THE TRUE impact of the Supreme Court’s decision on President Obama’s health care law won’t be felt on the high court or the presidential campaign trail: In each arena, the status quo more or less prevails. But the court’s approval of the legislation, the first attempt at comprehensive reform of the sprawling health care bureaucracy, is a landmark event nonetheless. It preserves a crucial framework for wrestling with issues of cost, access, coverage, and quality that would have been completely lost had the court’s activist conservative wing — which sought to derail the entire enterprise — carried the day.
The law, in itself, is not a panacea. The court’s ruling may hamper the expansion of Medicaid, a key way in which the law offers medical coverage. Other provisions, like the medical-device tax, will also need to be rethought. Still others, such as the penalty for working adults who decline to carry coverage, may have to be adjusted over time. The best-practices data that are useful in controlling costs must be properly applied. Cost savings, such as those from the computerization of records, must be tabulated.
Comments
Dream on, Globesters. Justice Roberts has just given a big campaign issue to Mitt Romney and the GOP.
And just what might that be? Everything Romney proposes accelerates cost. He would let for profit insurers continue to drive costs over 20% of the DGP driving even more into Medicaid when they lose their job and their health. I agree the Affordable Care Act does not fully comply with the spirit of Chief Justice Roberts decision. He states if you have a national program, like global health insurance, then you must have a tax that is imposed equally on all the states. This conservative Justice has made a wise decision and instead of trying to repeal what is constitutional Congress needs to fix the "tax" part, a Republican invention by the way, to more clearly have all pay for our health care system. The health care industry is a national asset for individual human survival and should be treated that way. "Section. 8. 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;"
This comment has been removed.
And if he had just ruled based on the Commerce Clause it would have been struck down. I am sure you wouykd have supported that too BG
In all the uncountable words, opinions and pictures surrounding this Supreme Court decision, over the past few years, was there anyone who thought John Roberts would be the deciding vote? The only one I could find was Walter Dellinger, a temporary soliciter general under Bill Clinton. So not only do we have CNN and Fox striking out because of a "me first" or gotcha' moment, we also have a myriad of sources missing the Roberts connection. No Pulitzer for you!