Here’s the guts of it from SCOTUSBLOG:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn’t comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
WereBear
I am giddy with joy. Things look a tad brighter today.
Cermet
Yea for our side, I think … . As a tax, it has little bite but at least it exists as law to have all people have health insurance.
Dexter
VICTORY!!
cckids
Yay! Altho listening to Chuck Todd & David Gregory opine about what this means makes me feel kinda stabby.
dp
Start the countdown for states to start declaring they will NOT be accepting any more federal Medicaid dollars if they have to spend them on these people.
MoeLarryAndJesus
Eat a truckload of salted dicks, wingnuts.
What a great day for America.
zzyzx
I’m still stunned that the court came to an obvious, common sense solution.
Meswede
Already there’s some realization that this limits the Commerce Clause. From Robert’s standpoint, lose the battle, win the war.
Joshua Norton
I’m sure everyone is stunned by this decision. Good news/Bad news for both sides.
r€nato
@dp: Yes, I fully expect dickish governors like Jan Brewer will reject the new Medicaid funds out of spite.
MaximusNYC
I always thought the “taxing power” argument was the most obvious rationale for the mandate.
I’m sure the Dems didn’t want to make that argument because they didn’t want to be associated with a new tax.
And I’m sure the GOP noise machine is putting together “LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!!1!” ads now.
ABL
AMERCIA: FUCK YEAH.
smintheus
Who would have thought, a sane interpretation of the mandate. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Dems never framed the mandate as a tax (or tax break like mortgage interest deduction), which is what it plainly is.
As for the Medicaid ruling, that appears to make no sense. Since when can’t the federal govt. decide what the rules are concerning a federal program?
Cluttered Mind
I think what this boils down to is that, unlike most right wing ideologues, Chief Justice Roberts actually cares about what the history books are going to say about him. He doesn’t want to go down in history as a hack. He may still end up that way, but he doesn’t want that to be his legacy. Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy couldn’t care less what anyone else thinks of them, but Roberts is different. I think that’s good to have verified.
Citizen_X
I blame Obama.
Warren Terra
I am so delighted that this phase of the struggle for basic protection of human dignity and a modest safety net is over. That I can have that while being able to say “Fnck Anthony Kennedy” is icing on the cake.
I do worry about Scalia, though, the poor dear. Was he so depressed at Johnny Bobby’s betrayal that he had to join an opinion written by Anthony Kennedy, rather than mustering up the energy to pen his own jeremiad and thunder it from the bench?
RaflW
I have a small hope that moderates/low info folks might actually hear that a conservative Chief Justice ruled ACA & the individual mandate constitutional. I think that may actually matter to the non-27%, non-insane out there.
Stooleo
WaPo will be saying that this is terrible news for Obama in 5, 4,3,2,1….
Roger Moore
Now we just need to work harder on the cost control part…
Brian R.
This is good news for John McCain!
jeffreyw
Yay for our side! Now…to work! Lots of people need to know what’s in there, the real deal, not wingnut fantasies. Lay the ground work for them to ask: “Why did they lie? Those bastards!”.
rlrr
I wonder if our resident troll has any “thoughts” on the ruling…
Handy
The GOP has scheduled a vote on a jobs bill for July 9th.
Oh wait, not a jobs bill but a vote to repeal ACA.
I hope they keep this up!
Steve in DC
@Warren Terra:
There are multiple opinions on both sides from what it says. Also, while they upheld it as a “tax” they said it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, even those who were for the law. It seems Roberts used that to cram in a bunch of stuff as to how social welfare programs are uncontitutional as well.
So while this is a victory for Obamacare, it’s a loss for the commerce clause and a blow to already existing social programs.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
dmsilev
Tears of the Wingnuts (RedState link). The comments *start* with a quote from Atlas Shrugged and manage to go downhill from there.
Zifnab
@r€nato: Fine. Let them. At some point you’ve got to quit trying to force water down your horse’s gullette. If Arizona thinks there is a political future in pissing all over anyone that isn’t a millionaire, the US can pocket the difference and spend it somewhere else that will matter. Not like there’s a cash surplus anymore, so we might as well take back every dime Red State Governors are ready to give up.
Southern Beale
Washington Post has a poll:
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the individual mandate in Obama’s health-care law?
Yesses winning at 82% right now, though it’s still early….
Kane
What did the court say about the death panels?
Steve in DC
@Warren Terra:
There are multiple opinions on both sides from what it says. Also, while they upheld it as a “tax” they said it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, even those who were for the law. It seems Roberts used that to cram in a bunch of stuff as to how social welfare programs are uncontitutional as well.
So while this is a victory for Obamacare, it’s a loss for the commerce clause and a blow to already existing social programs.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out.
rlrr
Fox “News” has a sad…
Kane
What did the court say about the death panels?
jheartney
@Warren Terra: Scalia will still need Roberts for other malfeasance he wants to perpetrate. No point in stabbing an essential ally in the back.
Though I’m sure that he’s including prayers for Roberts’ premature death when he says his rosary.
scav
@Warren Terra: I worry about Scalia the poor dear too, but he like many, will get health care in his time of need. Dance away, but there we decisions in past that we thought ended the war on abortion (and slavery, etc etc etc) so it’s back to work after a hell of a party.
Bulworth
What about mah freedomz?
RaflW
You can also note that its politically brilliant for Roberts. He gets to be the crucial vote on landmark legislation, and give the Tea Party big ammo by ruling it as under tax provisions rather than commerce.
You know the “Its a tax! Its a tax and all taxes are eeeeeviilll!” will be the newly reheated fauxtrage.
Johannes
Of course, we now have a 5 member prospective majority to bury Wickard v. Fillburn. A good result for today, and a critical one; but without taking the heat a striking of the ACA would generate, Roberts has moved he ball forward on knowcking out some of the pillars of the New Deal.
Sasha
THIS JUST IN…..the POTUS is strongly considering changing his name from Barack Hussein Obama to Parker Lewis. ;)
Bulworth
What about mah freedomz?
The Dangerman
In the catalog of phrases that will never be uttered again, “there will be no spiking of the football” is added.
Does this mean Holder’s contempt citation doesn’t get top billing in the papers?
Josie
@Cluttered Mind: I agree. I am also imagining the behind the scenes interpersonal relations, given what an ass Justice Scalia is willing to be in public. I’m sure he wanted to be chief justice, and Roberts got the plum job instead. I doubt that they have been bff’s all along. This decision just might send Scalia round the bend.
Kane
What did the court say about the death panels?
Roger Moore
@Stooleo:
Sure. It’s proof positive that he raised taxes, which means he broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes at all on people earning less than $250K, so he can’t be trusted, he’s a sell-out, etc.
Davis X. Machina
@Zifnab: Arizona, incidentally, was the last state to join Medicaid, waiting until the early ’80’s to do so.
Bnut
Best Tweet about the ruling: “Man, I hope that Scalia wrote a dissent. It might be the first SCOTUS decision with the word “fuck” in it.”
RaflW
You can also note that its politically brilliant for Roberts. He gets to be the crucial vote on landmark legislation, and give the Tea Party big ammo by ruling it as under tax provisions rather than commerce.
You know the “Its a tax! Its a tax and all taxes are eeeeeviilll!” will be the newly reheated fauxtrage.
Punchy
What’s Sullivan think of Tim Tebow’s twitter response? Will he throw him under the bus, being that this is good news for John McCain?
Villago Delenda Est
The wailing of the scum that are the teahadists fills my heart with joy.
Violet
@dp:
Ultimately I don’t think that’s going to play well.
tonycpsu
BROCCOLI, BITCHES!
dmsilev
@rlrr:
“Unlimited Corporate Cash!” “Victory!” “Suck it, liberals!”
I think that pretty much covers it.
gf120581
@Cluttered Mind: Roberts is the Chief Justice. This is his court and history will pin the decisions largely on him. My guess is he didn’t want to be tarred in the future like Taney with Dread Scott or Rhenquist with Bush vs. Gore. He chose wisely.
Kennedy, on the other hand, apparently wanted to throw the whole thing out. Asshole.
Oh and I wonder if Scalia’s response will have to be edited for content.
jwb
@smintheus: I’m mobile so can’t check the text myself, but I had the same thought about the Medicaid part. I can’t fathom the legal reasoning that would lead to that mechanism being found unconstitutional. That leads me to wonder about its political motivation.
Violet
So I’m seeing that Republicans are now urging a full “repeal” of the ACA. Is that possible? How would that work?
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Note Kennedy voted to strike it down. This is yet another example of how he’s anything close to a “swing” vote on the court.
Death Panel Truck
Broccoli: It’s what’s for dinner.
rlrr
They 27% think Obama got to Roberts with his Kenyan mind control rays…
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Note Kennedy voted to strike it down. This is yet another example of how he’s anything like a “swing” vote on the court.
qwerty42
And to think, it comes on Tau Day. This will be celebrated for years to come.
Davis X. Machina
@Violet: Participation by a state in Medicaid has always been optional. The last state, Arizona, didn’t join it until the early ’80’s.
Villago Delenda Est
@Roger Moore:
That’s where the true challenge lies.
The notion that health care as a “business”, like making pins, has to be addressed. The demand for it is constant, and is in many ways not subject to market forces, because it’s not impersonal. You really don’t care to be best friends with the clerk down at the Safeway, but your relationship with your doctor is another story altogether.
Splitting Image
My prediction was 6-3 to uphold. I’m glad I was right about Roberts, but I’m gobsmacked that Kennedy joined the dissenters.
I think that once the dust clears it will be obvious that (like many of the people who feared the law would be overturned feared) this was an entirely political decision.
Roberts has extended his streak of always voting for what is best for corporate America, and Kennedy has given cover to the other three morons in their dissent. (“Even the liberal Anthony Kennedy…”) It’s almost like the five of them got together and drew straws to see which one would vote to support the bill and enable the rest of them to get the most mileage out of throwing red meat to the base.
Well, a win is a win. Go USA.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
The only people this “tax” affects adversely are some young male libertarians under the age of 30 with no family.
Valdivia
Good post at TPM by Josh about how everyone will focus on the politics of it and instead we should take a moment to reflect on what a fucking big deal this is for millions of americans.
SJ
It’s appalling looking at Facebook and seeing all the people who are “worried about the future of our nation” and seem to think that we now have government run healthcare like Canada. The right wing propaganda machine is horrifically efficient.
Ding dong
I am glad. Okay, I am more like yayyyy hallelujah!!! Tuned into Faux and they had murdoch on(prerecorded interviews???) Rand Paul had a sad about this. I do think the right will turn this into a higher tax issue now whatevah?
MattMinus
Who wants to bet that this becomes “THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”?
SJ
It’s appalling looking at Facebook and seeing all the people who are “worried about the future of our nation” and seem to think that we now have government run healthcare like Canada. The right wing propaganda machine is horrifically efficient.
jurassicpork
Some thumbtack observations on the SCOTUS upholding 99% of the ACA.
The Red Pen
Reading Free Republic.
[Dieter from Sprockets voice] Their agony is delicious.
jurassicpork
Some thumbtack observations on the SCOTUS upholding 99% of the ACA.
General Stuck
Glad I changed my prediction, though I thought Kennedy would if Roberts did, or vice versa. As for reading the tea leaves from Kremlinology, just measure the smoke coming out of Scalia’s ears a day or two before the biggest cases. Like a Vulture in the coal mine.
nellcote
@RaflW:
THIS!
Chyron HR
In plainer English:
We can has first-world country.
Seanly
W00T?
While I am sure we will see lots of “this hurts Obama so bad” stories, I don’t think it’ll change many votes. In fact, maybe it will help if people find out what the law really does.
How many of the state AGs’ suits does this cover? Aren’t there still other ACA suits out there?
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
Figures I was stuck at the DMV when this finally comes out.
Remember that Justice Roberts has epilepsy (a ‘pre-existing condition’) that would prevent him from getting private insurance had his life turned out a little differently.
Did Robert’s epilepsy just save the ACA?
Violet
I saw somewhere yesterday that Intrade had the mandate going down by a high percentage. Should have taken that bet.
SJ
@jeffreyw:
It’s appalling looking at Facebook and seeing all the people who are “worried about the future of our nation” and seem to think that we now have government run healthcare like Canada. The right wing propaganda machine is horrifically efficient.
catclub
@Roger Moore: “Now we just need to work harder on the cost control part”
See Dean Baker on that. And I guess your luck will be as good as his — about nil.
It requires effectively busting up the AMA and Medical school systems to allow a) non-doctors to be more effective and
b) doctors trained in other cheaper places.
Dinna hold yer breath.
PeakVT
BTW, health care spending is now around 18% of GDP. Really hoping cost controls start working soon.
SJ
@jeffreyw:
It’s appalling looking at Facebook and seeing all the people who are “worried about the future of our nation” and seem to think that we now have government run healthcare like Canada. The right wing propaganda machine is horrifically efficient.
NonyNony
@Violet:
Of course it’s possible. Republicans in the House or Senate draft a bill that voids the provisions of the ACA. It passes their house, then the other house, then it sits on the President’s desk waiting for his signature. He signs it and the ACA is repealed. He vetoes it then they get the 2/3 majority in each house to override his veto and it’s repealed.
So for Republicans this means either getting Obama out of office and making sure they control both the House and the Senate (’cause not controlling either means that one house can just let the legislation die), or they need to get 2/3 of each house of Congress under their control and not unseat Obama.
You can see why this would be attractive rhetoric in a campaign year, if they think that they can drum up support for repeal among the voters.
danielx
@Villago Delenda Est:
Wingnut tears…delicious, if somewhat bitter. Nice to finally get even a qualified win, and one I certainly didn’t expect from the current Supremes. With any luck Fat Tony will pop an aneurysm.
bemused senior
@Steve in DC: No, the Ginsberg concurrence (joined by the other liberal justices) said she thought it was valid under the CC as well.
Surreal American
We’re waiting, Bill:
http://youtu.be/P0HjZpVe6fo
Just Some Fuckhead
Has anyone pointed out this isn’t very good news for John McCain?
Dave
@nellcote:
The whole “tax vs mandate” thing is overblown. Even if it was upheld under Commerce, the Right would be calling it a tax 24/7. Politically, it’s not going to make that big a difference.
amk
@tonycpsu: stolen.
jprfrog
A wonderful comment from Red State: “dont see this ending well… 50 new nations in the next five years looking like a possibility… And that scenario is starting to look good…”
In principle I think this is a basically good idea…but not 50 nations, just 2. And the one that aspires to 3rd-world status (Texas, Alabama, etc.) will be part of Mexico in 20-30 years. After a population exchange (like that between Germany and Poland after WWII) where we get all of their intelligent, thoughtful, and progressive people and they get all of our bigots, racists, and homophobes. The South will rise again, only to fall farther and faster than the first time.
jprfrog
Anyway, the sound I hear is that of wingnut heads exploding all over the place. A symphony to my ears!
fasteddie9318
@Splitting Image:
The utterance of which phrase would officially mark the point where the word “liberal” loses all meaning.
Roger Moore
@catclub:
Just founding some new medical schools, or expanding existing ones, would help quite a bit. If some billionaire wants to do something great for the future of the country, that seems like an excellent place to start.
MariedeGournay
@Sasha: Synchronize your Swatches.
IowaOldLady
I admit I’m floored. Turns out there is such a thing as too cynical. Who knew?
scav
@catclub: Wildly incomplete. You entirely skipped Pharma and that lot is mucking with the controls of whether or not the drugs we take are (at best) a) not better than existing ones or b) actually doing us harm (but at least are under patent and thus profit-centers). Actual Doctors are far less likely to actively injure us in the name of the all-holy shareholder.
Davis X. Machina
@The Red Pen: Me, I’m as excited as a little girl.
burnspbesq
It’s premature to say that this case represents a turning point in Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Let’s see what happens in the next case.
I’m still trying to figure out how Section 5000A can be a tax for purposes of the taxing power but not be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. That’s a head-scratcher.
BGinCHI
Jesus I hope this means that people will learn what is in the fucking law. I’m so sick of the generic poll that says people don’t like it. It’s like polling about earthworms. No, people don’t think they are wholesome, but without them the ecosystem would collapse.
Can’t wait to watch the media disappoint me in this.
Valdivia
Also–I think that the pundits as usual underestimate how the people who don’t pay attention might see the law differently now. The law is constitutional, that will get a lot of coverage, and even if they say this is good news for Romney (firing up the base etc), it definitely takes away a big talking point, that this is unconstitutional because it clearly is.
catclub
@MattMinus: “Who wants to bet that this becomes “THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY”?
Already saw that at Townhall.
So if it is so big I guess the budgets will be balanced now.
No rollback of Bush tax cuts needed, Right? Right?
Oh, you work it out and find that the only group it affects is people who do not have employer sponsored health insurance (all of the upper middle class goes away).
And also do not have health insurance (all rich self-employed goes away). And also do not qualify for medicaid (everyone with family income under about $30k goes away). What is left is the group in the $30k-$80k who
decide not to buy insurance under the new, regulated pools.
As I said. So big that the budget problems are solved!
Ruckus
@SJ:
The right wing propaganda machine is horrifically efficient.
It might be horrifically efficient but it is also horrifically immoral.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Bnut:
and a photocopied image of his behind included. Yes, bring on Scalia dissent so we can taste his delicious tears of pain.
Xecky Gilchrist
So now the ponyprogs have to find something new to repeatedly poop their pants about. I’m sure they’ll manage.
Linnaeus
It’s a little scary when a Heritage Foundation bill was too “liberal” for four justices.
eric
New dynamic — You can argue that the dems (obama) did not sell ACA and what it really gives Americans when the bill passed, but you can bet your a$$ they will go hard now…pre-existing conditions and insurance up to 26 on parents, no lifetime caps….when he debates romney and points those out romney can no longer argue replace because the neanderthals in the house have gone all in on REPEAL, NO REPLACE. I think we might see a game changer on youth turnout.
Patricia Kayden
@jprfrog: Works for me! Maryland would be part of the progressive nation and the homophobes, racists, sexists, and xenophobe Christianists can form their own Rightwingy nation.
We’d need a fence to keep them out though.
andy
And the heads of stupid people explode all over the country. Now we have a fighting chance to be a truly just and compassionate nation!
Original Lee
@MattMinus: No takers on that one. Already many FB remarks on “Repeal and Replace – Repeal PPACA and Replace Obama”. Teahadists are saying that calling the mandate a tax is bait and switch, how unfair!
Citizen_X
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women, that is best in life.
(I’d put the original Ghengiz Khan version, but I don’t remember it. So you get the Conan version.)
ned
@dmsilev: Gah, I don’t know why I went over there. This was special, though:
Morans.
Soonergrunt
@Villago Delenda Est: Yes, their salty tears are sooooo tasty!
catclub
@scav: Yes, I left out pharma.
Doctors in the US get paid 2-4 times as much as doctors in France. Are they really that much better? Also note that CEO’s in the US also get paid 3-10 times as much as CEO’s in France ( for example). I detect a pattern.
Culture of Truth
So now that the law is constitutional, what is Mitt’s objection? He enacted the same damn thing in his state.
El Cid
From the beginning I wondered what was the essential difference between the “mandate” and a tax credit.
Rep. Jim McDermott just said (on Stephanie Miller’s show) that though it was a tax, wording it as such would have made it more difficult to pass.
I thought that categorizing it as a “mandate” might make it more vulnerable to legal challenge, but since it happened this way as opposed to some other way, it will be easily argued as the better approach.
But as a commoner, I didn’t see it functionally as different than having a health insurance tax with a complicated valuation (like income) and then having a tax credit similarly applied to those who purchased it (like existing income tax credits).
Cacti
Today’s decision makes it clear that the only way Kennedy or Scalia leaves during a second Obama term is as a passenger in a pine box.
Also too, now that it’s constitutional, will Romney now start touting his Massachusetts plan as the model for PPACA? Gotta shake that Etch a Sketch and keep up with current news cycle.
Ruckus
@Dave:
Also if I recall correctly many were calling for the defense of the law by calling the mandate a tax, as that would be harder to defeat.
Cermet
@Seanly: Most are dead in the water and will be turned down by the lowest courts. The few others that reach the next stage should be killed in the due to this rather board, sweeping ruling. The highest court will pass on any one that reaches them except for the Medicad issues. All those cases have almost zero chance, now. The electron will be everything, though.
rlrr
@El Cid:
From the beginning I wondered what was the essential difference between the “mandate” and a tax credit.
They should have called it a “splunge.”
Mino
Roberts is a pure corporatist as I suspected.
I hope Dems start putting concrete numbers out there. The ignorance needs to be lifted. If the ones I saw are corrrect, health insurance (with the supports) will not be much more than auto insurance for a lot of poor Americans.* Spread the word, Dems!
*Edit: States may refuse the additional Medicaid funds that are intended for premium supports if they so decide. I fully expct Texas to do so.
MattMinus
@MattMinus:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900425/posts
Randy P
@jprfrog: Texas was of course stolen from Mexico in the first place.
Dear Mexico: Sorry about that whole “independent Texas” thing. You can have it back.
General Stuck
I am reading all sort of sour grapes parsing and pissing on how this will hurt dems and Obama into the future. I do call bullshit. There is nothing better than winning on the dems signature issue. Yes, the wingnuts and msm are going to harp on OH noes!! Taxes. But that is bullshit for a law already passed and being implemented. There is nothing short of the wingnuts sabotaging or repealing the ACA, which is highly unlikely, for this law to march on to full effect in 2014, and those with policies see for themselves that they have more rights now, than before, and if trends continue, rates either won’t go up much, or start coming down. And that the mandate will only affect those, mostly young, who skip out on buying health insurance because they are young and seeming healthy, and will have to now dip a little into the beer fund. Winning is not the best thing, it is the only thing. And the last big hurdle has been leaped. Romney and nutters will attack the court, Obama, liberals, and likely Kermit the Frog in flailing attempts to mislead, but Romney has the onus of many faults, MANY faults to overcome to beat Obama, the least of which is that he passed an ACA as a governor of a state. And won’t be able to parse that very far under some kind of federalist meme. And besides, after a few weeks or even days on the news cycle we will be back to what this election is mostly about, and that is the economy. And now, a huge industry has had the fog cleared up by white wingnut hope, John Roberts, of all peeps. There is nothing to mourn here, for liberals, beyond the fact that we live in a totally fucked up country in many ways, and there is absolutely no good reason to cry in our crawlers over that. There is only plodding on, day by day, to unfuck things. What else we gonna do?
Just Some Fuckhead
@Linnaeus:
This.
EconWatcher
So let’s tally it up: In four years, Obama: (1) Killed Bin Laden; (2) saved the US auto industry; (3) prevented an imminent depression; (4) got us out of Iraq; (5) ended discrimination in the military; and (6) realized a dream first tendered, if I recall, by Harry Truman, that all Americans would have health coverage.
I’m 46, and he is certainly the finest president in my lifetime.
The Moar You Know
Imma let you finish in just a second, but I just wanted to spike the football.
VICTORY!!!
lacp
Thanks a fuckload, SCOTUS! You’ve taken SHARIA HEALTHCARE and rammed it down America’s throat!
Cermet
@Patricia Kayden: F-the fence, I say landmines!
Nicole
Tweety has already said that this might hurt Obama’s campaign. Do they ever stop? Yeesh.
smintheus
@catclub: Is that before or after the new rule that French CEOs cannot earn more than 20 times the pay of their lowest paid employee?
A law I’d like to see enacted by a Democratic Congress.
gogol's wife
@EconWatcher:
Seconded. /Obot.
ETA: Except I’m not 46.
The Moar You Know
@EconWatcher: My office wingnut is suicidal this morning. I’m thinking about going over to Big 5 at lunch and buying a football, then walking into her office and spiking it.
I’d probably get fired, but it would be SO worth it.
joes527
@catclub:
Dude. Doctors in France are mostly French.
Cheap Jim
@burnspbesq: And yet you accept the Trinity and Transubstantiation?
Odie Hugh Manatee
This is good news for people who hate lawyers charging assloads of cash for research in a case.
Once they can get it to replace lawyers, I’ll be really happy.
scav
@catclub: I can confirm the froggy mds are just as good, having used a few. I just get fussy about (corporate) people mucking with scientific method and the rule book so they can actively harm me aren’t counted along their theoretical peers who at worst will at least leave me alone, untreated yet unpoisoned. And, knowing some actual MDs at the ER pointy-end of the stick, they can be just as overworked as the rest of us in the cogs of MBA-world (albeit far better paid cogs).
gogol's wife
I learned the news at 11:30 when I stopped into a bakery that had the television turned on to NBC. I asked the attendant, “What happened? What did they do?” She had no idea what I was talking about. This is really not in people’s consciousnesses. They just pay no attention to what affects them most seriously.
The Dangerman
In Romney’s response, he has the Capitol as the background; he knows that the Congress’s approval rating is in the toilet, right?
Roger Moore
@EconWatcher:
Not Truman, Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt.
dmsilev
@EconWatcher:
Yes, but other than that, what has
the RomansObama done for us?Cermet
@General Stuck: Well said.
BGinCHI
@lacp: I thought it was halal?
Cris (without an H)
IT’S A TAX
Enhanced Voting Techniques
@Nicole: Ha! Told not matter what the outcome the pundits will say it’s bad for Obama.
burnspbesq
@Mino:
Oh, bullshit. What does that even mean.
My new mission in life is to challenge people to define the term “corporatist” in terms that bear at least an incidental connection to actual, observable reality. Can you? I’m betting you can’t.
John PM
@Steve in DC: Once Roberts decided that PPACA was constitutional as a tax, his statements on the Commerce Clause become dicta, i.e., not binding on lower courts.
I skimmed the various opinions (193 pages total). Justice Ginsburg addresses very well Roberts’ concerns about the expansion of the Commerce Clause. The Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Kennedy dissent (interesting that it was not written by only once person, as is typical) attacks the decision of the Court but refrains from saying anything bad about Roberts. Instead, the Four Horsemen of the Healthpocalypse vent their spleens (oddly enough, a now rejected medical procedure) on Ginsburg, treating her as if she wrote the majority opinion.
I do have to say that I am surprised by Kennedy. I thought he would be part of a 6-3 majority upholding the PPACA. Interesting that he finds butt-sex constitutional but not healthcare.
Culture of Truth
yes, agreed, Obama is the Best Presnit of my lifetime and I’m going to fucking enjoy this. I was here yesterday and peeps were going on about how we always lose and I said, whoa, as of June 27th, the ACA is the law of the land.
So to today, and every day from now on.
Yutsano
@EconWatcher:
Mainly because FDR didn’t think he could do both universal coverage and SS. But it was even considered back then.
rikyrah
REMEMBER,
Willard tried the duck and dodge with immigration, because they were gonna go ‘ all in’ with the healthcare ruling, hoping that the immigration case would get lost in the shuffle. So, anyone go ask Team Willard their opinion on this?
BWA HA HA HAA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Roger Moore
@The Moar You Know:
Hey, no spiking the football. You are, however, allowed to do your ridiculous sack dance that’s 10 times as annoying.
Valdivia
and on cue the This is a Disaster for Obama begins. wow. is there anything, anything that happens that is ever a win if you are a dem?
pk
@MattMinus:
I followed your link to the FR and laughed at this comment. There is an outlandish explanation for everything with these guys.
“Could Roberts have been BLACKMAILED?? His two ADOPTED children are from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA……..makes one go hmmmmmmmm……ILLEGAL??”
The Moar You Know
@jprfrog: They may aspire to that; they may well beg for it, because I’m certain that Mexico would would have a far higher standard of living than Winglandia – but the Mexicans would never consent. Frankly the only thing they’d get out of the deal are a bunch of heavily armed, bone stupid moochers who’ve never done a lick of manual labor in their lives.
BGinCHI
@Valdivia: I’ll bet you, on average, the younger talking heads like Chris Hayes and Rachel and Ezra are NOT saying that.
It’s always the establishment types that start hand-wringing first. They aren’t part of this solution; they are part of the legacy problem.
Frankensteinbeck
@Roger Moore:
Note that the ACA is packed, larded, stuffed to the gills with price controls, some of which are already working even though they haven’t taken effect yet. The medical industry wants to be ready.
However, we need MANY MORE. The system is broken really bad, and is likely to require multiple rounds of fixing.
blackfrancis
@ABL:
You bet:
http://youtu.be/S3TKCeGc2Ao
burnspbesq
@John PM:
I haven’t read all the way through, but I saw someone somewhere (Volokh?) speculate that the dissenting opinion started out as the majority opinion. Apparently there is one reference in it to Ginsburg’s opinion as a “dissent.” which is going to open up endless speculation about a Roberts flip after draft opinions started to circulate.
Warren Terra
@catclub:
Doctors in the US accumulate massive debts paying full tuition for Med School and their living expenses to boot, and need to be paid for the rest of their careers at a level sufficient to make it possible to discharge those debts within a part of their careers; after discharging those debts, they’re still paid at this inflated level. I don’t know this accounts for the full discrepancy, but don’t underestimate its effects.
daverave
A little too much football-spiking in this thread for me ;-)
chopper
@MattMinus:
just point at the AIA and say ‘clearly, it isn’t a tax’. watch heads explode.
Studly Pantload, the emotionally unavailable unicorn
Let’s not forget (if it hasn’t been mentioned yet) — the Obama Administration *wanted* this vote moved up. They were sure it would hold constitutional muster – even under this court – and wanted the haze of doubt removed a/s/a/p for the sake of smooth transition. And by golly, they got it. (No doubt there were political considerations, as well.)
Throwin’ deep to make big plays. Sometimes that bites you. Guess not this time.
Concerned Citizen
@EconWatcher: agreed
Valdivia
@BGinCHI:
I agree, Ezra and Bennen are excellent. But I do see, via Sully (I know) that his ‘liberal’ readers are all bed-wetting and freaking out. It’s just weird how nothing can taste sweet in a dem win because it sis immediately turned into Oh Noes!
amk
@EconWatcher: +1.
RossInDetroit
What’s the mid-day grown up equivalent of doing shots off of a stripper’s chest?
Because whatever it is I need to be doing that right now in celebration.
Randy P
@Warren Terra: Another big chunk goes to insurance premiums for malpractice insurance. It varies based on specialty, but it’s about $12K for pediatricians and $50K for Ob/Gyn’s on average.
http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=532640
I seem to remember my brother, who is an ENT surgeon, quoting numbers in the $80 – 100K range but I could be misremembering.
chopper
@RossInDetroit:
uh, doing shots off a stripper’s chest in mid-day, that’ what it’s fucking called.
seriously, i’m a go get a beer.
divF
Re: Doctor’s income. It is highly stratified by the kind of medicine practiced.
Here are some numbers off the web:
Primary care (pediatrics, family practice, internal medicine): $200K / year.
Subspecialties of internal medicine do a little better – mid – $200K’s.
Surgical specialties: $400K – $500K / year.
Radiology: $600K+ /year.
If you are doing primary care in geriatrics, so that your patient population is mostly covered by Medicare, $200K goes down by a lot: $100K – $150K. Primary care doctors cannot afford a 100% Medicare solo or small group practice – they can’t cover practice expenses.
Peter
Haaaaahahaha!
Yeah, it should not have been a narrow ruling, and FUCK Kennedy with a rake, and it doesn’t fix or point to a solution to any of our SCOTUS problems. But this is, for all intents and purposes, the last obstacle to the ACA’s full implementation (assuming the Republicans don’t sweep the white house and both houses in the coming election, knock wood). And once it’s fully operational and people start feeling those benefits, there won’t be any going back on it.
BGinCHI
@Valdivia: Sully’s liberal readers. There’s your problem right there….
DBaker
@Splitting Image:
My thought exactly. Just like Medicare Part D, and despite all the hand-wringing by the Teabaggers (who are really just the Religious Right with a new name – don’t have time to find all the links, but Max Blumenthal did some nice work on this recently), the AHCA really favors the insurance industry and especially the managed care industry, which in total makes up 17.9% of the current national economy. The outrage machine just serves the purpose of ensuring that any real nasty outcomes, such as Medicaid for all, the Public Option or Universal Health Care, got postponed for another 15-20 years, by moving the goalposts of general public opinion, especially among the Very Serious People, to the right. This worked brilliantly in that Bob Dole’s/Heritage Foundation’s 1996 plan is now the mainstream Democratic position.
When all else fails, the GOP will still favor its corporate overlords. Once in a while, the lunatics escape the asylum, like with the Immigration debate and the Ports World issue that precipitated that (remember that Bush lost his base after this), but once I read last night that Roberts was writing the decision and that Scalia had had hissy fits previously when things didn’t go his way, I was mildly comforted that the AHCA would stand. Roberts was put in place for a reason by Bush/Cheney; they could have gone with a more senior member for CJ, such as Kennedy or Scalia, but they did not. With this ruling, you have a very good indication why.
Tonal Crow
Told you so. (Actually, they upheld the mandate as a tax, but they didn’t quite reason their way to the conditional tax credit argument — though they got within a whisker of it. See main op at 39).
Cris (without an H)
lol Barack Obama looking at CNN on his iPad
MattMinus
Oh the delicious tears at Free Republic:
“I plan to do this whenever stateside. I will fill my shopping basket to the brim with stuff. If it is a small business shop owned by one local owner, and this owner is at the cash register, I will ask them in a very stone, neutral, non-commital face, “hey so, like, what do you think of this Obamacare anyway?”
If I get any “well, seems good for the country”, or “I guess he is doing a good job” or any other of that liberal crap, without a SINGLE WORD I am going to leave the filled basket representing lots of bucks in potential sales, right smack there at the register (on the counter, what not) and not saying a word, walk right out. I intend to do it when other people are in line, too. I’m going guerilla in the trenches now, against my “fellow Americans” who want to take us into Socialism along with their phony, narcissist dictgator of a leader. That’s MY statement. Screw em. Same with those of you firing liberal employees. Make sure you are covered for lawsuits, and do it. Make these people pay for their sins against the Republic and the Forefathers. “
Ben Cisco
@dmsilev: Drink up!
Ruckus
@EconWatcher:
In the football theme I’ll pile on.
Nice summary. Nice president.
Still a lot of work to be accomplished.
A.J.
There is no better comment than this from 2010:
“Democrats protected the unemployed starting with the New Deal, then the old, then the poor. Now, thanks to health care reform, millions of working families will go to bed at night knowing that they are not an illness away from financial ruin.” – NY Times conservative columnist David Effing Brooks, March 22, 2010, the day before the ACA was signed into law.
Democrats are fools if they don’t run this line in an ad every day until November.
Randy P
@MattMinus: It goes without saying that people who agree with this person will be major beneficiaries of the health care law.
Not sure about this person himself since he says “whenever stateside”.
The Red Pen
Another brilliant Freeper plan:
I wonder how his employer will respond?
It almost goes without saying, but there’s a lot of pining for a Confederate win of the Civil War and boatloads of calls for armed revolution.
John PM
@burnspbesq: I saw that as well. Sullivan had a post about it on his website.
Ruckus
@MattMinus:
He plans to do this when stateside? An expat? Who probably lives in a country with real healthcare. Who is not affected by ACA at all?
An asshole on so many levels.
Spectre
http://i.imgur.com/hK9IG.jpg
shortstop
@Tonal Crow: I think you’re the only attorney here who predicted that this would rest on the tax, rather than the CC, argument.
J.D. Rhoades
@dmsilev:
My favorite:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
p.a.
some rumblings on redstate to impeach Roberts. (Link is to Politico, not redhate)
Tonal Crow
@p.a.:
Please wingnuts impeach Roberts NOW! Before Obama wins another term and it’s TOO LATE!
MattMinus
Is Rush suggesting that Roberts is a closet case?
RUSH: (on being surprised about Roberts voting against Arizona) I tell you, I’m… Well, actually I’m not and I can’t tell you why. I was gonna say, “I’m surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberals on three of these four provisions,” but actually I’m not. But I can’t tell you why I’m not. (interruption)
RUSH: I know it isn’t fair. I was saying what I was thinking, and I shoulda stopped in the middle of the thought for a second, because I can’t tell you why I’m really not surprised. (interruption) No, it’s not the pressure they’re putting on him. (interruption) No, it’s not the pressure they’re putting on him. (interruption) No, it’s nothing… (interruption) No, no, no. I was just warned, that’s all. (interruption) No, no, no. Do not try to goad me on this. I really can’t say. I’m protecting a source. I can’t say.
http://www.wonkette.com/images/couldn%27t%20be%20gayer%20if%20they%20were%20in%20chaps.jpg
El Cid
@rlrr:
Not guilpy!
burnspbesq
@Cheap Jim:
It’s still early, but I think you’re going to win the prize for biggest non sequitur of the day.
Randy P
@MattMinus: His “source” is his producer screaming in his ear that he’s going to have to deal with a libel suit (or is it slander? I always get those confused) from a Supreme Court justice, and please not to go there.
Omnes Omnibus
@shortstop: A lot of us saw it as valid under the power to tax and spend, but most of us think that the Ginsburg plurality opinion got it right. I know I do.
burnspbesq
The Volokhs are easing their butthurt by drinking deeply from the Commerce Clause part of Roberts’ opinion.
Fellas: does the word DICTA mean anything to you?
Gadsden Flag Burner
I’m glad. Any time we can give the GOP double middle fingers is a good day.
Good on the Kenyan for getting this done.
Roger Moore
@p.a.:
Don’t throw me into that briar patch!
The Red Pen
More from Freepers:
Mars, bitches!
Roger Moore
@El Cid:
Not gilcup!
Tonal Crow
@Roger Moore:
Nooooo! I’ll DIE in there!
Tonal Crow
@burnspbesq:
Finally I agree with something you wrote. But it raises the interesting question: why did Roberts, et al, bother to address the Commerce Clause argument? They could (and should!) have said, “Because we uphold the ACA as a valid exercise of the tax-and-spend Clause (Art.I s.8 cl.1), we need not address the Commerce Clause arguments.”
The Moar You Know
@MattMinus: Well, well, well. That is quite the…interesting photo.
Omnes Omnibus
@Tonal Crow: Oddly, when I first saw that Roberts wrote upholding the mandate as a tax, I briefly assumed that he did so without addressing the CC argument at all.
Off a quick, very quick, reading of the opinion, I am not sure that the case will stand for much other than that the ACA is Constitutional and Congress can do a lot with the power to tax. IOW, more real world than legal effects.
The Red Pen
Man, Free Republic is just overflowing with “wow did someone write that” today:
Tonal Crow
@The Red Pen: Awesome! C’mon Republicans, don’t be shy! Let it all out, and let your freak flag fly!
blackfrancis
@Spectre: Stolen for facebook cover photo.
Excellent!
Robert Sneddon
Someone pointed me at this. It’s either a Onion-style spoof or proof that any sufficiently large population has a few serious outliers in the knowledgeable-about-your-neighbours stakes.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
shortstop
@Omnes Omnibus: hmmmm, I don’t remember it going down that way, and I was paying very close attention.
Bubblegum Tate
@SJ:
Please enjoy this roundup of wingnuts claiming that they’re now moving to Canada because of Obamacare.
nastybrutishntall
@EconWatcher: But…but… DRONEZZZZ!
Ben Cisco
Nancy SMASH! and the Orange One.
Omnes Omnibus
@shortstop: If you feel strongly about it, I can post links to when I said it was valid under the tax-and-spend power. I can’t do it until I get home this evening though. Most of the time I suggested that it would be upheld without specifying the reasoning. In any case, I doubt you will find anyone disputing the tax argument.
nastybrutishntall
@EconWatcher: But…but… DRONEZZZZ!
nastybrutishntall
@RossInDetroit: Doing bumps off a stripper’s chest.
The Red Pen
@Bubblegum Tate:
I found one Freeper (there are likely more) announcing that he was going to leave the country and move to one of several countries, each of which is (ironically) more socialist than the US.
Rekster
June 28, 2012 is a GREAT day in the USA. Because of the hard work of Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama my Grandson will NEVER be denied Health Insurance!!!!
Jebediah
@MattMinus:
I love it. Like many steely-eyed tough guy fantasy scenarios, it sounds like it was written by a particularly wimpy 12 year old boy.
A boy who doesn’t notice or care that his third sentence is pretty sloppy – “I will ask them in a..face?” Clearly meant “in a…way” or “with a…face” but didn’t have time to proofread because “I hear you mom! I’ll walk the dog IN A MINUTE! I’M BUSY!”
double nickel
America marches bravely into the 20th century!
Tonal Crow
Bobo’s been drinking Oakshotts by the dozen, I see.