in a five-four decision [l.a. times], chief justice John Roberts joined the more liberal justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan) in upholding the constitutionality of the mandate, though not on the basis of the commerce clause, but because (in John Roberts' words), “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a
financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be
characterized as a tax," and, “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our
role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."
the court's 4 liberals wrote that they disagreed with roberts on the commerce clause.
the court also ruled that low income medicaid expansion could go through, but decided via 7 justices [n.y. times] that congress had overreached by bringing states into compliance with the medicaid expansion through "loss of existing federal payments."
Both the l.a. and n.y. times present the ruling on medicaid as a blow to the legislation which is supposed to extend medicaid coverage to 16-20 million more Americans -- and, with court opinion now setting the stage for even greater health care disparities by location (i.e. red and blue).
according to the l.a. times, however, the court did not touch President Obama's stated intent to guarantee health care for all Americans through the legislation.
truthdig reports divided views coming in from the single payer camp.
read the 193 page opinion here [msnbc link].
the court's 4 liberals wrote that they disagreed with roberts on the commerce clause.
the court also ruled that low income medicaid expansion could go through, but decided via 7 justices [n.y. times] that congress had overreached by bringing states into compliance with the medicaid expansion through "loss of existing federal payments."
Both the l.a. and n.y. times present the ruling on medicaid as a blow to the legislation which is supposed to extend medicaid coverage to 16-20 million more Americans -- and, with court opinion now setting the stage for even greater health care disparities by location (i.e. red and blue).
according to the l.a. times, however, the court did not touch President Obama's stated intent to guarantee health care for all Americans through the legislation.
truthdig reports divided views coming in from the single payer camp.
[...] In a live report on the court’s announcement broadcast by “Democracy Now!” Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore praised the decision as a move in the right direction, saying it was a serious defeat for the right-wing that had attacked the law. But Dr. Margaret Flowers, a pediatrician and member of Physicians for a National Health Program, said the existing law harms low-income Americans by forcing them to become customers of private health insurance companies, which will likely result in their having to go without other necessities or find alternative means of obtaining them.more on that at truthout.
read the 193 page opinion here [msnbc link].
No comments:
Post a Comment