topic
The Supreme Health Care Surprise

Introduced: June 28 2012

Now that the long-awaited Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act has been delivered, where do you stand? As analysis and interpretation fills the news, share something with IWD you find interesting, surprising or disturbing. Feel free to comment on parts of the law, the role of the Supreme Court, and/or what you'd like to see happen next.

Dialogue on The Supreme Health Care Surprise
058:

Hail to the Chief (Justice)! Whatever his reasons…it was refreshing for someone do something not along predictable party lines.

328:

It's still a difficult topic to rap our arms around. I, like most, need to learn more about the Act and we need to do this in an objective way...it would be helpful to have a brief outline explaining the Act and the associated cost. I do believe the country needs health care for all; at he same time I don't trust the insurance companies to guide or facilitate the program and I am also concerned that any program run by the government eventually gets out of hand and becomes a bureaurcratic cost nightmare...if only our representatives could create a bipartisan non-political body to administer the program...unfortunately the kids in the sand box can't put their handlers (lobbyist) aside and work through the issues, keeping the American people's best interest in mind.

030:

Would be interesting if the four very liberal judges followed Roberts and voted strictly on the constitution and not on what they would like to see happen on future issues. Maybe he has forced politics out of the court.
The Right will have more zest for moderate Romney now - and will be interesting to see how the 'tax' determination will be explained by Obama who assured us it was not a tax.

210:

It is typical that people hear what want to hear, or in some cases, they hear what they fear. Yes, the mandate for people to buy insurance is a victory for liberals, but the Republicans have a reason to celebrate, too. For the first time since the New Deal, the court reduced the federal government’s power to spend – by ruling that Congress can’t deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand coverage. So that makes the Affordable Health Care Act seem a little like a nail without a hammer.

302:

There are so many pieces to this Supreme Court decision. What will it mean for health care going forward? (We know the efforts to repeal it will not stop.) What will the part of the decision that limited the federal government’s powers have on legislation that is unpopular with conservatives? What does this decision tell us about the Court and its relationship with the legislative and executive branches? And most interesting of all, has Chief Justice Roberts, in his surprising and brilliant move, given others an example to work harder toward compromise?

215:

Although I haven’t followed the Supreme Court very closely, I had an underlying uneasiness with the way the Court seemed to have become politicized – and divided along ideological lines, instead of focusing totally on the Constitution. So I was relieved that the Court seems to be moving into a new phase.

Note from IWD: A good summary of the Supreme Court decision during the recent term can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/supreme-courts-recent-term-a-new-phase.html?pagewanted=all  (On that page, click on “Major Rulings of the 2011-12 Term” to see who voted together on what cases.)

058:

Hail to the Chief (Justice)! Whatever his reasons…it was refreshing for someone do something not along predictable party lines.

328:

It's still a difficult topic to rap our arms around. I, like most, need to learn more about the Act and we need to do this in an objective way...it would be helpful to have a brief outline explaining the Act and the associated cost. I do believe the country needs health care for all; at he same time I don't trust the insurance companies to guide or facilitate the program and I am also concerned that any program run by the government eventually gets out of hand and becomes a bureaurcratic cost nightmare...if only our representatives could create a bipartisan non-political body to administer the program...unfortunately the kids in the sand box can't put their handlers (lobbyist) aside and work through the issues, keeping the American people's best interest in mind.

030:

Would be interesting if the four very liberal judges followed Roberts and voted strictly on the constitution and not on what they would like to see happen on future issues. Maybe he has forced politics out of the court.
The Right will have more zest for moderate Romney now - and will be interesting to see how the 'tax' determination will be explained by Obama who assured us it was not a tax.

210:

It is typical that people hear what want to hear, or in some cases, they hear what they fear. Yes, the mandate for people to buy insurance is a victory for liberals, but the Republicans have a reason to celebrate, too. For the first time since the New Deal, the court reduced the federal government’s power to spend – by ruling that Congress can’t deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand coverage. So that makes the Affordable Health Care Act seem a little like a nail without a hammer.

302:

There are so many pieces to this Supreme Court decision. What will it mean for health care going forward? (We know the efforts to repeal it will not stop.) What will the part of the decision that limited the federal government’s powers have on legislation that is unpopular with conservatives? What does this decision tell us about the Court and its relationship with the legislative and executive branches? And most interesting of all, has Chief Justice Roberts, in his surprising and brilliant move, given others an example to work harder toward compromise?

215:

Although I haven’t followed the Supreme Court very closely, I had an underlying uneasiness with the way the Court seemed to have become politicized – and divided along ideological lines, instead of focusing totally on the Constitution. So I was relieved that the Court seems to be moving into a new phase.

Note from IWD: A good summary of the Supreme Court decision during the recent term can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/supreme-courts-recent-term-a-new-phase.html?pagewanted=all  (On that page, click on “Major Rulings of the 2011-12 Term” to see who voted together on what cases.)

215:

Although I haven’t followed the Supreme Court very closely, I had an underlying uneasiness with the way the Court seemed to have become politicized – and divided along ideological lines, instead of focusing totally on the Constitution. So I was relieved that the Court seems to be moving into a new phase.

Note from IWD: A good summary of the Supreme Court decision during the recent term can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/supreme-courts-recent-term-a-new-phase.html?pagewanted=all  (On that page, click on “Major Rulings of the 2011-12 Term” to see who voted together on what cases.)

302:

There are so many pieces to this Supreme Court decision. What will it mean for health care going forward? (We know the efforts to repeal it will not stop.) What will the part of the decision that limited the federal government’s powers have on legislation that is unpopular with conservatives? What does this decision tell us about the Court and its relationship with the legislative and executive branches? And most interesting of all, has Chief Justice Roberts, in his surprising and brilliant move, given others an example to work harder toward compromise?

210:

It is typical that people hear what want to hear, or in some cases, they hear what they fear. Yes, the mandate for people to buy insurance is a victory for liberals, but the Republicans have a reason to celebrate, too. For the first time since the New Deal, the court reduced the federal government’s power to spend – by ruling that Congress can’t deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand coverage. So that makes the Affordable Health Care Act seem a little like a nail without a hammer.

030:

Would be interesting if the four very liberal judges followed Roberts and voted strictly on the constitution and not on what they would like to see happen on future issues. Maybe he has forced politics out of the court.
The Right will have more zest for moderate Romney now - and will be interesting to see how the 'tax' determination will be explained by Obama who assured us it was not a tax.

328:

It's still a difficult topic to rap our arms around. I, like most, need to learn more about the Act and we need to do this in an objective way...it would be helpful to have a brief outline explaining the Act and the associated cost. I do believe the country needs health care for all; at he same time I don't trust the insurance companies to guide or facilitate the program and I am also concerned that any program run by the government eventually gets out of hand and becomes a bureaurcratic cost nightmare...if only our representatives could create a bipartisan non-political body to administer the program...unfortunately the kids in the sand box can't put their handlers (lobbyist) aside and work through the issues, keeping the American people's best interest in mind.

058:

Hail to the Chief (Justice)! Whatever his reasons…it was refreshing for someone do something not along predictable party lines.

Content