- @
- Followers:
No Tweets Found
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
Tuesday's live events
The race to the presidency now turns toward the general election in November. CNN.com Live is your home for all the latest news and views from the campaign trail.
Today's programming highlights...
9:30 am ET - Women's health care briefing - Senate Democrats join Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to discuss new women's health care coverage that will take effect tomorrow.
Tuesday's live events
The race to the presidency now turns toward the general election in November. CNN.com Live is your home for all the latest news and views from the campaign trail.
Today's programming highlights...
10:00 am ET - Health care reform impact hearing - With the House scheduled to vote tomorrow on whether to repeal President Obama's health care reform law, lawmakers will be busy debating the matter today. This hearing will focus on how the law has impacted doctors and patients.
Some prominent supporters blast Romney for mixed messages on health care 'tax'
Some prominent Mitt Romney supporters are saying the presidential hopeful's campaign should stop sending mixed messages about the Supreme Court's health care ruling.
Romney and his staffers have been going back and forth on whether to call it a tax as an attack on President Obama or not a tax, to preserve the argument that Romney never raised taxes in his state despite having a similar health care law.
Head spinning a bit? We'll backtrack.
On Wednesday, Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, said the federal health care reform mandate constitutes a "tax," contradicting the way his senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, of the Etch-a-Sketch gaffe fame, characterized his position earlier this week. But the similar individual mandate and fee he signed into law when governor of Massachusetts is not a tax, he said in a separate interview, citing the Supreme Court's decision last Thursday.
In March, Fehrnstrom made headlines for saying in a CNN interview that the transition from the primaries to the general election was "almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."
Some people are calling the tax chatter another Romney flip-flop. Others are calling it the Etch-a-Sketch redux. Others, like editor of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel, are saying this incident makes the previous gaffe look like solid campaign strategy.
Romney now says health mandate is a tax. Making that Etch a Sketch look downright steady,stable and full of integrity.
—
Katrina vandenHeuvel (@KatrinaNation) July 05, 2012And now, plenty of people, including his supporters, are hitting Romney on the issue and letting him know that either he needs to get himself aligned with his staff on these issues, or scrap some of the staff and get a new game plan as they charge into the general election.
Media baron Rupert Murdoch, never shy on his views, tweeted that while he supports the former Massachusetts governor he believes Romney needs to shake up his staff to have a chance to beat Obama's seasoned campaign staff.
Met Romney last week. Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros. Doubtful.
—
Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) July 01, 2012And apparently, that tweet upset the Romney campaign, which prompted Murdoch to follow up with a tweet on Monday. He said he wants Romney to win, but instead of the campaign upset about the criticism they should heed some of the good advice Murdoch feels Romney is getting about trying to get his campaign in order.
Romney people upset at me! Of course I want him to win, save us from socialism, etc but should listen to good advice and get stuck in!
—
Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) July 02, 2012
Overheard on CNN.com: Health care law a 'necessary evil'
On June 28, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in a 5-4 ruling. In the hours after, CNN’s audience was incredibly active in expressing their opinions on the decision.
Some CNN commenters and iReport contributors had personal stories to share:
roaringwoman
As a cancer survivor… my life would have been over without health insurance. It's a necessary evil, but without it, hospitals would be closing their doors, and people would be dying. And don't blame Obama or any other political force because the insurance monster has been around for a long, long, time ruling patients, doctors and hospitals.
Amelia
If you own a vehicle you are required to have it insured. If you don't you pay fines...I don't see the big deal, if they make it affordable I would jump at the chance to insure my family. I work for an attorney, and since it is a small firm, he does not offer insurance.
Natfka
I have 62 employees currently, and since I will be mandated to provide healthcare, I have two options now: Cut deeply into the pockets of the company, myself and its employees, or cut my staffing down to 49 people so as to not hit that 50 person benchmark for mandatory coverage. So 13 people are gone, or 62 (plus myself) take cuts in vacation and or pay raises. I have not made the decision yet, but I won't let my company and all of its employees take such a big hit.
iReport assignment: Your reaction to health care ruling
darb123
As a person with a pre-existing condition that was hereditary, I am glad. Maybe [now] I can purchase insurance. No insurance company will insure me. I have to use my state Medicare-type program. I don't mind paying at all. I still pay for my own prescriptions to the tune of $200 a month. I had no choice a few months back when I had gotten extremely ill and had to go to a regular local hospital. I stayed overnight and the cost was $6,000. Not an Obama fan either!
Many readers pointed out the potential benefits of the law’s implementation:
c_apples
Most of you that have a problem with health care reform have no issues paying your Social Security and Medicare taxes on your paycheck. In fact, I'm sure the majority is counting down the days until they can take advantage of the Social Security and Medicare they have paid into. How is this health care as a tax any different?
flannelgal
People against this law have chosen to limit where they get their information about this law. Currently, when a person who has no insurance requires emergency care, tax payers pay for it, and the [federal] debt mounts. Now, all least the coffers will be replenished by all people, and all people get health care, preventative health care to boot. Thank you, President Obama, and everyone who worked hard to make this happen for all Americans.
Leeford68
I don’t like being forced to pay for wars I don’t want.
I don’t like being forced to pay for roads I don’t drive on.
I don’t like being forced to pay for schools when I don’t have kids....
But I accept the fact that I have to pay for all of these things that create a better community for all of us to live in.
Obama: Supreme Court ruling on health care a victory for all Americans
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare 5-4
Editor's note: We're live blogging from the Supreme Court today as the nation waits to see how the justices will rule on the health care law. You can follow along below as CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears and Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin get the latest details live from the court as well as analysis when the opinion is delivered. Watch live coverage and analysis on CNN TV, CNN’s mobile apps and http://cnn.com/live.
[Updated at 12:23 p.m. ET] President Obama touted the benefits of the law he championed as he reacted to the Supreme Court's ruling.
"By this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administration and CEO bonuses and not enough on your healthcare,” Obama said.
Other benefits include lower drug costs for seniors as well as denying insurers the option to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It also provides free preventative care in certain cases and issues credits to those who can’t afford their health insurance premiums.
Each state will decide its “own menu of options” and they're welcome to come up with ways to cover more people and improve costs, Obama said.
The president said he respects concerns about the bill and he understands that people are worried that it was politically driven, but he said it should be clear by now he didn’t push for the act because it was “good politics."
“I did it because I believed it was good for the American people,” he said.
[twitter https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/218378521335181312%5D
[Updated at 12:16 p.m. ET] President Barack Obama on Thursday called the Supreme Court's decision upholding his signature health care law "a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law."
"They’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle, that here in America, the wealthiest nation on Earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin,” Obama said.
Happening now: The President is speaking on today's #SCOTUS ruling on #Obamacare. Don't miss it. wh.gov/live
—
The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) June 28, 2012Opinion: Health care victory, but still a long way to go
[Updated at 12:12 p.m. ET] Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minnesota, responded to the ruling by saying, "This is a turning point in American history. We will never be the same again with this denial of liberty interests. But also it is a black cloud pragmatically speaking on economic recovery. There will be no hope of economic recovery between now and the election. We have exhausted now our legal solutions to be able to rid the nation of Obamacare. Now, we have to look for a political solution."
[Updated at 11:57 a.m. ET] GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney is speaking now regarding health care.
“I will act to repeal Obamacare” if elected president, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”
He wet on to cite the economic impact of the healthcare law. It raises taxes and cuts Medicare by hundreds of millions of dollars, while adding trillions to the national debt. It “pushes those obligations onto coming generations.”
Romney said that in light of the Supreme Court decision, Americans must decide if they want more government and more deficits and if they want to lose their preferred insurance or if they want to “return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in healthcare.”
“This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we have to replace President Obama,” he said.
[Updated at 11:55 a.m. ET] Vicki Kennedy, the wife of late Sen. Edward Kennedy released the following statement regarding the health care ruling.
"I applaud the decision by the United States Supreme Court this morning, upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. We still have much work to do to implement the law, and I hope we can all come together now to complete that
work. The stakes are too high for us to do otherwise.As my late husband Senator Edward Kennedy said: 'What we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.'"
[Updated at 11:49 a.m. ET] The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said it is for comprehensive healthcare reform, especially for the poor, but it opposes the Supreme Court decision for three reasons.
"First, ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy. The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of “high risk” insurance pools that would have covered abortion.
Second, the Act fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context. We have provided extensive analyses of ACA’s defects with respect to both abortion and conscience. The lack of statutory conscience protections applicable to ACA’s new mandates has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by HHS’s “preventive services” mandate, which forces religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs.
Third, ACA fails to treat immigrant workers and their families fairly. ACA leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money. This undermines the Act’s stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need."
[Updated at 11:37 a.m. ET] Lots of reaction from the political world on this decision, which was seen as an issue that could sway the upcoming election.
But just as much as this is a political issue, the real impact is on everyday Americans.
Here's a look at how some of those people reacted to the decision.
Thursday's live events
The Supreme Court is expected to rule today on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, watch CNN.com Live for reaction and fallout to the decision.
Today's programming highlights...
9:00 am ET - Anti-health care law rally - The Supreme Court will be the place to be today because of the health care ruling. Before the ruling is announced, conservative groups opposed to the Affordable Care Act will stage rally outside the Court.
10:00 am ET (est.) - Health care ruling revealed
Wednesday's live events
The Supreme Court is expected to rule Thursday on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, watch CNN.com Live for reaction and fallout to the decision.
Today's programming highlights...
Continuing coverage - Tropical Depression Debby
9:45 am ET - Waldo Canyon wildfire briefing - The wildfire has forced more than 32,000 people in Colorado out of their homes, are firefighters are struggling to contain it. Officials update the public on the status of the fire.
Analysis: Five things we learned from Supreme Court's immigration ruling
The Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. on Arizona's immigration law, but it upheld the most controversial provision involving police checks on people's immigration status.
So what did we learn and what can we glean from their decision? Bill Mears, CNN's Supreme Court producer, breaks down the decision piece by piece:
1. Others states better tread carefully
By striking down three of the four major provisions and upholding the idea of federal authority on this issue in pretty sweeping comments, the Supreme Court has signaled other states with similar laws that they better tread carefully or make sure their laws do not to reach too far.
In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, his main point was that the national government has significant power to regulate immigration issues. And so that lets states know that while they have some place to play in the issue, the federal government still reigns supreme.
While the court didn’t tell Arizona and other states what they could and couldn’t do when they conduct a traffic stop - for example how long police can hold someone, whether the law would amount to racial profiling - this opinion is essentially guidance moving forward. Their opinion was certainly not a complete smackdown of Arizona's law. Instead, it left some things pretty ambiguous.
2. The one provision upheld could be challenged again
The provision that was upheld by all eight ruling justices - commonly called the "show me your papers" provision - allows local law enforcement, when performing other state law enforcement functions, to check on the immigration status of those people they stop for another reason. That part was upheld because the justices said it was complementing existing federal policy. That's as long as police weren’t singling people out specifically for racial reasons. The court essentially said that if police stop someone properly, or are involved in a domestic dispute, it was perfectly proper to at least check an immigration status and then consult with federal officials.
But in upholding that provision, the court was very careful to say that depending on how this is implemented, it could very well be overturned one day. The overall lawsuit brought against the law is a facial challenge, which means it was being opposed and believed to be unconstitutional before it went into effect. What the court is saying when it comes to the "show me your papers provision" is that the justices are going to uphold it for now, allow Arizona to implement it and depending on how they enforce it, deal with it later.
If in the future a challenge is brought claiming that people are being detained for an extended time or racial profiling is occurring, it could be challenged in the state and federal courts again, now that it can actually be implemented as a law. The justices have essentially said they will give Arizona the benefit of the doubt that they will enforce this in a way that meets a constitutional muster test.
It’s a signal to other states that if they are going to have similar provisions, they too have to be careful.
Live blog: Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, upholds one part
Editor's note: We're live blogging from the Supreme Court today as the nation waits to see whether the justices will hand down rulings on the controversial health care and immigration laws. You can follow along below as CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears and Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin get the latest details live from the court as well as analysis when, and if, the major rulings come on Monday. Watch live coverage and analysis now on CNN TV, CNN’s mobile apps and http://cnn.com/live.
[Updated at 1:18 p.m. ET] Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement reacting to the Court's ruling:
“I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today’s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration.
While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community.
We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans.”
[Updated at 12:31 p.m. ET] President Barack Obama has weighed in on the court decision, praising that some parts were struck down, but adding that he was concerned about the provision that remained. His statement is in full below:
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it."
[Updated at 12:08 p.m. ET] In regard to similar laws that have been enacted in other states, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin predicts “legal trench warfare on all these laws.”
The “mixed nature of the verdict” makes it impossible to say if these laws or constitutional or unconstitutional, so judges in the future will have to go through each law provision by provision to determine constitutionality.
The ruling guarantees American will see more cases out of other states in the future,” Toobin said.
Monday's live events
The Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, watch CNN.com Live for the reaction and fallout.
Today's programming highlights...
Continuing coverage: Tropical Storm Debby tracker
10:00 am ET - Postal workers announce hunger strike - The struggling U.S. Postal Service is facing big cuts in service and personnel power, but some employees are not giving up without a fight. They will announce a hunger strike in an effort to save the USPS.
Thursday's live events
The Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, CNN.com Live will be there for all the reaction and fallout.
Today's programming highlights...
10:00 am ET - Aung San Suu Kyi addresses UK Parliament - Myanmar pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi continues her trip to Britain by speaking before both houses of Parliament.
Wednesday's live events
The Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, CNN.com Live will be there for all the reaction and fallout.
Today's programming highlights...
9:30 am ET - IPO process hearing - The Facebook IPO fallout has made some wonder whether initial public offerings are worth it for ordinary investors. A Senate banking subcommittee looks at the issue.
Justice Department faces deadline from Texas judges
The Justice Department has until 1 p.m. ET Thursday to answer fundamental constitutional questions dealing with the health care law championed by President Barack Obama in an escalating political battle that has embroiled all three branches of government.
Administration officials said Wednesday they were deciding how to respond to an order from a three-judge appeals panel that is hearing a challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
Department lawyers were told by the judges to explain whether federal courts could intervene and strike down congressional laws as unconstitutional. Such a power has been guaranteed since the Supreme Court's landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
The appellate panel's order came after one of the three judges appeared to be deeply concerned by the president's comments this week, in which Obama challenged the Supreme Court not to take what he called an "unprecedented" step of overturning the health care law.
The White House tried to defuse the ideological firestorm Wednesday, saying the president's words were misunderstood.
The three judges are Republican appointees from the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, meeting in Houston. They were hearing a challenge to the health care law from physician-owned hospitals, despite the fact the Supreme Court is deciding constitutional questions in separate cases.
The high court's rulings expected in June would take precedence over any other courts hearing similar appeals.
FULL STORYWednesday's live events
The race to the Republican presidential nomination remains up in the air. Watch CNN.com Live for all the latest news and views from the campaign trail.
Today's programming highlights...
8:30 am ET - Pro-Affordable Care Act briefing - The Supreme Court holds a third day of hearings on the legality of the Affordable Care Act. The hearings are not televised, but there's plenty of action outside the courthouse. Supporters of the law brief reporters this morning, then rally at 10:00 am ET. Senate Democrats discuss the law at 12:00 pm ET, followed by their Republican colleagues at 2:00 pm ET.
10:30 am ET - Santorum talks health care - GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum campaigns in Wisconsin today, starting with a discussion on health care in Sparta. He then goes bowling with College Republicans in La Crosse at 12:45 pm ET, followed by a restaurant rally in Onalaska at 2:00 pm ET.
11:00 am ET - Senators talk Syria resolution - Sen. John McCain and others unveil a resolution condemning the Syria's government for crimes against humanity.
12:45 pm ET - Biden talks economy - It's not just Republicans on the campaign trail today, as Vice President Biden heads to Davenport, Iowa, to discuss the U.S. economy.
5:00 pm ET - Gingrich discusses Social Security - He may be laying off staff and charging for photos, but GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich isn't giving up on his presidential aspirations. He'll talk the future of Social Security at an event in Washington.
CNN.com Live is your home for breaking news as it happens.
Overheard on CNN.com: Readers go back and forth as Supreme Court mulls health care law
Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
As the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments about President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, our readers are making some arguments of their own. Some are even protesting. Comment below and share your thoughts and ideas about health care.
Supreme Court divided over health care mandate
We've been hearing from several readers, including a bunch of iReporters, about this measure.
"We need universal health care," says Matt Sky of New York. He suggests the insurance companies have a conflict of interest when treating people. Jannet Walsh of Murdock, Minnesota, says she likes the law in theory but is unsure that people will be able to pay for it. Houston, Texas, resident Vera Richardson says we're already required to purchase auto insurance, so why not health insurance?
Some, like Mark Ivy of Farmersburg, Indiana, suggested leaving health care programs to the states.
k3vsDad: "I say no to this being a federal mandate. To me this is a violation of the 10th Amendment. This is an issue that should remain with the states. The states have a much better handle developing health care programs tailored to their citizens. One size does not fit all. Every time the federal government overreaches, it is never better, but worse. Give health care back to the states."
Egberto Willies of Kingwood, Texas, says he believes Obama's plan was a compromise, and he might even like to see it go further. FULL POST
Tuesday's live video events
The race to the Republican presidential nomination remains up in the air. Watch CNN.com Live for all the latest news and views from the campaign trail.
Toda's programming highlights...
8:30 am ET - Pro-Affordable Care Act briefing - The Supreme Court holds another day of hearings on the legality of the Affordable Care Act and, once again, there are no TV cameras inside the courtroom. But there will be plenty of action outside the courthouse, with supporters of the law briefing reporters. The Tea Party Patriots will hold an anti-Act briefing at 10:15 am ET, while Act opponents hold a "Hands Off My Health Care" rally at 1:00 pm ET.
Monday's live events
The race to the Republican presidential nomination remains up in the air. Watch CNN.com Live for all the latest news and views from the campaign trail.
Today's programming highlights...
8:30 am ET - Affordable Care Act supporters briefing - The Supreme Court hears arguments today on the legality of President Obama's health care reform plan. And while TV cameras are barred inside the high court, there will be plenty of action outside, with supporters holding a briefing, followed by a rally at 10:00 am ET.
12:40 pm ET - Romney in California - It's a somewhat quiet day on the campaign trail, as GOP hopeful Mitt Romney holds an event in San Diego. Rival Rick Santorum is expected to be outside the Supreme Court to express his opposition toward the Affordable Care Act.
1:30 pm ET - TSA screening hearing - With plenty of negative press abound regarding questionable TSA screening incidents, many may be wondering if the TSA is doing its job. Two House committees will discuss the issue this afternoon.
2:00 pm ET - GOP lawmakers discuss Affordable Care Act - Members of the Republican Policy Committee will hold a briefing on the Supreme Court's consideration of the Affordable Care Act's legality.
CNN.com Live is your home for breaking news as it happens.
Overheard on CNN.com: Broke doctors, rich doctors? Behind the stethoscope
Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
We've seen quite a bit of reaction to a CNNMoney story on doctors going broke due to reasons including insurance changes, the economy and business acumen. Commenters claiming to be doctors and medical staffers (and their family, too) wrote in to share why people should appreciate their circumstances. Many consumers also responded with their own thoughts.
The following comments were selected to show perspectives from beyond the sea-foam-green curtain.
Higher costs, sicker patients
One commenter cited many external factors that are creating financial stress for doctors. FULL POST
Supreme Court agrees to hear health care law appeal; so what could ruling mean?
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Obama.
Oral arguments would probably be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become the topic of a hot-button political debate in a presidential election year.
The announcement, made in a brief, was expected as several legal challenges have worked their way through the appeals process.
So now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, what does it mean? And what could the political and legal implications be?
One of the key issues to be considered by the high court's nine justices is whether the "individual mandate" section of the law - requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties - is an improper exercise of federal authority. Various states have argued that if that linchpin provision is found unconstitutional, the entire law will have to be scrapped.
CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that while the challenge is a fairly straightforward legal question, the implications, especially the political ones, are huge.
"The federal government has to abide by the Constitution," Toobin said. "And the Constitution says that the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce."
Under that umbrella fall Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - some of the issues at the heart of Obama's health care plan, he said.
"The Obama administration says his health care plan is simply a reflection of the way the federal government has been involved in health care for many, many years," Toobin explained.
But many states that have filed the challenges say that Obama's plan is too far-reaching.
Supreme Court takes up challenge to health care reform law
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Barack Obama's sweeping health care reform law, the court announced Monday.
Oral arguments will likely be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June.
A key issue to be considered by the high court's nine justices is whether the "individual mandate" section of the law - requiring nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial penalties - is an improper exercise of federal authority. Various states have argued that if that linchpin provision is found unconstitutional, the entire law will have to be scrapped.
FULL STORY
Recent Comments