Supreme Court upheld the mandate, but struck down expansion of Medicaid provision.

[No Elephants]

This is incredible.

The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.

<snip>

The expansion had been designed to provide coverage to 17 million Americans. While some states have indicated that they will participate in the expansion, others may be resistant, leaving more people outside the safety net than the Obama administration had intended

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html

FYI, this is the taxing and spending clause of the COTUS, in its entirety (though an amendment deals with taxes on income).

The Congress shall have Power To

lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

There seems to be little to no justification in the Constitutional language for reading the power to spend (or not) for the general welfare narrowly while treating the taxing power broadly. I wonder if the Court found some other basis for its Medicaid decision? Maybe in some statute?




In any event, five of nine justices read Congressional taxing power broadly to provide billions for Wall Street and penalties for individuals, namely, Roberts and the four Justices appointed by Clinton and Obama.

Seven of nine justices ruled against allowing the carrot and stick approach to Medicare expansion. That means two Justices appointed by Clinton and/or Obama joined the usual five suspects. I wish I knew which two.

And, as usual, most of our media is misleading by headlines saying the ACA was upheld when it was the individual mandate that was upheld.

"Thank God the health insurer bailout stands while a way to enforce expansion of those disgusting entitlements was stuck down. Let's pretend the whole ACA was upheld, though."

[dtexdem]

1. I think Roberts didn't dare have the Roberts Court strike down the ACA.

So he had to make up his own rationale; but he couldn't stomach the traditional interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

[No Elephants]

3. He did strike down the way Congress was going to use to make the states expand Medicaid,

and two Democratic appointees joined him and the Republican appointees in that.

He upheld the mandate.

Were other parts of the ACA up for review?

I have not read the full opinion yet.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. No Elephants, I wanted to see your long OP with your thoughts on the matter

Especially since I agree with you.

Is this it? Thanks. :hi:

[No Elephants]

4. No, but you found the even longer OP on your own before I saw your question.

[Divine Discontent]

5. our lil right-wing freak here in FL has already came out & stated FL will not participate

in any expansion to cover the poverty level working class and others, in this state. there "just isn't the funds". sick bastard.

[No Elephants]

6. The feds provide 100% of the funds for the first 3 years, then it drops--to 90%.

Why is anyone, media or average citizen, letting Mr. Clean's out of shape twin get away with that?