In what is no doubt a great disappointment to those who want to expand the number of uninsured Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected arguments that a minor drafting error should result in the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies for middle-class Americans being eliminated (and, by extension, a collapse of the law itself).

Arizona Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD1) reacts:

I’m pleased that the Supreme Court ruled to protect affordable health coverage for thousands of Arizona families and millions of Americans. In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, ‘Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.’ I’ve always said we should work together to fix and improve the ACA, and I will continue to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do just that.

Congresswoman Martha McSally (R-CD2) calls for a “better solution” to healthcare needs:

Families around Arizona continue to struggle under rising health care costs due to the Affordable Care Act. Business owners are being buried under mounds of paperwork and new mandates. Employees have seen their hours and wages cut while still lacking the affordable, quality care they need. While today’s ruling keeps intact subsidies under the law, the fact remains that the Affordable Care Act is fundamentally broken and hurting families across our country.”

We need a better solution that lowers the overall cost of health care and empowers patients and families to choose the plans that are right for them. We need reforms that focus on health outcomes driven by choice, transparency, and flexibility, not the mandates, penalties, and taxes contained in the Affordable Care Act. These patient-centered reforms will actually lower the cost of health care, ensuring it is affordable and available, while making sure those who cannot afford care have the opportunity and resources to get covered.”

Southern Arizonans deserve a better answer to our broken health care system, one that will put them first, and I’ll continue to work with my colleagues to give that to them.

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-CD3) celebrates the decision:

Today, the Supreme Court once again validated the right of every American – regardless of which state they live in – to have quality health coverage at a reasonable price,” said Rep. Grijalva. “The political decision of state lawmakers in Arizona to snub President Obama and this healthcare law with House Bill 2643 threatened that right for too many Arizonans. More than 125,000 people could have paid a heavy price for those political games, and that is completely unacceptable.

I hope that with this decision, the Republican Party in Arizona and across the country recognizes the will of the American people to see this law stand; to see their loved ones receiving the care they need at a price they can afford; and to see an end to the reckless political antics that are below the dignity of the offices that many of these Republican policymakers hold. It’s time for them to move on.

This article appears in Jun 25 – Jul 1, 2015.

Getting hassled by The Man Mild-mannered reporter

19 replies on “Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare (Again)”

  2. The same Valerie Jarrett that is Obama’s Chief of Staff?

    We have come full circle. In 6 years.

  4. The elephant in the room is the fact that medical costs continue to skyrocket. Nothing has been done to contain costs. Hopefully you will only be able to call this care act AFFORDABLE until you realize that it isn’t.

  7. Sorry Nintz I said “costs” which is different than spending. I could not get your link to open but Forbes ran a similar story:

    If you consider the years of the Obama presidency, it hasn’t slowed. President Obama told the Business Roundtable the other day that increases in health care spending are now at an historic low and he actually claimed credit for that. Despite this boast, the increase in per capita health care spending last year (2.9%) was exactly the same as it was in 2009, the year before the Affordable Care Act was passed.

    If you were to compare it to a percentage of GDP which was negative again in May, it’s even worse. Statistical data is worthless. We have to wait for the bell curve of pre existing conditions to meet terminal speed.

  9. “In what is no doubt a great disappointment to those who want to expand the number of uninsured Americans…”

    If you dare disagree with liberals, you must be a child killer. The logic of a 7 year old. Pathetic.

  10. If Nintz’s justification is to use the posted study, he clearly lacks diligence in his reporting. Is he intentionally lying or just lacks the ability to read his own links.

    The study is to look at why future projections are down, not the current spending is down, in fact, you only have to go to the summary page to read, and I quote…

    “Clearly, not all of the spending reduction is due to the ACA; much is due to the recent recession and a long period of slow income growth, the growth of high deductible private health plans, cost constraints within state Medicaid programs, and Medicare policies unrelated to the ACA (e.g. sequestration).
    But it is also likely that the law contributed; though how much is impossible to estimate…”

    The land of unicorns.

  11. The Congresswoman’s dissent from the rest of the delegation and SCOTUS highlights her awkward stance – – if Republicans had worked cooperatively on the ACA, the law would have been written differently and, quite possibly, better. There would have never been YET ANOTHER courtroom triumph for the act. But Rep. McSally instead trots out the same old confrontational, Tea Party crappola. How can you fix a law if you spend all your time and energy trying to deny its existence? This seems to be the only way the AZ version of Ann Coulter can get attention!

  12. Talking about the ‘costs’ of the ACA is disingenuous because one of the major intents of the law is to insure people who have not previously been insured. So what was the previous ‘cost’ of that clear malady . . . and to quote Les McCann, “Compared to what?” If average spending is down amongst this important new group of covered citizens, or just maintained, we have gained a huge social benefit. But maybe that doesn’t matter to some people . . .

  13. It goes to show the supreme court is a joke. Explain how ambiguous is these three words and how they let a bunch of lawyers write 85+ pages trying to explain these words. When a lawyer uses more than necessary bunch of words or pages its obviously breaking the law and trying to justify it. I can define the three words with less than a page.
    “by the state” which it is written in the affordable health care act on who will determine and conduct regulations.
    the dissection of the three words word by word.
    BY-identifying the agent performing an action
    THE-denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.
    STATE-a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
    Not hard at all

  15. Gotta’ love this!

    McSally is the “AZ version of Ann Coulter”…Mark Murphy…

    And the sun will reverse it’s course in the sky on the day ANY republican presents ANY plan to provide Health Care to ANYONE…

    Other than their current plan: “If you’re rich, you’re ‘covered’, If you’re poor, die quickly!”

  16. @By the state: U.S. Government is a “state”…

    Imagine the time and money wasted by SCROTUS to determine what I was able to determine in a minute…

  17. The only ACTUAL solution for USAmerican Health Care financing is HR676. Look it up, it’s only 30 pages, would do the job of Universal, Comprehensive coverage and save the Federal Government over $400 billion per year…

  18. Good idea, Chet. However,it will not give the Govt. any more power over the people. Ergo, it won’t fly.

  19. “Bad, bad, bad!!”!! That’s all that comes out of Republicans mouths about the ACA. They have no Plan B.

Comments are closed.