charade: the Republicans are really delighted by this policy passing - they effectively designed it, so why shouldn't they? Everything else, all of the opposition and abuse, has been just bluster for the base. Progressives are the only ones who should be infuriated by this law; it forces people to buy insurance from companies that have consistently be shown to break the law and bilk government of millions of Medicare and Medicaid dollars. The word corruption is now synonymous with business in this country today and we have truly returned to the nineteenth century. Still, given the lack of interest in the environment and science, we'll be lucky if we make it to mid-century anyway.

To be shocked by Roberts' decision is ridiculous. If this law was knocked down, SCOTUS would have been under intense scrutiny and the major target of Progressives, and just like campaign financing, no one wants a spotlight analysing the real power brokers in this "democracy' - unelected rich white guys.

And now everyone's talking about taxes and "freedom" - what a farce. But fair dues - the Republicans deserve a round of applause for this manipulation. Well played.

@Paul

Absolutely. This is at least a two-fer. The court approves of the Federal govt forcing an individual to pay a corporate tax, but can't tell the states what to do with Federal taxes.

Are we not already mandated to have car insurance. How about school taxes to offer free education to all of our children.

I'm not sure - do employers have to "pay" for health insurance or just offer it.

Examples of taxes for not doing something? Plenty of examples: pretty much any deduction or tax credit you don't qualify for. Don't have a mortgage? Don't have student loans? You pay more in taxes at the end of the year because you didn't choose to enter into those commercial transactions.

For all the whining about how wrong it is to mandate the purchase of insurance, we are all also required to pay into Social Security, a pretty-well established practice. How is that different?

Well said caller. The feds can now "tax" you for NOT buying a private product...

Maybe I'm not understanding this completely but wont this make the poor poorer? No health insurance PLUS paying a tax PLUS potentially paying out-out-of-pocket EQUALS less money.

Anyone else read the part of the opinion where Roberts limited the commerce clause? It appears he swooped under the noses of most and severely limited the power of the federal government to regulate commerce without calling it a tax. This means, it would be much much harder, or near impossible, to pass a bill like Obamacare or even a future reform for universal healthcare.

McConnell said republicans will replace the law with something better, something that truly addresses...blah, blah, blah.

When will the republicans get around to telling us exactly what those plans are?

Here's the thing about President Obama...he moved the ball forward. This law probably isn't perfect, but he ACTUALLY GOT SOMETHING DONE.

All the republicans have to hang their hat on is to say this is a tax. It seems to me the truth is far more complex and, as usual, republicans resort to rhetoric rather than real information. I'm sure they expected the law to fall and then they would have strutted like roosters.

@ meatwnyc

And what are the educational costs for Canadian & European doctors?

What about liability costs?

The US is a completely different environment. I'm not saying we don't have a problem with out of control costs - I'm just saying this won't fix it.

I'm not surprised it was Roberts. He's the Number One corporatist on the court.

Insurance companies ADORE the mandate, which is now set in stone and all the alleged consumer benefits can be whittled away at year after year.

I have mixed feelings about this decision. I am a vociferous advocate of single payer health care, but my misgiving on this law is the following:
Can the government compel us to purchase services from a PRIVATE company as opposed to a national governmental program? And what guarantees do we have that these private/public? company policies will not be able to price-gouge all of us with impunity now that we are mandated to them?

What will happen to the privately-funded programs that help out the uninsured, like discounts at Planned Parenthood or some pharmacies?

@Kathy from Clifton NJ - You make a good question. However, you can go to the Hospital and get treated, but you will not get the treatment you would get if you had health insurance. Expecting that this law makes health insurance affordable for middle class people, I would expect that these people will opt for good health care against the long lines of mediocre healthcare.

@ jawbone

Do you have ANY idea how many dirtbags are driving new cars, drinking Starbucks lattes & wearing designer clothes/sunglasses/purses and whine they can't afford insurance?!

I have to purchase my own health insurance & I think it's BS that deadbeats can get uninsured health care and then skip out on the bill.

Of course, the truly destitute shouldn't be penalized, but there is a LARGE portion of the uninsured are just deadbeats.

It is obvious now that President Obama is one of the greatest presidents in U.S. History. Today's decision is as important as Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Ed. and Bush v. Gore. We are on the other side of a crossroads economically, politcally and socially that began with the Lehman brothers collapse in 2008.

The GOP internal memo said "Do not spike the ball" At this point the GOP is eating the ball!

Well said Estelle. Obamacare = Timid, neo liberalism at its worst.

We should have had single-payer....

"The hospital loses MILLIONS each year with Medicare (Which causes private insurance to be more expensive - the hospital has to make up the medicare, medicaid and self-pay (read no-pay) patient losses with the rest of the patients."

Then best to make up the losses without the additional burden of the parasitical insurance company middle-men.

Health insurance is the opposite of health care. This is a HUGE windfall for the for profit insurance lobby (who write the actual bill). They are awfully quiet these days. Billions in profits for them... and every dollar is out of the pocket of a working desperate American with no "public option" as an alternative.

This is health care blackmail or extortion on a national level. National not for profit health care would have solved ALL of these problems without the mess and without another 700 billion dollar corporate give away.

ALl you media news people are so very disappointing. For example, does the phrase "rising health care costs" INCLUDE corporate profits, Billions in advertising costs, outrageous salaries and profit dividends?

Can private "insurance" corporations change ANY of the rules to their liking over the years? Like what they will or won't cover? What the will or won't pay out? ANd thousands of other rules they make up in their favor at will? Yes they can.

"Health Insurance" does not insure anyone's health. It is a FINANCIAL instrument that protects your assets! Not your health.

There are 1000's of economic / moral problems with the social disaster / abomination you call "health insurance" or "coverage" .

This is another GIANT corporate give away. America needs NOT FOR PROFIT Health Care for ALL! Like every other country in the world . So called Health insurance is a GIANT scam / ripoff and has NO reason to even exist in this century. I pray one day NO American will have "insurance" and ALL Americans will have fair and equitable health care.

What happened to the public option?

Medical bills are already the primary cause of bankruptcy, (not just number one but a majority, approx 62%).

Surprised, thrilled, and think that Kagan, Breyer and Ginsberg won over Roberts. Kennedy was already a lost cause. Ginsberg and Breyer both commented during oral argument on the broad powers of the feds under the tax clause, and Roberts agreed. They must have seen an opening and pursued that opening.

"Thus, 3 &1/2 years later, we have had the poorest recovery in modern history and are still stuck with 1.9% GDP growth and 8.2% unemployment (15% underemployment)." - Martin Chuzzlewit

Wrong. The Great Depression started in 1930 and the unemployment rate was 8%. In 1940 the unemployment rate was 15%. The unemployment rate in that decade averaged 18.5% The lowest unemployment rates recorded during that decade was 15% - in 1931, 1937 and 1940. It took a war for the Depression to end. I think we're doing much better.

@David from Fredericksburg

And yet all my Canadian and European friends and colleagues love their health care systems, regardless of what the Fox rhetoric tries to suggest.

Re: the 20% cap on profit and administrative costs -- This is where lobbyists will earn their money for the Big For-Profit Health Insurance Companies, by influencing the regulators to write regulations which benefit the bottom line of the insurers.

And, given the level of regulatory capture in this country, the insurers should come out of this in great shape. They'll be in clover, for a few years at least. Until their greed leads to more and more people above the Medicaid level to have to make do with junk insurance so bad using it for anything serious will put them into bankruptcy. Or worse, if medical bills can't be discharged in bankruptcy.

(Nice touch, that, David from Fredericksburg, VA @ 10:42:
Better start up Soylent Green for us to be able to make a donation to society when we commit suicide due to overwhelming medical bills. Debtors' prisons are so passe and don't result in any profit except for the owners of the prisons.)

@ meatwnyc

Re: public option - see my response to Estelle - medicare for all.

Awesome-21stc enlightened european style democracy is a coming to the USA!Step aside you right wing- if you're rich you must be good, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps brainwashed by hyper capitlism and puritanism.You're on the wrong side of history.

Now we just need a public option!!! (A revenue neutral one, paid fully by premiums - but it will be not-for-profit).

Interesting that Linda Greenhouse at NYT so often gets it right -- she is by far the most astute SCOTUS observer and analyst. See her NYT column of 6/27/12, titled "D-Day," with the insight that Roberts seems to have more respect for legislative action than expected -- so not surprising to her that Roberts voted with the liberals.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/d-day/

@ Estelle

If we went to a Medicare for all system - good luck getting a timely appointment. There's already a shortage of primary care providers, all Medicare would lead to a general shortage.

I work for an Orthopedic practice - we don't take medicare, it just doesn't cover the cost of care (forget about any pay for the Dr.)

The hospital here loses MILLIONS each year with medicare. (Which causes private insurance to be more expensive - the hospital has to make up the medicare, medicaid & self-pay(read no-pay) patient losses with the rest of the patients)

"All they can't do is penalize states which refuse to participate in Medicaid expansion."

This is the VERY REASON some very disappointed and skeptical liberals were persuaded to support this bill!

Question: If you elect not to buy health ins and and are taxed, and pay tax do you get free med care? Or are you punished by not getting health care. It seems anyone can walk into a hospital if they are sick & be treated. I realize this is not the best, but it seems confusing.

JoeCorrao:

The health mandate also says insurance companies have to spend 80% of the insurance fees on health care, and only 20% on profits and administration. It's already been reported that significant rebates are coming as a result of this. In that sense one could say Obama cut taxes for the middle class. Also right now a lot of uninsured people get treatment in Emergency Rooms, which inflates the cost for everyone else and is already a form of hidden taxes.

But the tax thing is all how you look at it anyway. One can argue that when Bush passed two large UNFUNDED tax cuts, therefore funding them with deficits, he passed a tax increase on future generations.

I think it's important to consider how the promise of employment has changed for this generation of young workers when discussing how young adults will choose to engage with the individual mandate. As more and more of my 20-something contemporaries experience untraditional employment trajectories, self-employment, frequent transitions between employers or industries, for example, the ability to untangle healthcare from employment, I believe will be very apprealing an attractive to young adults, and not something they will seek to side-step.

And think of it, you're employing lots of government, yes government, employees--hundreds? thousand?--instead of a handful of billionaires. Just stop and think folks.

Here's the 600 pound gorilla that was in the room before 10 a.m. today-- we were all paying for the uninsured one way or another anyway.
Might as well manage it better.

another sad day in a long string of sad days recently....this country is really turning into a place that's so far away from what it should and can be. this law is a ridiculous, shallow, meaningless gift to insurance companies under the guise of increasing the social good. this is bad for our society and great for big business.
why are liberals so easily tricked and persuaded by anything obama does?
single payer is the ONLY way. it has to be all or nothing regarding this issue.

I have mixed feelings. In the back of my mind I hoped it would be struck down so that we would be forced to create a Medicare-for-all system. However, I also realized this might have been unlikely in my lifetime. So, I suppose I am relieved.

When do the extreme conservatives start burning effigies of Justice Roberts?

And that's the point. These people who are against paying a somewhat small increase in taxes for a general Medicare like comprehensive for all coverage, they'd rather pay huge amounts of money to health insurance companies CEOs and their co-upper management team and keep them multi-millionaires and billionaires. Don't people think!! Think of it $700 annual tax (maybe less) for total comprehensive health care or$5000 and more likely $10,000 pre annum to a limited coverage by a health insurer who pays the greater part of the money to their upper management "team". Not a hard choice.

Since undocumented immigrants are barred from federally funded Medicaid, and are barred from participating even with their own funds in the ACA private healthcare exchanges, does the individual mandate apply to them? What will their options for affordable care be?

DId you see that the incorrect statement re being allowed not to pay the tax arouse from a SCOTUS Blog.
Tom's comment - Tom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

The insurance company kick-back has been preserved, and the Medicaid enforcement has been weakened.

What a pathetic state liberalism has fallen into that this jerry-rigged corporatist bail-out is considered a victory.

Great news!!!! We have to start somewhere.

I knew a guy on welfare in Israel who accidentally or chose not pay the minimal Sick Fund payment for a while, and when he ended up in a hospital, and didn't have the $1000 dollars they demanded he pay, he ended up in jail. There is still debtor's prison in Israel for people who won't pay their debts or child support payments. He actually phoned me in the US and begged me to send him the money to bail him out, and I've see that money again.

In this new scheme, if you don't pay, you'll have to pay a bigger fine eventually, but we don't have debtor's prison. But we do have credit scores than can cripple your ability to buy anything without cash.

Why go to Twitter?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Will the income-based subsidy appear as a discount on a family's monthly premium? Or is it a yearly tax rebate that a family has to wait until tax time to actually get?

Smokey from LES:

I think they're still getting their money's worth...the insurance companies are gaining 18 million plus customers.

I still think a better approach is to make medical charges non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, if the patient doesn't have insurance.

Roberts, possibly, was swayed more by his support of corporations: The mandate was long term tactic by the big for-profit health insurance companies to allow them to continue in business making big profits. Without the mandate more and more people would be opting out. More and more people were uninsured and pressure was increasing for universal health care.

The big insurers had begun to price themselves out of the market of many Americans, and this was before 2008's Big Sh$t Piles meltdown broke the underlying support for the middle class in this nation. Now, even more people will find decent health insurance dificult to afford, but they will have to buy something, probably junk insurance.

However, I wonder what the fine print will show Roberts is saying and perhaps laying the groundwork for: Ways to limit the power of the Federal government to create universal health care...?

Developing....

Hooray!
I'm shocked that this court upheld the law.
BUT I'm sooo pleased.
I love broccoli ;>

BTW, Paul Krugman agrees with me that's this is a depression NOT a recession. It's not (so far-my word) as large as the Great Depression but he believes it is a depression and I called that long before he admitted it. There are other economists who agree with him.

Obama said he would not raise taxes on the Middle Class... SCOTUS says its a tax.

The federal government uses the tax code to penalize behavior all the time. We just tend to think of it as rewarding the opposite behavior. Don't have kids? Tax penalty! Don't have a mortgage? Tax penalty!

jgarbuz
and my point is the court just said the feds can't do that

To hjs

I don't personally remember, because I was living in Israel during most of the 1980s. But the Federal gov't has the right to reduce or take away any funds it gives to the states. Who gives the money makes the law, most of the time. Money RULES :) Wish I had some.

Martin: looks like the President knows his Constitution after all! So what does this mean? Perhaps that the Republicans in Congress spent the last 2 years fighting health legislation when they should've instead been focusing their attention on the economic crisis and initiating steps for recovery.

Although I also have to agree with you that there was too long in the beginning spent on getting this passed. It should've just been passed in it's original form with a public option and without all the handouts for insurance companies that were stuck in by the GOP and the health care lobby. (Of course, that was dragged out by the Right as well, I think Obama was expecting to pass it quick and move on).

scotusblog issued a correction about refusing the mandate and paying a tax

from scotusblog

Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

Get ready - our premiums are all going to go up.

Regarding this quote from SCOTUSblog "The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate."

There was a subsequent post: "Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax."

Martin Chuzzlewit
pessimist!

SCOTUSblog corrects itself later on, calling it a typo -- you can't just refuse to pay the tax.

Thank you for beautifully broadcasting this huge moment in our history Brian.

Yes, hjs, the inability to penalize states by withholding funds contradicts Supreme Court precedent. They found it okay for Reagan to withhold highway funds to states that didn't raise the drinking age to 21. And states have plenary power over regulation of alcohol, so this is an extreme diversion from precedent.

This this SCOTUS blog clarification answers question Brian just asked:

"Tom:
Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax."

CNN ALWAYS screws up or doe so very often. It's a gimmick with them to capture an audience. And why Brian always cozies up to CNN is beyond my comprehension. YOU"RE WNYC stay independent, people pay you out of their own pockets to do that and you snuggle up to CNN. If you want to go to CNN permanently (as you have previously participated on CNN as we all know) then go there permanently. Don't do CNN's corporate dirty work for them while your "supporters" are paying for independent reporting out of their own pockets in this depression, these hard times.

Brian -- if you scroll down they corrected that. It was a typo. Eveyone must pay the mandate as a tax,

Re: not paying the tax. Keep reading the SCOTUS blog, that is a mistake.

didn't that thing about choosing not to pay the tax get corrected as a typo on scotusblog?

Since it's a tax, the Republican's can now accuse Obama of raising taxes. ;-)

Oh, great....so now we have both an expensive new bill that we can't afford AND a lousy economy that won't generate the revenues to support it.

This won't turn out well.

Didn’t the federal government (Reagan?) penalize the states that refused to raise the drinking age by threatening to take away highway funds?

jgarbuz you'll see. dinosaurs should retire

There was a conservative judge who upheld the law on appeal, remember?

Seems like the SCOTUS gave him a lot of respect.

Question for the experts - If the mandate is a tax, then how can the Supreme Court rule on it? I was under the impression that a tax cannot be disputed until it is applied. Is this ruling possibly setting up another court ruling after 2015?

To john from Office

No, health care for the poor, like public education for the poor, is mandated charity. The rich, educated, and healthy are mandated to pay for the poor. The only question is, how much?

I'll take a raincheck on the invitation to react - one would want to read the decision first.
;-)

Will Republicans now impeach Roberts? They didn't get their money's worth out of him!

Ruling on it as a tax is totally appropriate. It assuages concerns on the commerce clause and I think the Supreme Court did a good job keeping things sane.

Brian: While listening to your live announcement of the SCOTUS ruling on ACA, I was looking at CNN's Web site and they led with the banner headline "SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE". Needless to say I was confused. They kept up that erroneous headline for a few minutes.

It's like "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" all over again!

Perhaps now, the Obama administration and Dems will speak out more specifically as to what is actually in the law and how it will affect everyone. One can only hope.

to hsj11211

No, WE CAN'T :)

Four more years!!!! Embrace OBAMACARE because health care is a right.

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan

where are u now? what do u think about the court?

This still could energize the liberal base even though obamacare won, because the whole process here has woken up many people into seeing how fragile things are in the country and on the supreme court - had it been a slam dunk, people would go back to sleep and take things for granted, but they might care more about things now.

This reported Tom just said that this has "solved one" of the biggest problems in our country, which I don't think is entirely true. I think this is just a step in the right direction. The Republicans will fight against it while it is implemented and in the long run some things may change, for better, but to solve the issue of health care, there much much more to do.

turn off the lights, the show is closing.

@Stephen from prospect heights - I don't know, but I think they tend to do this a little too much. Its been looking a bit too outsourced for me in the past years, so I have stopped watching it almost 100% for its inaccuracy and some epic fails sometimes

So the broccoli argument was a red herring. And all the pre-decision punditry was mostly hot air. Who could have predicted that Roberts would be the swing vote. But I agree he saved the reputation of the Supreme Court.

it's over...

Yeah CNN said the mandate was struck down but Fox of all people, are saying it was upheld....and we all know that they are "fair and balanced"

Feel the "hope" flowing back into my body after months of dread.
-
Seems as important to me as that scene in the apocalyptic science fiction film: Dual headlines "Earth saved" "Earth doomed", with everyone waiting for the answer.
-
Will Download this segment as a memento.

cnn had a headline that the mandate was struck down! guess they didn't bother to read the opinion!

Brian, please confirm, as CNN is reporting that the mandate was struck down!

Why is CNN reporting that Mandate is struck down and deemed unconstitutional?

Good news!! Re-elect President Obama!!

@Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan - I think it is pretty unbelievable that people like you forget who got in this mess. Non of our Presidents have been the best, but at least in Clinton's time we had a surplus, and all of the sudden people forget about the "patriotism" that took us into war and the greed that has taken us to debt, but it is somehow Obama's fault. Haha! I cannot wait to see what people write about in History books about this. People are okay getting free stuff, but oh no!! pay for my health care... no no...how can you "make me" take care of myself...no no

Where is the conservative outcry about an activist supreme court?!?!

This is a historic moment, absolutely.

To Martin:

Actually, it proves that unlike his critics the President is capable of multi-tasking. The President came in with the economy and country driving full speed over a cliff and managed to veer us off that course.

Also, this recovery shouldn't be compared to small recessions but to the Depression instead. On that comparison I think this recovery is doing great. But let's go with your comparison anyway, cause you need a fact check. Private employment numbers are actually recovering better right now than the last two recessions during the Bush terms. The employment problem this time is being created by massive layoffs in the public sector.

On hindsight this seems somewhat predictable as Obama has been strangely calm during the past few weeks during this ruling process. No hysterical campaigning in support of the mandate.

CNN is reporting that the mandate was struck down.

CNN iPad app just reported that mandate was struck down...??

Upheld? Just outstanding!
What is good for our seniors is good for all.
Small business thrives. Families will.
And fair commerce in our markets will endure.
The right and extraordinary decision indeed!
Thank you Brian for your delivery of this very good news!

damn

If Obamacare is struck down, I will shed no tears. This well meaning, ostensibly liberal bill is really a Republican one in disguise.

It's every republican's wet dream for Govt to mandate Americans to buy a product from a politically connected private corporation - ask Rick Perry.

Republicans and "conservatives" hate this bill because they hate Obama. Thank God

@ Joe - Another naile in the coffin of what? Broccoli is good for you.

Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan
yes WE CAN!

yay!!! Harvard student Barack Obama knows his stuff.

Unfriggin' believable.

In my personal life, I have experienced three health care systems: (1) The mostly capitalist system that existed in the US in the 1950s, before Medicare and Medicaid, when we had the same doctor for nearly 30 years, who used to make house calls, but there were charity hospitals for the indigent; (2)The semi-socialist system in Israel, where you were forced to buy into the "Sick Fund" every month, but had plenty of local clinics, and didn't have to go broke to get decent health care by surly, underpaid doctors, but God-forbid if you had a serious heart condition, you'd would had to wait on line, unless you had "protekzia," i.e., some "political" connection with somebody who could push you ahead of the queue; and (3) The present mixed US system we have in the US today.

My personal preference would be a mostly capitalist health care system, where the doctors are in control of their own destiny and yours. But I doubt that pragmatically we can go back to that.

If it isn't shot down (or major portions of it) it's another nail in the coffin. I am going to buy some broccoli.

To Martin,

So, Romney is going to be better?:)

What can we conclude if this is struck down?

This President spent his first 2 years pushing a hastily assembled, poorly crafted mess of a health care bill with unconstitutional components......instead of immediately addressing the economic crisis (which he called the "worst since the Great Depression") and initiating steps for recovery.
Thus, 3 &1/2 years later, we have had the poorest recovery in modern history and are still stuck with 1.9% GDP growth and 8.2% unemployment (15% underemployment).

Hey, I know....... let's re-elect this person!!!
Well, gee, it must make sense to some of you out there….you’re actually supporting that idea, LOL.

I don't think there will be any surprises. I'm betting they slap Obama down with glee, out of revenge for Obama having implied that they'd never cut down a president, earlier this year. This is their chance of "proving" how "non-partisan" they are, after making themselves look like Republican lackeys for going with Citizens United and upholding so many parts of it this week.

If they uphold it, it will change my perceptions of human nature. But if they don't, I'm for starting a car insurance rebellion.