ACA Upheld

[coloradonoles]

This may be a wonderful law in the end... but the fact that they did it the way they did and it was so piss poorly written the the SCOTUS had to guess on intent rather than rule on the language is a sad day for us all...

This will come back to haunt all Americans... you have effectively taken the law writing out of the hands of the Congress and placed them in the hands of the Supreme Court, after all they are the ultimate judge of "what you really meant was..."

 

[torbee]

This is actually good news for Republicans, and it seems a few of the right-leaning justices realized this.

As ACA continues to work and provide millions of Americans the opportunity to now access healthcare, had the GOP gotten their way and disabled it - they would have suffered greatly at the polls for years.

 

[pepsicock]

Lol, care to explain this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/06/hawaii-health-insurance_n_7524426.html

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Yes, we agree on that. (sorry). The court isn't supposed to be Carnac the Magnificent, hold a law to its forehead and divine what the people who wrote it "meant" to do; the court is supposed to look at the law and see what it says. If it doesn't say what the Congress meant it to say, then it's up to Congress to fix it.

Otherwise, there is really no point to writing laws at all. Congress and/or state legislatures can simply express what they want to do, and let the courts determine the details. What we actually have is not the court determining the intent of the legislature, but the court determining the intent of the court.

I am not as upset about this as I could be, probably because I was flabbergasted by some of the rulings in the Gore v Bush battles in 2000. At one point, the Florida state supreme court "interpreted" the words "shall not" to mean "must," and a couple of SCOTUS justices agreed with that. After that, nothing is likely to surprise me.

The principle is far more important than the immediate effect of the ruling. It certainly simplifies matters, both for the states and for the people who would have lost their subsidies if the court had ruled that the law means what it says. But in the long run, it's not good. If nobody knows what a law requires or prohibits, the only possible result is chaos.

Completely agree, in particular with the sections that I bolded. Regrettably, the SCOTUS has now reduced themselves to a political body...regardless of your politics...our system was not set up that way and I don't think it will work well going forward for all of us.

 

[codflyer]

I understand what you are saying, but that is not the Supreme Courts job. The bill needed to be fixed by our elected representatives. In this ruling it seems like they are saying this is what we think the congress meant to do so we will go ahead and uphold it. It is our elected representatives job to fix it, not the supreme court.

Yet another slippery slope and it seems like congress can just willy nilly do what they want and hopefully the Supreme Court will later fix the legislation.

In all reality this should have been a 9 to 0 decision the way the law is written.

It is worse than that. They aren't just saying what they think congress meant to do. It is them saying that what congress (and by congress, I mean the small cloister of lobbyists and bureaucrats that actually wrote and understood the law) meant to do didn't end up working and the language that they purposefully used to strong-arm State's adoption ended up actually working against the law, soooooo...whatever you need anything in this law to mean at any given time, it means. It is a terrible decision on the merits, completely politically motivated, and just another act of expediency in regard to this law at the expense of the credibility of the court. I really thought that Roberts was made of better stuff when he was nominated. He has been a massive disappointment.

But, in the short term, the decision will cause less pain for a lot of people, and the SC has certainly made worse decisions in the past and eventually returned to sanity. If folks were hoping for the SC to upset the apple cart in this case after the decision that was made in 2012, they were kidding themselves.

 

[rocketclone]

This is actually good news for Republicans, and it seems a few of the right-leaning justices realized this.

As ACA continues to work and provide millions of Americans the opportunity to now access healthcare, had the GOP gotten their way and disabled it - they would have suffered greatly at the polls for years.

You totally glossed over this. It has nothing to do with if it is working or not or how it is working, it has to do with the words in the legislation and how it was written and there are really only three right leaning Justices so they didn't send it back to be fixed. They basically said this is what we think they meant.

 

[lucas80]

6-3 is an ass kicking in today's Supreme Court. What I'll be looking forward to is do Republicans finally start trying to work with Democrats over the ACA, and stop the wailing and crying. American's want health care. They love the provisions in the law. Will the Republican candidates for President now talk about how they will improve the law? They certainly aren't running on taking away the provisions of the law.
My other main thought today is I can't help but wonder if there will be a push by business for more unified system of health care. Nobody will ever call it nationalized, but there are benefits to increasing workers portability of health care, versus company plans.

 

[NoleandDawg]

Hooray! I get to keep paying for my own health care, which went up by 20% for far worse coverage and only covers catastrophic events now, while also paying for those who'd rather sit around eating doritos, drinking grape pop and watching maury povich reruns all day.

I tried to get an appointment to see my doctor one month ago Monday. The earliest he could see me was July 13. I called around to some of my coworkers doctors to see if I could squeeze in somewhere else. The best I got was the first of August.
My wife was speaking with a doctor friend of hers and he swears it's the bureaucracy of Obamacare that has the system jacked up. All I know is I used to be able to see a doctor without waiting two months and now I can't.

 

[cigaretteman]

6-3 is an ass kicking in today's Supreme Court. What I'll be looking forward to is do Republicans finally start trying to work with Democrats over the ACA, and stop the wailing and crying. American's want health care. They love the provisions in the law. Will the Republican candidates for President now talk about how they will improve the law? They certainly aren't running on taking away the provisions of the law.
My other main thought today is I can't help but wonder if there will be a push by business for more unified system of health care. Nobody will ever call it nationalized, but there are benefits to increasing workers portability of health care, versus company plans.

Good points. You would think employers would be leading the charge to get out of the health insurance business as soon as possible. It would certainly cut their operating expenses a great deal.

 

[rocketclone]

6-3 is an ass kicking in today's Supreme Court. What I'll be looking forward to is do Republicans finally start trying to work with Democrats over the ACA, and stop the wailing and crying. American's want health care. They love the provisions in the law. Will the Republican candidates for President now talk about how they will improve the law? They certainly aren't running on taking away the provisions of the law.
My other main thought today is I can't help but wonder if there will be a push by business for more unified system of health care. Nobody will ever call it nationalized, but there are benefits to increasing workers portability of health care, versus company plans.

This statement is truly sad. This isn't just about healthcare, it is about the make up of the government and how the branches are supposed to work. That is getting turned on it's head and for people like you, it is great because one law got upheld and you have only one group of folks now making the laws, which is the Supreme Court so your elected officials really have no power anymore.

 

[dgordo]

I tried to get an appointment to see my doctor one month ago Monday. The earliest he could see me was July 13. I called around to some of my coworkers doctors to see if I could squeeze in somewhere else. The best I got was the first of August.
My wife was speaking with a doctor friend of hers and he swears it's the bureaucracy of Obamacare that has the system jacked up. All I know is I used to be able to see a doctor without waiting two months and now I can't.

Why? I can call my dr and see him within a day or two.

 

[codflyer]

6-3 is an ass kicking in today's Supreme Court. What I'll be looking forward to is do Republicans finally start trying to work with Democrats over the ACA, and stop the wailing and crying. American's want health care. They love the provisions in the law. Will the Republican candidates for President now talk about how they will improve the law? They certainly aren't running on taking away the provisions of the law.
My other main thought today is I can't help but wonder if there will be a push by business for more unified system of health care. Nobody will ever call it nationalized, but there are benefits to increasing workers portability of health care, versus company plans.

One of the few good things about Obamacare is that it could potentially break the employer provided health insurance paradigm that has been a major driver of higher costs. Now, if that is just replaced with a government provided health insurance situation, it would be a disaster in the long run...but if R's and D's could work together to return insurance to a more individual centered system that allows for portability and more options (including options for catastrophic only coverage), that would be a good thing. Get some tort reform in there and simplify some regulation, and despite the error of the mandate, we could eventually come out ahead.

 

[swagsurfer02]

This statement is truly sad. This isn't just about healthcare, it is about the make up of the government and how the branches are supposed to work. That is getting turned on it's head and for people like you, it is great because one law got upheld and you have only one group of folks now making the laws, which is the Supreme Court so your elected officials really have no power anymore.

This is exactly how I look at it, Lucas celebrates today because the ruling was in his favor. However tomorrow gnashing of teeth ensues due to a precedent which has been set.

 

[cigaretteman]

This is exactly how I look at it, Lucas celebrates today because the ruling was in his favor. However tomorrow gnashing of teeth ensues due to a precedent which has been set.

Had not some conservatives gone through the law with a fine toothed comb to find any nit they could pick at with a frivolous lawsuit, this ruling would have never needed to come about. No one questioned the constitutionality of the subsidies for the federal exchange until the legal assault on the law began.

 

[swagsurfer02]

Had not some conservatives gone through the law with a fine toothed comb to find any nit they could pick at with a frivolous lawsuit, this ruling would have never needed to come about. No one questioned the constitutionality of the subsidies for the federal exchange until the legal assault on the law began.

Actually, the way the law was written had so many warts no comb was needed to see the impending herpes starting to spread all over its face...

Notice all of the extensions and waivers that were needed to make this thing palatable to even the most ardent Democratic Party backers (UNIONS).

Sure, I can agree the Cons didn't like the law and wanted to stop it if you can agree that the way it was written by Dems was half assed and the real inter workings of the bill were glossed over. Deal?

Ps. The only way this got declared constitutional IMO was by IIRC Roberts calling it a "TAX". Now to me, as POTUS this was your crown jewel and signature piece of legislation.....you were a constitutional law expert, as written it wasn't constitutional. I'll say it again, our politicians aren't the best and brightest at least when it comes to real world applications.

 

[NoleandDawg]

Why? I can call my dr and see him within a day or two.

I have no idea. My wife's friend says that the increase in paperwork for doctors because of Obamacare decreases the number of patients they can see. I do not know if this is true or if it is just the case that there are more insured people who want to see the doctor than doctors. Whatever the case, getting a doctors appointment is a royal PITA.

 

[mstp1992]

I tried to get an appointment to see my doctor one month ago Monday. The earliest he could see me was July 13. I called around to some of my coworkers doctors to see if I could squeeze in somewhere else. The best I got was the first of August.
My wife was speaking with a doctor friend of hers and he swears it's the bureaucracy of Obamacare that has the system jacked up. All I know is I used to be able to see a doctor without waiting two months and now I can't.

One of the reasons for longer wait times for appointments is that more people have health coverage and are able to make appointments to see a doctor (roughly unchanged numbers), rather than waiting till it becomes a critical situation and end up in the emergency department. More people are willing to go for preventive care, so the wait for everyone is a bit longer. In the long run, this will lead (in my opinion) to fewer emergency room visits for conditions that may have been preventable.

Another side-effect of the ACA though, is excessive paper work which is ironic since we're supposed to be heading toward an 'all-electronic' format.

EDIT: Nole, I was typing obviously as you responded. You hit the 'nails on the head'. More patients and more paperwork.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

I am not as upset about this as I could be, probably because I was flabbergasted by some of the rulings in the Gore v Bush battles in 2000. At one point, the Florida state supreme court "interpreted" the words "shall not" to mean "must," and a couple of SCOTUS justices agreed with that. After that, nothing is likely to surprise me.

Link? I have never heard this. Not saying you are right or wrong, just would like to see where you get this from. I just searched the Supreme Court's opinion, including the 7-2 portion, and I can't find anything even close to making a statement that the words "shall not" mean "must".

 

[1inamillion]

Business will benefit but usa medicine will drop dramatically in accessibility and quality.We will adopt the Canadian system by controlling prices by denying access to services.Canadiens now flock to American for services that they would have to for years to get in Canada.Quality will drop because the government will dictate the generic or the very limited use of medication to save money-that is if you can actually get an appointment.The employer mandate will be the death nell of private medicine and the beginning of dumbed down socialized medicine.

 

[rocketclone]

Had not some conservatives gone through the law with a fine toothed comb to find any nit they could pick at with a frivolous lawsuit, this ruling would have never needed to come about. No one questioned the constitutionality of the subsidies for the federal exchange until the legal assault on the law began.

If the law was written properly in the first place, we would not be talking about it would we?? This is why the Supreme Court decision should have been 9 to 0. The law is written and they use those words to interpret, in this case they changed the wording of the law. If it was writing properly to begin with and followed we would not be in this position.

 

[pablow]

We're at a point where most federal law is not made by Congress, but instead by administrative agencies, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions. The checks and balances written into the constitution mean less and less every day. The SCOTUS not only endorses this distortion, it participates in it.

 

[strummingram]

We're at a point where most federal law is not made by Congress, but instead by administrative agencies, executive orders, and Supreme Court decisions. The checks and balances written into the constitution mean less and less every day. The SCOTUS not only endorses this distortion, it participates in it.

We're at a point NOW?

Dude, we've been at that point for a LOOOOOOONG time!

 

[strummingram]

Anyone who ever wanted a single payer healthcare system in America can now abandon all hope. Even your side of choice has abandoned you. Hooray for the 2-in-1 duopoly!

 

[naturalmwa]

Anyone who ever wanted a single payer healthcare system in America can now abandon all hope. Even your side of choice has abandoned you. Hooray for the 2-in-1 duopoly!

That happened several years ago.

 

[22*43*51]

Right now there are lawyers all over the country that are drafting appeals to the intent of some of your favorite laws.

Can you imagine?

Yes, your honor. I know law "X" has been on the books forever and the wording is clear, but what I think it really intended to do was "Y".

Like I said in another thread. Next to the Citizen United ruling this is the most damaging affront to the Republic as I can remember.(maybe more so)

The ACA piece of the conversation is just window dressing.

 

[strummingram]

That happened several years ago.

Fine, whenever. Clearly people are content with their crumbs.

Fortunately, there are decades, even centuries, worth of arguing ahead. You'll be defending how great mandatory insurance is, and the quality of care will diminish, and the costs will increase, and the people will lose-out and the ones that rigged this system will succeed. And, you'll cheer their success. You'll keep applauding your crumbs!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I understand what you are saying, but that is not the Supreme Courts job. The bill needed to be fixed by our elected representatives. In this ruling it seems like they are saying this is what we think the congress meant to do so we will go ahead and uphold it. It is our elected representatives job to fix it, not the supreme court.

Yet another slippery slope and it seems like congress can just willy nilly do what they want and hopefully the Supreme Court will later fix the legislation.

In all reality this should have been a 9 to 0 decision the way the law is written.

As I point out from time to time, the constitution is practically silent on what the Supreme Court's "job" is. So I don't think you can really say the highlighted part.

It certainly would have been cleaner if the Congress had chosen to fix the confusion by passing a sentence or 2 of clarifying language. But they didn't. And we know why they didn't. Not because they doubted that the intent was what SCOTUS held, but simply because the GOP has based a huge part of it's message to the public on opposition to Obamacare.

So that put SCOTUS in a difficult bind. Do they let the perfect be the enemy of the good? Do they let foolish consistency be the hobgoblin that overrules rational thought?

This becomes a salami slicing situation. Where do you draw the line? If the ability of the law to do what was intended was disrupted because of a typo, would the Court be justified in saying "this is what the law meant to say"? If you aren't willing to harm millions of Americans because of a typo, why would you insist upon it in this case?

 

[dgordo]

Right now there are lawyers all over the country that are drafting appeals to the intent of some of your favorite laws.

Can you imagine?

Yes, your honor. I know law "X" has been on the books forever and the wording is clear, but what I think it really intended to do was "Y".

Like I said in another thread. Next to the Citizen United ruling this is the most damaging affront to the Republic as I can remember.(maybe more so)

The ACA piece of the conversation is just window dressing.

Deference to legislative or administrative intent has been precedent for a really long time.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Right now there are lawyers all over the country that are drafting appeals to the intent of some of your favorite laws.

Can you imagine?

Yes, your honor. I know law "X" has been on the books forever and the wording is clear, but what I think it really intended to do was "Y".

Like I said in another thread. Next to the Citizen United ruling this is the most damaging affront to the Republic as I can remember.(maybe more so)

The ACA piece of the conversation is just window dressing.

You may be right about lawyers doing that. But I don't think the court really opened the door to that. I certainly hope not. I haven't been able to get up the energy to read the ruling, so I don't really know.

 

[Lone Clone]

6-3 is an ass kicking in today's Supreme Court. What I'll be looking forward to is do Republicans finally start trying to work with Democrats over the ACA, and stop the wailing and crying. American's want health care. They love the provisions in the law. Will the Republican candidates for President now talk about how they will improve the law? They certainly aren't running on taking away the provisions of the law.
My other main thought today is I can't help but wonder if there will be a push by business for more unified system of health care. Nobody will ever call it nationalized, but there are benefits to increasing workers portability of health care, versus company plans.

As long as people keep saying "health care" when they're talking about health insurance, rational thought and action is doomed.

 

[22*43*51]

You may be right about lawyers doing that. But I don't think the court really opened the door to that. I certainly hope not. I haven't been able to get up the energy to read the ruling, so I don't really know.

I'm being a bit dramatic.

They certainly broke a paradigm that many will try to take advantage of.

 

[PCBHAWK]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/06/hawaii-health-insurance_n_7524426.html

Your link did nothing to explain why you think its a pyramid scheme.

The link said Hawaii was inept at the state level so they converted to the FFM.

 

[Lone Clone]

Deference to legislative or administrative intent has been precedent for a really long time.

Sure it has, and that's a necessary evil sometimes. This time, it wasn't. They had the language of the bill, and the explanation of one of the key creators.

I tried to get an appointment to see my doctor one month ago Monday. The earliest he could see me was July 13. I called around to some of my coworkers doctors to see if I could squeeze in somewhere else. The best I got was the first of August.
My wife was speaking with a doctor friend of hers and he swears it's the bureaucracy of Obamacare that has the system jacked up. All I know is I used to be able to see a doctor without waiting two months and now I can't.

My doctor is the same...you don't even want to get him started on Obamacare.

 

[PCBHAWK]

Sure it has, and that's a necessary evil sometimes. This time, it wasn't. They had the language of the bill, and the explanation of one of the key creators.

My doctor is the same...you don't even want to get him started on Obamacare.

Get started on an Obamacare rant. I would like to see the misinformation you want to post.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Fine, whenever. Clearly people are content with their crumbs.

Fortunately, there are decades, even centuries, worth of arguing ahead. You'll be defending how great mandatory insurance is, and the quality of care will diminish, and the costs will increase, and the people will lose-out and the ones that rigged this system will succeed. And, you'll cheer their success. You'll keep applauding your crumbs!

I can't speak for natural but as the first person on HROT to object to the mandate, I won't be defending it. I understand the need for it in this approach, but understanding it isn't the same as liking it.

One of the reasons for preferring a Medicare for all approach - aka single-payer - is that it ditches the mandatory part. You don't have to get coverage, you are covered.

Sure, going to a Medicare for all approach would bring its own issues, but this wouldn't be one of them. Nor would it be the boondoggle for the insurance industry that Obamacare has been.

My hope is that after a few years on full-blown Obamacare, we can revisit single-payer without the hysteria.

 

[pablow]

Deference to legislative or administrative intent has been precedent for a really long time.

Only if a statutue or rule is ambiguous.

 

[NoleandDawg]

One of the reasons for longer wait times for appointments is that more people have health coverage and are able to make appointments to see a doctor (roughly unchanged numbers), rather than waiting till it becomes a critical situation and end up in the emergency department. More people are willing to go for preventive care, so the wait for everyone is a bit longer. In the long run, this will lead (in my opinion) to fewer emergency room visits for conditions that may have been preventable.

Another side-effect of the ACA though, is excessive paper work which is ironic since we're supposed to be heading toward an 'all-electronic' format.

EDIT: Nole, I was typing obviously as you responded. You hit the 'nails on the head'. More patients and more paperwork.

Just so I'm clear the delay in seeing a doctor is not a "bit" longer, it's two months longer. This is not an acceptable side effect of Obamacare. It is a de facto rationing which is a natural by product of socialization of an industry.

The reason I went to the doctor was because I got gout. The pain in my foot was tremendous and being told the doc can squeeze you in in a couple of months is ridiculous.

Contrast that with the veterinary practice. If I want to get my dog in to see a doctor that's no problem. I can get in before the end of the day or the next day at worst. Why should dogs get better access to doctors than people? Obamacare sucks. There is no other way to look at it.

 

[dgordo]

Only if a statutue or rule is ambiguous.

Sure, just like 5 courts have now ruled.

 

[naturalmwa]

Fine, whenever. Clearly people are content with their crumbs.

Fortunately, there are decades, even centuries, worth of arguing ahead. You'll be defending how great mandatory insurance is, and the quality of care will diminish, and the costs will increase, and the people will lose-out and the ones that rigged this system will succeed. And, you'll cheer their success. You'll keep applauding your crumbs!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Just so I'm clear the delay in seeing a doctor is not a "bit" longer, it's two months longer. This is not an acceptable side effect of Obamacare. It is a de facto rationing which is a natural by product of socialization of an industry.

Yeah, like the US Postal Service. And public utilities. I get tired of turning on the tap and waiting for days before I get water. Damn socialists.