Obama wins!!! Obama Care is legal!!!

Them tea baggers will be peein' in their pants now!

Supreme Court upholds health-care law, individual mandate
By Robert Barnes and N.C. Aizenman,
Thursday, June 28, 5:26 AM

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual health-insurance mandate that is at the heart of President Obama’s landmark health-care law, saying the mandate is permissible under Congress’s taxing authority.

The potentially game-changing, election-year decision — a major victory for the White House less than five months before the November elections --will help redefine the power of the national government and affect the health-care choices of millions of Americans.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the majority in voting to uphold the law, Obama’s signature domestic initiative.

Passage of the legislation by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2010 capped decades of efforts to implement a national program of health care. The legislation is expected to eventually extend health-care coverage to more than 30 million Americans who currently lack it.

Republicans in Congress and GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney have vowed to try and repeal the measure after the November elections.

The health-care issue thrust the Supreme Court into the public spotlight unlike anything since its role in the 2000 presidential election. The court’s examination of the law received massive coverage — especially during three days of oral arguments in March — and its outcome remained Washington’s most closely guarded secret.

The court reviewed four questions: whether it was within Congress’s constitutional powers to impose an “individual mandate” to purchase health insurance; whether all or any additional parts of the law must be struck down if the mandate is rejected; whether an expansion of Medicaid was unduly coercive on the states and whether all of those questions can even be reviewed before the mandate takes effect.

The most crucial issue before the court was considered to be the individual mandate, known technically as the “minimum coverage” provision, because striking it down would jeopardize the ability of insurers to comply with other, more popular elements of the health-care law without drastically raising premiums. Under those other provisions, for example, insurers can no longer limit or deny benefits to children because of a preexisting condition, and young adults to up age 26 are eligible for insurance coverage under their parents’ plans.

During oral arguments in March, conservative justices indicated they were skeptical about the individual mandate, the provision in the 2,700-page health-care law that requires nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty.

Arguing the case for the Obama administration, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. defended the law as a constitutional exercise of congressional power under the charter’s commerce clause to regulate interstate commerce. He said lawmakers were regulating health insurance to deal with the problem of millions of people who lack coverage and therefore shift costs to the insured when they cannot pay for their medical care.

The court rejected the commerce clause argument, but ruled that Congress nevertheless had the power to impose the mandate because it can be considered a tax.

Paul D. Clement, representing Florida and 25 other states objecting to the health-care law, argued that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law, which he said compels people to buy a product.

Although the most controversial provisions of the law are not scheduled to take effect until 2014, a complex web of new rules has already extended coverage and expanded benefits across the country.

No initiative has exemplified Obama’s progressive domestic agenda or inflamed his conservative opponents like the health-care law, officially called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The court’s decision will resonate throughout the election season, not only in the presidential campaign but in House and Senate races across the country.

The law provoked an unlikely debate about the Constitution. Opponents saw it as a trespass on individual and state’s rights by an omnipotent federal government, and supporters viewed it as a long-sought guarantee of health care to Americans regardless of where they live or work.

As a mark of the case’s importance, the justices spent more than six hours over three days hearing oral arguments on the constitutional questions and related issues. It was the most time than the court has spent on any issue in nearly half a century.

As soon as Obama signed the health-care bill in March 2010, opponents raced to challenge it. Early court decisions followed a predictable pattern, with district judges appointed by Democratic presidents upholding the law and Republican appointees striking it down.

But at the appeals court level, that changed. In a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, Judge Frank Hull, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, joined with a Republican colleague in saying that the individual insurance mandate in the “unprecedented” legislation exceeded congressional authority. The judges said that if the law were constitutional, it would be impossible to say what action on the part of the government would go too far.

At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, two prominent Republican-appointed judges agreed that the law is intrusive but said it is within Congress’s powers.

In Cincinnati, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee, was the deciding vote to uphold the act. In Washington, Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan, wrote an opinion saying that the question was political, not constitutional.

“It certainly is an encroachment on individual liberty,” Silberman wrote. But then — alluding to other cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled that the commerce clause gives Congress power — he added that “it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”

Even as the legal wrangling grew to a crescendo, some aspects of the law were already being enforced. Those include requirements that many insurance plans allow young adults to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26; cover a range of preventive services, including birth control, without imposing co-payments or other out-of-pocket costs; eliminate lifetime dollar limits on coverage; and begin phasing out annual caps.

The three cases the Supreme Court considered were National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius; Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services; and Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, et al.

We win.

All Americans win.

Joe(Let's go forward)Nation

HOORAY!!!

Thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts!!!

BBB

I'm very pleased for you all. Once Universal Health Care is established it becomes popular very quickly. There is no way any politician would dare to run on a platform of abolishing the NHS, they would be wiped out in the polls.

If Obama wins the next election and people experience Universal Health Care at first hand you'll probably find a similar situation emerges over there.

People will soon realise that the scare stories put out by vested interest groups are just that.

We had a similar situation when Labour introduced the minimum wage in 1997, all the scare stories came to nought and it's now deeply rooted in our society.

Supreme Court Allows Health Care Law Largely to Stand
New York Time

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday largely let stand President Obama’s health care overhaul, in a mixed ruling that Court observers were rushing to analyze.

The decision was a striking victory for the president and Congressional Democrats, with a majority, including the conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., affirming the central legislative pillar of Mr. Obama’s term.

Many observers called the case the most significant before the court since at least the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, which decided a presidential election. In addition to the political reverberations, the case helps set the rules for one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the economy, one that affects nearly everyone from cradle to grave.

The debate over health care remains far from over, with Republicans vowing to carry on their fight against the law, which they see as an unaffordable infringement on the rights of individuals. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, has promised to undo it if elected.

But the ruling is a crucial victory for the law that will allow its introduction to continue in the coming years. Passed in 2010, the law is intended to end the United States’ status as the only rich country with large numbers of uninsured people, by expanding both the private market and Medicaid.

The key provision that 26 states opposing the law had challenged — known as the individual mandate — requires virtually all citizens to buy health insurance meeting minimum federal standards or to pay a fine if they refuse.

Many conservatives considered the mandate unconstitutional, arguing that if the federal government could compel people to buy health insurance, it could compel them to buy almost anything, with broccoli becoming the central example in court arguments.

It remained unclear whether the court officially upheld the mandate or chose a more technical path that effectively allowed it to stand.

The mandate’s advocates said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable. The law offers subsidies to poorer and middle-class households, varying with their incomes. It also provides subsidies to some businesses for insuring their workers.

The law requires states to expand Medicaid coverage for poor and nearly poor households. In all, tens of millions of people are expected to gain insurance from the law, according to the Congressional Budget Office, as part of a march toward universal coverage, a goal that has eluded legislators and presidents — including Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton — for generations.

The decision came on the last day of the Supreme Court’s term, which the justices extended by three days to deal with the crush of major issues. On Monday, the court delivered a mixed ruling on an Arizona law intended to crack down on illegal immigrants, which the Obama administration opposed.

Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has delivered a series of major victories to conservatives, including the Citizens United campaign finance decision, which on Monday it declined to reconsider. In next year’s term, it could take up other major issues, including affirmative action, same-sex marriage and the Voting Rights Act.

The health care ruling came three months after an extraordinary series of oral arguments in which the differences on the bench, if not the ultimate outcome, were disclosed in sharp relief.

Until those arguments, many observers — within the White House and beyond — had seen the law as likely to survive a legal challenge that even many Republicans once viewed as a long shot. But the skeptical questioning of a majority of the justices — and Justice Kennedy in particular — called that view seriously into doubt.

Rulings by appeals courts had split on the question, with two upholding the law and one striking down the mandate. A fourth appeals court deferred consideration of the law until 2015, reasoning that the courts lacked jurisdiction until the first penalties enforcing the mandate became due.

Although there were some exceptions, in the lower courts most judges appointed by Democrats voted to uphold the law, while most appointed by Republicans voted to reject at least part of it.

I think the spin will be on the Medicare expansion part being struck down. On the whole though, the decision spits in their faces regarding constitutionality of the mandate.

Supreme Court upholds healthcare law as tax measure
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
June 28, 2012, 7:16 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of President Obama’s healthcare law Thursday, ruling that the government may impose tax penalties on people who do not have health insurance.

The court’s long-awaited ruling rejected a broad legal attack on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act brought by Republican state officials and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The legal challenge focused on the law’s so-called mandate that all must have insurance by 2014 or pay a tax penalty.

The administration defended this requirement under Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. The challengers insisted the mandate was unprecedented and unconstitutional because the federal government would be forcing Americans to buy a private product.

The ruling was not a total victory for the Obama administration.

Chief Justice Roberts said the required expansion of Medicaid violates states’ rights and may be unconstitutional.

“The states are given no choice in this case. They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid or risk losing all Medicaid funding,” he wrote.

He said the federal government cannot require the states to follow this part of the law.

Yea and Whew!

Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law
June 28, 2012
by Mark Memmott and Eyder Peralta - NPR

From SCOTUSBlog:

"In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. 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. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding."

Update at 10:30 a.m. ET. Tax Issue "Saved" The Act:

On Morning Edition, NPR's Ari Shapiro just explained that the individual mandate was upheld as a tax.

The Obama administration had argued that mandating that everyone in the country have insurance was constitutional under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That was the administration's "A argument," as Ari explained. The "B" argument was that the individual mandate was constitutional under the federal government's ability to tax. During debate in Congress and in the law itself, the mandate is called a "penalty." It was up to the Supreme Court to decide whether the penalty was indeed a tax.

It appears, Ari said, that the "tax argument is what saved President Obama's signature law."

Update at 10:28 a.m. ET. Chief Justice Was The Deciding Vote:

According to SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein, it was Chief Justice John Roberts who was the deciding vote on the key issue of whether the so-called individual mandate would survive. The vote was 5-4, says Goldstein, and Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the "conservatives" while Roberts shifted to the "liberal" side.

Update at 10:24 a.m. ET. The Lede:

"The Supreme Court has upheld President Obama's signature health care law," NPR's Carrie Johnson writes. "Chief Justice John Roberts says the individual mandate survives because the penalty it imposes for not having insurance is considered a tax."

Also, NPR reports, "on the issue of the Medicaid expansion, a majority of the court said Congress can expand Medicaid, but can't strip states of all their Medicaid funds if they fail to do the expansion."

Update at 10:21 a.m. ET. "Yes We Did!":

Supporters of President Obama broke out in chants of "Yes We Did!" outside the court building as word came that the law has been upheld.

Update at 10:19 a.m. ET. The "Money Quote":

According to SCOTUSBlog, "the money quote from the section on the mandate is: 'Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."

Update at 10:14 a.m. ET. "Entire ACA Is Upheld:"

According to SCOTUSBlog, "the bottom line [is that] the entire ACA [Affordable Care Act] is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."

Update at 10:10 a.m. ET. Individual Mandate Is Constitutional:

In a dramatic conclusion to the year's most divisive legal debate, SCOTUSBlog says the U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that the so-called individual mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act is constitutional — a decision that it's believed means the entire law passed by President Obama survives.

Update at 10:07 a.m. ET. Health Care Opinion Being Released:

About 10 minutes earlier than expected, the health care opinion is now being released.

Update at 10:02 a.m. ET. "Stolen Valor" Act Is Unconstitutional:

In the day's first decision, as SCOTUSBlog reports, the court affirms a Ninth Circuit decision that ruled the so-called Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. The act made it a crime to lie about being the recipient of military medals. The justices voted 6-3 to affirm the lower court.

Update at 10 a.m. ET. Court Is In Session:

The justices have come to the bench, according to reporters at the court.

Update at 9:55 a.m. ET. On The Timing:

It's most likely, court watchers say, that the health care decision will be released around 10:15 a.m. ET. It will come after some less notable cases.

Meanwhile, NPR's Arnie Seipel reports that outside the court building "the sidewalks are packed." He reports "the strangest sight so far has been a pair of belly dancers with a small band who support single-payer."

Update at 9:50 a.m. ET. There Are Four Issues.

As SCOTUSBlog's Lyle Denniston says, there are really four issues confronting the justices:

— Does the court have the authority to decide the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate?

— If so, is that mandate constitutional?

— If the mandate isn't constitutional, do some or all parts of the act go down with it?

— Is the act's expansion of Medicaid constitutional?

SCOTUSBlog, by the way, is also live blogging.

Our Original Post:

If everything goes as expected, sometime between 10 a.m. ET and 10:30 a.m. ET we should get word about the Supreme Court's most-anticipated decision of the year — on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act; the health care overhaul enacted in 2010.

Every U.S. news outlet, including NPR, has exhaustively previewed the decision, so we won't go over that ground yet again, except to point to the post we did Wednesday called "Here's How To Learn What The Supreme Court Says About Health Care." It has background and links you may find useful.

We'll use this post to cover the news as it comes in, so as decision time draws near be sure to hit your "refresh" button to see our latest updates.

NPR's Ari Shapiro, Carrie Johnson and Nina Totenberg will be reporting on the NPR Newcast and Morning Edition once the decision is released, and on All Things Considered later in the day. At 7 p.m. ET, NPR will be broadcasting and streaming special coverage of the decision and what it means. Click here to find an NPR member station.

Supreme Court upholds individual mandate, ObamaCare survives
Published June 28, 2012
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court has upheld the centerpiece of President Obama's health care overhaul, in effect allowing the law to survive.

In a 5-4 decision unveiled Thursday, the court ruled as constitutional the so-called individual mandate requiring most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.

The ruling is a victory for the president, ensuring for now that his signature domestic policy achievement remains mostly intact. It also ensures that the law will play a prominent role in the general election campaign, as Republican candidate Mitt Romney vows to repeal the law if elected.

Obama is expected to speak publicly about the ruling later in the day.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed during a Republican administration, joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench in crafting the majority decision.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

The ruling did rein in one element of the law -- the expansion of Medicaid across the country to take in millions of low-income Americans. The opinion allows Washington to offer more funding to states to expand the program, but says the federal government cannot penalize states for not participating in the new program by withholding existing Medicaid funds.

Democrats, many of whom were bracing for the court striking down the mandate, celebrated the decision Thursday.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., told Fox News that the ruling "gives us the opportunity to re-sell the the bill, which we did not do before."

But Republicans vowed to re-double their campaign to repeal the still-controversial law.

"Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. "Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country ObamaCare."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was thought to be the swing vote on the decision, joined the minority in describing the entire law as invalid.

"The act is invalid in its entirety," Kennedy said from the bench. He went on to say the administration went to "great lengths to structure the mandate as a penalty, not a tax."

The law was one of the central planks of Obama's 2008 run for president. The faltering economy only later took a leading role in the race as the financial markets spiraled around the time of the party conventions. Obama, after taking the oath of office, dispatched with his administration's recession response by swiftly passing through the roughly $800 billion stimulus package.

The president immediately pivoted back to health care. He tasked allies in Congress with working out the specifics of a proposal, a process that would play out on the national stage over the course of a year.

As the economy continued to struggle, the debate over the health care bill became increasingly contentious. The financial industry bailout helped spawn the Tea Party, but that movement also rallied around opposition to the health care bill -- it was assailed by critics as a "takeover" of American health care, even as Democrats backed off items on their original wish list such as a government-run insurance plan.

The January 2010 election of Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, to fill the seat left by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, threw a wrench into Democrats' plans as it gave Republicans enough seats to mount a filibuster. The Senate had already passed one version of the bill, but this put pressure on the House to effectively approve it or watch their goal of health care reform wither.

Ultimately, Democrats worked out a series of deals and approved the bill, which Obama signed, delivering on a central campaign promise. But only after a protracted and politically damaging debate, which contributed heavily to Democratic losses in the 2010 midterm elections.

The decision Thursday virtually guarantees the health care law will remain at the forefront of the 2012 campaign.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/#ixzz1z6J8XudK

Supreme Court upholds health-care law
Bob Egelko - San Francisco Chronicle
June 28, 2012

(06-28) 07:54 PDT WASHINGTON -- In a divided but stunning decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld virtually all of the far-reaching law crafted by President Obama to extend health coverage to most uninsured Americans.

Despite widespread predictions after oral arguments in April that the court would overturn a central provision - that the uninsured buy private coverage or pay a penalty on their tax bills - the justices ruled 5-4 that theindividual mandate, was within Congress' constitutional authority to levy taxes.

The only setback for the law was in its provision expanding Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans, the program known as Medi-Cal in California, to an additional 17 million individuals by easing eligibility standards. The justices said states could reject the expansion without forfeiting federal funds for their current Medicaid program.

Chief Justice John Roberts, normally a member of the court's conservative bloc, wrote the majority opinion,joined by the four more liberal justices. Four dissenting justices said the entire law should be held unconstitutional.

Obama signed the law in March 2010 after it cleared both houses of Congress in a 10-month struggle without a single Republican vote.

The campaign for universal health coverage, offered by nearly every other industrialized country, had been waged without success for over 60 years in a nation that now has 50 million uninsured residents.

The administration rejected the preferred approach of most liberals, a Medicare-style "single-payer" system of tax-supported federal reimbursement. Obama's proposed "public option" alternative, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, was beaten back in Congress by the insurance industry.

Instead, the law aimed at extending coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans by increasing eligibility for Medicaid, the low-income program known as Medi-Cal in California, and by subsidizing private coverage for others who couldn't afford it.

The subsidies would be offered in each state through insurance "exchanges," marketplaces where individuals and small businesses could compare policies offered by competing insurers.

Key provisions of the law were drafted to take effect in 2014, including a requirement that insurers accept all customers regardless of pre-existing conditions, and the mandate that uninsured individuals buy private coverage or pay a tax penalty.

But other provisions are already in effect, one of which allows about 2.5 million young adults to remain covered by their parents' policies until age 26.

The law has also banned sex discrimination in insurance rates, eliminated lifetime dollar limits on individual insurance benefits, and barred insurers from canceling coverage when a policy-holder becomes ill, except in cases of fraud. Other new provisions expand Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors and provide them with free preventive checkups and services.

The legal challenge centered on the requirement to purchase insurance or pay a penalty.

The concept of compelling the uninsured to enter the private market, as the cornerstone of universal coverage, originated with the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to Democratic proposals for a government-supervised system. It was also the core of the ground-breaking Massachusetts health care law signed in 2006 by Gov. Mitt Romney.

But opponents, including the 26 states that sued to overturn the law, argued that the requirement was an unprecedented federal mandate to buy a private product and an unwarranted intrusion on private decision-making. If the government can make people buy health coverage, they argued, it can also tell them what food products to buy for their own good.

The administration and its supporters countered that health insurance is part of the national economy, and that a decision to go without insurance is an economic decision that often forces taxpayers to pick up the tab for the person's unpaid medical bills - a cost that now runs $43 billion annually.

The ruling in National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Sebelius, 11-393, can be viewed at http:// sfg.ly/LiLtGY.

Dan Freedman, national editor in the Hearst Washington bureau, contributed to this report.

‌

Supreme Court upholds Obama’s health care overhaul
Washington Times
6/28/12

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the heart of President Obama’s health care law, ruling the federal government can compel Americans to buy health insurance, and striking a new balance for the scope of federal authority in the 21st century.

The ruling lets Mr. Obama continue to push the law ahead of its full implementation in 2014 and will likely amp up pressure on a number of states who had been awaiting a court decision before plowing ahead with state requirements.

The complex 5-4 decision is a major legal boost to Mr. Obama just months before he faces voters in a battle for re-election, and it complicates matters for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who had turned to the courts after their repeated efforts to repeal the law fell short in Congress.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the controlling opinion, attempted a delicate balancing act: He said the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution cannot be bent to compel Americans to buy insurance, but said it is allowed under Congress’s tax and spending powers, which are broader, but are subject to the checks of the political system.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in­dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be­cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” he wrote.
Dr. Hamsakumari Ramasubramaniam, left, examines patient Fabian Vasquez at Camillus Health Concern, Wednesday, June 27, 2012, in Miami. Camillus is a private, nonprofit organization that provides health care to the homeless and poor in Miami-Dade County. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

The court’s four Democratic-appointed justices all joined the Roberts ruling but wrote separately to say they would have allowed the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, too.

Four justices dissented, saying in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia that the court has granted nearly unlimited authority to Congress to control Americans’ lives.

“Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the states to function as administrators of federal programs,” Justice Scalia wrote.

They said they would have struck down not only the individual mandate but the rest of the law as well, arguing that the other provisions could not have stood without the compulsion of forcing Americans to buy insurance.

Chief Justice Roberts‘ ruling also upheld the law’s massive expansion of Medicaid, but said states cannot be compelled to expand their own programs through the threat of removing federal funding altogether. Instead, states have the choice of expanding and collecting new federal money, or staying at current coverage and federal funding levels.

The political fight was already ramping up Thursday morning, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying the court has stripped away the pretense and exposed the tax increases in the law.

“The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax. The bill was sold to the American people on a deception,” Mr. McConnell said, adding that the GOP will continue to pushing to ax the law.

“The court’s ruling doesn’t mark the end of the debate. It marks a fresh start on the road to repeal,” he said.

And Majority leader Eric Cantor said the House will vote to repeal the health care law next month, delivering on GOP promises to try to repeal the rest of the law even if the court upheld it.

“The Court’s decision brings into focus the choice the American people have about the direction of our country,” he said. “The president and his party believe in massive government intrusions that increase costs and take decisions away from patients.”

But Democrats said the ruling will give them time to implement the law and sell its benefits to the public, even as they plan tweaks.

“No one thinks this law is perfect,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. “But Democrats have proven we’re willing to work with Republicans to improve the problems that exist in this law or any other law.”

All eyes have been on the court ever since the justices announced they would hear major constitutional challenges against the Affordable Care Act.

The individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine was at the heart of the struggle, marking the first time the federal government had tried to require all Americans to buy a particular good or service.

While opponents said it violated individual freedom, the administration said since everyone consumes health care at some point, government can control when they begin to pay for it.

The justices held a marathon three-day series of oral arguments in March and then retreated behind closed doors to deliberate and write their opinions.

The conflict gave the Supreme Court a chance to try to spell out the federal government’s relationship with states and individuals more clearly than ever before, indicating where the government’s powers to tax, to regulate interstate commerce and to enact “necessary and proper” laws began and ended.

Voters have been sharply polarized over the law since the beginning, and the court’s ruling is likely to dominate the presidential campaign as Mr. Obama tries to fend off presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who himself signed a pioneering health law as governor of Massachusetts.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes after more than two years of courtroom battles over the 2010 law.

As soon as Mr. Obama signed the law, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed a lawsuit challenging the individual mandate, and in the ensuing year more than half of the states united to challenge the mandate and the bill’s massive expansion of Medicaid, which is the federal-state health program for the poor.

The court challenges have left the law in limbo for many.

Some states started working on setting up their mandatory insurance exchanges. But other states, especially those run by Republicans, decided to sit back and wait for the ruling before they made any moves.

Throughout, the Obama administration touted the immediate benefits of the law: more federal support for prescription drugs for some Medicare beneficiaries; children up to 26 years of age who are able to stay on their parents’ health policies; and an end to limits on coverage, such as preexisting conditions.

But the health care deliberations also helped spawn the tea party political movement that powered Republicans to victories in the 2010 elections and gave them control of the House — which has since voted dozens of times to repeal all or part of the law.

Those efforts have almost always fallen short, but the administration has accepted some changes.

Mr. Obama has signed bills that repealed an onerous business reporting requirement and two other bills that have cut the levels of health exchange subsidy overpayments that would have been allowed. In those last two cases the changes were made so the money could be used for other government priorities.

And the administration on its own said it will not move forward with the CLASS Act, a part of the bill championed by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy that was designed to cover long-term care, but which all sides now agree is fiscally unsustainable as written.

Throughout, both sides knew a final ruling from the court would be decisive.

Major insurers such as United Healthcare and Aetna had already announced they would keep some of the law’s most popular provisions even if it was overturned, including the mandate to include children up to age 26 on their parents’ policies and fully cover some preventative services without charging a co-pay.

The Supreme Court had its pick from a number of cases that wound their way through the justice system, but chose to hear one decided by the 11th Circuit — the only appeals court to throw out the individual mandate but uphold the rest of the law.

During oral arguments the justices grappled with a number of major constitutional issues, including whether requiring Americans to buy health care violates their liberty, how much of the law could function without the individual mandate and whether states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion without losing out on new federal dollars.

The question about the individual mandate garnered the most public attention, widely seen as a referendum on how much influence the federal government may assert over Americans’ purchasing decisions.

Many court-watchers said post-ruling that the court appeared more likely to strike down the mandate after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — expected to be swing votes — were especially tough on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued for the administration.

The justices seemed to agree that striking down the mandate would dramatically alter the rest of the law, but disagreed on which route to take. The Republican-appointed justices appeared to lean toward scrapping the whole thing while the Democrat-appointed justices said that’s a decision for Congress to make.

Each sides faced the challenge of describing limits to the power they sought.

When the justices challenged him to name something the government couldn’t do if it could require Americans to buy health coverage, Mr. Verrilli said that health insurance is unique because if anyone can’t pay for their own health care, those costs are shifted onto other people.

Meanwhile, attorney Paul Clement, who argued for the National Federation of Independent Businesses and 26 states opposing the law, struggled to explain why the states couldn’t reject all sort of rules attached to federal programs if they could reject the Medicaid expansion

Following Supreme Court health-care ruling, House GOP will again try to repeal the law
By David A. Fahrenthold, Michelle Boorstein and Rosalind S. Helderman,
June 28, 9:30 AM

On Capitol Hill, the immediate reaction to Thursday’s ruling was mapped out weeks in advance. Now that the health-care law has been largely upheld by the Supreme Court, the GOP-controlled House plans to vote to repeal it--again.

“The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire,” House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a written statement Thursday. “Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.

If the House follows through on its promise of a repeal vote on July 11 that move is not likely to make much of an immediate difference--at least, not in a legal sense.

Democrats are still in control in the Senate. So the House’s repeal would have little chance of passage there. On Thursday, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) praised the law and the Supreme Court on the Senate floor.

“I’m pleased to see the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship and ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” Reid said. He continued: “When we come back here after the elections, there may be some things we need to do to improve the law, and we’ll do that working together. But today, millions of Americans are already seeing the benefits of the law that we passed.”

On Thursday morning, just after the ruling, House Republicans headed into a closed door meeting largely in silence, wearing grim faces.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said he was “a little bit surprised, a little bit disappointed. But you have to respect the Supreme Court.” Labrador termed the mood among Republicans as “somber” but said he was pleased the ruling would allow Republicans to argue the health-care law is something that’s reliably unpopular: a tax.

“We didn’t just argue it was unconstitutional,” Labrador said. “We argued it was bad policy.”

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tx.) offered reporters a thumbs-down. “We’re going to go in there and talk about it,” Barton said. “But it’s bad. Really, really bad.”

One of the chief architects of the bill, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) celebrated the bill by phoning the president and vice president, leaving messages for both.

Then, an aide said, the former House speaker called Vicki Kennedy, the widow of former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for changes in health care.”Now, Teddy can rest,” Pelosi told her.

The aide also noted that Pelosi was wearing “her lucky purple pumps” on Thursday. Pelosi wore the same shoes on March 21, 2010, the day the health care law passed Congress.

Just after Republicans took over in 2011, the House passed a bill to repeal the law. It has gone nowhere in the Senate. Neither have other bills--at least four of them--that the House has passed to repeal specific pieces of the health-care law.

But the law will remain a political target for Republicans in Congress, and for presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. The GOP will campaign for control of the both houses of Congress, as well as the presidency, on a promise of repealing the bill next year.

“The Court affirmed Congress’ power to tax people if they don’t eat their broccoli,” a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said Thursday. “Now it’s up to the American people to decide whether they will tolerate this obscene abuse of individual liberty.”

Away from Capitol Hill, the ruling could shift some focus back to another campaign against the law--this one by some religious groups. Catholic bishops have called the health-care law a major violation of religious liberty, because it includes a mandate for most employers to provide access to contraception for employees.

The bishops have made fighting the mandate the centerpiece of one of their biggest campaigns in a generation, and are in the midst of a two-week nationwide push of rallies, mega-Masses and concerts they’ve titled a “Fortnight for Freedom.”

One front of their campaign has been legal. Thursday’s ruling means 23 separate lawsuits will continue against the Obama administration. The suits involve 56 individual plaintiffs, mostly Catholics, including bishops, Catholic universities and Catholic news organizations.

“This thing is not over for sure,” said Rick Garnett, a Notre Dame Law School professor who has advised the bishops on their religious liberty campaign.

An advocacy group funded by evangelical Christians, the Alliance Defense Fund, also signalled that it would press legal challenges to the law.

“This administration has used health care law to become a dictator of conscience,” said a statement from the group. “ObamaCare holds your health care hostage and offers no real choice. Either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be fined for your faith. All current ADF legal challenges to the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate will proceed.”

What if Republicans ever do succeed, and take down a law that the court would not? The GOP has said it will seek to “replace” the law, probably with a piecemeal series of legislation--not another enormous bill.

Of course, they would likely find that job as difficult and divisive as the Democrats did.

Officially, the GOP says it wants new legislation that would to curb the cost of medical-liability lawsuits, so that doctors can pay lower malpractice premiums, and not feel forced to practice “defensive medicine,” always thinking of a future lawsuit.

House Republicans want to end the practice of denying coverage to people with past coverage for “pre-existing conditions.” They would allow consumers the freedom to purchase insurance across state lines, and to expand the use of individual health-savings accounts. They have also talked about expanding “high risk pools,” which allow people who can’t buy private insurance to purchase it through the state.

But, if they do anything that sounds like an echo of “Obamacare,” they could be bitterly opposed by conservatives who oppose any greater federal involvement in health care.

Ed O’Keefe also contrvibuted to this story.

THE FIX
by Chris Cillizza

Health-care law upheld; other big Court rulings
Live blogging the SCOTUS decision

SOME COMMENTS

11:31 a.m. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says the decision “preserves ... the Supreme Court’s position as an insitution above politics” and asks Republicans to move on. (Not very likely.)

“This decision preserves not only the health care law, but also the Supreme Court’s position as an institution above politics. Just as Speaker Boehner vowed not to spike the football if the law was overturned, Republicans should not carry on out of pique now that the law has been upheld. Democrats remain willing to cooperate on potential improvements to the law, but now that all three branches of government have ratified this law, the time for quarreling over its validity is over. Congress must now return its full-time focus to the issue that matters most to the public, and that is jobs.”

11:19 a.m. American Crossroads, one of two outside spending groups advised by former Bush administration official Karl Rove, argues that the decision will be good for Republicans come November.

“While we would have preferred to see Obamacare struck down, this decision will drive Republican voter intensity sky-high,” said Crossroads President Steven Law in a statement. “The Supreme Court effectively made the 2012 elections the most important in a century.”

11:15 a.m. President Obama will deliver a statement at 12:15 from the East Room of the White House. Mitt Romney will speak at 11:45 from 101 Constitution Avenue NW.

For a hint at what Romney will say, check out this image of his team setting up, courtesy of CNN’s Jim Costa:

11:09 a.m. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, we’ve updated our health-care calculator to explain what the decision means for you:

11:07 a.m. Rick Santorum responds: “Today's outcome is the worst of all scenarios,” the former presidential candidate says. “I have no doubt that [President Obama] sees today's ruling in his favor as a mandate that he can now do whatever he chooses by any means possible.”

10:59 a.m. The Republican-controlled House will vote (again) on full repeal of the Affordable Care Act the week of July 9, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

“During the week of July 9th, the House will once again repeal ObamaCare, clearing the way for patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice,” Cantor said in a statement. “We support an approach that offers simpler, more affordable and more accessible health care that allows people to keep the health care that they like.”

The House first voted to repeal the health-care law in January of 2011, shortly after the new GOP majority took control. Democratic control of the Senate means that now, as then, the vote is largely symbolic.

Of course, that could change in a few months, a possibility Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) alluded to in his statement.

“Today’s decision does nothing to diminish the fact that Obamacare’s mandates, tax hikes, and Medicare cuts should be repealed and replaced with common sense reforms that lower costs and that the American people actually want,” McConnell said. “It is my hope that with new leadership in the White House and Senate, we can enact these step-by-step solutions and prevent further damage from this terrible law.”

10:52 a.m. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just spoke from the Senate floor. Here is a rush transcript. Apologies for all caps.

MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT, I’M HAPPY, I’M PLEASED TO SEE THE SUPREME COURT PUT THE RULE OF LAW AHEAD OF PARTISANSHIP AND RULED THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS A LONG OPINION, AND WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE COME BACK HERE AFTER THE ELECTIONS, THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS WE NEED TO DO TO IMPROVE THE LAW AND WE’LL DO THAT WORKING TOGETHER, BUT TODAY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE ALREADY SEEING THE BENEFITS OF THE LAW THAT WE PASSED. SENIORS ARE SAVING MONEY ON THEIR PRESCRIPTIONS AND CHECKUPS. CHILDREN CAN NO LONGER BE DENIED INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PREEXISTING CONDITION. PROTECTION THAT WILL SOON EXTEND TO EVERY AMERICAN. NO LONGER WILL AMERICAN FAMILIES BE A CAR ACCIDENT OR A HEART ATTACK AWAY FROM BANKRUPTCY. MR. PRESIDENT, I JUST HAD -- EVERY THURSDAY, I HAVE A WELCOME TO WASHINGTON. TODAY THEY HAD A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM NEVADA WHO HAVE OR HAVE RELATIVES THAT HAVE CYSTIC FIBROSIS. IT’S BEEN SO HARD FOR THESE YOUNG PEOPLE TO GET INSURANCE. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE THAT WAY ANYMORE, MR. PRESIDENT. NO LONGER WILL AMERICANS LIVE IN FEAR OF LOSING THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY LOSE A JOB. NO LONGER WILL TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS RELY ON EMERGENCY ROOM CARE OR GO WITHOUT CARE ENTIRELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INSURANCE AT ALL.

VIRTUALLY EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA WILL HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE THEY CAN AFFORD AND THE VITAL CARE THEY NEED. PASSING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS THE GREATEST SINGLE STEP IN GENERATIONS TOWARD ENSURING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY PERSON IN AMERICA, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY LIVE, HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE. MR. PRESIDENT, UNFORTUNATELY, REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS CONTINUE TO TARGET THE RIGHTS AND BENEFITS GUARANTEED UNDER THIS LAW. I’D LIKE TO GIVE THE POWER BACK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH BACK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES, OUR SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN. THE MATTER IS SETTLED. NO ONE BUT THINKS THIS LAW IS PERFECT. THE PRESIDING OFFICER DOESN’T, I DON’T, BUT DEMOCRATS HAVE PROVEN WE’RE WILLING TO WORK WITH REPUBLICANS TO IMPROVE THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST IN THIS LAW OR ANY OTHER LAW. MILLIONS OF AMERICANS ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND WORK TODAY AND WE KNOW THAT. OUR FIRST PRIORITY MUST BE TO IMPROVE THE ECONOMY. IT’S TIME, THOUGH, FOR REPUBLICANS TO REFIGHTING YESTERDAY’S BATTLES. NOW THAT THIS MATTER ISSTOP SETTLED, LET’S MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS, LIKE JOBS. I WOULD NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.

10:50 a.m. The broccoli meme survives. John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), told the Post: “The Court affirmed Congress’ power to tax people if they don’t eat their broccoli. Now it’s up to the American people to decide whether they will tolerate this obscene abuse of individual liberty.”

10:45 a.m. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who ran his state’s Department of Health and Hospitals in the late 1990s, responds:

“Ironically, the Supreme Court has decided to be far more honest about Obamacare than Obama was. They rightly have called it a tax. Today’s decision is a blow to our freedoms. The Court should have protected our constitutional freedoms, but remember, it was the President that forced this law on us.

“The American people did not want or approve of Obamacare then, and they do not now. Americans oppose it because it will decrease the quality of health care in America, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and break the bank. All of this is still true. Republicans must drive hard toward repeal, this is no time to go weak in the knees.”

10:43 a.m. Marissa Evans reports from the scene outside the courthouse:

Pro-health-care supporters broke out into chants of "we love Obamacare!" and then moved to "Yes We Can!" after the Supreme Court upheld the decision for the health-care act.

Dr. Harvey Fernbach, member of the DC area Physicians for a National Health Program stood outside the Supreme Court holding a Support HR 676 sign. He's been practicing medicine for 41 years and has seen patients get worse with high blood pressure, cataracts and other ailments due to not being able to afford health care.

"It's the quickest way to save lives, money and it makes it easier to practice medicine here in America," Fernbach said.

Tanvi Madhusudanan sat across the street from the courthouse on Thursday watching the chanting supporters and opposers with the hot sun beaming in her face.

"Health care is a real problem," she said. "Compared to other countries if they can have universal health care, we can too."

Oliver Darcy stood on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court holding a sign over his head that said, "This is a big F***kin Deal"

"I don't think the federal government shouldn’t have the ability to mandate me to purchase a product for my own good," he said.

10:40 a.m. The full Supreme Court opinion on the health-care law is now online.

10:36 a.m. While the individual mandate decision is a victory for the Obama administration the court did damage to another aspect of the law.

On the Medicaid question, the judges found that the law’s expansion of Medicaid can move forward, but not its provision that threatens states with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if the states declined to comply with the expansion.

10:34 a.m. President Obama will speak in a couple of hours, the White House says.

10:27 a.m. More detail on the decision from SCOTUSBlog that makes clear the split on whether the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause or as a tax:

Justice Ginsburg makes clear that the vote is 5-4 on sustaining the mandate as a form of tax. Her opinion, for herself and Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan, joins the key section of Roberts opinion on that point. She would go further and uphold the mandate under the Commerce Clause, which Roberts wouldn’t. Her opinion on Commerce does not control.

10:22 a.m. We’ll be updating this post with reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act. The Court ruled that Congress can levy tax penalties on individuals who do not have health insurance.

Here’s the key quote from the opinion of the court:

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.

CNN jumps the gun on Supreme Court health care decision
Posted by Aaron Blake at 11:01 AM ET
6/28/2012

For the second time this week, initial reports about the Supreme Court’s decision were flat wrong.

The complicated nature of the court’s decisions, along with the Twitter age and the race to be first, led at least two major news networks — CNN and Fox News — to mistakenly report Thursday morning that the individual mandate portion of President Obama’s health-care law had been struck down.

The problem: The law and the mandate were actually upheld.

Six charts to explain health-care polling
Posted by Scott Clement at 07:37 AM ET
6/28/2012

Pollsters have asked Americans hundreds of questions about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in recent years. You can boil down all of that data into six charts — and we do just that below. Enjoy!

1. Law never gained majority support

Fewer than half of Americans have supported the law in every major poll since its passage. A significant portion of this opposition comes from those who say the law did not go far enough in changing the U.S. health-care system. Looked at another way, the law has been tarred and feathered from the left and the right.

6 CHARTS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/six-charts-to-explain-health-care-polling/2012/06/28/gJQAlBrn8V_blog.html

John Boehner Vows To Repeal What Remains Of Health Care Law After Supreme Court Ruling
6/27/2012
Supreme Court Health Care

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed Wednesday that Republicans would repeal whatever parts of health care reform remain standing following Thursday's highly anticipated Supreme Court ruling -- even if doing so would jeopardize insurance coverage for thousands of people.

"We've made it pretty clear and I'll make it clear one more time: If the court does not strike down the entire law, the House will move to repeal what's left of it," Boehner said.

A House Republican leadership aide confirmed that Boehner would not spare the law's fledgling high-risk pool program. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, as it is formally known, is a Republican-inspired component of the Affordable Care Act currently insuring 67,000 Americans. A similar high-risk pool program formed a major plank of the GOP alternative to health care reform in 2009.

"The White House did a truly craptastically lousy job designing their high-risk pools," the Republican aide said. "If we do something on this topic, it would be based on our better policy solutions, like the one in the House Republican alternative during the debate in 2009. So starting with repealing everything is the best option."

The PCIP offers market-rate premiums to people with pre-existing conditions who have been uninsured for six months or longer. Initially, Obama administration officials expected the program to reach hundreds of thousands. Instead, far fewer people have enrolled, and the cost of insuring them has been double what officials expected.

The Obama administration has said the PCIP was merely designed to serve as a "bridge" to 2014, when the law would ban insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the entire health care law, it's not clear what would happen to people enrolled in the PCIP, except it seems likely they would not get to keep their insurance. However, many legal observers expect at least some parts of the law to pass constitutional muster. Several PCIP enrollees have told HuffPost they are worried about what the high court might do.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, for its part, has repealed the Affordable Care Act before, but it hasn't received any cooperation from the Democratic Senate.

Jennifer Bendery contributed reporting.

Not only that...they'll piss all over everything Obama with renewed intensity.
It's gonna be like sitting front row at a Gallagher show.