SURVEY SAYS: SCOTUS Health Reform Law Decision

Last week, I asked NewsDash readers what decision they were hoping for from the Supreme Court about the health care reform law.
By PS

The majority was not satisfied with the decision the high court made, as 44% indicated they would have liked a decision that would have overturned the entire law, and 20% said they were hoping the individual mandate would be found unconstitutional, overturning some provisions, but not others. One-third of responding readers said the decision they hoped for was that the individual mandate be found constitutional, upholding the entire law. Three percent had no opinion.  

Verbatim responses were mixed between those in support of the law, and the Supreme Court’s decision, and those who were totally against it. Some respondents indicated a difference between their personal choice and their choice as a representative of their company, and many readers commented about the decision-making process of the court.  

As always, verbatim responses reflect the opinions of individual readers and not the stance of Asset International or its affiliates.

Verbatim  

This decision redeemed the Court's integrity following the partisan debacle of Bush v Gore. 

 

The 'Cadillac Tax' : taxing plans that provide richer benefits is illogical to me, and seems to infringe on an employer's rights to differentiate itself and provide for its employees. Further, the entire program was sold to the American people as a way to limit the insurance companies, when in fact, it requires the entire population to buy insurance. It's serving up the entire population to the insurance industry! 

 

What I've indicated above reflects my personal preference. However, in terms of my role at a large company, the law moving forward will mean much more work and headaches in the short term (although I do believe that if the legislation is kept mostly intact, in the long run it will be a huge win all around, including businesses). 

 

It appears that the Constitution is being interpreted very broadly. 

 

Mainly because of all the hyperventilating about tyranny and the slippery slope leading to jackbooted thugs forcing people to eat broccoli, I'm glad they upheld the mandate. I jus thave a hard time imagining that there are large numbers of people out there who would refuse medical coverage as long as the cost is reasonable. Even the most healthy person in the world is still at risk for catastrophic medical claims due to accidents, contracting a disease completely unrelated to their diet and exercise habits, etc. The bottom line is that if we are going to have guaranteed issue, it makes sense that we want to avoid having free riders. That's the whole point of insurance - everyone in the pool shares the risk and the law of large numbers lets us make reasonable estimates of how much claims should cost. If we structure the program to encourage adverse selection, the costs will be higher than they need to be. 

 

The Government has radically overstepped its taxing authority. Our forefather's would be "rolling over in their graves". 

 

Can't believe it was upheld as a "tax" - what's next? And if there are no real penalties for not purchasing health coverage, are we any further ahead with respect to the uninsured? 

 

Unfortunately, enforcing this will be about as successful as herding cats. What I am definitely not looking forward to is the compliance/administration/reporting...I know it will be far more onerous than anyone thinks. Needless to say, no matter how much new compliance we face, our management will not see that as a reason to get any more help!

Verbatim (cont.)  

Some of our elected officials (i.e. Ohio governor John Kasich and others) have done little or nothing to implement this law which has been on the books for over 2 years. Enough foot-dragging, its time to get to work! 

 

We go on..... 

 

I still can't figure out why the right wing is so against an idea that the Heritage Foundation came up with and that they had formerly endorsed. The mandate was a concession to them instead of pressing for either a single payer plan or one with a public option. 

 

If, according to Roberts, Congress cannot regulate healthcare under the Commerce Clause, then how can all of the provisions of PPACA which do not relate to taxes continue to stand? It seems that Robert's majority opinion opens the door to overturn everything EXCEPT the individual mandate (ie, everything which is unrelated to the taxing power of Congress). 

 

I believe the Chief Justice interpreted the constitutionality of the individual mandate very narrowly. 

 

The entire bill is extremely intrusive on employers and individuals. Will the government ever realise that businesses exist to earn profits, not as a source of revenue to fund government bureaucracies and programs? 

 

Roberts was right, the mandate is/was a tax. For a healthy person who is young and not very likely to become a burden on society by being sick, it might be reasonable for them to pay the tax as it will be cheaper than insurance. However, as someone who has suffered from allergies all my life, I am grateful for the ability to have insurance and that my employer offers insurance. For "medical" care it is great, for Vision and Dental, it stinks. I just want Congress to reset the FSA limit back to $5,000 as I go through that in my family of three by October. The new $2,500 limit will be gone by June. 

 

Upholding the entire law is not the most convenient or cheapest result for our organization, but it is the right decision for the country. 

 

Was very disappointed in the decision. The federal government is intruding into our lives that should concern everyone. This country was founded on the principles of freedom but those freedoms are eroding. If we don't do something soon we will have none. What is next? A tax on breathing. Oh wait, I hear Congress is voting on that today. 

 

I live in an old-fashioned dream world, but the government 1) has no business in this area of private life at all and 2) destroys everything it tries to run. We are doomed. We need for individual people and businesses to operate ethically, responsibly and without rampant greed - that would fix all the health care woes we currently have. By allowing this program to continue "as is" we have opened ourselves up to the complete disappearance eventually of every single individual freedom we have left. Freedom is the very thing our founders fought and died for, the very thing we are supposed to be celebrating this week, but this current country has no concept of what that means or of the consequences of throwing it away. What a very sad day for us and also for people throughout the world who dream of being free. 

 

This legislation may not be perfect, but it is a major step forward and has already begun to produce positive change in the health care industry. This was the best possible result. Second choice would have been to kill the whole law simply because any half-way measure would have created nothing but chaos. 

 

I find the whole thing very distasteful. The American public has really been conned. The Congress and the President have represented this as health care reform - but there is absolutely nothing in there about health care. It's all about health insurance - which is a financial vehicle. I'm appalled that the government thinks they can compel me to buy something - anything - be it health insurance or broccoli or whatever. This debate is not about health care. I don't deny that we have to have to have meaningful discussion and policy on access to health care. Unfortunately, the politicians took the easy out by addressing health insurance instead - banking on the fact the average American doesn't know the difference. From my perspective, when you combine this with the USA Patriot Act, which also significantly eroded our personal freedom, we now live in the Russia that we feared when I was a child - and Americans on both sides of the aisle are cheering about it.

Verbatim (cont.)  

Although some good features were included in the law, all in all it continues the intrusion of a centralized federal government in the daily lives of its citizens. As one of our forefathers said "Those who would give up freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither". The only difference between 1738 and 2012 is that the oppressors of liberty reside not in England but in Washington D.C. 

 

I was stunned and elated by the decision to uphold the individual mandate. PPACA is not perfect, but at least it's a start. The US "system" for health care is ridiculous. Allowing private insurance companies to make huge profits is ludicrous. A civilized society takes care of all of its citizens. 

 

It's mandatory in Massachusetts for everyone to have health care; there's no reason that can't work for the whole country. Of course, if the government sponsored everyone's health care like they do in European countries, we'd all be better off. I don't see THAT happening anytime soon in America! Too much money to be made by insurance companies! 

 

Hopefully, we can now move on to the greater issue - cutting healthcare costs. 

 

Chief Justice Roberts tried and failed to divide the baby. His decision gives the federal government more power over the states and individuals, tramplng the constitution in the process. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above politics, in this case it appears that Chicago style not-so-subtle threats swayed the Chief Justice. 

 

I watched a few original Rod Sterling "Twilight Zone" episodes the other night. Great show. Seems this ruling would have fit right in with the best of them. 

 

We NEED to accept that reforming the American health care system will be difficult and expensive. We have become a nation that expects easy solutions to problems, like a pill that will allow us to eat Big Macs everyday but yet not gain weight. 

 

Confusing decision, but definitely gave impetus to changing the law & electing more "R" people nationwide. 

 

SCOTUS in general, and Roberts in particular, should remember that their role is confined to reviewing suspect legislation in the context of what the Constitution allows, and not to find ways of making flawed laws (in this case extremely flawed) acceptable. Roberts in essence rewrote the faulty legislation to be acceptable (in his opinion). I think he caved in to pressure from the administration (small "a" in administration is not a typo) and other leftist pressure groups. This decision, which will be hard to overturn by future legislation is a travesty in its current form. 

 

Horrendous decision. The integrity of the court has been seriously tarnished. It saddens me that Roberts had to re-write the law so he could live with it, all in order to keep the liberal press off his back. Shameful and extremely disappointing. This law should have been struck down- everyone knows it. Now there is no limit to government control. I fear our country's decline is accelerating. 

 

Someone should check Chief Justice Roberts' eyeglass prescription; he's seeing things that aren't in the law... 

 

Congress' ability to individualize taxation concerns me greatly. Passing term limits is the only way to control congress. 

 

I think Justice Roberts proved that liberals aren't the only justices with the hubris to insert their judgment for that of the legislative branch and/or the people. Those who passed the law were careful and deliberate in their choice of words, both in the law itself, and in their defense of it. The Chief Justice apparently made a political decision - and that is something I had very much hoped would not come into play here. It's a dark day for the American judiciary. That said, I would encourage everyone to read the opinions of the four justices he joined in upholding the mandate. The notion that THAT could be the law of the land is truly frightening.

«