"The ACA passed to improve, not destroy, the insurance markets." - Justice Roberts

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter,” Roberts wrote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...87608e-188a-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

My take - Even though I'm big fan of the ACA and love this ruling, I am utterly shocked at how Justice Roberts has made a comment so openly in favor of it. He was elected as a conservative pick and has gone against the grain twice on the most important rulings of his career thus far.

I actually don't blame the right wing for being angry at Roberts because he's obviously on Obama's side on Health Care.

 

The executives running the insurance companies that were vilified by the left when the ACA was being forced though behind closed doors are laughing as their companies rake in record profits.

 

ROFL! Justice Roberts is an idiot. I thought he was a smart man, but this just is beyond reason.

Health Insurance companies profits have hit all time highs while prices have soared for the consumer. When he says "improve insurance markets", improve for who? The insurance companies?

What a dope.

 

Yep, the whole purpose of the ACA was to deny people health insurance. Why can't Roberts understand this? It's not like Congress WANTED people to be insured, right?

 

Since when do conservatives not think higher profits benefit consumers?

 

Obscene profits and price controlled markets are not a conservatives game, that is the game of the establishment Crony Capitalist.

 

The ACA mandates that all insurance companies have at least 85 cents of every dollar go towards medical spend. It's not like the margins have gotten any larger.

 

republicans have always like the individual mandate, it it pro corps

they will never get rid of it

me, I would of preferred Obama's public option myself

 

Mr. Justice Roberts has always sided with wealth and power. The ACA was something the insurance industry helped write, and it has been very good for them.

That's why I was never especially worried about this case.

 

Because trickle down voodoo (*)(*)(*)(*) is only good when they say it is...so there!

 

i will make by judgment call in 5 years.

if it turns out that more people have insurance than if there was no ACA, and premiums have gone up less than if there was no ACA, then I wil fully support it.

 

Did it ever occur to you that he just might actually care about American people and understand that affording people the right to healthcare is just bigger and more noble than selfish and partisan ideology? And since the premise of the case was ridiculous, it is startling that the SCOTUS even agreed to hear the case, let alone contemplate to rule against it..

 

That has been the pattern so far.

Inflation in health insurance premiums is the lowest it has been for nearly two decades. In fact, wages grew more than insurance costs for the first time in 17 years,

About 12 million more people are insured than before the ACA, and the percentage of insured people is higher than ever.

More people would be using it, and more people would be eligible for Medicaid, but the 26 red states still won't set up exchanges. So Medicaid leaves out a lot of poor people in red state
America, and individuals and self employed people pay more for health insurance in North Carolina than they would in Maryland. all because of intransigent conservative politicians.

 

My five year old grandson can read those four words. WTF is wrong with the USSC? If the law is unsatisfactory the law can be changed.

But rule of law is now dead. SHRUG. The USA has abdicated all moral authority. Don't play..

 

Roberts has made his decisions on SCOTUScare as righteousness over the rule of law. Everyone should be concerned.

 

republicans love the individual mandate, it's pro-corp, do away with the ACA and you do away with the individual mandate

 

I was really hoping it would of been shoot down so republicans would have to replace it.... I think that would of been fun to watch

 

They loved it so much that none voted for it.

 

Well then that settles it. In order to be pro-corp you have to favor legislation to make purchases mandatory. Want to be consistent? Make it mandatory to purchase automobiles, food, clothing, houses, the whole works. Just start arresting consumers for refusing to buy stuff, any stuff. That's how to be pro-corp.

 

Keep the premiums from raising to much while making the deductible insane... Call it a victory... Sorry it doesnt work that way. Having a high deductible making it almost impossible to actually use your insurance does nothing to make it "affordable".

I hear this crap about medicaid.. If Medicaid was the answer then we would all be under it. Pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing simple...

 

(Shrug) True, but on the other hand once you have bought and paid for a Chief Justice or justices (or have damning blackmail material) then that's all she wrote in regard to the fable of integrity. Either via money or blackmail he's now essentially owned by Barack Obama and company. He works for them and is no longer a guardian of the Constitution nor of the laws of the land. On the other hand it will be grotesquely ironic when leftists inevitably begin yowling about rightwing control of the Supreme Court . . . as they will eventually begin doing again farther down the line.

To clarify, I figure that effectively the Left's leadership does have something on Roberts and maybe some of the other conservative justices; something that they use every once in a while when a ruling is utterly vital to the future of their political agenda; but when the issue is merely important as opposed to vital they have the political wisdom to back off and allow their suborned conservative justices to exercise the illusion of judicial freedom and even -- gasp! -- rule against one of their lesser schemes and assaults against the Constitution. It's a fascinating process to watch over the course of time.

 

Instead the rate increases will be hitting just around the next election.

 

if insurers do that, they we need to offer a public option..... this is the insurers last chance

.

 

I personally don't think he was bought and paid for by anybody but he is another stealth liberal judge appointed by a semi-conservative President. Coulter was right about Roberts after all.

 

Perhaps he didn't want to take insurance away from millions of Americans. Just sayin.