Quantcast

Monday, July 28, 2014         

HEALTH CARE LAW SURVIVES SUPREME COURT


 Print   Email   Comment | View 67 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Obama: Health ruling 'a victory for people all over this country'

By Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 08:17 a.m. HST, Jun 29, 2012


The 5-4 decision upholding President Barack Obama's health care law affects nearly every American. The law tells almost everyone they must have health coverage and guarantees it will be available to them even if they are already ill or need hugely expensive care. It helps the poor and many middle-class people afford coverage.

JUSTICES RULE

The high court upheld almost all of the law, including the most disputed part: the mandate that virtually all Americans have health insurance or pay a fine. The court said that fine is essentially a tax, and that's why the government has the power to impose it.

The ruling limited the law's plan to expand the Medicaid insurance program for the poor, a joint effort of the federal government and states. It says the U.S. government cannot withhold a state's entire Medicaid allotment if it doesn't participate in the expansion.

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's four liberal justices -- Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor -- to form the 5-4 majority.

POLITICAL IMPACT

The court upheld Obama's signature legislative achievement. Final word from the court amplifies the most polarizing issue of his re-election campaign against Republican Mitt Romney.

"Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law," Obama said Thursday.

GOP lawmakers and Romney have promised to repeal the law if they are in power after the November election.

"What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States," Romney said Thursday. "And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare."

WHAT NOW?

The 2010 health care law will keep taking effect. It's expected to bring coverage to about 30 million uninsured people. Overall, more than 9 in 10 eligible Americans will be covered.

Some parts are already in effect:

>> Young adults can stay on their parents' insurance up to age 26.

>> Insurers can't deny coverage to children with health problems.

>> Limits on how much policies will pay out to each person over a lifetime are eliminated.

>> Hundreds of older people already are saving money through improved Medicare prescription benefits.

>> And co-payments for preventive care for all ages have been eliminated.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Starting in 2014, almost everyone will be required to be insured or pay a fine. There are subsidies to help people who can't afford coverage. Most employers will face fines if they don't offer coverage for their workers. Newly created insurance markets will make it easier for individuals and small businesses to buy affordable coverage. And Medicaid will be expanded to cover more low-income people.

Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to people with medical problems or charging those people more. They won't be able to charge women more, either. During the transition to 2014, a special program for people with pre-existing health problems helps these people get coverage. 

NOT ALL ARE COVERED

An estimated 26 million people will remain without coverage once the law is fully implemented, including illegal immigrants, people who don't sign up and choose to face the fines instead, and those who can't afford it even with the subsidies. That number could be higher, depending on whether any states refuse the Medicaid expansion.

NEXT FIGHT

All of that assumes the law stands.

The Republican-led House already has voted for repeal but can't push it forward so long as Obama's in the White House and Democrats lead the Senate -- making the November elections crucial.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called the court decision "a fresh start on the road to repeal."






 Print   Email   Comment | View 67 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(67)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
what wrote:
Freedom died a little today.
on June 29,2012 | 01:48AM
tiki886 wrote:
Whenever Dems win, I buy more guns and ammo. They are great salesmen in that regard. I think Obama has sold more firearms and ammo in three and a half years than any President in history.
on June 29,2012 | 05:16AM
peanutgallery wrote:
It's too bad that things aren't viewed in terms of a win for America. It's too bad that the press headline didn't read: "Americans win today". Instead we have the most divisive political fools,spurred-on by a rabid media. A 24 hour news cycle desperate to report Dem successes over Republicans. When will it be about "the folks" again?
on June 29,2012 | 06:01AM
news333 wrote:
What RU sayin? If crime increases, and more police r sent to these crime area's, then the police r to blame. It's idiotic, leading, and makes noi loigical sense.
on June 29,2012 | 12:12PM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
No people are going to LIVE and not go bankrupt if they get a terminal illness. This great victory for ALL Americans!
on June 29,2012 | 08:43AM
what wrote:
You must think money grows on trees or on government printing presses.
on June 29,2012 | 10:33AM
news333 wrote:
Ok . don't accept your Social Security.
on June 29,2012 | 12:13PM
gtracer66 wrote:
news333, Social Security isn't a handout. We pay into SS all during our working lives. It's a last ditch retirement fund. We work for it and it's our money. True, it's basically a Ponzi scheme but if the SS fund wasn't being raided all the time to pay for non SS expenses, SS would continue to be sustainable.
on June 29,2012 | 12:54PM
Taisho808 wrote:
This comment has been deleted.
on June 29,2012 | 01:04PM
tiki886 wrote:
I would opt out of every government program but government confiscates my money without my permission!!! Sort of like paying unions dues which is just a money laundering scheme.

Did you know that Galveston, TX is the only community that was allowed to opt out of social security and they receive 3 times more in benefits than social security? Of course the government and liberal media don't want you to know about it because everyone would want to opt out too!!!

And let's not forget that the politicians in Congress have opted out of social security for themselves as well.


on June 29,2012 | 05:29PM
64hoo wrote:
yep thats why they live in washington d.c. because its not a state
on June 29,2012 | 11:15PM
rhusic wrote:
Congress has paid SS since 1981.
on June 30,2012 | 07:19AM
what wrote:
Taisho and news333, you don't get it. You are telling me I should still PAY into these benefit programs, but opt out of accepting any of the benefits I paid for? My point is that I should not pay for the benefits either if I decide to opt out. But freedom died a little because I dont have that choice!
on June 29,2012 | 09:08PM
lee1957 wrote:
People are going to live......if they get a terminal illness. Brilliant!
on June 29,2012 | 11:37AM
kgolfinghawaii wrote:
Freedom died A LOT yesterday. The feds can now tax us into anything they want us to do. They can make us buy a Chevy Volt or tax us if we don't. Same thing. The court, especially Roberts, is plain wrong. To say it isn't a tax and therefore go forward with the case, throwing out the anti-injunction law, and then turn around and rule it is a tax, but not throw the case out is just plain amazing. It is still a penalty for not doing something. So now the feds will stop using the commerce clause to FORCE us to do something and use instead the tax penalty which is contrary to everything in the Constitution. There are three types of taxes allowed and this is not one of them. It would be one thing if the demoncrats passed this as a TAX to pay for their redistribution schemes, but they didn't. So it should have been overturned and sent back to Congress to make a new law not been made law by Roberts legislating from the bench.
on June 29,2012 | 08:45AM
news333 wrote:
Your freedom is Facism where the poor die.
on June 29,2012 | 12:14PM
sluggah wrote:
And socialism is where the government controls everything. I prefer freedom.
on June 29,2012 | 12:42PM
tiki886 wrote:
The serious socialists actually shoot you in the back for trying to escape!
on June 29,2012 | 05:31PM
aomohoa wrote:
news333 you are ridiculous! Name calling like a 2 year old.
on June 29,2012 | 02:34PM
what wrote:
news333, you don't understand. The poor deserve all the help they can get. But it is a betrayal of freedom to force someone else to pay for it against their will!
on June 29,2012 | 09:12PM
gtracer66 wrote:
Obama is just another in a long list of Socialists and Progressives that date back to Woodrow Wilson. They want to fundamentally change America from what it was conceived to be. In an America where people live and thrive according to their own decisions and efforts, people are allowed to succeed or fail on their own. America was founded by strong willed people who fought for independence. Now Americans are giving up independence for serfdom at the hands of the Federal government. And the Supreme Court has taken a step to deny states rights. Which BTW is the real original reason for the War of Northern Aggression back in the 1860's. America needs more freedoms, not less. Forcing Americans to spend money of a product that they don't want is just the beginning of a slippery slope. kgolfinghawaii pointed out, next they'll tell us what car to buy (or not buy) or what TV to buy or what we can eat or drink (think Bloomberg in NYC).This law will slow the economy as businesses wont want to create jobs because it will be too expensive. Or if they do, they'll pass it on the the customer. And that will result in yet another undeclared tax in the form of higher prices. Has America reached a point where we cannot take care of ourselves? Do we need cradle to grave care? And what's with this thing of parents paying for insurance for kids up to age 26? By 26, shouldn't they already have their own families? So who pays for the insurance of the grandchildren? And BTW, Obama and his minions would love to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you want to enslave a people, take away their means to fight back. That's what the 2nd amendment was about. To allow citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government. And that's what we are facing under Obama and the Democrats... a tyrannical government. This law MUST be repealed.
on June 29,2012 | 12:52PM
RetiredUSMC wrote:
I think you need to stop watching Fox. I have been using Government run Medical services since 1946 I was born a Marine Corps Brat , then Joined the Marine Corps and retired from the Marine Corps I now have Tri-Care for Life I have no problems. So stop being a little girl suck it up and move into the future!Your just upset because The President will be elected again and the rich won't get a chance to further rape this country!
on June 29,2012 | 02:33PM
tiki886 wrote:
Why don't you give up your TriCare and switch to ObamaCare. Try it, you'll like it.

You see how Obama has 'united' our nation? He's a liar and a fraud. When he gets kicked out in November, we'll have to fumigate the White House with some strong disinfectant.


on June 29,2012 | 05:36PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Yeah, you've got medical fro life. Benefits for life. You keep accepting those bennies and grumble about those who have to pay for them. Makes a lot of sense.
on June 29,2012 | 08:31PM
LanaUlulani wrote:
Exactly. A sad day.
on June 29,2012 | 09:06AM
news333 wrote:
Sad day for you. You are selfish.
on June 29,2012 | 12:14PM
tiki886 wrote:
We are not selfish, we are anti commie.
on June 29,2012 | 05:37PM
Bumby wrote:
Yes we are becoming controlled more and more by worldly powers making it look like the politician's doing. The eye in the sky watching your every move. As some have said many thngs that you had seen in movies before its time have come to pass. Sure a few is beyond comprehention but it is a matter of time before science fiction becomes reality. The human race is very young and how we evolve will be interesting. Will we ever not want power, wealth, earthly belongings, etc, etc. What will this planet be like 1,000 years from now? Will it be known as the planet of the apes?
on June 29,2012 | 04:50PM
peanutgallery wrote:
This is a victory for all of you who are unable to make decisions for yourselves. It is a victory for all those who love bigger government. It is a victory for all those who don't feel they are taxed enough already.
on June 29,2012 | 02:14AM
news333 wrote:
Move to State with no sales tax.
on June 29,2012 | 12:15PM
gtracer66 wrote:
I did!
on June 29,2012 | 12:33PM
aomohoa wrote:
You not very smart are you. You just know how to name call like a 2 year old.
on June 29,2012 | 02:36PM
aomohoa wrote:
You are so right
on June 29,2012 | 02:36PM
tiki886 wrote:
Obama lied to us again. He said ObamaCare was not a tax. He said no way it is a tax but SCOTUS said it was it is a tax so it's OK. The mandate's unconstitutional, but the court has decided it's a tax. So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world.

The Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army. The SCOTUS's ruling upholding ACA leaves in place 21 tax increases costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years.


on June 29,2012 | 03:22AM
gary360 wrote:
Bill is discriminating. Bing search page 107 obamacare. It explains it. (in regards to certain religions are exempt.
on June 29,2012 | 03:45AM
tiki886 wrote:
Should the Republicans win majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, repealing ObamaCare will be a sure thing because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
on June 29,2012 | 05:36AM
tiki886 wrote:
Should the Republicans win majorities in both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, repealing ObamaCare will be a sure thing because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
on June 29,2012 | 05:37AM
kekelaward wrote:
A victory all over the country for people...who don't pay taxes. And who are still children, after 26 years of life.
on June 29,2012 | 06:51AM
tiki886 wrote:
I think age 26 is too low. Because of the Obama economy, college grads cannot find a job so they may have to live with mom and dad until they are age 40. And because of ObamaCare's effectiveness, being 40 years old is like being 30 years old so everything is good.
on June 29,2012 | 07:27AM
tiki886 wrote:
I think age 26 is too low. Because of the Obama economy, college grads cannot find a job so they may have to live with mom and dad until they are age 40. And because of ObamaCare's effectiveness, being 40 years old is like being 30 years old so everything is good.
on June 29,2012 | 07:29AM
aomohoa wrote:
Please tell me you are joking.
on June 29,2012 | 02:38PM
tiki886 wrote:
I think age 26 is too low. Because of the Obama economy, college grads cannot find a job so they may have to live with mom and dad until they are age 40. And because of ObamaCare's effectiveness, being 40 years old is like being 30 years old so everything is good.
on June 29,2012 | 07:31AM
tiki886 wrote:
(Not my fault that there are so many multiple postings. It's Bush's fault)
on June 29,2012 | 07:33AM
kgolfinghawaii wrote:
That was funny!
on June 29,2012 | 08:47AM
aomohoa wrote:
Great point:)
on June 29,2012 | 02:37PM
Anonymous wrote:
What about all the poeple all over the country who were denied their freedom to choose in this country?
on June 29,2012 | 08:36AM
kapoleitalkstory wrote:
You choose to get sick and go bankrupt and end up on public assistance? That is the dumbest thing you anti-everything people have come up with.
on June 29,2012 | 08:45AM
tiki886 wrote:
Only a Democrat would "Choose" to be sick or go bankrupt, then collect welfare.
on June 29,2012 | 11:33AM
Anonymous wrote:
So, do the rich people, who can easily afford to pay for their own health care without insurance, going to be taxed if they do not have health care insurance? Why should these rich people even have health care insurance? They can wellafford to pay out of pocket for health care. Is this just another way to tax us? Yes it is!
on June 29,2012 | 08:38AM
LanaUlulani wrote:


Actually that is NOT true. That is a LIE.

Now that ObamaCare has passed the constitutionality test, lāʻau is DEAD which is a serious concern for HAWAIIANS.

Now Obama has changed the paradigm from Hawaiian-based medicine which is PLANT-based to American-based medicine which is DRUG-based. ObamaCare does NOT benefit Hawaiians. Instead ObamaCare HAS killed lāʻau which is NOT a reason to celebrate !!!


on June 29,2012 | 08:49AM
Maneki_Neko wrote:
Too bad the bill doesn't ban the use of CAPS and bold.
on June 29,2012 | 10:23AM
stangcyn wrote:
The President has on many occasions clearly stated this is NOT a tax. Justice Roberts clearly stated that this IS a tax! No if's an's, or but's, everyone. You can all argue back and forth until blue in the face but there is no two ways around the fact that this is the largest tax imposed on all of the American people.
on June 29,2012 | 11:21AM
typroctor wrote:
Vote for change in November
on June 29,2012 | 01:34PM
NITRO08 wrote:
Vote for Mitt I DON'T THINK SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on June 29,2012 | 02:15PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Don't need your vote. This decision guarantees a Romney win.
on June 29,2012 | 08:34PM
bigman50 wrote:
A victory for Obama - yes, for all the people of this country - no. There is no doubt that health care in this country needs some significant changes. This bill is not it. This bill is so complex and convoluted that few politicians that voted for it know what's in this bill never mind the effects it will have. This bill was passed solely for political purposes and rammed through with back room deals and legislative gymnastics. Its no wonder the American people don't like it. If you are going to pass comprehesive health care legislation it should be above board, open and thorough explained to the American people before passage. The Supreme Court ruled the bill was constitutional not good legislation. This bill is a P.O.C.
on June 29,2012 | 02:45PM
tiki886 wrote:
I stand up and clap for you.
on June 29,2012 | 05:44PM
sleepingdog wrote:
The Affordable Care Act was the only realistic way, recognizing the various powerful interest groups, to improve health care and reduce costs. The Republican solution is laughable -- continue the status quo.
on June 29,2012 | 04:28PM
hawaiikone wrote:
The status quo, namely the best medical care in the world.
on June 29,2012 | 08:35PM
sleepingdog wrote:
People in this country SHOULD have the best medical care in the world because the U.S. spends more than twice the percentage of GDP on health care than any other country. In addition, most Americans believe that the U.S. has the best medical care in the world. However, comparative studies show that medical care in the U.S. is no better than in any other developed nation. In fact, the Institute of Medicine found that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year in hospitals because of medical errors that could have been prevented. That was 13 years ago, and the situation has not improved much since then. The Affordable Care Act seeks to improve the quality of health care. Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act now for purely political reasons. The individual mandate, which is the heart of the Affordable Care Act, is actually a Republican idea (yes, Republican) that initially came out of the conservative Heritage Foundation more than 20 years ago. Subsequently, Republicans introduced bills with the individual mandate, and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) supported them. They now oppose the mandate. Mitt Romney, when Governor or Massachusetts, signed a bill with an individual mandate, saying he was pleased with it. Massachusetts now has the highest percentage of people covered by health care insurance, the factor that is most highly correlated with good health.
on June 29,2012 | 10:36PM
tiki886 wrote:
No cookie for you.
on June 29,2012 | 05:45PM
tiki886 wrote:
If ObamaCare is sooooo good, why did so many organizations apply for waivers? A total of 1,231 waiver requests were granted by HHS. Unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation. By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers. Didn't Hawaii receive a waiver as well?
on June 29,2012 | 06:39PM
tiki886 wrote:
If ObamaCare is sooooo good, why did so many organizations apply for waivers? A total of 1,231 waiver requests were granted by HHS. Unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation. By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers. Didn't Hawaii receive a waiver as well?
on June 29,2012 | 06:39PM
bunkerhawk wrote:
Romney's threat to repeal this new health care law will surely cause his demise in November. Millions of people will now have coverage for pre-existing medical conditions because of this new law.
on June 29,2012 | 06:45PM
hawaiikone wrote:
why don't we wait and see....
on June 29,2012 | 08:35PM
64hoo wrote:
yea and all the non-american citizens will get it free and you and me and eveybody will have pay for there obama care coverage hope you got the money to pay for there healthcare. tax raising time.
on June 29,2012 | 10:56PM
kennie1933 wrote:
I'm really not sure where to stand on this issue. I do understand the immense cost. But at what cost to you place on health and life? I was watching a Japanese documentary the other day on a poor family who has a family member in need of a life saving operation but cannot afford the cost of the operation. In Japan, if you do not have health insurance, you have to be able to prove you can pay for the care/operation. Obviously, this family could not pay for the operation and in the end, the hospital refused to do an emergency surgery (it got to that point), and the family member passed away. Now, I truly see that in America, we should be allowed to choose whether or not we shell out for health insurance, but if the Japanese situation was applied, the American hospital would have done the surgery anyway (more humane IMO), and the cost would be ultimately spread out to the rest of us anyway. I suppose we COULD just let people die like in Japan. I'm guessing that most of the posters here have heaklth insurance so hopefully, your income/job will always allow you to have it, and the Japanese situation will never apply to your family.
on June 30,2012 | 01:44PM
typroctor wrote:
It is not a victory for all, but only those that were uninsured. The "all" will suffer for the benefit of the few.
on July 1,2012 | 08:17AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Blogs
Political Radar
On policy

Warrior Beat
Apple fallout

Wassup Wit Dat!
Can You Spock ‘Em?

Warrior Beat
Meal plan

Volley Shots
Fey, Enriques on MJNT

Political Radar
Wilhelmina Rise, et al.

Court Sense
Cold War