Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law

By on June 28, 2012 in News

Updated: 6/28/2012 12:08 PM CDT

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the health care law, saying that the individual mandate is valid as a tax.

In a 5-4 vote, the court said Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle. It upheld the mandate as a tax, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Even before the ruling, the administration moved ahead with implementing its provisions. It has been negotiating with states to set up exchanges where consumers can buy subsidized insurance policies and sign up millions of lower-income Americans for Medicaid. Some states, including Florida and Texas, refused to cooperate because they expected the law to be overturned.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court’s judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

According to the Wall Street Journal, insurance exchanges are set to open in 2014, the same year insurers will have to accept all customers regardless of their medical histories. The insurance mandate will also take effect in 2014.

People must show when they file tax returns for 2014 that they had coverage during that year or pay a tax penalty. The size of the penalty will rise over time and eventually reach a maximum of several thousand dollars a year.

Also starting in 2014, companies with more than 50 workers will have to pay penalties starting at $2,000 per employee if they didn’t offer a set level of health benefits.

In another portion of the ruling, the Supreme Court determined that a piece of the Obama administration’s health care law that expanded Medicaid was unconstitutional but didn’t throw out the expansion. Instead, the court said that the federal government can’t threaten resistant states by threatening to pull all of their existing Medicaid funding.

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Speaking on the court’s ruling, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “Democrats are very proud that we stood up for the right of every man, woman and child to life-saving medical care instead of insurance companies.”

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said, “The president’s health care law is hurting our economy by driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire.  Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety.  What Americans want is a common-sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.  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.”

President Obama has called his health care law “the right thing to do,” even as polling indicated the law was unpopular. Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the law during his campaign for president.

Speaking on the Supreme Court ruling, Obama said it was “good for the American people” and added, “It is a fundamental principle here in America, the wealthiest nation on earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did this because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because it was good for the American people.”

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reacted to the decision, saying, “Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did do today is say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do is to say that Obamacare is good law or that it is good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was a bad law yesterday. It is bad law today.”

National Federation of Independent Business et. al vs. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services et. al

© 2016 Ian Smith. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent from Ian Smith.

About the Author

Ian Smith is one of the co-founders of He enjoys writing about current topics that affect the federal workforce. Ian also has a background in web development and does the technical work for the web site and its sibling sites.

171 Replies

Comments RSS

  1. Retired and worried says:

    The new law:  Nearly one-quarter of all seniors rely on
    Medicare Advantage, the private health care option in Medicare. However, this new law makes such deep cuts to that program that half of those covered will no longer be able to keep the coverage they have.  New taxes on drug companies ($27 billion) and medical device makers
    ($20 billion), as well as new reporting requirements and regulations
    imposed on physicians, will make access to health care and services more
    costly and difficult for seniors under the new health care law.  Very difficult to separate fact from fiction.  All comments are appreciated.   So many are now asking if gov’t employees and retirees will eventually lose their present insurance?

  2. 1vet says:

    Now that the legality of this has been determined, what happens now? Illegal immigrants are allowed to stay in these United States. Will they also receive medical benefits? Will their insurance be subsidized by the Federal Government? We are already losing money based on the fact they list everyone in their family as dependents for tax purposes illegally because the IRS won’t do anything about it. 

    Now we have to subsidize their illegal stay here? If President Obama intended to remove illegal aliens, forget about it. We won’t be able to hire enough personnel to stop the flood.

    I have what some people call “humanity” but, have you ever gone to Mexico and had an accident? If you don’t have cash or insurance, you won’t get a glass of water.    

  3. Retired LR says:

    We the middle class will pay more for this. NOTHING IS FREE…I GET A KICK OUT OF THE COMMENTS BELOW. We are paying for medicaid now, food stamps, healthcare for illegals, busineeses with more than 50 employees will be fined instead of apying premiums for their 50 plus employees, doctors will refuse medicaire patients because of the 21% decrease in fees. You people agreeing with this miss the point…the SupCt upheld our freedom by not agreeing witht he socialist president that he can use the commerce clause to mandate anything….they call this a tax…taxes can be changed…the democrats are taxing the middle class and retirees to death. More people are on food stamps that you also pay for…add the increase in food costs for those of us who pay at the supermarket; add the cost of fuel to heat and run your car; add the cost of everything else affected by fuel costs; add the cost of INCREASES in your health insurance premiums, add the costs of supporting illegals—so you commentators below…if you are young and working..expect to pay thru your nose for others to get massive benefits and prepare to work until you drop—laugh is on you.

  4. RetiredIRS says:

    I find many of the comments below selfish and greedy. Federal Workers and Retirees have health care so the hell with those less fortunate than us that don’t. I am also tired of those who throw around the terms Socialist and Communist without knowing their meaning. Every modern industrial country except the United States provides health care for all of this citizens.  I am embarrassed that our country does not.

    • IcekingZ says:

      Greed would be mandating a takeover of an industry that provides the best health care in the world for political purposes. If you think anyone is going to get better or free health care from this you’re not very bright. By the way, how could anyone possibly be ashamed of living in a country that has the best health care system in the world? You sound like Michelle Obama.

      • RetiredIRS says:

         I think that France has the best health care in the world. We are not even one of the topped ranked countries.

        • guestwo says:

          So if you need a heart transplant go to France!  Excuse me.  You used to work for the IRS.  You don’t have a heart.  A brain?  Courage?

    • guestwo says:

      Now that is funny.  Someone from the IRS calling others selfish and greedy. 

  5. Girl Geek says:

    Congress will require most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle. It upheld the mandate as a tax, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.

    It is NOT a tax and is kind of sad. The people that will be hurt by this the most (the poor) are the ones that can’t afford insurance in the first place and they will be the ones fined. Can’t get blood out of a turnip just more fines for the poor. I suppose they will go to jail for being poor.

    • Woohoo! says:

      Then they should give a credit to the working poor and make the bums on welfare get a fricken job.  Yea even at McDonalds.  I would!  I’m glad it all passed – in your face Romney the thief with money all over the world.  How’s that for patriotic American!  Fraud!

  6. IcekingZ says:

    For all those gloating it isn’t as simple as you think. Since individual states can opt out of Medicare/Medicaid expansion many poor will be excluded. States that opt for the Medicaid expansion will see a massive influx of freeloaders and may face fiscal insolvency. Even the federal government does not have the resources to create health care. The most immediate effect is that millions more jobs will be outsourced. Next several major insurers will fold leading to millions more out of jobs. This is a fiscal pipe dream and will cause severe financial repercussions for the entire country.

    • Glad2BRetired says:

      Exactly IcekingZ but I think you Medicaid.  

    • HRGuy71 says:

      IcekingZ is correct. What is going to happen is that some states are going to opt out of medicare and medicaid expansion. These are likely to be states with Republican governors and low or no income tax. The poor will leave for more progressive states (think California, New York, Connecticut and Maryland). The more affluent Americans are already moving to states like Texas and Florida and a few others. Those states will become more affluent, have lower taxes and a much stronger economy and won’t be going bankrupt. 

      If you are getting close to retirement and living in one of the “progressive” states, start packing your bags. Your taxes are going up even more. Join the rest of the successful retirees and successful business people in states that don’t penalize your success.

      • guestwo says:

        Did you mean tax and spend states? The poor will leave for more progressive states (think California, New York, Connecticut and Maryland).

    • PublicCitiZen says:

      The article says the federal government can’t withhold ALL medicaid funding from resistant states.
      I haven’t taken the time to read the 200 page decision, but if they can withhold enough to exert pressure, I don’t see any states opting out of the expansion.

      As for the federal government not having resources to provide health care, we already pay for the uninsured with our emergency room policies.  No one is turned away, regardless of ability to pay.  And we as taxpayers, foot that highly inflated bill.

      I don’t know what jobs you think will be outsourced.  And millions? Really? Which ones?

      They won’t be health care jobs. It still requires a little human interaction to have a medical exam.

      I predict that two years from now the world will still be here and none of the rights dire predictions will come to pass.

      • IcekingZ says:

        You are quite the optimist. First, there’s a doctor shortage already. Even the federal government can’t magically create more. Secondly, the expense is enormous and printing more money will eventually lead to a debasement of the currency which may cause hyper-inflation. Lastly, in case you haven’t noticed it, for the last two years more jobs have been created overseas by American companies than have been created here and they have been over a million a year. That’s over two million jobs and if you can do the math that is millions. This health care mandate will force companies who can’t afford the penalties to close. Other companies will simply move jobs overseas so they don’t have to deal with it. And ithat trend will probably start immediately. If you think the government can keep printing funny money without consequence then you certainly know more than economists do. As far as your assertion the states can be bought off that’s possible. However, the smart ones will realize its better not to participate. Why is that? Because if you don’t participate the freeloaders will move out of your state and take their food stamp lifestyles and criminal activity with them. You would actually be better off socially not accepting the funds. In short, the government destroyed the housing sector by getting too deeply involved with housing. I don’t see how there will be any different results with the health care sector.

        • guestwo says:

          But that’s unconstitutional!!! They cannot move overseas.  That is wrong.  They must stay here and pay higher taxes. 

           Lastly, in case you haven’t noticed it, for the last two years more jobs have been created overseas by American companies than have been created here and they have been over a million a year. That’s over two million jobs and if you can do the math that is millions. This health care mandate will force companies who can’t afford the penalties to close. Other companies will simply move jobs overseas so they don’t have to deal with it. And ithat trend will probably start immediately.

  7. Palp50 says:

    Does anyone realize what a dangerous precedence this sets?  Now, the next president can tell you to buy a gun in the name of self defence, call it a tax and you will have to comply.  I am sure the libs will be cool with that.  Do not give this congress power that you would not want the next to have. Even if Obamacare is repealed the precedence has been set and will still be there. Think about it.

    • Bye! says:

      Oh my the sky is falling – go live somewhere else!

      • Palp50 says:

        If I leave, who will pay the bill for this? Wait . . . hmmm . . .

        • Hello says:

          Trust me we could live without you.  I know someone just back from Sweden – $70 for two hamburgers and $30 for two coffees and a danish.  Go there!

          • guestwo says:

            What herbs/spices were in the hamburger, coffee, and danish?

          • Hello says:

            Go find out!  Buy that one-way ticket!  I’ll pitch in!

          • guestwo says:

            Why don’t you just buy me that hamburger, coffee, and Danish?  After I drink and eat I’ll let you know what spices/herbs were part of the ingredients.   

          • Bye! says:

            Maybe we could meet in Sweden. XOXO

          • guestwo says:

            Now you’re getting nasty.  This is not E-harmony or  Please go to the other websites. 

          • Palp50 says:

            You talk as though we don’t have 100 years of history of big government programs, none of which keep their promises or live within their cost projections.  The reason two hamburgers cost $70 in Sweden is to pay for their “free” healthcare.  Trust me, if ObamaCare lives we will be more like our European brothers and we will be payingh $70 for a couple of burgers too.

        • Hello says:

          I doubt you are in the 1% like brother Romney (that’s a Mormon term)  I was raised Mormon.

  8. grannybunny says:

    I just finished reading the almost-200-page decision.  For all those who fear that this decision represents some kind of expansion of government power, fear not; nothing could be further from the truth.  In finding that the individual mandate was impermissible under the Commerce Clause (but OK as a tax), the Court reversed a century’s worth of its own jurisprudence – turning back the clock 100 years — substantially limiting Congress’ power, while enhancing its own.  With the exception of the Medicaid provision, the result was correct, but the tortuous path they took to arrive there is a blow to representative democracy.

    • guestwo says:

      Oh so you agree that ramming Obamacare down americans throats is a blow to democracy. “but the tortuous path they took to arrive there is a blow to representative democracy.”

      • grannybunny says:

        I’m not weighing in on the health care Law, only on the Court’s enhancing its own power at the expense of our elected representatives, a supposedly co-equal branch of government.  The legislation repeatedly and expressly stated that the penalty for those who were financially-able to purchase insurance — but neglected to do so — was not a tax.

        • guestwo says:

          Not only the legislature but Mr. O himself said it.  Then he lied again when he told his attorneys to argue it was a tax. 

    • truth says:

       I agree with your analysis, except that “but the tortuous path they took to arrive there is a blow to representative democracy.”

      In fact, Roberts strengthens representative democracy in the long term.

      Roberts’ writing exposes the fact that this was a tax all along (yet Obama and the Democrats deceived the public when passing it, as it would have never passed as a tax law), and that the Supremes role is not to suggest the law is a good law, and that citizens are the ones to decide that.  Roberts actually strengthens the fact that that the commerce clause has been an over-reach in Congress in the past, and sets down precedence to stop that in the future.

      Because this mess of a law was crammed down our throats, citizens will in the 2012 elections, like they did in 2010, continue to remove lawmakers who do this kind of crap.  It’s bad policy, it’s not healthcare reform, but it is a tax via insurance companies, enforced by the IRS.  It also does nothing to improve care or reduce costs.

      Obamacare is now ObamaTax (politicallly) and it is  a hot mess, and Roberts used his opportunity to reveal that and push this back to the citizens.

      The big picture is that the abuse of the commerce clause has been soundly defeated, and future take-overs of things like health care via tax law on the public will never pass again.

      Thank you, Chief Justice John Roberts for your wise, long-term view of the essence of preserving our representative democracy. It’s now up to the voting public to see the fraud this law is.

  9. RetiredFed says:

    The really disappointing thing is that every one of the FEMALE Justices voted FOR.  To me, this reeks of “cheerleader politics,” i.e., “you had better vote the way I am going to vote or I won’t invite you to my next party.”  I would have liked to have seen at least ONE of the female justices have the “you know what’s” to vote AGAINST……..

  10. Retired LR says:

    We the middle class will pay more for this. NOTHING IS FREE…I GET A KICK OUT OF THE COMMENTS BELOW. We are paying for medicaid now, food stamps, healthcare for illegals, busineeses with more than 50 employees will be fined instead of apying premiums for their 50 plus employees, doctors will refuse medicaire patients because of the 21% decrease in fees. You people agreeing with this miss the point…the SupCt upheld our freedom by not agreeing witht he socialist president that he can use the commerce clause to mandate anything….they call this a tax…taxes can be changed…the democrats are taxing the middle class and retirees to death. More people are on food stamps that you also pay for…add the increase in food costs for those of us who pay at the supermarket; add the cost of fuel to heat and run your car; add the cost of everything else affected by fuel costs; add the cost of INCREASES in your health insurance premiums, add the costs of supporting illegals—so you commentators below…if you are young and working..expect to pay thru your nose for others to get massive benefits and prepare to work until you drop—laugh is on you.

    • D Byte says:

      With all that litany of your perceptions, it would be hard to respond to all.

      Read what Ronald Reagan’s Budget Director, David Stockman, has to say (“It has become a religion; it has become a catechism. It’s become a mindless incantation”)  about the real lessons of history.

      • Retired LR says:

        you make no sense…most of us have a choice taxation and spend and welfare state or briging back a vibrant economy…I trust most americans to vote the right way in Nov….my life is economically sound..I do not want to have to support more than one hald the country and illegals for the next 20 years…you have a problem with that thinking? Truth hurts doesn’t it? Again, if you D are young and working you indeed will work till you drop.

  11. RetiredFed says:

    In Accounting classes in college, it was pounded into our head that SUBSTANCE takes precedence over FORM!  Apparently, lawyers don’t subscribe to this.  Obamacare, in FORM, is a tax, but in SUBSTANCE it isn’t a tax, just mandated health care.  How come lawyers don’t have to subscribe to substance over form?

  12. Disabled Veteran says:

    Still the biggest winners, insurance companies!  Still the big losers, the American public!  Glad I will be on Tricare in 2014.

    • Wait N C says:

      You have that backwards – the insurance companies are the biggest losers and rightfully so.  If they had put in the public option competition would have taken care of those greedy insurance companies.

  13. magdalena48 says:

    All of you who are against this, please stick to your principles and refuse Medicare when you are 65.

  14. Newmexico87122 says:

    robert • 24 mins agoSocialism?The GOP called it socialism:1. When the gov iplemented child labor laws2. Established minimum wage3. established social security4 Established medicare.Well, if thats socialism then give it to me and tell the GOP to move beyond the 19th century, through the 20th and into the

  15. RetiredFed says:

    When I was a child, I asked a school teacher if it was possible to amend or interpret the Constitution the the point where in reality we end up having Socialism instead of a Democracy.  Teachers said, “Never happen, because of check and balances.”  Well, the checks and balances ain’t working now…….

  16. Dexter Evans says:

    Obama does not need to appoint any more liberals to the court because he already has a traitor in Roberts to do his dirty work. 

    As Roberts demonstrated in his vote regarding Arizona immigration policy and now with Obamacare, conserative America is screwed again.  

  17. Tom Dost says:

    This is just like when the government finally went after the Tobacco Lobby and mandated seat belts for automobiles, or required foods list the ingredeitns and calories. The special interests screamed it cost too much, cost jobs, etc. Obamacare or not, national health insurance is needed in the US as the world’s most
    advanced nation is the only western nation without it. Medicare should be lowered to age 55 as well.
    I don’t like Obama who throws our money to the Palestinian shitheads when it should go for health care, but this is a policy we will look back on like seat belts with short memories.

    • Grumpy says:

      I haven’t looked back on seat-belts or any other intrusion by the Federal Government with anything other than disfavor. Each and even step has impacted our liberties and it shows. After all, in forcing everyone to buckle up, we save more lives…which means that more and more morons get to breed. All this breeding has raised entire generations of needful fools that fail to understand what freedom and liberty are…

  18. mystate2 says:

    The middle class will be paying most of the bill for this so called “Health Plan”, I do not like it one bit. I think the present Administration must have found a way to blackmail the conservative Supreme court justices into voting their way.  Robert’s gave it away, he must be a RINO and bleeding heart.  People are responsible for their own welfare!

    • magdalena48 says:

      I agree  with you that People have NOT been responsible – now they are GOING TO HAVE TO BE! It’s about time!

      • guestwo says:

        Oh so people who smoke will not be covered?  People who get drunk  and destroy their liver will not be covered?  Women who have multiple births (ever hear of Octomom)  will not be covered? 

    • Tax the rich! says:

      Then raise taxes on the rich and make them pay for it.  What – they won’t be able to buy another new vacation home!

      • guestwo says:

        And the people who construct the home will not have a job, people who manufacture what goes into the home will not have jobs!   Butthe wise and wonderful  Obama will know how to spend your money!

        • Bye! says:

          Oh no the sky is falling again.  I think you have the freedom to LEAVE.  If it is so bad, then leave.

          • guestwo says:

            I am waiting to finish my second home.  Aw forget it.  I’ll just cancel the contract and put a bunch of people out of work!  Happy now?

          • Bye! says:

            I’m sure they’ll find employment somewhere else and you probably can’t afford that second home anyway.  From what I hear a 2nd home is a bad investment unless you spend half of your time there.  I hear it’s beautiful in Europe or South America!  Bye – nice knowing you!

          • guestwo says:

            Of course they will find employment somewhere else.  The construction business is booming!!!  LOLOL  Who said I wanted to invest???  You flunk mind reading!!!
            It is beautiful in South America and Europe.
            My neighbor was also going to bibuild but now has to hold off because of Obamataxes!!! 

          • Tax the rich! says:

            Then obviously they couldn’t afford it.  Shouldn’t be living on the edge.

          • guestwo says:

            Prior to Obamataxes it was no problem.  But they shouldn’t live on the edge.  Thank you for proving my point.  Obamataxes put them where they have to wait and see.  Obamataxes put them on the edge.  But it’s their fault that Obama will increase their taxes and premiums. 

          • Bye! says:

            Wow, I haven’t paid one extra dime.  How is it just the GOP have been billed for this Obamacare.  I still have the same insurance I’ve always had.  Scare tactics don’t work with everyone.  Now go get your microchip or meet with the death panel. lololololol

          • guestwo says:

            Well some people used their FSA for OTC drugs.  That stopped unless you get a doctor’s order.  There are also 20 other Obamataxes that will go into effect.  LOLOLOL

  19. Jason Flaherty says:

    I’m going to go get a part time $5 an hour job now. My health care costs just got way cheaper. Why work so much?!

  20. RetiredFed says:

    If you are homeless, you MUST purchase or rent a home or the government will provide you a home and you will pay a penalty on your taxes.

    Do you live in a rustic cabin with no utilities or running water?  BAD BAD BAD!  You must have utilities or the government will force you to have utilities and you will pay a penalty through your taxes.

    Don’t have a TV?  You  must have a TV or the government will buy one for you and you will pay a penalty in your taxes.

    Don’t have  internet service?  Oh no, you MUST have internet service or the government will provide it for you and you will pay a penalty through your taxes.


    I’m not a lawyer, but I’d like to know how in the heck they can interpret health care as a “tax.” 

    • Bye! says:

      It will end if you relocate to another country – bye!

      • Guest says:

        I think it would be a better idea if you and the rest of the Socialists take off to your own little island somewhere. Leave America to the true Americans!

  21. toroc says:

     I am surprised at this considering the Citizens United case. Again though it shows a deep gap between the Court reflecting the widening gap in the country generally. This is going to eventually have unforeseen and dire consequences down the road. 

  22. Gusmort says:

      ‎”The Left is touting it
    as a big win for Team O. Is it? As this monstrosity wrecks our economy further,
    they own it. All of it.” one consolation… IT IS NOT NOW BUSH’S FAULT!.. BO
    owns this lock stock and barrel.

  23. Budget Analyst says:

    If the government can force individuals to purchase health insurance, then there is no practical limit as to what it can force individuals to do. We are giving up our liberty slowly, one piece at a time, all in the name of “security.”

  24. RepublicanAllTheWay says:

    As a Conservative, I am rather pleased with this ruling!  It means every Liberal is forever tied to Obamacare TAXATION!  I LOVE IT when they screw themselves over!  And since Medicaid won’t be expanded you will be taxed through your income tax return…LOVE IT!!!

    • Taxpayer says:

      Ha Ha, that’s funny because this is really Romney-care – What I like about this is it makes conservatives look like they are bipolar!!!

      • RepublicanAllTheWay says:

        Wrong!  Romneycare was on an individual state basis to a state problem not at the Federal level.  Just wait until the 26 states or more opt out!  It was a GREAT victory for the States today!  Oh I can’t wait until all the complaints start coming in.  Yep, the Dems have really shot themselves in the foot on this one!  YEAH!  Bring in all those IRS Agents LOL! 

        • Yea for the Dems! says:

          Yea – more job opportunities for us Accountants with the Federal Gov’t – expand!

      • Disappointed says:

        No it makes you look like an IDIOT. Romney is NOT a conservative and conservatives don’t like Romney.

      • Bowie_63 says:

        Too bad all you Left Wingers can say is something about what someone did in the past.  Get a clue, your costs will rise and like other Socialist systems older Americans will realize that scarcity and rationing will follow.  Good luck!

      • Grumpy says:

        Difference is Romneycare only effected Mass…Known as a communist leaning state. Which is allowed by the Constitution.
        Obamacare is a mandate from DC that cuts across all state boundries and with Roberts calling it a tax instead of a mandate is like me installing a portapotty in the White House and calling it the Clinton Bedroom.

    • Hooray! says:

      i love it too.  Premiums were going up anyway, so now at least people won’t be refused insurance.  You would be happy if something bad comes your way.  It can happen!  You all spew christianity and you could watch someone die of cancer and careless.  Hypocrites!

  25. steve5656546346 says:

    If it was not abundantly clear before, it is clear now that the Supreme
    Court will not meaningfully enforce any Constitutional limitations on
    the reach and scope of the Federal government.

    For those wanting
    to expand government ever deeper into our lives, the provisions for
    Constitutional amendment are superfluous: provisions such as taxation
    and interstate commerce will be regarded as so elastic as to allow the
    Federal government to intrude into every corner of our lives.
    The 10th Amendment has no meaning. Clauses in the Constitution (e.g.,
    the power to tax, interstate commerce) are viewed as so elastic as to
    render the provisions on amending the Constitution superfluous. If
    the Federal government is to be stopped in its march towards
    controlling every aspect of our lives, it must be done at the ballot
    box. November is decision time: will we go quietly into the night; or we
    stand for freedom?

    Many Federal employees–despite personal, first-hand experience with problems inherent in massive Federal bureaucracies–will support ever growing government until we are completely bankrupt and completely without freedom.  For those individuals, the outrage among many taxpayers against Federal workers is fully justified.

    • Mad Hatter says:

      What a crock! How is this any different, as just one example, from states requiring drivers to have car insurance or pay into an uninsured drivers fund?  And don’t say – oh, but that’s the state government, so it’s okay.  The fact is that state govenment’s are more deeply involved in peoples’ lives than the Federal government.  Your overblown rhetoric straight from Rush or Fox news is exactly that – overblown. fear mongering rhetoric thinly disguising unhappiness that the President is not a white male.

      • sfelch says:

        i was ok with your response until you brought the race card into it….the issue of health care has no color…..

      • Insured says:

        The difference is if YOU don’t have car insurance and hit ME, MY insurance has to pay for YOUR fault.

        If YOU get sick but don’t have insurance YOU’RE SOL.

        So.. Car insurance is about protecting others, health insurance is about protecting yourself. HUGE difference

      • Land Protector says:

        Thank you……”How is this any different from states requiring drivers to have car insurance or pay into an uninsured drivers fund?”  I have asked that question myself a number of times. 

        Uninsured drivers cause damage to the American people’s property and lives.  If an uninsured driver hits another uninsured driver, which causes physical injury to one or both of them, and they are taken to the hospital, and if one or both of them do hot have health insurance, then the taxpayer pays the bill. 

        How is this different from mandating universal health care? 

        I have noticed that most of the comments posted here are angry because the Supreme Court upheld the constituionality of the law.  Translate that to your side didn’t win….get over it.

      • Girl Geek says:

        Okay, he is only one half white male. Sorry.

    • Girl Geek says:

      You are so right, it is okay as long the feds are not at your back door.

    • grannybunny says:

      Obviously, you haven’t read the 193-page decision.  The Court gutted the Commerce Clause and turned its back on a century’s worth of its own jurisprudence.  The ability of Congress to regulate interstate commerce has been shrunken back to the state it was in in the early 1900’s, while the Court enhanced its own power.  So much for representative democracy and the balance of powers.  Our current Recession is the direct result of excessive deregulation.  With the Court crippling Congress’ power to regulate commerce, it’s only a matter of time before we find ourselves on the brink of yet another financial Armageddon.

  26. Ctw says:

    but what about employers who keep employees just below full time hours to avoid offering health care to “part-time” employees.  that also needs to be addressed.  but this is a good start!!

  27. Pje123 says:

    How are people that are unemployed going to pay for this? 

  28. grannybunny says:

    All in all a good decision, but the portion striking down the provision allowing the government to withhold Medicaid funding from states that refuse to go along with the expanded coverage is problematic and may result in that part of the Law being totally unenforceable.

  29. Hll7575 says:

    That’s what I had expected from the Roberts’ court all along…..This is a victory for all Americans!

    • Disappointed says:

      It is NOT a victory for all Americans….the majority of the public opposed the individual mandate.

      • magdalena48 says:

        Ever read “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?  If only “one” speaks the truth, it is still the truth.

        • Bowie_63 says:

          Clueless fools are all around and you fill the bill.  Congress failed the country and let the Left pass this bill; the Prez has more power and will use it against us, the Rich who really pay his way will become richer; and now the liberal courts have provided the last nail in our coffin.  Keep on believing the lies and be happy, poorer and fooled.

          • Col says:

            Opinions are like rear ends and your rear end is your rear end…it is not anyone else rear end.   So do not claim as you do the failure of government nor persecution from a person who does not even know you from your brother.   Just Grow up and deal with it.  They should have made Dental Care mandatory and they should have created another institution to develop more doctors and nurses….

          • guestwo says:

            Develop more doctors and nurses???  You go to school to become a doctor or nurse!  They are not cloned or grown in greenhouses!

      • Roberta Fugett says:

        The people should be educated about this and be allowed to vote! 

      • grannybunny says:

        If that were true, they should vote out their Members of Congress and Senators who voted for it.  However, the majority of Americans — when asked about the specific provisions in the Law, such as eliminating the limits on pre-existing conditions — favor them.  People just don’t understand what’s in the legislation, and partisan political hacks have engaged in a major campaign of disinformation to advance their own agendas.

    • DK53 says:

      This is horrible for Americans.  Your freedom has just been reduced…again.

      • magdalena48 says:

        My freedom has been ENHANCED  – now I don’t have to pay other people’s bills, nor watch foreclosures in my neighborhood because my neighbors went without health insurance and suffered a catastrophic illness.

        • LER Specialist says:

          Who do you think is paying for “free” health care? It’s not the people who are getting it for “free,” so that just leaves everybody else who has it, a.k.a. the taxpayers. I hate to break it to you, but there really is no such thing as a free lunch. 

          • magdalena48 says:

            I’m not writing about “free healthcare”; i.e. for the poor.  I’m writing about people who can afford it (i.e. the young who think they don’t need it and middle class Americans who refuse to buy it because they don’t want to spend the money) – now they will have to or be taxed and THEY WILL PAY – YIPPEE!!!!

          • Roberta Fugett says:

            They will pay but the poor will pay with them!

          • Rich says:

            The poor will not pay anything.  Not all but too many would rather work the system and not pay any tax.  The poor with no way to work or too disabled to work deserve our help.  They are not the majority.

          • Glad2BRetired says:

            And when the subsidies arrive through the exchanges, who do you think is going to pay for them magdalena?  YOU ARE!  You and every other hard working American…through higher premiums!  You better hope and pray that the 26 states who originally opposed this law will opt out.  In other words, don’t think just because you are a federal employee or annuitant, that it won’t touch you because it definitely will! 

          • guestwo says:

            Magdalena and others started paying a long time ago but she and others chose to ignore the tax increases.  What?  Yes the flexible Spending account changes made in 2011 made it harder to use the FSA to pay for OTC medications. 

            However, drugs will have to have been prescribed to be reimbursable as of January 1, 2011 according to section 9003(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[3]

            News & Announcements for Spending Accounts (SA):

            Over-the-counter (OTC)
            medications need prescriptions to qualify for reimbursement
            Effective January 1, 2011 if a member plans to use FSA to pay for OTC
            medicines, he or she will have to get a doctor’s prescription for the medicine
            before buying it. FSAs can still be used to reimburse OTC expenses other than
            OTC drugs, such as bandages and contact lens solution. Here is a list of
            drug categories that will require a prescription*:

            Acid Controllers

            Allergy & Sinus

            Antibiotic Products



            Anti-Itch & Insect Bite

            Antiparasitic Treatments

            Baby Rash Ointments/Creams

            Cold Sore Remedies

            Cough, Cold & Flu

            Digestive Aids

            Feminine Anti-Fungal/Anti-Itch

            Hemorrhoidal Preps


            Motion Sickness

            Pain Relief

            Respiratory Treatments

            Sleep Aids & Sedatives

            Stomach Remedies The health care law will also impose a limit on health accounts. Starting in 2013, employees can put no more than $2,500 into their health care flex account. (A husband and wife can each put up to $2,500 into their separate accounts.) Today there is no limit. If you anticipate a big expense – for braces or laser eye surgery – consider getting it done before 2013.Yeah, but he promised me now new taxes.  LOLOLOL

          • What? says:

            That’s not true – there is a limit!

          • guestwo says:

            The limit is set by your employer not the IRS.  That changes to the IRS setting the limit. Read the FSA articles before you comment! 

          • What? says:

            Like I said there is a limit!

          • guestwo says:

            So your employer is the IRS?  Before your employer could raise or lower it.  Now they can’t.  Obviously you do not know the difference between an employer having the freedom to set a limit and an employer being dictated to by the IRS.  Err I mean mandated by the IRS. 

          • JG4 says:

            Who is paying for the uninsured right now? You are! 

          • guestwo says:

            Then why do we need all the new taxes??  Some started in 2011!!!   Just another power grab by Chicago!!!

          • magdalena48 says:

            He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother. . . 

          • guestwo says:

            Well he is not mine! 

          • Hypocrite! says:

            I bet you’re a christian!

          • guestwo says:

            Not when it comes to paying Obama taxes! The Lord helps those who help themselves.

          • Tax the rich! says:

            Better than giving it to the rich!

          • guestwo says:

            What nonsense.  Taxing the middle class is a good thing?  Raising taxes on the middle class is a good thing? 

        • Duh B Dufus says:

          Oh but you will be paying others bills with “enhanced” premiums (maybe the better liberal term is “expanded” premiums) – and you are already are. How do you think hospitals pay for “free” care to those without insurance now? With risk based pricing gone, you premiums will go nowhere but UP.

          • guestwo says:

            You got that right.  That includes Fed employees and Fed retirees who can expect their premiums to go  way Up. 

          • Wallvan says:

            Premiums will go up only due to the desire of insurance companies to keep their profits high.  Like many companies their aim is not a fair profit but an an exorbitant return at the public’s expense. 

          • guestwo says:

            You are so right.  And you know exactly how much profit each and every company in the US should make.  Hey, I got it.  How about another profit czar who can tell us how much we can make. 

          • Ribrack says:

             It’s worth it to me to pay more if it saves my neighbor’s life.  What’s wrong with that?

          • guestwo says:

            Fine be real generous.  Pay my higher premiums and save my neighbor’s life.  Glad you are so generous with my money!

          • Whatever says:

            You probably have Tri-Care and pay next to nothing! 

          • guestwo says:

            Wrong.  You flunk mind-reading!  You and Ribrack can get together and pay for my neighborhood  for that comment. 

          • Duh B Dufus says:

            Feel free to pay your neighbors bills. You can pay mine if you like. While you are at it, why don’t you wrie a check to the Treasury to pay down the national debt.

          • guestwo says:

            Great minds think alike!!!

          • February1 says:

            It’s always has to be about you, doesn’t it Duh B?  From time to time, we should all be willing to help out our fellow American brothers and sisters who are in need.  Your comments just sound selfish.

          • guestwo says:

            Fine go help them.  Just not with my money.  You think I have a money tree  in the backyard?  Taxes are going up and I should be happy?  Especially after the Chicago thugs said it was not a tax? Obama lies!!!

          • nurse says:

             OK, are you suggesting we get rid of all health care for those who can’t afford it?  Or are you saying what is in place now is enough?  What exactly do you think should be done?  Even if the health care policies didn’t change your taxes would eventually go up because the cost of medical care for Everyone is going up.  I don’t think anyone here wants to have less money in their pocket, but as they say: “You pay one way or the other”.  I would rather pay more ahead of the game and get more bang for my buck than deal with trying to catch up on chronic illness later.

          • guestwo says:

            Fedsmith- gonna need more room! Nurse, people now go to the ER and get treated.  If they get treated why pay more taxes?  What should be done?  Repeal Obamataxes!!  Yeah but I already started to pay.  Read about the FSA changes starting in 2011.  You’d rather pay ahead of the game?  Fine pay for my games as well!  I don’t feel like playing! 

          • Grumpy says:

            Check with Florida…along about Christmas time…when England and Canada empty out to the US for procedures that the respective countries couldn’t afford to do.

          • Duh B Dufus says:

            Again, feel free to help out your fellow American/neighbor all you desire. Just don’t REQUIRE me to do it. That is the difference – “willing to help” and being “REQUIRED to help”. I don’t think being against COMPULSORY AID is selfish.

        • Pat says:

          Really who do you think is going to pay it.

    • not happy says:

      Victory my a$$!  You are costing me more money, I am healthy and insured.  I planned for my family and didn’t rely on everyone else to pay my way, feed my family and get me well when I am sick.

      • magdalena48 says:

        Good for you, but “others” don’t plan and now they will be “forced” to or pay a tax.  It’s about time!!!

        • Roberta Fugett says:

          Are you thinking at all about families who already live on a fixed income?  My father died 45 years ago when I was only 9 years old.  My mother, younger sister, and I on lived on those monthly checks.  My mother also worked and helped with tobacco crops.  We drew too much money to get medicaid and not enough to be able to purchase insurance, so we did not go to the doctor very often.  So you are telling me that it would be fair for someone like my mother to have to pay fines if she did not purchase insurance.  I just think that all of this only puts those living in low socioeconomic circumstances further and futher into poverty.

      • Sad says:

        Let’s hope nothing bad every goes your way – you will be regretting those words.  Doubt your family are millionaires.

    • D Byte says:

      Signature on the ACA approved by the SCOTUS

      • D Byte says:

        Watch them keep quiet when they get their checks from the insurers.


        Under The Affordable Care Act insurers are required to spend a certain portion of their premiums on care instead of administrative costs. If they do not they must refund the difference. The nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation has projected refunds would total about $1.3 billion and go to roughly 16 million people who buy their own policies or get them through an employer.
        Kaiser estimates checks would range from an average of $72 for those with insurance through a large employer to an average of $127 for those who bought individual policies.