.

Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act: POLL

What do you think about the high court's decision to uphold the controversial health care law?

According to a report by the Chicago Tribune, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the controversial Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), including the invidual insurance requirement.

The individual mandate makes it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance. Many opponents believe Congress overreached by forcing all people to purchase insurance.

"The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty," the Trib's report read.

CNN is reporting that the entire Affordable Care Act was upheld by a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was in the majority and wrote the majority opinion. 

Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog wrote this in that site's live blog

"There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding." 

Tell us what La Grange and La Grange Park think about Today's ruling by voting in our poll and in comments below.

Paul June 28, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Its really not that complicated. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/24/505179/10-things-you-would-miss-about-obamacare/
Matthew Hendrickson June 28, 2012 at 09:10 PM
This is kind of what I'm talking about though. You've just linked to a progressive blog. I could link to a conservative blog right now that would tell you 10 ways Obamacare will ruin the U.S. economy. I think, one, the president has not done a good job of getting information out about what's in this bill, and two, that both sides of the debate have done a good job of simplifying the issue. I'm not saying the link you've put up is inaccurate. I'm just saying that I think this is how people are learning about the issue. Depending on which site you go to, you'll get different information. Like most things, this is a wait-and-see scenario. Somethings will work, others wont, and it will be tweaked.
Scott Mesick June 29, 2012 at 05:25 PM
Without debating the actual merits of a single payer system I can only say the decision seems faulty based on the comments of Justice Roberts though I understand what he was trying to do and applaud that effort. By saying it is not commerce (while I believe it is commerce to mandate a purchase) thus exempting it from that provision in the Constitution and calling it a tax would mean the bill needed to originate in the house, which it technically did but the Senate grabbed it, stripped it to a shell bill and reintroduced it making this a very shaky proposition. Either way it now up to the people to decide through their elected representatives. It can be retained or overturned. Choose wisely is all I can say.
Charles R Polk July 01, 2012 at 03:47 PM
I'm a liberal and I opposed the ACA because I don't feel it will work to lower health care costs. I believe a single payer type system is the only thing that will do that. I suspect even if conservatives cannot repeal the law now what they will do is come back in 2018 with the argument that the ACA hasn't brought health care costs under control and so it should be reformed or repealed. The fact is, the Republican minority effectively demagogued the parts of the bill that would have had the greatest effect in controlling the cost of health care and got it stripped out of the bill so they could come back and run against it in the future. I just listened to Bobby Jindal make the argument that the court ignored that old southern battle cry of 'states rights' as being preeminent so that he states could act as 'laboratories' for different solutions but my question is what then? So we try fifty different solutions and then we find a couple that work really well and that's it? What is the point in conducting fifty piecemeal experiments if those that work don't get extended to all the states?
Scott Mesick July 01, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Charles, there was (and is) plenty of demagoguery going around on both sides of the issue and facts are damnable things because perhaps the minority (now majority) really stated their view and opinion and others saw it in a similar manner. Do not underestimate the ability of many people to actually understand the issues before them and its effects on their lives. Simply, we are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic and the enumerated powers do not include a right to Government provided health care. I know some try to use the general welfare argument but that is far too vague and could lead to frivolous "rights" to almost anything. As a Constitutional Republic the States rights ARE preeminent and the Constitution intended them to be so. We are not a cookie cutter country. What works for one state does not work for all and the Massachusetts version of the ACA is a dismal failure anyway so why extend it to the entire country? How about for a start that we allow insurance to be purchased across state lines to open up competition and thus bring the costs down? Something not addressed at all in the ACA. Again, I leave this up to the people. I would surmise the actual solution lies somewhere in between and compromise might actually get us there. Something neither party has allowed to this point.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »