US Supreme Court upholds healthcare reform law

 

Obama: "A victory for people all over this country"

Related Stories

The US Supreme Court has said President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform act is constitutional.

The court upheld a core requirement known as the "individual mandate" that Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.

Of the nine justices on the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts' vote was decisive in the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in favour of the law.

The ruling comes months before the US election, with Republicans vowing to push for a repeal of the bill.

Healthcare is a deeply polarising issue in the US and Republicans strongly opposed Mr Obama's legislation.

Start Quote

In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety”

End Quote Justice Anthony Kennedy Dissenting opinion

The state of Florida, along with 12 other states, filed a legal challenge to the bill minutes after Mr Obama signed The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law in March 2010.

They were later joined by 13 more states, the National Federation of Independent Businesses and several individuals.

'Implement and improve'

Speaking afterwards, President Obama called the court's decision a victory for the country, saying people would not need to "hang their fortunes on chance" or fear financial ruin if they became sick.

"The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law and we'll work together to improve on it where we can," Mr Obama said, speaking at the White House.

"What we won't do - what the country can't afford to do - is re-fight the political battles of two years ago or go back to the way things were. With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward.

This ruling means President Obama avoids a humiliating shellacking and does not have to make a near impossible decision about how to replace an eviscerated law. He can wipe his brow and breath a huge sigh of relief. But that does not mean it is bad news for Mitt Romney. The only way to get rid of the law is to elect him. He now has a cause that not only fires up his supporters but may also appeal to all important swing voters. It is, as he has said, a choice.

"We will be better off because we had the courage to pass this law," Mr Obama added.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said the healthcare bill was "bad law yesterday, it's bad law today".

"This is a time of choice for the American people. If we're going to get rid of Obamacare we're going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that."

He called "Obamacare" a tax rise that would add to the national debt, a "job-killer", and said it would put the federal government "between you and your doctor".

Congressional leaders also responded quickly to the verdict. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, said: "We've passed plenty of terrible laws around here that were constitutional."

On the Senate floor, he said the only way to fix the law was "full repeal".

Meanwhile, the Senate's Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid, disagreed: "Now that this matter is settled, let's move on to other things. Like jobs."

'Triggering a tax'

The mandate was eventually upheld by the justices, citing the taxation powers granted to Congress by the US constitution.

Who's uninsured?
  • Who's uninsured?
  • Nearly 50 million, or 16.3% of Americans are uninsured
  • By ethnicity, the rate of those who lack insurance is
  • 15.4% White
  • 20.8% Black
  • 18.1% Asian
  • 30.7% Hispanic
  • Source: US Census Bureau

Chief Justice Roberts said: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders.

"We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

A majority of justices agreed that the penalty individuals must pay if they refuse to buy health insurance falls within Congress' power to levy taxes, upholding the "individual mandate".

"The mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition - not owning health insurance - that triggers a tax - the required payment to IRS," Justice Roberts wrote.

The government's main argument was that the law was legal under Congress' ability to regulate "interstate commerce" - but a majority of justices did not agree with this view.

Four dissenting justices said that limits on the power of Congress to regulate commerce and raise taxes "cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs."

"That clear principle carries the day here," they added.

In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the dissenting justices went further, to say: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

Medicare clause limited

While the court described the penalty as a tax, it did not invoke a law that could have prevented the justices from ruling on the case.

Healthcare verdict

  • Individual mandate upheld
  • Expansion of Medicaid limited but not struck down
  • Five justices voted to uphold the law: John Roberts (chief justice), Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer
  • Four justices dissented: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito

Under a law called the Anti-Injunction Act, taxes cannot be legally challenged until after they have been levied. This could have delayed a verdict till 2015 - after the "individual mandate" comes into effect and the first round of penalties have been paid.

They were also not required to rule on the issue of "severability", which would determine whether other parts of the healthcare law could stand even if the mandate was struck down.

In addition to the individual mandate, the Supreme Court was asked to consider another part of the law that deals with the expansion of Medicaid, a government healthcare programme for low-income citizens.

The court ruled to limit that provision but did not strike it down altogether, saying Congress could place conditions on the use of federal funds.

"What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding," the Supreme Court's opinion said.

Some hospital and health insurance stocks were trading higher in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The rising cost of healthcare over 50 years, 1960-2010
  • By 1960, in GDP terms, American spending on health was
  • 5%
  • By 2010 it was
  • 18%
  • Medicare was
  • 4%
  • and Medicaid was
  • 3%
 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 406.

    The question is not how are we going to pay for it; we already do pay for it through higher insurance rate and govt reimbursement to hospitals for those not insured. The question was one of equity - what is fair for those who already pay into the system vs. those who get a free ride. This law addresses that inequality well and asks all to pay for something we all use. That's how insurance works.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 382.

    The question that needs to be addressed is how are we as a nation going to pay for this and how do we control the skyrocketing cost of medical treatment. What has failed to be discussed is tort reform, medical fraud and waste. It seems like people want to embrace all the good parts of the law but turn a blind eye to the problems it creates.

  • rate this
    +15

    Comment number 220.

    To me, there has to be a number of fundamental values for a functional and just society, and medical care is one of them.State and citizen have duties and obligations to each other, and human beings have rights to well being. There has to be a social philosophy for these values, no matter how much free markets are hailed.

  • rate this
    +82

    Comment number 84.

    I don't care about the politics of the decision I just want to say this. When my wife lost her job and then her kidney she found herself without health insurance, now with preexisting conditions, and bills of $200,000+. As we own our home we are ineligible for charity. With outstanding bills no hospital will treat her for anything but emergencies. The Healthcare Reform act means my wife will live.

  • rate this
    -24

    Comment number 22.

    The government telling me what I should buy or get fined!!!! I think that is the real issue. I do not think any government should force buisness on its citicens. Why not regulate how much insurrance companies can charge thus lowering prices and we can afford insurrance, and purchase it of our own free will.

 

Comments 5 of 9

 

More US & Canada stories

RSS

Features

  • VigoroAnyone for Vigoro?

    The bizarre Edwardian attempt to merge tennis and cricket


  • ScissorsTwo more years

    How the UK's life expectancy changes without Scotland


  • Payton McKinnonLeft behind

    Why do so many children die in hot cars?


  • Dr Mahinder Watsa Dr Sex

    The wisecracking 90-year-old whose agony column is a cult hit


  • White Rhino, KenyaSky rangers

    How drones may be used to fight wildlife poaching in Africa


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.