Supreme Court Upholds Obama Healthcare Plan

The justices also found that the so-called "individual mandate" in what's become known as Obamacare, is constitutional.

In a landmark decision, both legally and politically, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare law, including the central mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

Pundits and politicians alike are already heralding the decision as a major political boon to Obama, whose supporters were concerned that an overturn of the law, or just the individual mandate, would harm the president's re-election bid this year.

Obama's health care law, which also requires health insurers to provide coverage to children of policy holders up to 26 years old and bans insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, was challenged by several states who argued that some of its conditions, particularly the individual mandate, were unconstitutional.

Republicans also had vehemently opposed the health care law and their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has vowed to seek its repeal if he's elected.

Lucia June 28, 2012 at 06:01 PM
The majority of Americans oppose obamacare, this might be good for Romney who can then defund the entire bill when he's elected.
BobCat June 28, 2012 at 06:11 PM
Obama and the Democrats have been blaming George Bush for everything since the election. Will they thank him now since his Supreme Court appointee was the swing vote? I think not. And it's not a coincidence that most of the law and the costs and subsequent tax increases that will be needed to pay for this all kick in after the election.
Andrew Turkenkopf June 28, 2012 at 06:57 PM
Actually, surveys and studies by countless groups have shown that Obamacare is supported my a high majority of Americans. At least all the policies and programs. It is only when it is called Obamacare that people don't like it. Probably because either they are GOP who hate all thing Obama, or are racist, or listen to lies and half-truths spread by Fox News, Palin, Rush, Beck and others like them. It is sort of sad.
Andrew Turkenkopf June 28, 2012 at 07:02 PM
i have read some speculation that Robert's decision on this case (approving the mandate as a tax) is part of some longer strategy to gut Congressional control via gutting the Commerce Clause. Here is a link: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/scocca/2012/06/roberts_health_care_opinion_commerce_clause_the_real_reason_the_chief_justice_upheld_obamacare_.html it is an interesting theory. No idea on the truthiness of it though. And its more accurate (and truthful) to blame an obstinate GOP for most problems since the election. As GOP congressional and party leaders have stated several times their only goals are to make sure Obama is not re-elected and that his and Democrat policies don't get passed, and as we have seen, it doesn't even matter if what Obama and Democrats propose or try pass are in fact the exact same policies espoused by the GOP and the like in (often recent) past. Once it becomes an Obama or Democrat policy or bill, the GOP is against it 100%.
Andrew Turkenkopf June 28, 2012 at 07:06 PM
Also, since "Obamacare" is essentially a copy of Romney-care in Mass, it is humorous (in a sad way) that Mitt can, with a straight face, be against it in such a manner.
Lucia June 28, 2012 at 07:15 PM
Andrew you spew typical liberal rhetoric, blame the GOP for trying to block your messiah's poor decisions and never, ever let obama take the blame. Obama had two years with a majority in the senate and the congress and he did nothing but pass obamacare, which only passed because he paid people off to vote for it. This will only allow more fraud and waste as there is in every government agency. Sad, that the only thing democrats can do is point a finger at the other side, never taking a look past their own flawed ideology.
Stephen June 28, 2012 at 09:57 PM
OK. The dog park issue is over. Back to politics. Folks, Over 300,000,000 people live in this country. If we assume, based on almost any poll, that at least 40% of the people who will vote in November will vote for either Obama or Romney, then there are at least 50,000,000 people who actually vote and probably 100,000,000 men women and children who DISAGREE with each of our own feelings about the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. We argue and make fun of our fellow Americans. WHY? In the country we can make our point, but PLEASE, be respectful. It is obvious to me that the winner of the election for President will control how healthcare is handled into the future. We MUST accept that whichever way we feel personally. Please listen to exactly what each candidate says, NOT what some commentator says about what the candidate says. Today, both President Obama and George Romney made a three to five minute statement concerning the Supreme Court decision. They are both on the Web right now. Listen to what they each say and continue to follow what they each say between now and November. Make an informed vote.
Lucia June 29, 2012 at 10:54 AM
Andrew, In the U.S., different states can experiment with different policies to see which one proves best. State health departments often watch the experiments of other states and then adopt a successful policy for their own state. Creative solutions to problems can sometimes be tested on a small scale in one state. Unsuccessful attempts can be ended relatively quickly without having to restructure an entire national policy. States are often considered the best level of government to regulate health care organizations and individuals because they are closer to their local populations than the federal government can be. States have better knowledge of local needs and conditions, so they are in a good position to judge whether there is any need for another tertiary care hospital or whether the people need a family planning clinic or a hazardous waste disposal site instead. Because state and local officials are more aware of local problems than federal officials far away, they can enforce licensure and other laws more quickly and fairly. They can distinguish between real threats to patient care which require immediate action and technical violations that are better remedied by education. This advantage often applies when states implement federal laws. In that case, there are consistent national standards, but state officials can use appropriate methods to suit local conditions. Sometimes federal standards are very general or they are not sufficiently rigorous.
Alan June 29, 2012 at 04:17 PM
Once again you pull this "he paid off" people to do it nonsense. PROOF please.
Lucia June 29, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Digital shark, pay attention - Mary Landrieu, D-La., $300 million for a second Louisiana Purchase to change her vote. That's bribery. Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who knows how much for his vote. The bill requires all states to extend Medicaid coverage to everyone below 133 percent of the poverty level. That's an unfunded mandate. After 2016 Nebraska is exempt from paying any additional costs.
Dave Abernethy July 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM
The lies and bribes that got Obamacare passed have been well publicized, as has the procedural fraud. The SCOTUS has failed to defend the Constitution, twisting the facts to allow a tax of a type not permitted to the Federal government. Certainly, some features of the law will be popular; "free" is very attractive. And, we weren't very free as citizens any more, so who cares about liberty? But the taxes and regulations, known and still under development, won't kick in for a little while yet. That's when we'll see what "free" really costs.


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 »