U.S. Supreme Court agrees to look at ‘Obamacare’

Court to hear constitutional challenge to Obama’s health care overhaul


The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a constitutional challenge of President Barack Obama’s hard-fought health care reform package. The challenge hinges on whether the legislation breaches the individual rights of American citizens by forcing them to carry health insurance. The law, dubbed ‘Obamacare’ in the media, stipulates that, starting in 2014, individuals without health coverage will be forced to but it or pay a penalty. The challenge was brought forward by governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, the National Federation of Independent business and two individual plaintiffs. The court will begin hearing arguments next March, paving the way for an election-year showdown over a piece of legislation championed as a major achievement by the Obama administration.

The Wall Street Journal

Filed under:

U.S. Supreme Court agrees to look at ‘Obamacare’

  1. Think what one may about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the fact that more than half the states are formally challenging its constitutionality speaks volumes regarding the failure of leadership and basic competence in this administration.

    • Perhaps, but those same states likely have compulsory vehicle insurance laws on their books. So tell me, what does it say about the basic competence of constituents who place more value on their automobiles than they do on their own lives?

      • Vehicle insurance is never compulsory; one does not have to buy it if one chooses not to drive a vehicle on public roads. Since this bill requires everyone to buy a product, your comparison is invalid.

      •  There are plenty of other flaws in the analogy, but another one is that the reason vehicle insurance is compulsory
        is for the protection of other vehicles and people, not the driver. 
        That way individuals are ensured compensation when they are struck by
        bad drivers.  In fact, the required coverage does not include coverage of your own car.  So no, it’s not about “more value on their automobiles than they do on their own lives”, you don’t need any coverage for your own auto.

    • I’d argue it shows a complete lack of leadership and competence on the part of the challengers and those whose attempts to block it made it the dog’s breakfast it is.

      If there’s a nation with a higher percentage of selfish whiners who despise the idea of helping their fellow citizens than the US, I’d be very surprised.

      • Doubtless you would be surprised to discover, then, that the US also has the highest rate of charitable giving per capita in the world. By far, as in 4x higher than the next highest.

        Perhaps the issue isn’t as simple as you think. Perhaps people don’t mind helping their fellow citizens at all, but would rather do so voluntarily than have the government ram such policies down their throat, particularly when the government also forces individuals to buy insurance who would otherwise prefer not to.

        Have you ever looked into the arguments against the bill? ‘Cause if you were to do so, I think you’d find that they aren’t based on “we don’t care about our fellow citizens”.

  2. Only in America…it was once OK for the government to coerce young men to serve up their bodies to the military machine but it can’t force people to contribute to their own medical care.

    Strange nation, indeed.

Sign in to comment.