Judge Finds Portion of Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

[winston]

A lot of commentary this week about how this was the Roberts Court legacy case. And fascinating how his opinion speaks to judicial restraint, and deference to the powers of Congress.

And Michelle Bachman is on CNN talking about how these were ACTIVIST judges making this decision today. Amazing how there were no activist judges on the bench for Citizens United (or for any decision the far right likes).

[Moose]

And Michelle Bachman is on CNN talking about how these were ACTIVIST judges making this decision today. Amazing how there were no activist judges on the bench for Citizens United (or for any decision the far right likes).

Which is particularly ironic, because Bachman spent her non-Congressional years as a tax attorney, and should know that when this bill was couched in terms of taxing powers instead of the commerce clause, it was not that difficult to uphold. Even members of the GOP conceded that.

[Kirkus]

My favorite quote from CJ Roberts' majority opinion:

..."we do not consider whether the act embodies sound policies."

[Miles]

‘Mandate struck down’: ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ moment for CNN, Fox News

The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance mandate of President Obama's "Affordable Health Care Act" in a 5-4 decision on Thursday, sending cable news and Twitter into a frenzy.

Moments after the 193-page ruling was released by the court, several media outlets--including CNN and Fox News--erroneously reported on-air that the mandate had been struck down.

"BREAKING NEWS: INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN," CNN's on-screen scroll blared. "Supreme Court finds measure unconstitutional."

It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the 21st Century, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage tweeted, pointing to a screengrab of CNN's premature scroll.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...154347515.html

[munchin]

Tonight's Daily Show is going to be one to remember for SURE. Jon Stewart's material has basically been written for him.

[Kirkus]

‘Mandate struck down’: ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ moment for CNN, Fox News

The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance mandate of President Obama's "Affordable Health Care Act" in a 5-4 decision on Thursday, sending cable news and Twitter into a frenzy.

Moments after the 193-page ruling was released by the court, several media outlets--including CNN and Fox News--erroneously reported on-air that the mandate had been struck down.

"BREAKING NEWS: INDIVIDUAL MANDATE STRUCK DOWN," CNN's on-screen scroll blared. "Supreme Court finds measure unconstitutional."

It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the 21st Century, New York Times reporter Charlie Savage tweeted, pointing to a screengrab of CNN's premature scroll.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...154347515.html

Love it!

[dryrunguy]

However, the ruling holds it would be unconstitutional to deny medicaid states for not complying with the expansions required under the law.

This was one of the things about the original law that bugged me. I never quite settled on one side of it.

[munchin]

A simple, informative graphic from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...mid=tw-nytimes

[munchin]

Okay, when did the Democrats start co-opting "ObamaCare" as a phrase? Wasn't it originally meant to be pretty pejorative? It's such a glib, silly thing to call it and it's getting on my nerves.

[dryrunguy]

Okay, when did the Democrats start co-opting "ObamaCare" as a phrase? Wasn't it originally meant to be pretty pejorative? It's such a glib, silly thing to call it and it's getting on my nerves.

It certainly was at first. But the liberal embracing of the term, I think it is much like how there are now "slutwalks" being planned all over the U.S., which of course stems from the pejorative use of the term by Rush Limbaugh and the legislative assault on women's rights. So it's a "badge of honor" thing.

[mwoods]

I think it is much like how there are now "slutwalks" being planned all over the U.S.

Oh please, nelslus has been taking those for years at nearby parks.

[dryrunguy]

Oh please, nelslus has been taking those for years at nearby parks.

[Jessie181]

Oh please, nelslus has been taking those for years at nearby parks.

[Ti-Amie]

I thought that Scalia going batsh** crazy with his rants might mean that thenACA had been found constitutional. Huff Post has excerpts from the dissenting opinions posted. They make for scary reading. None of them approached the issue with judicial impartiality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1634514.html

[Ti-Amie]

I have long argued that the impact of the Affordable Care Act is not nearly as big of a deal as opponents would have you believe. At the end of the day, the law is – in the main – little more than a successful effort to put an end to some of the more egregious health insurer abuses while creating an environment that should bring more Americans into programs that will give them at least some of the health care coverage they need.

There is, however, one notable exception – and it’s one that should have a long lasting and powerful impact on the future of health care in our country.

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.


(...)

Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.

As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.

Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.

So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?

Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

Whether you are a believer in the benefits of single-payer health coverage or an opponent, mark this day down on your calendar because this is the day seismic shifts in our health care system finally get under way.

If you thought that the Obama Administration chickened out on pushing the nation in the direction of universal health care for everyone, today is the day you begin to understand that the reality is quite the contrary.

If you believe that the end of private, for-profit health insurance is some type of nefarious step towards a socialist society, then you might want to attend church this Sunday to mourn the loss of health insurers being able to worm out of covering the bills of a cancer patient because she forgot to write down on her application that she had skin acne for three months when she was a teenager.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...day-halleluja/