Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling
November 8th, 2011
11:58 AM ET
10 years ago

Health care law held constitutional in latest appeals court ruling

Washington (CNN) - The sweeping health care reform bill championed by President Barack Obama was upheld as constitutional by another federal appeals court Tuesday.

The decision is not part of a half-dozen other appeals pending at the Supreme Court. The justices could decide this week whether to take on one or more of those legal challenges to the law. Those suits were brought by more than a two dozen states and a coalition of private groups and individuals.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health care
soundoff (19 Responses)
  1. Ed DFWTX

    This is good but a public option would be better. Health Care should be a right not just somehting the rich can afford. The Unitied States is one of the only Major Eonomic Countries without health care for all citizens. We need to correct this error. At least Obama is trying to coirrect this error. The GOP is doing everything possible to keep the same bad "insurance for a few" system in place and thinks 40% uninsured is somehow OK.

    November 8, 2011 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm |
  2. Rudy NYC

    The entire argument about the individual mandate being unconstitutional is just an altruistic smoke screen to hide the real objections to the Affordable Care Act. The health insurance industry doesn't like the requirements and mandates that would be imposed upon them.

    Health insurers don't like the coverage mandates which say you cannot drop people once they become ill, nor turn people away because of pre-existing conditions. Those are the real objections to the new law, but insurance companies cannot openly state those are the reasons for their objections. So, they invented a benevolent argument that many people would question when they first hear of it. Funny how the insurance industry had no objections to mandated auto coverage but have strong objects to the ARA, which would give them millions of new customers.

    November 8, 2011 12:35 pm at 12:35 pm |
  3. easydoesit

    I can get coverage for $127 dollars a month that doesn't sound like only the rich can afford it.

    November 8, 2011 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm |
  4. Sandy

    Good! Leave my ObamacareS alone! Don't take my 22 year old son off of my insurance! I was paying $400+ a month for my son's health insurance, as he was knocked off my insurance at 19. When the law passed, Blue Cross added him back to my policy at no extra charge. I want to keep my ObamaCareS!

    November 8, 2011 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  5. Fair is Fair

    "Funny how the insurance industry had no objections to mandated auto coverage "
    ---–
    Oh good Lord.. the auto insurance analogy, Rudy? What don't you understand about the differences between health insurance and property / casualty insurance? You know... like when you get into an auto accident, the insurance company can "total" your car and pay you book value? Can you do that with health insurance, Rudy?

    And by the way – if you don't want to have to have "mandated" auto insurance, here's how you get around it. DON'T DRIVE.

    November 8, 2011 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  6. Fair is Fair

    "Good! Leave my ObamacareS alone! Don't take my 22 year old son off of my insurance! I was paying $400+ a month for my son's health insurance, as he was knocked off my insurance at 19. When the law passed, Blue Cross added him back to my policy at no extra charge. I want to keep my ObamaCareS!"
    -----–
    Whatcha gonna do when your son turns 26?

    November 8, 2011 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  7. California Conservative

    Firgive the liberals fools for they not know what they ask for.

    November 8, 2011 12:58 pm at 12:58 pm |
  8. max

    Fair is Fair

    "Good! Leave my ObamacareS alone! Don't take my 22 year old son off of my insurance! I was paying $400+ a month for my son's health insurance, as he was knocked off my insurance at 19. When the law passed, Blue Cross added him back to my policy at no extra charge. I want to keep my ObamaCareS!"
    -––
    "Watcha gonna do when your son turns 26?"

    Typical...taking a jab but cannot explain intelligently why the act is good or bad. Loser!

    November 8, 2011 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  9. Rudy NYC

    easydoesit wrote:
    I can get coverage for $127 dollars a month that doesn't sound like only the rich can afford it.
    -----------–
    You would probably pay much less than that if everyone had coverage. Speaking of coverage, do not get seriously ill. Once you do, they can decide to drop you and other companies will not pick you up. And, please don't feel safe from being dropped because you have coverage through payroll deduction at your J*O*B. Many companies self insure, so they will simply fire you to get you off of their insurance.

    Then you can subscribe to the Republican health coverage plan, be a health care shoplifter. Just go to the emergency room, and raise the cost on everyone else. I don't like the idea of people being able get medical coverage without paying into the system. That's akin to going to the grocery store and not paying for your groceries, which raises the cost for those who do pay, such as yourself currently.

    November 8, 2011 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  10. Rudy NYC

    Fair asked:
    Oh good Lord.. the auto insurance analogy, Rudy? What don't you understand about the differences between health insurance and property / casualty insurance? You know... like when you get into an auto accident, the insurance company can "total" your car and pay you book value? Can you do that with health insurance, Rudy?
    -----------–
    Of course. That's the whole point. The cost of repairing a motor vehicle is predictable, fixed, guaranteed to be a one time cost. The cost of repairing and caring for the human body isn't. Their accountants have decided that it is easier to simply punt the problem away.

    So, they drop people and deny others coverage, all the while raising the cost on everyone explaining that there are people out there with no coverage. Which is an argument that doesn't make any sense because the cost is borne by the care provider, not the health insurance carrier.

    November 8, 2011 01:21 pm at 1:21 pm |
  11. California Conservative

    What difference does it make if a parent can keep them on their insurance after all they automatically qualify for ObamaCare.

    November 8, 2011 01:24 pm at 1:24 pm |
  12. emmarain

    There is a difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE. Until people understand that fact, there is no way to make them understand that you can't force someone to buy from a private industry.

    November 8, 2011 01:29 pm at 1:29 pm |
  13. diridi

    I told this long time ago. Listen to me, I have Masters in Law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this nation's much needed legislation. It should have been law long time ago. Your GOP thugs road blocked....nasty Animals of American society. Shame. I am voting for Direct Dem. Ticket. Listen, in 2014, when real law kicks in, states should mandate setting up State Exchanges., whereby your senate, and congressman needs to go and buy thru them., just like any other ORDINARY CITIZEN OF USA. Then, these Insurance idiots, lower the prices, or else, you skip to state exchanges, they lose the business....it is simple....Obama2012.....

    November 8, 2011 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  14. Al-NY,NY

    ."..but let's pay billions to repeal it. That's the way to cut spending!!"...tightie rightie shills for the insurance companies

    November 8, 2011 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  15. Fair is Fair

    OK... I'll play.

    The "act" is bad. For several reasons, some of them so complex that they merit a much larger forum. All you have to do is look to Massachusetts where the same type of program was implemented. The result has been longer wait times for physician appointments, costs increasing higher than the national average, and no – repeat NO – change in the congesgtion in emergency rooms.

    IF the act is so good for this country, please – if you can – explain why almost 2,000 "waivers" have been granted to corporations? We're not talking small corporations, either. Some of them are quite large.

    IF the act is so good, please explain why a coalition of over 25 states, some of them being "true blue" states, have allied to bring this to the Supreme Court?

    Your turn... and I won't lower myself to call you "loser"...

    November 8, 2011 01:49 pm at 1:49 pm |
  16. Fair is Fair

    "I told this long time ago. Listen to me, I have Masters in Law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this nation's much needed legislation."
    -----–
    I could have sworn you need to have a J.D. to practice law...

    November 8, 2011 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |
  17. Sniffit

    "Whatcha gonna do when your son turns 26?"

    Applaud when he can still get insurance because things like pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny him and because insurers must take him and, if he happens to need the assistance, the federal gov't will help him afford it.

    November 8, 2011 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  18. Sandy

    "Whatcha gonna do when your son turns 26?"

    My son is in college now, that's why we need him under our health plan. By the time he is 26, he will hopefully have a job the provides insurance or he will be able to afford it himself. Right now he cannot afford it because he is a student and I couldn't afford to pay an extra $400 a month extra for his insurance.

    November 8, 2011 01:57 pm at 1:57 pm |
  19. Sniffit

    "The result has been longer wait times for physician appointments"

    Increased demand for physicians is a good thing...gives us a reason to create more of them and creates pressure to lower the cost of doing so.

    "costs increasing higher than the national average"

    They were doing that anyway. Besides, that's an irrelevant comparison. The appropriate comparison is before the act and after the act within the subject population. Now, go do your research on that.

    "and no – repeat NO – change in the congesgtion in emergency rooms."

    We haven't created more doctors yet and nothing about the bill magically added or built more facilities. Demand is a good thing...it's what drives the economy, progress, innovation and all sosrts of wonderful things that are what made this country great by forcing us to rise to the occassion...not an overabundance of supply and the power and influence that goes with it like the imbecile conservatives would have you believe.

    November 8, 2011 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |