Other Editions:
TNValleyWheels.com
|
TNValleyHomeFinder.com
|
TNValleyJobFinder.com
|
TNValleyStuff.com
|
TNValleyDeals.com
6/29/12
|
2009 views
Everyone can claim a victory
The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act was a victory, even for advocates of limited government.
It was, of course, a victory for people with pre-existing conditions who could not get health insurance coverage. It was a victory for the millions of people who, lacking insurance coverage, have almost no access to health care. It was a victory for hospitals that, under current law, have to treat uninsured people in emergency rooms.
It was a victory for all insured Americans who pay about $1,000 a year in extra premiums to cover the costs of those who decline to buy health insurance.
Here’s the surprise, though: It was a victory for those who fear that the federal government’s power over individuals and the states is out of control.
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been the enumerated power through which federal control of the individual has ballooned. Because interstate commerce is far more extensive than the Founding Fathers could have imagined, what they thought was a narrow power had become an all-consuming one.
The Supreme Court on Thursday drew a line in the sand when it held that the Commerce Clause did not authorize an individual mandate. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts basically said, “Enough is enough.”
The conservative justice also pointed out that the “individual mandate” is not a mandate. The ACA gives people a choice: Buy health insurance or pay a tax. For many people, that tax will be less than the cost of health insurance. By law, the tax cannot exceed the cost of insurance. Using taxes to encourage wise decisions is nothing new. We impose extra taxes on tobacco and alcohol to discourage their use. Tax incentives already encourage people to buy homes, attend college and give to charities. This tax encourages people to buy health insurance.
Roberts made clear that if Congress makes the tax so high that it effectively forces people to buy health insurance, it will have exceeded its taxing authority.
Not only did the court impose the first significant limit on the federal government’s power under the Commerce Clause, it also placed a new limit on Congress’ ability to mandate state activity.
The court ruled the ACA went too far when it threatened to eliminate Medicaid funding for those states who decline to expand Medicaid coverage.
Everyone knew that U.S. health care had serious problems. For most, the fear of Obamacare was that it would expand federal control over the individual even more.
In a wise decision, the court both upheld a desperately needed change to our health care system and placed new limits on the power of the federal government.
Not registered? Click here
|
E-mail this
|
Print this
|
Photo Galleries
Follow Us On Twitter 
| Decatur Daily | @DecaturDaily |
| High School Sports | @DecaturPreps |
| Living | @DecaturLiving |
| Seth Burkett | @DD_SethBurkett |
| Bill Campbell | @DD_BillCampbell |
| Deangelo McDaniel | @DD_Deangelo |
| Eric Fleischauer | @DD_Fleischauer |
| Bayne Hughes | @DD_BayneHughes |
| Ben Montgomery | @DD_BMontgomery |
| Meredith Qualls | @DailyMeredith |
| Mary Sell | @DD_MarySell |
| Ronnie Thomas | @DD_RonnieThomas |
Alerts The Way You Want Them
Sign up for our any or all of our alert services & receive breaking local news, daily updates, sports, weather & more in your inbox or mobile device.
Breaking news, bible quotes, weather, sports, horoscopes, stocks & more sent to your mobile devices.
Receive breaking local news, daily updates, sports, weather & more. Enter your e-mail address below.
Most Read
Most Recent
Most Commented
Poll
Affiliated Websites:
Times Daily
|
Decatur Daily
|
Courier Journal
|
Moulton Advertiser
|
The Redstone Rocket
|
Madison Weekly News
|
American Classifieds
© Copyright 2013 Tennessee Valley Printing Company — all rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Powered By: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.
This is only a victory for those who want a bigger, more intrusive government. The ruling from SCOTUS was bizarre. The individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause, and therefore unconstitutional, , but if you look at it as a tax it's fine. How can it be both? This is judicial activism, pure and simple. The good news is this can all be undone by not re-electing Presidnet Obama and gettng a conservative super-majority in Congress. Just because this has been ruled Constitutional doesn't mean it's good policy.
A wise decisiion my foot.....I'll bet, like everyone else, the Supreme Legal Eagles did not read the entire 2700 pages of that law, it's not a tax. I hope everyone gets what they deserve. What will happen if Doctors and Hospitals refuse to treat people that are breaking this law because they have not bought obamacare insurance?
It is time for HOPE and CHANGE, I hope Obama loses the next election and we change back to a leadership that has some experience in something other than politics.
I am insured and always have been. Does this mean my premiums are going to go down nearly $100.00 a month? Fat chance. I anticipate just the opposit.
Good ol' socialism. Geesh!
I disagree with Justice Roberts' legal reasoning in this decision. To say that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause is a departure from decades of precedent. The SCOTUS has relied upon the Commerce Clause to compel Ollie's BBQ in B'ham to serve African-American customers rather than continue Ollie's "No Service to Negroes" standard practice of operating the business. The SCOTUS relied upon the Commerce Clause to force a wheat farmer to destroy or dispose of excess wheat he had grown for his own use. In both instances the SCOTUS stated in its decision that Ollie's business & the farmer's growing wheat impacted interstate commerce. Therefore, the court under the Commerce Clause could compel them to do something they otherwise would not have done. Justice Roberts is wrong to state the CC does not give the federal government the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance. Both the insurance & health care businesses impact interstate commerce. Roberts' "line in the sand" is inane. The mandate is not a "tax." Yes, a penalty will be imposed on individuals that do not purchase insurance, but it is a penalty, or "fine" if you will. Much like the fine for not purchasing auto insurance. In both instances the goverment "mandates" that individuals do something they otherwise would not. Roberts wanted to uphold the ACA as constitutional & found a "crafty" way of doing so.
I for one, am very pleased that the ACA was held to be constitutional. I am tired of seeing my health insurance premiums increase because others refuse to purchase insurance! And Willard, you know insurance companies will not lower your premiums. But, our premiums may no longer rise as sharply as in the past.
As for Romney, he has received very, very large campaign contributions from the insurance industry & its PACs. If he is elected, instead of a $100.00 decrease, Willard will see his premiums "skyrocket."
"departure for decades of precedent" - that is rich! I am very pleased with the decision for a different reason. Roberts has sealed the fate of Obama, Harry Reid, and the "Affordable (ha) Care Law"! And at the same time, the overreach of federal powers via the commerce clause has been stunted.
The Communists are taking over and Obama is the leader...