Excerpts from Supreme Court's health care opinionsSat Jun 30, 2012 12:37126.96.36.199Excerpts from Supreme Court's health care opinions
Some excerpts from the ruling announced Thursday in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul:
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions.
Just as the individual mandate cannot be sustained as a law regulating the substantial effects of the failure to purchase health insurance, neither can it be upheld as a "necessary and proper" component of the insurance reforms. The commerce power thus does not authorize the mandate. ... That is not the end of the matter. Because the Commerce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government's second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's enumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes."
It is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance ... We would expect Congress to be troubled by that prospect if such conduct were unlawful. That Congress apparently regards such extensive failure to comply with the mandate as tolerable suggests that Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.
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. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
We have upheld Congress's authority to condition the receipt of funds on the States' complying with restrictions on the use of those funds, because that is the means by which Congress ensures that the funds are spent according to its view of the "general Welfare." Conditions that do not here govern the use of the funds, however, cannot be justified on that basis. When, for example, such conditions take the form of threats to terminate other significant independent grants, the conditions are properly viewed as a means of pressuring the States to accept policy changes.
In this case, the financial "inducement" Congress has chosen is much more than "relatively mild encouragement"_it is a gun to the head. Section 1396c of the Medicaid Act provides that if a State's Medicaid plan does not comply with the Act's requirements, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may declare that "further payments will not be made to the State." A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act's expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely "a relatively small percentage" of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it.
Congress has set out to remedy the problem that the best health care is beyond the reach of many Americans who cannot afford it. It can assuredly do that, by exercising the powers accorded to it under the Constitution. The question in this case, however, is whether the complex structures and provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act or ACA) go beyond those powers. We conclude that they do.
The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting states all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act's other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the federal government is one of limited powers. But the court's ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.
- 9 bullets & health care, the soulation APFN, Sat Jun 30 11:58President Barack Obama worried and Republicans celebrated when they first heard the news. But not so fast: In the split-second rush to report the Supreme Court's health care decision Thursday, CNN... more
- Jim Marrs - Suppressed News, Deceptions and Lies APFN, Sat Jun 30 16:51ZEE VIXEO Jim Marrs - Suppressed News, Deceptions and Lies http://www.apfn.org/ TRUTH SINKS IN DEPT. Can it be that at least one major medium is beginning to get it? The problem with President Obama... more
- C2C: esteemed metaphysician Stuart Wilde APFN, Sat Jun 30 18:03Metaphysics & Predictions Sat 06-30 Joining John B. Wells, esteemed metaphysician Stuart Wilde will discuss a possible false flag attack, the true nature of UFOs and the Greys, and his predictions of ... more
- Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)Corporate escape from account By: Paul Craig Roberts, Mon Jul 2 05:42» TPP Corporate Escape From Accountability By: Paul Craig Roberts| July 2, 2012 | Information has been leaked about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is being negotiated in secret by US... more
- Excerpts from Supreme Court's health care opinions APFN, Sat Jun 30 12:37