Wait Continues For Supreme Court Health Care Ruling
June 22, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue a ruling Thursday in the Florida-led challenge to the 2010 federal health overhaul. That means the court will wait until the final week of its annual term to deliver the landmark ruling. The earliest justices can now rule would be Monday, though they also could release the decision later in the week.
Former Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, joined by other states, challenged the constitutionality of the “Affordable Care Act” quickly after President Obama signed the measure into law in March 2010.
Justices heard arguments earlier this year about key parts of the law, including a requirement that most Americans buy health insurance and a planned expansion of the Medicaid program.
Comments
6 Responses to “Wait Continues For Supreme Court Health Care Ruling”
REGARDING:
“the wealthy are the only people who can afford health care.”
I’m not sure however you define wealthy, but this statement assumes none of those who are not wealthy have any form of health care. The other way of looking at it is any who have health care MUST be wealthy because only the wealthy can afford health care.
Since there were a lot of people at the doctors’ offices, that must mean practically everybody is wealthy.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Of course there is health care and there is health care.
Some health care is something which can be provided with $4/month worth of medicine. Some health care would cost millions of dollars to provide. Practically everybody can afford the former form of health care, practically nobody will ever be able to afford the latter form unless ways are developed to provide it more cheaply.
Just having somebody else pay for it is not a general solution .
“ I totally agree that Congress and the Senate should not be given free health care at the expense of the taxpayer. How can they pass laws regarding this issue when they are not faced with it personally? “
But the law makers make the laws and that includes the laws which deal with their compensation as law makers. Thus, the only way around it is to become a law maker and vote out your own benefits. Not likely.
Nonetheless, even those who are covered have relatives and friends who are not covered since they aren’t in Congress. Thus, the law makers actually DO have a personal interest in making life better for all.
David for perfect health care
so people quit dying and quit suffering
Sara, I agree with much of what you are saying. Apparently some of your critics are extremely wealthy, because the wealthy are the only people who can afford health care. Yes no matter what President Obama does the republicans criticize. While I do not agree with most of what President Obama does and do not plan on voting for him, everytime he tries to do something the other party challenges it, therefore nothing gets done, The same went for President Bush. I totally agree that Congress and the Senate should not be given free health care at the expense of the taxpayer. How can they pass laws regarding this issue when they are nit faced with it personally? Something else everyone needs to remember is that there are elderly people who worked all of their lives and now cannot afford the medicine they need, yet the CEO of Florida Blue cross and Blue shield has an obscene salary of 4.7 million dollars in 2004.
Sara, I think the key phrase in your criticism of Massachusetts health care is “his state uses” as opposed to a national mandate. That’s the difference – a state decided program as opposed to something forced on every citizen of the nation. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see what would give the federal govt the authority (other than “Obama says so”), to force each citizen to purchase a product – no matter what the product is. Think about it – our govt forcing each citizen to buy something. Since they left out the severability clause when it was drafted, the Dems (regardless of their verbal statement later on that the ‘intent’ to include it was there) opened it up to an all or nothing vote of acceptance. IMO anyway. It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules.
It becomes ironic when It’s viewed as fussing and fighting like schoolyard children if it’s Republicans doing the disagreeing. Hillary Clinton pointed out in a speech during her run for the president that it was not unpatriotic to disagree with those in power. And, by those in power she meant Republicans. Problem was, at that point in time, we only had the White House and the Dems had the House and Senate. But, that’s another discussion.
The government does not owe you health care. period. Who passes a bill when they do not know what is in it. Pelosi Said( We must pass the bill to find out what is in it) Now that is one of the stupidist things I have ever heard. Most of us do not want it, we sure can not afford it. We are BROKE Thank you Mr Obama, 5,5 trillion in national debt, and going up.And the reason most people disagree with Obama in he is wrong. Run up the national debt, Increase government by 25%, Backs same sex marriage, (when 31 states are against it) Supports abortion, and unlimited terms on when you may get one. By passes congress on immigration,Fights states on correcting their voters regristation, Runs guns to Mexico, does not track them and then tries to enact gun control on the border states, Yep, the republicians had Nixon , And now the democrats have Obama, notice how the main stream media does not wish to talk about the contempt vote they are having on Holder because of Fast & Furious.It has become so bad that you can not trust the liberal main steam media. ABC, CBS MSNBC,CNN, PNJ, If you are not going to report the news, who needs you?AS a blue dog democrat , He(obama) is as liberal as they come and the worst president we have EVER had.And he still has the nerve to call himself a (christian) He is not reading the same Bible christians do.
REGARDING:
“If this country doesn’t stop fussing & feuding like school yard children, the US is done for. ”
Because the people of this nation have always agreed on everything?
Because disagreement is mandatory for the nation to avoid collapse?
Remember how everyone was calling for compromise, so when President Obama compromised the same folks threw fits with him for compromising too much?
If we intend to get across the idea that everybody should just agree with whatever President Obama tells us to think, why don’t we just say so?
President Obama sits and picks out who to kill with drone aircraft every day or so.
Fine, wonderful idea.
President Obama decides which laws to enforce and which to ignore.
Fine, wonderful idea.
President Obama pushes for laws which seem to violate the Constitution.
Fine, wonderful idea.
President Obama increased our presence in Afghanistan.
Fine, wonderful idea.
President Obama seems to have provided high power weapons to Mexican drug cartels and refuses to allow Eric Holder to testify as subpoenaed by Congress.
Fine, wonderful idea. Who needs Congress anyway?
But what if in some unimaginable future, we somehow elect a President who does BAD things? Should we just go along lest folks say we were “fussing & feuding like school yard children”?
David considering a Stepford Nation
Isn’t it ironic that the Republican Mitt Romney established the first free healthcare plan while he was governor of Massachusetts, and now he is going to fight against the very program that his state uses. If this country doesn’t stop fussing & feuding like school yard children, the US is done for. Whatever Pres. Obama says or does, the Republicans are against; they will have to start putting the country first instead of their political party. And in my opinion, if every American doesn’t have access to basic healthcare, then the Congress & Senate should not have full-coverage healthcare provided by the tax payers.