Three strikes and you Obamacare haters are out, right?
For the third time in a decade, the Supreme Court today rejected a devious Republican effort to take health insurance away from millions of Americans and ruled that Affordable Care Act, known affectionately and vituperatively as Obamacare, remains Constitutional. Perhaps dissatisfyingly, the Supreme Court has yet to reject these challenges by declaring that since health is a prerequisite to life and dignity and exercising our constitutional liberties (you can’t heft that musket if you’re delirious from coronavirus and hooked to a ventilator), Americans have a fundamental right to health care. This time, the Supreme Court saved the Affordable Care Act on the technical grounds of standing… which in this case the individual plaintiffs and South Dakota and the other anti-life states suing do not have:
…Six justices joined Breyer’s opinion holding that neither the states nor the individual plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mandate. The individual plaintiffs, Breyer explained, contended that they are harmed, and therefore have a right to sue, because they have to pay each month for health insurance to comply with the mandate. The problem with that argument, Breyer reasoned, is that although the ACA instructs them to obtain health insurance, the Internal Revenue Service can no longer impose a penalty on taxpayers who fail to obtain insurance – and there is no other government action connected to the harm that the individual plaintiffs claim to have suffered, a key requirement for standing.
Nor, Breyer continued, do Texas and the other states have standing to challenge the mandate. Although they alleged that they are injured because their residents, in an effort to comply with the mandate, enroll in state-sponsored programs like Medicaid, which costs the states money, Breyer emphasized that the states have not shown a link between the unenforceable mandate and the decision to enroll.
Breyer also rejected the states’ argument that the mandate imposes other additional costs directly on them – for example, the costs of providing information to beneficiaries and the IRS. Those requirements, Breyer explained, come from other parts of the ACA, rather than the mandate [Amy Howe, “Court Again Leaves Affordable Care Act in Place,” SCOTUSblog, 2021.06.17].
Jeepers creepers: we don’t let individual defendants suffer double jeopardy; now the Affordable Care Act has survived triple jeopardy in court, not to mention two whole years of a rabid GOP Congress and White House that promised and had the power to repeal the whole darn thing and still left it in place. Republicans, don’t you think it’s time to admit you lost and let this popular, incomplete yet effective, and Republican policy stand?
Well…its half a loaf….we need the whole sha=bang…government sponsored health care…birth to grave. The insurance companies are running a huge scam on the public, and the public knows it. If you don’t know it now, wait til you get sick.
Well, out of the three attempts, this one was 7 to 2, the second was 6 to 3, the first was 5 to 4. Moving in the right direction all the way Alito.
You know it, Arlo. After retirement one is hit by a monthly Medicare bill and Medicare supplemental insurance, plus separate drug, dental and vision insurance. “Affordable care”? Questionable, that!
With any hope the Supreme Court decision will drill down to where the rubber meets the road.
Dave, it works pretty well, the criticism may be overly harsh. ACA, as is the medical industry, are both complex, but there is no such care for eyes and teeth. Mental health care is also extremely problematic.
I agree with Arlo and Dave that the ACA does not go far enough. Single payer is still the option we should be aiming for, since single-payer most efficiently and justly allocates our health care resources.
But President Obama got us this far, and we are in a far better place than we were eleven years ago. We don’t hear as many doom-stories about the impending bankruptcy of Medicare. We have far more Americans with health insurance. I haven’t spent the last eleven years living in complete fear that my family will lose its health insurance or go bankrupt because of an illness or injury. We have solidly positive policy outcomes. Republicans have worked to undo those positive outcomes, mostly out of personal spite toward Barack Obama, but also out of abject terror that this effective policy puts the lie to a lot of their ideology, as have Social Security and Medicare.
Yesterday’s decision also demonstrates that, important as the chance to appoint Supreme Court justices is, stacking the court does not guarantee that your party will win every case in the future. You still have to put together a good Constitutional argument.
Americans prove daily they are just stupid compared to Canadians.
Free health care and fewer mass shootings vs. we love our private health insurance (???) and mass shootings almost every day…
Yeah, single payer is where we have to go on this. Does the Demo Part in SD have the balls to propose this intelligently to the public? No. Will they? Who knows. Bipartisanship is a very slow and stupid thing to do. Need better ideas, now. Start now
This is really great news! It is the first step.
Next, we need Medicaid in every state so when people move, sometimes no choice of their own, they need not worry about coverage.
Then Medicare needs to be overhauled. There are different benefits according to DOB, which is unfair since everyone pays the same. However, born in 1955 and after, welcome to higher premiums, deductibles and copays (PDCs), along with the lack of affordable Plan D providers in a rural areas such as ours. And some insurance companies, including Blue Cross, don’t cover some estrogen products, leaving women with few choices and higher PDCs.
And of course, Indian Health Services needs expansion desperately, starting with infrastructure. How many politicians in Washington have to drive 25 – 120 miles for an office visit or medial treatment? How many live in areas where the nearest ambulance is 30 miles away? Because so many tribal members travel long distances to work in clinics and hospitals, it makes more sense to build them where needed and keep people working in their community.
I am still attempting to figure out if the standing grounds was how Roberts managed to cobble together the majority. The fact that Thomas didn’t dissent leads me to believe this might be the case.
universal healthcare for all is the way. people who oppose it don’t understand it, or they are selfishly hoping to profit from the ridiculous system we have now.
There is no reason in principle we couldn’t have a health care system which goes as far as to include dental and mental.
Why, just today I saw an old episode of “New Scandinavian Cooking” where a Swedish woman prepared sliced strawberries with green tabasco sauce, peppery olive oil, and salt, serving them with mint and sour cream. (Japan does include dental in their health care package, incidentally).
Since we don’t have in this country what we say we want—with the assumption we could ever agree on such–we must evidently lack the collective will to make things happen, or so our maxim “where there’s a will there’s a way” would tell us. With no societal will it’s not difficult to explain why we don’t have what we say we want and why we instead remain stuck at the level of an unsatisfied desire, if that desire even exists.
Of course, Obama is to be thanked for getting the ball rolling, at least nominally, as is the Supreme Court for upholding the concept. Will the idea trickle down and get all Americans behind it in its most practical and perfect manifestation? Or will those along the chain each expect a cut and muck up any such hope as we’ve seen?
Americans seem to like to disagree much more than agree on anything, and that undermines our collective will to make things happen. Not to mention the fact things are so complicated we can’t even determine just what factors are contributory to the problem.
The Scandinavians may have high taxes but their expectations are highly practical, culminating in a high quality of life. Somehow we in the US think the more we pay, the more we must be getting ripped off (and in the US that probably is the case).
And 10 Years After,(they’d love to change the world in their favor only) magats still have nothing to repeal and replace the ACA with. But, you can take them at heir word.
Anybody else awaiting with abated breathless anticipation for the Republican “Health Care Plan” -promised- years ago-many years ago?!!
The Republican mantra= resist, obfuscate, confuse with non-fact “facts” , The Truth isn’t necessarily the truth”! and other BS.
What say the grudz and John Dale? Crickets, thought so!
DaveFN – Medicare Part A has no cost. Part B, and the others are OPTIONAL coverages. One need not enroll in any of them, if say, for example, one were to reside outside of the US when one retires and buy into the health plan of the foreign country’s providing. I plan to do just that on my gaining temporary residency in Ecuador, where full coverage (Doctor, hospital, prescriptions, vision, hearing and dental) will run me a total $79/month.
Richard Schriever:
Medicare Part B covers:
1. Medically necessary services: Services or supplies that are needed to diagnose or treat your medical condition and that meet accepted standards of medical practice.
2. Preventive services: Health care to prevent illness (like the flu) or detect it at an early stage, when treatment is most likely to work best.
I don’t consider either of the above “OPTIONAL.” Why do you?
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/medicare-costs-at-a-glance
You’ll have to sell me on Ecuador. Any disadvantages to living there?