WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the heart of President Barack Obama’s health care law Thursday, ruling 5-4 in favor of the requirement that, starting in 2014, individuals either obtain health care coverage or pay a tax.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sided with the court’s four Democratic appointees to uphold the Affordable Care Act — the centerpiece of Obama’s domestic legislative program.

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders,” Roberts wrote. “We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.”

Although he answered that question in the affirmative, Roberts agreed with the law’s conservative critics — and the court’s four other conservatives — who said Congress does not have the power to require people to buy a product such as health insurance.

But, he said, the law does not truly impose such a mandate on Americans. It simply requires those who do not have health insurance to pay a tax penalty. That tax requirement, he said, passes constitutional muster.

“The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” he wrote. “The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.”

The justices also upheld a major expansion of the Medicaid program, which is one of the chief ways the law sought to expand coverage of the uninsured. But, they said, the federal government cannot force states to participate. Those states that do not want to expand Medicaid — even if the federal government pays for most of the expansion — will have to be given the right to opt out.

That part of the ruling could open the way for significant differences in health care coverage between liberal states, which already have said they welcome the additional federal money for expanded coverage, and conservative ones. Some Republican governors have indicated they want to reject the expanded coverage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the usual swing vote, joined the other conservative dissenters in a joint opinion arguing that the entire law should have been struck down.

Both the outcome and the lineup surprised many in Washington who had expected Kennedy to be the court’s swing vote and for Roberts to side with the court’s conservative bloc against the law.

During the court’s oral arguments this spring, Roberts had asked many sharply worded questions that expressed skepticism about whether a mandate to buy health insurance would be constitutional. But although the government in its legal briefs had argued that the tax power created a basis for upholding the law, that point came up only rarely in the oral arguments.

The tax would start at $95 in 2015 and rise to $695 by 2017. Even at that rate, considerably less than the cost of insurance, it is expected to raise about $4 billion a year to help pay for health care coverage.

Democrats had gone to great lengths during the congressional debate over the health law to argue that they were not passing a new tax. And Republicans immediately seized on the court’s language to tag Obama as a tax raiser.

But for the president and his aides, who had staked the success of his presidency on passing the health law, that tax label seemed a small price to pay.

Obama was quick to praise the court’s decision, going before television cameras at the White House about two hours after the decision to pronounce it “a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.”

He listed many of the provisions of the law that have proven popular, including the requirement that insurance companies cover people who have pre-existing health conditions, the expansion of prescription drug coverage for the elderly and the federal subsidies designed to help people buy insurance, starting in 2014.

“I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared,” Obama said.

“The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is re-fight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.”

For a brief moment earlier in the morning, Obama thought he had lost the fight. Although the White House gets an early heads-up on most major announcements in Washington, it gets no advance word on Supreme Court decisions. So as the decision hour of 10 a.m. EDT approached, Obama was standing outside the Oval Office, watching television on a four-way split screen showing several cable channels.

Initially, several stations got the court’s holding backward, leaving Obama thinking that the high court had struck down the law, according to a senior administration official who was present.

After a few moments, however, White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler walked in and gave Obama two thumbs up, making the announcement that the law had been upheld. The president hugged the bearer of the good news and turned to walk into his office.

Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who also waited for the court’s decision in Washington, used the decision as a call to arms for Republicans.

“Our mission is clear. If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we are going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that,” he said, standing behind a lectern decorated with a sign that proclaimed “Repeal and Replace Obamacare.”

“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday, it’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday, it’s bad law today,” Romney said, adding that it “puts the federal government between you and your doctor.”

At the same time, however, Romney expressed support for several of the law’s goals. “We’ve got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and that they will not lose insurance,” he said. “We also have to ensure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.”

He did not say how he would achieve those goals. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney won passage of a state law that imposed a mandate for insurance coverage similar to the one in the federal law. He has since said he does not see the Massachusetts law as a model for the rest of the country.

Among the many political combatants cheering or jeering the court’s decision, few were as effusive as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the former speaker whose party lost control of the chamber after she pushed the health care overhaul through Congress.

After leaving congratulatory phone messages for Obama and Vice President Biden, Pelosi reached Vicki Kennedy, whose husband, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., had championed universal health care.

“Now, Teddy can rest,” Pelosi told her.

©2012 Tribune Co.

Join the Conversation

94 Comments

  1. I can imagine that Right Wing talkers are up in arms over this. 

    How dare the Supreme Court rule for the common person!

    1. And they can’t believe one of their own guys ruled in favor of it! It must be making their blood pressures go up.  There will be a lot of GOP loyalists having strokes tonight. I hope they have health insurance.

      1. It just goes to show that no matter the make up of the court or the “expected” leanings the court will from time to time issue rulings that surprise people…Loving v. Virginia….Roe v. Wade….Lawrence v. Kansas….and now this ruling.

        While I will accept the ruling of the court, I still believe that the federal government should not force any citizen to purchase anything that they do not agree with and it seems to get around that problem the SCOTUS called it a tax…a tax that hasn’t even been collected yet.

        1. Romney called his Massachusetts law a “national model” repeatedly in the national press and on tv.  Well, the affordable care act is indeed a national law modeled very much on RomneyCare.  Now Etch-A-Sketch man says he wants to repeal it.  The man has no core whatsoever.  He is an absolute phony plastic opportunist who flips and flops like a fish out of water.  You can’t believe a word out of his phony mouth.  Next, we are constantly forced to fund things we don’t like.  I don’t think we need to give our tax dollars to oil companies already making record profits in the guise of “exploration subsidies”, but we do. If you want to go to Canada, you must pay for a passport.   And we could all make lists and lists of other things we are essentially forced to pay for that we may not agree with.  At the state and local levels, we must pay for car insurance.  We must pay for certain plastic bags for garbage pickup.  We must pay for helmets and life jackets.  And we can go on and on.  There are good reasons for many of these things we must pay for.  The healthcare mandate always used to be a REPUBLICAN idea, even supported by right wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation.  Then, oops, a Democratic president said he was good with that, so NOW they suddenly don’t like it and screech phony nonsense about “losing freedom” and all the rest of that malarkey. To get costs down for everyone, everyone MUST be in the pool, as with car insurance or any other type.  Low income folks will get tax credits to help pay premiums, and there is a Medicaid expansion for those who qualify.  On the savings side, the health exchanges will broaden markets and use market forces to get costs down.  Conservatives should be THRILLED.  It is using THEIR OWN ORIGINAL IDEAS and the PRIVATE MARKET to broaden coverage and reduce costs.  Yes, there is a mandate to buy PRIVATE health plans.  That is NOT “socialist” in any way, shape, or form.  Finally, failing to participate as required means a tax penalty is added to annual federal taxes.  Therefore, it is enforceable under Congress’s taxation powers.  This law is a CENTRIST approach containing numerous REPUBLICAN planks that they used to be FOR before they were against them.  The Republicans had chance upon chance over 100 years to do healthcare reform.  They refused, time and time and time again. What they want to do now would allow insurance companies to again chuck people off for about any reason and at about any time and would send us backward in many other ways as well.  The non-partisan budget office estimates longterm cost savings to our society of hundreds to billions of dollars.
          This law deserves a chance, and enough of the outright lies about it.  Implement it, and then tweak it as we go.  But again, it deserves a fair chance to work.

          1. I don’t disagree that something had to be done concerning healthcare….my major issue with this plan is the required purchase of something as a condition of living in this country. If you don’t purchase it the federal government (in the guise of the IRS) will penalize you for not doing so.

            If the federal government can require you to purchase healthcare what’s next? Dental, vision, health club membership????

          2. Nothing wrong with Dentalcare or Vision care being included.  How much money could be saved by saving a persons sight (less disablilty for blindness) or good dental care (good dental care is cheaper than treating the diseases caused by bad dental hygiene).

            Did you know that one of the leading causes of early death 150 years ago was infections in the mouth and teeth?

          3. But where does the “Individual Mandate Tax” stop?

            If you don’t purchase sufficient life insurance your family becomes a “burden” on societies limited resources does the federal government have the right to require you to purchase life insurance or issue a penalty if you don’t?

            If you don’t purchase sufficient fire insurance you become a “burden” on the limited resources of of the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, etc…does the federal government have the right to require you to purchase fire insurance or issue a penalty?

            If you don’t purchase sufficient short or long term disability and you injurer yourself (outside of work), cannot work and become a burden on societies limited resources does the federal government have the right to require you to purchase short or long term disability insurance or issue a penalty if you don’t?

            Where does the federal government draw the line on what they can and cannot require “we the people” to purchase?

          4. in 1792, a Congress that included 17 framers passed a law requiring nearly every “free able-bodied white male citizen” age 18 to 44, within six months,  “provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges,” along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.  

            Yes, where indeed does the federal government draw the line…….

          5. kc….try answering the questions….we not talking about requiring a citizen to join the militia or the military…we are talking about a citizen being forced to purchase a product from a private company of face a legal penalty for not doing so.

            Where does the federal government draw the line on requiring a person to PURCHASE a product or service from a PRIVATE company? Did you follow the stock market today? If you did, did you notice which health care related stocks were up and which were down? Hospital stocks were up and health insurance stocks were down. Wonder why????

          6. I agree.  If I were paying a tax to a single, government administered health care payer.  I would have no problem with that.  But for the government to tell me to buy a product from a private company that proportionately benefits the stockholders and executives of that company.  Then I don’t see how my “taxes” benefit the greater good.

          7. Since everyone’s now required to buy insurance, doesn’t that take all the risk out of the health care insurance market. Insurers are now just doing paperwork for the government for a fee. The government recently got rid of banks as middlemen for guaranteed student loans in the Stdent Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010, coincidently around the same time as the ACA.. Since banks had been guaranteed repayment, they were assuming no risk for the loan. True middlemen. No more. Perhaps health insurers shall go the same route.  

          8. You purchase way more then you think with your tax monies. The Federal highways you travel on. Or any roads that you travel have federal tax monies in them one way or another. The state parks you might have a chance to visit. The national guards that you might see around once in a while. Are funded by some federal tax monies you have paid. That post office you might have a chance to walk into, that court house you might need to utilize. Your tax that is collected is in everything that you touch. Now our tax monies will be put to good use by making sure that every American can have affordable necessary health care. What is being said now is a load of crap. Your tax base will not go up unless your earning does. I would gladly pay a little more tax to make sure that no one will have to worry that they will loose their lively hood due to a illness. Because if death and bankruptcy is a cure for someones illness that’s a sad society that we live in.
            What we will hear now till November is a huge scare tactic move to worry people that have no clue what is really in the health care package. If we all pay some we all will have good coverage for something i believe all Americans should have. Not just the few privileged ones. The ones doing the most belly aching are the ones that get free health care now and will have to pay something for it later. How sad and greedy that sounds.

          9. None of the items in your list is a PRODUCT or SERVICE from a PRIVATE company. I have no issue with my WITHHELD TAX DOLLARS being used for any roads, defense, etc…

            I do have a problem with the federal government telling me that I must purchase a product from a private company.

          10. Or we could have kept the Conservative way of letting health insurance get so expensive that most businesses stopped providing healthcare insurance and then only the rich would be able to afford health insurance.  That was the direction we were headed.

          11. I have stated more than once that we had to do something to provide healthcare for those that cannot afford it. But what Congress has created is a something that is not the “free market” and something that is not “single payer” either. Congress tried to be all things to all people and once again created something that will be modified again and again as we discover problems with it.

            Who is responsible for reporting coverage or non-coverage?

            What are the penalties for incorrect reporting of insurance status?

            Will hospitals, providers, clinics, etc…be paid in a more timely manner than they are today which is anywhere from 6 months to 2 years out depending on the payer?

            Are two questions that come to mind.

          12. You have to get a social security number.If you’re male, you have to sign up for a draft that isn’t being used or face a penalty.There are myriad things in this country that we are “forced ” to do by state, local and federal governments.People need to take a deep breath, stop listening to the Sarah Palin’s and look at what this act will actually do.many will actaully find that it’s a very good thing.

          13. Social Security = federal program administered by the Social Security Administration and funded by a payroll tax.

            Selective Service = federal program, administered by a federal agency and funded by income tax and other federal taxes.

            Affordable Healthcare Act Individual Mandate = a federal requirement, administered by private healthcare insurance companies and funded by premiums paid out of pocket and to a private company and never passes through the federal treasury. Oh, and if you decide that you cannot afford or do not want healthcare insurance you will be fined by a federal government agency, the IRS.

            As I have posted before…we had to do something to care for and pay for those members of society that cannot afford healthcare. But this will create a paperwork nightmare for insurance companies, individuals, employers, etc…how does one “prove they have health insurance”? Who is responsible for reporting coverage or policy cancellations? Who is responsible for reporting inaccurate information that results in fines?

            There really were two options that only should have been considered 1) leave the current system alone, or 2) go to single payer universal healthcare. But instead they (Congress) tried to do both and this insurance hybrid will ultimately be scrapped for something else.

        2.  That means the Commerce Clause failed as an argument. It helps in federal regulation cases in the future.

    2. I don’t know what the Republicans are going to say, and I don’t care. This is not an issue of whether you believe everyone should have to purchase health care or not. This is an issue of whether or not the FEDERAL government has the authority to impose such a law. They do not.

      And the only reason it was ruled that they could is because they decided that the “fee” was instead a “tax”.

      Now, if the states so choose to impose similar laws in their own people the same constitutional restrictions do not apply to the states but for some reason people have a hard time understanding what the federal government is, and what it is supposed to be.

      But when you have a government that is dictated by the rules set forth by a document that it created, it shouldn’t be too surprising when that same government decides that it no longer wants to be restricted by its own rules.

      1. Nonsense, and CONSERVATIVE Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts disagrees with you.  I think he knows the law just a little better than you do.

      2. “…This is an issue of whether or not the FEDERAL government has the authority to impose such a law. They do not…”

        Apparently the Supreme Court disagreees with you.

    3. Oh, the right wingers are probably calling CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justice a “communist” and a “socialist” and a “turncoat” and all the rest.  Yes, the very John Roberts who was appointed by their hero Dubya Bush.  I just love it.  I don’t say it often, but THANKS to Justice Roberts who did his JOB and didn’t just act as a partisan lackey for the corporate right wing.

    4. I can’t wait for you libbers to be up in arms years from now when you have to wait months or years for basic diagnostic services and procedures because someone of authority deemed you weren’t critical enough to get in front of the line. I’m a “right winger” and I won’t loose one moments sleep over this. I have health care, and I take personal responsibility for my overall health, so I see to it I’m not a burden on the system and I already pay my fair share and have for 36 years in health care premiums. I just can’t wait to see the reaction of you people when you find out what you were wishing for doesn’t come close to what you were looking for when the health care system looks like Canada’s and we are paying out the wazoo in gas taxes and VAT taxes on top of what we already pay. Then we’ll see who has the last laugh. Until then you can go to sleep tonight knowing all the citizens of this country will have the best health care in the world, and it’s almost free.

      1. It will cost anyone with a job far more than they can pay to get to see a doctor if they have a job. My job has already moved to high deductable insurance just as all the people I know. If you work you aren’t allowed health care, but if you’re on welfare everything is free. Way to keep people motivated to work.

        1. But see you don’t understand that what ever monies that a person on welfare makes will be used to go towards health care coverage. It will be 8% of their income. And that goes for everyone as well. There will be no more free rides for anyone. Whether your on welfare or just work for a company that pays for your policy. You now will be liable for 8% of your income. If you earn 500.00 on welfare you will pay about $3.33 per month for a insurance. The government will pick up the rest. If you earn 30,000.00 you will pay 200.00 per month. And so on. A lot of things will change. The government worker that earns 100,000.00 will pay 666.66 per month. I think that it changes when a person is earning over 250,000.00. That person that is getting health care free whether its a person on welfare or the person that is getting free health care from the company they are working for, they will pay. Eventually once all are paying for this it will work out OK. Its going to take time  but it will be a far better out come then where we are heading now.

    5. They did not rule for the common person. They ruled in favor of insurance companies. What is the next product that they tell us we need to buy now that they have a precedence  for it?

    6.  Seems to me that had Justice Roberts voted the other way that you would have been calling him a “Corporate tool”. Too funny.

      1. He is a corporate tool but this time he decided correctly.  In an earlier decision this week he help to overturn a 100 year old anti-corruption law.

    7. What would be your position on the Supreme Court be if Roberts had voted the other way? Would they be “corporate tools” and not for the “common person”?

  2. Can somebody please explain to me how this is supposed to benefit people who do not get employer insurance and cannot afford to buy insurance either?  Young people in particular will have this problem I’d think.  So they will pay $695 tax per year and get no benefit from that?  That’s how it reads to me at first.   I’m being sarcastic, I just don’t see how this benefits that group of citizens, and I think they need that help.   

    1. They will get a subsidy to help with the premiums.  On the savings side, the exchanges will provide much more competition and there will be many more basic plans from which to choose.
      Republicans should LOVE it.  All private, all MARKET BASED. 

    2. You will be fined by the IRS if you cannot purchase insurance. If you don’t pay your taxes you go to jail. It is as simple as that if you have a job and you refuse to buy what the government tells you that you have to.

      1. Put me in jail then.Its not refusing to pay for something but being unable to pay for something that should be a free choice of ours to begin with.We are going to be the next communist country.

  3. So…….
    Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare and now the Mitt is making overturning Obamacare the center of his platform?!?!?!?  

    I love irony.    

    Maybe he should run for governor of Massachusetts on the platform of overturning Romneycare, eh?

    1. Really?  The law is based very much on ROMNEYCARE in Massachusetts, a very similar law that Romney has repeatedly stated should be a national model (that is, I guess, before the latest reinvention of himself).  This is a CENTRIST law, and the Republicans in general used to be FOR the insurance mandate and many of its other FREE MARKET provisions before this president decided he could go along with those too, then they pulled the Romney-like self-reinvention too.
      What is the Republican plan now?  Do whatever is best for the rich, and allow more people to get chucked off insurance and thus DIE.  THAT is the TeaRadical plan.  They cheered in a Republican primary debate for allowing someone without  insurance to DIE.  That is their unholy health plan:  don’t have insurance?  Then DIE QUICKLY.

    2.  Wow, so you would vote for a man who would take an oath of office swearing to uphold the constitution, then immediately attempt to dismantle settled law?  Really?  Can you take your blinders off and look at your statement objectively?  Apparently, Romney has no respect for the Legislative nor the Judicial branch of our governmen,t and believes all power should be held by the Presidential branch (so long as HE is the President, I guess.)  So, are you FOR Dictatorship?  Or does Romney’s  hypocrisy escape you entirely?

      1. How come when a liberal gets what they want, its “settled law”, but when a conservative gets what they want its not the end of it?
        Examples:  Recall efforts toward elected Governor Scott Walker,  Gay Marriage in Maine, Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
        I’ve always admired liberals passion towards a goal, but I’m sorry this is America and things can change (see examples above).
        As Mick Jagger says,
        “You can’t always get what you want But if you try sometimes well you might find You get what you need “

      2. Has there ever been a move by the people of Mass. to repeal their Romneycare? Perhaps it works for most of them there.That should be a litmus test.I’m sure there were a lot of the same arguements about how awful this program was.If it turned out to be what those who opposed it predicted, why hasn’t it been overturned there?

  4. Europe’s health care model seems like a dubious path to follow.  But that aside, how can we afford this new burden.  Answer:  the same way all social programs are paid for, the government layers taxes on “the common person” and businesses.  Businesses that invariably go out of businesses, or raise prices to stay in business.  Here’s the thing kids, we buy things at those business, so this program is a burden direct (taxes) and indirect (higher prices on consumer goods).  Also, those businesses that won’t be able to conform to the new system will be rolling out layoffs and/or closing shop all together.  Hint, we work at those businesses.  It behooves us that neither of those two things happen!  So do we really think that is the impetus of an economic uptick?  Cheers!

    1. This is very true. And years down the road, this will become such a financial burden on society, it will collapse the already frail economy, then guess what happens after that?

    2. First, most other industrialized nations have national health plans that are cheaper because 20-30% doesn’t go to clerical overhead and profit. The population is healthier, and no one goes bankrupt due to health issues. It is DISGUSTING that these conditions are allowed here, and they are because the greedy insurance companies hire lobbyists and run propaganda ads and buy off politicians so insurance company CEOs can have more yachts and mansions while millions of Americans have no healthcare and many thousands a year die because of it. It is unpatriotic and horrendously immoral and anti-Christian.
      Also, are you just fine with HALF of our budget going to the military including the military industrial complex and no-bid contracts?  How about THAT “socialism”?  Is all that really needed?  That is OUR money.  How about billions upon billions of our tax dollars going to the already-rich oil companies and other corporations?  How about an INSANE rigged tax system that has shifted the nation’s wealth overwhelmingly to the richest of the rich at the expense of the middle class.  How about the Republicans’ endless celebration of exporting jobs overseas in the name of “competition” while they cheer a race to the bottom here at home?  Are you equally outraged about all that?  EVERYONE should be.

      1. Insurance is already in place and the federal government is paying it to stay there. Our form of government isndifferent than Europe and cannot do things the same way or we will collapse much faster than they currently are. Apparently you are not paying attention to the news as one economy after another is going undernin Europe.

      2. I think you missed most of what I said. But that’s alright, we’ll go over it point for point.  

        How do you imagine things would be cheaper, when we’re going to be adding tens of thousands of government bureaucrats to the system.  Second, I don’t know how much time you spend in Europe or Canada (Europe Lite), but things are pricey.  Just pop over the boarder to Canada and buy milk at $5 or $6 a gallon of milk.  Nothing is free, and centralized healthcare simply spreads the debt and taxes extra for government involvement.  And as we all know from econ 101, those things that involve government are less efficient.  It’s a fact, inarguable, and just the nature of the animal.  The government isn’t driven by “greed” as you call it, and as such individuals are managed by those without a fiduciary duty.  It sounds evil, this profit idea, but it’s this basic human motivation which has propelled our economy thus far.  Somehow we’ve forgotten our way and demonized hard work, ingenuity and the resultant profit, which is for sure a shame.  
        Two more things, “no one goes bankrupt over health issues” sounds interesting enough, but isn’t Europe reeling from the backlash of uncontrolled social spending?  No, an individual way not go bankrupt, but it is clear entire continents surely can.  And, the idea that everyone in Europe is healthier than their American counterparts…  Well my friend, that’s just a case of greener grass syndrome, many a granola has it so don’t feel too badly.  After spending time in France and Northern Europe, I can tell you they are very much just as sick as we.  Do you know how much the French smoke, you would think they hate fresh air!? And, don’t even get me started in regards to waiting for their (free) treatment, do me a favor though and ask the next Canadian you bump into about it.  Few from the US flee into Canada for Healthcare, but the inverse is systemic.  
        And how did we get off topic to big oil and the military complex?  One platitude at a time please.When it comes to functioning socialistic countries, like Sweden, what it boils down to is a matter of choice.  Would you rather have the government take about 2/3 of your income, thus relieving you of the freedom that income provides, but have social programs provided in full.  Or would you rather have more of your income at your disposal, and have less social programs.That’s how it works, and as an American I would rather the capital in my hands than the federal government’s.  I would think someone against the military complex would appreciate less taxes and less government control.Cheers, Jo.

      1. It doesn’t take a crystal ball, its basic economics.  And if you need recent empirical data of social spending sans equivalency with regard to federal taxes just look at the EU. 

    1. they will attach you bank account and you will buy it, yes sir ree..everyone must have it. or fema camp for you..

    2. Please don’t get sick then, because I will have to carry you. That’s the trouble with this benefit, you have to get sick to “enjoy” it

    3. Under this law you will get subsidies to do so, and a healthcare exchange where you can shop among many more plans which should lower prices.  Unfortunately, we don’t have single payer universal Medicare For All which would be CHEAPER, and BETTER FOR BUSINESS, and we would all be covered with good healthcare.  We could and SHOULD do it, but sadly the greedy insurance companies are allowed to spend millions hiring lobbyists and paying off politicians, mostly Republicans, who screech about “socialized medicine” as millions of our fellow citizens go without healthcare, and thousands upon thousands of our citizens die or go bankrupt every year because of this rotten system.
      At least the Affordable Care Act does something to begin to correct some of the immoral and disgusting practices in the status quo.

      1.  I’m 52 now.I get it paid half the year.The other half the year I don’t get it.How can you p[ay for something that you don’t have the money for?I can pay the bills now but take out over a hundred dollars a week and there is no way I can pay my bills then.

  5. Now that we have health care coverage. How about taxing us to buy houses for every american.. Home for all!!!!! Then matching clothing pesant style. coooolollll

    1. Oh, let’s go with the Republican Healthcare Plan:  Freedom to be denied healthcare! Yay!  Freedom to be thrown off your health plan!  Yay !  Freedom to lose your life savings and your house when you get sick !  Yay !  Freedom to help an insurance company CEO buy another mansion as he throws you off your health plan!  Yay !  Freedom to die quickly when you get sick !  Hurray for the right wing health plan !  Yippy !

  6. this court ruling is the death of liberty in this country. what is now true is that one need only to exist in this country to be taxed for that existence. you and I do not need to buy anything, or make a choice, just to exist to be required to pay a tax. our constitution is dead.

    but on the bright side, those who choose to live off the government dole, can have all of the medical care they can convince a doctor to provide… free.

    1. They always could….

      This just makes it so that the cost goes down for everyone who was already paying for healthcare.

      1. Where did you hear the cost will go down for everyone????
        hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! you funny

    2. “Liberty is dead” because more people will have a chance to have healthcare?  Oh please.  What twisted thinking and hyperbolic foolishness.  What is “dead” are many thousands of Americans who die every year because of a disgustingly rotten and immoral current system that helps insurance company CEO’s buy more mansions while our citizens die because they can’t afford healthcare.  When people are denied healthcare or chucked off insurance plans for almost any reason by these rotten immoral non-Christian insurance corporations, and when they die, and when they lose their life savings and go bankrupt, THAT is when Americans lose their liberty. 
      What are you for?  Freedom to die?  Freedom to go bankrupt?  Freedom to be thrown off an insurance plan when an illness occurs?  Is that your idea of “freedom”?

      1. How about freedom of choice? Whats next Libberblic? What will your commie brethren mandate we buy next? Oh, by the way, your man said in an interview prior to this plan getting rammed through congress that it wasn’t a tax. Oh my,,,,the bought and payed for Supreme Court ruled that is was a tax! go figure.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-qh9XDbgE

      1. In reply to smugness, the only thing that keeps people self reliant is their HEALTH and a JOB – is there something so special about you that you KNOW that your health will never be impaired? 

  7. ObamaCare was on of Romney’s best accomplishments. It’s a step in the right direction anyway.

  8. No problem whatsoever.  I can’t afford to pay over $500 a month for insurance through my employer so I most definitely can afford to pay the penalty…aka a “tax”.  Don’t get in to the business of saving lives, you can’t afford it.

  9. This is NOT right. I pay along with my employer, for my overinflated health care coverage, and am a taxpayer, however, it is not right to force people to pay a tax because they do not have health care coverage when the reason they dont have it is because they cannot afford it! And now you are going to tax them because they dont have any money? Plus, there are many companies that do not have to offer health insurance, because, it is required of an employer only with a certain amount of employees. On top of that, you have several small contractors barely making it that do not have health insurance, they work for themselves. Government, you have overstepped your rights and I am putting you on notice that the current administration will not receive my vote for anything in the coming years.

  10. Ok, outside this being unconstitutional, which it is not matter what SCOTUS says (anyone with a HS education should be able to figure that out), am I the only person who see’s Dr.s leaving, companies sending jobs oversea’s to save money, and people saying “to hell with it, what’s the point in working anyways”, in our near future?  Long lines waiting for care, months before you can get testing, and an increase in taxes being what I can think of off the top of my head?  Progressives got what they wanted now lets see if they want what they’re gonna get.

  11. I cry for the country that was and the country that is to be.  So sad.  The country is being overrun by people who neither speak English nor care to, and the lure of legal jobs and free medical care (to THEM, not to you and I)  will cause an explosion of invaders.

  12. Sean Hannity is spewing his venom again tonite, what a darling man. They are angry so now we will have more lies then ever till November. Looks like if they cant get what they want in the honest way they will lie and lie and lie. And Hannity won’t listen to the other side of the issue. Now they are saying that Justice Roberts is wrong, but he was right when he said it was not against the law for corporations to contribute like they were people. Chief Justice Roberts was great then. Now he is all wrong. Wow how a little time will change a mood in the political ring . All sulky like when we don’t get our way. hehehehe..

  13. I am reading comments from people in favor of this and people who are not.  It seems ironic that the comments I read against the healthcare are from people over 62 and on medicare.  Kettle pot black..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *