SCOTUS ACA Decision: Amazing

June 28th, 2012 at 10:21 am

According to SCOTUS blog, the ACA is upheld, the mandate is constitutional.  We’re still trying to figure out the limitation on the Medicaid extension — this could be a problem in terms of extending coverage to the poor and near poor in certain states.

But in general, a clear victory for necessary reform.  I’ve got to say — I’m not thinking politics right now.  We’ve got to fix our health care system, and ACA, while not perfect, is a good way to start doing so.  Now that it’s the law of the land, it’s time to blow past the politics and implement it as quickly as possible.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

5 comments in reply to "SCOTUS ACA Decision: Amazing"

  1. marc sobel says:

    Looks like Roberts decided not to contest Taney for Slytherin Prefect

  2. marc sobel says:

    Roberts just decided not to contest Taney for the Slytherin Prefect

  3. mitakeet says:

    It seems some groups are upset it wasn’t struck down because they didn’t feel it went far enough. From

    [Updated at 10:38 a.m. ET] Physicians for a National Health Program responded critically to the Supreme Court’s decision, saying that the ruling did not amount to universal coverage, 26 million people will remain uninsured, it keeps in place high co-pays and gaps in coverage and it will not control costs.

    “Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; it denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and it obstructs any serious effort to control costs,” the group’s statement said.

    It said a “single-payer, improved-Medicare-for-all system” would remedy these problems, including the issue of cost. Ideally, the group said, such a system would pay “all medical bills, streamlines administration, and reins in costs for medications and other supplies through its bargaining clout.”

  4. davesnyd says:

    Having said that, they upheld the mandate on the basis of its tax nature but not as part of the commerce clause. Can you comment on how that may be used in the future to restrict Federal prerogatives under the commerce clause?