Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[American Patriot]

Just CANCEL the DAMNED THING!

[Backstop]

Oh goodie, some more good news.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

NOVEMBER 8, 2011, 4:06 P.M. ET

Court Rules Health Law Is Constitutional

By BRENT KENDALL

A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Tuesday that a key piece of the health-care overhaul is constitutional, handing the Obama administration another legal victory ahead of the Supreme Court's likely consideration of the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Congress, acting under its power to regulate interstate commerce, had the authority to require individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty.

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins," Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the court.

The 2-1 ruling marked the second time a Republican appointee has voted to uphold the law. Judge Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Carter, joined Judge Silberman's ruling.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dissented from the court's decision, but he offered no opinion on the merits of the law. Instead, he said that lawsuits challenging the insurance requirement are premature because the mandated penalties amounted to a type of tax that can only be challenged after it is collected, rather than before. The penalties don't begin until 2014.

A U.S. appeals court in Virginia adopted similar reasoning in September when it ruled that such lawsuits can't proceed until individuals start paying penalties.

The D.C. Circuit is the third U.S. appeals court to rule for the Obama administration. A fourth, the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, ruled the law's insurance mandate is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is expected to ultimately decide the matter, and the justices may indicate within days whether they will consider the health-care law during their current term. The court is scheduled to discuss several challenges to the health-care overhaul during its private conference on Thursday.

If the justices decide during their Thursday meeting to hear one or more health-care cases, they could make the announcement that day or, more likely, disclose the decision in a written list of orders that is scheduled for release on Nov. 14. However, there is no guaranteed date for the court to announce its plans.

If the court agrees to consider the health law, oral arguments will likely be scheduled for the spring of 2012, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Tuesday's appeals-court ruling is notable because the D.C. Circuit's decisions traditionally get particularly close attention from the Supreme Court, in part because four of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, previously sat in that circuit.

Mr. Silberman, the author of Tuesday's ruling, is a well-respected conservative judge who has served on the court since 1985. Another Republican judicial appointee, Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Cincinnati-based Sixth Circuit, provided a pivotal vote when that court upheld the health-care law in June. Mr. Sutton wrote a concurring opinion upholding the insurance mandate as a reasonable way for Congress to exercise its authority over the insurance and health-care markets.

[American Patriot]

"The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems, no matter how local—or seemingly passive—their individual origins," Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Reagan, wrote for the court.

Dear District Court....

You are about to experience "Contempt of Court".

Fuck You.

Rick Donaldson

[Backstop]

Looks the USSC will rule in June 2012 on this.

My bet: they'll find it Constitutional.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...alth-care-law/

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.

The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance.

The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care.

The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.

The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.

Some argue that a defeat for Obama would be as beneficial as a victory since it would take away an economic and philosophical argument that Republicans have used to bash the law that will impact roughly 18 percent of the nation's annual gross domestic product. Others say nothing good could come for Obama if his premier legislative victory is declared unconstitutional.

If the mandate is wiped off the map but the law itself isn't, the president would be able to promote aspects that most Americans say they accept, including leaving 26 year olds on their parents insurance and not allowing insurers to reject clients with pre-existing conditions.

"Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 1 million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.

The 11th Circuit Court, where the case comes from, has ruled in favor of the opponents. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, said the high court brings the challenge one step closer to elimination.

"Given the substantial implementation costs associated with this 2,700-page law--and the unconstitutional mandate that it will impose on all Americans -- we are pleased that the Supreme Court has moved quickly and agreed to hear this very important case," he said.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate who has made repeal and replacement of the law the first plank of his economic plan, tweeted that he is "pleased" the court has agreed to hear the case.

[American Patriot]

Not so sure about that.

So far the only courts that have been finding it Constitutional have been LIBERAL judges.

[Backstop]

True true.

I'm thinking this is a turning point - at least for me.

If it's held to be Constitutional, my life will change I guess, as I refuse to participate.

Nobody is gonna tell me I have to buy something, or risk legal ramifications.

One thing a lot of folks miss is this is different than auto insurance.

I don't buy auto insurance, I can't legally drive.

Here it's buy health care insurance or you're in legal trouble.

Nope...they stepped over the line.

[American Patriot]

There's a difference in car insurance and health insurance. To a degree anyway.

Since driving is a "privilege" they are FORCING you to buy it.

Since they are attempting to make "health" a RIGHT, they shouldn't be able to do shit about it, one way or the other.

[Backstop]

They're confident - that worries me.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...ealth-care-law

Obama Administration Eager for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Health Care Law
by Kelly Chernenkoff | November 14, 2011

The Obama White House is confident its sweeping, controversial health care law will pass the highest legal test in the United States, officials said Monday.

"We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement after the Supreme Court announced it would consider challenges to President Obama's ‘Affordable Care Act.'

The White House, Congressional leaders and the ACA's opponents have engaged in political and legal battles over the law from the outset of its passage.

One of the main sticking points has been the individual coverage mandate, which states that every American must have health insurance. Ohio voters recently rejected the idea, passing a ballot measure by a vote of 66% to 34%, which amends the state's Constitution to bar laws requiring a person to purchase health insurance.

Monday, administration officials cited a CNN poll showing Americans are coming around on the idea of a mandate.

"According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June," White House Spokesman Nick Papas, said. "The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54%in early summer."

The president and his staff have repeatedly expressed confidence that the law will pass the necessary legal tests, allowing it to be fully implemented. There have been many challenges, with mixed results.

The administration is now looking to the Supreme Court for the final word.

"Earlier this year, the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to consider legal challenges to the health reform law and we are pleased the Court has agreed to hear this case," Pfeiffer said. "Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses."

[American Patriot]

They have Kagan or whatever her name is

[Backstop]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/19/justic...nts/index.html

Dates set for Supreme Court health care reform arguments
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer

updated 12:39 PM EST, Mon December 19, 2011

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Applicability of Anti-Injunction Act will be first question before justices, on March 26

Provision requiring Americans to have health insurance will be the key argument

Lawyers will argue whether rulings on mandate's constitutionality affect entire law

States challenging law are saying it coerces them to expand Medicaid

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has carved out a week in late March to hold oral arguments in perhaps its biggest case in a decade -- the sweeping healthcare reform law championed by President Obama.

The court announced Monday it will hear 5½ hours of arguments spread over three days March 26-28.

SNIP

[vector7]

Companion Thread:

• Kagan Nomination

Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena Kagan health care role



Freedom Watch had asked for permission to file a brief on Kagan's

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 1/23/12 10:50 AM EST

The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request for debate over whether Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the health care reform case due to be argued in March.

Freedom Watch, a group led by Larry Klayman, asked the court for permission to file a brief on Kagan's participation in the case. The court on Monday denied the request without comment, though it did note that Kagan did not participate in the discussion.

Both Kagan and Justice Clarence Thomas have faced calls for their recusals from the case. Opponents of the law argue Kagan should not participate because she was solicitor general during the passage of the law.
The law's supporters want Thomas off the case because his wife is actively trying to repeal the law.

But in December, Chief Justice John Roberts asked both sides to stop their demands.

“I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” Roberts wrote in his year-end report. “They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process.”

[vector7]

Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’

By Fred Lucas
January 23, 2012
Subscribe to Fred Lucas's posts



(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama says the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter. In his written statement, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been a divisive political issue.

Obama, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature and as president of the United States, has taken a hard line on abortion rights.

In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.

“As we mark the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.

“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue -- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption,” Obama said.

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The 2003 bill was assigned to the Illinois Senate Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired at the time. It mirrored a law passed by Congress, which said nothing in federal law should be construed to undermine the Roe v. Wade ruling.

As president, Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which would appropriate federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.

On Friday, the Obama administration finalized regulations that order Americans – unless they work directly at a church – to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

Planned Parenthood also marked the anniversary of the Supreme Court's abortion ruling by setting up a Web site "to show the world exactly what Roe has meant in the past and still means today."

The "Since Roe" Web site invites women to add their own comments about "how Roe v. Wade has made a difference in your life."

[vector7]

Obama: I Pushed Dodd-Frank And Health Care Reform Because Of Christ

At National Prayer Breakfast, Obama grounds his controversial policies in the Bible.

Tax hikes for rich “[coincide] with Jesus's teaching.” posted Feb 2, 2012 10:06am EST

Zeke Miller

Source: cache.daylife.com

President Barack Obama has been taking lumps from Republicans for years over his support for Wall Street and health care reform, but today at the National Prayer Breakfast he claimed support from on high to defend two of his most controversial legislative achievements.

"And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody. But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'"

"I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs — from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato," Obama added.

The president said he often falls to his knees in prayer, and emphasized the role of his religious values in determining where to lead the country.

"I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends. So instead, I must try — imperfectly, but I must try — to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation."

Obama maintained that his call for the wealthiest to give up their tax breaks, he's doing so out of economic necessity, but also in line with biblical teachings.

"And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,'" Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing.

Obama also defended foreign aid from assault, noting that it not just enhances the nation's security — but fulfills the biblical requirement to look out for those who cannot speak for themselves.

"And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to 'Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.'"

[Ryan Ruck]

CBO: Obamacare To Cost $1.76 Trillion Over 10 Years

March 13, 2012

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

UPDATE: I've done another post with additional details from the CBO report.

[vector7]

Companion Threads:

• Obama wishes America was run like China
• Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?
• MSM openly turns programming over to Obama
• Obama Making Plans to Use Executive Power
• Obama Cryptically Warns He’ll Present “Very Difficult Choices to the Country”
• Obama trying to destroy America's essence

Obama administration diverts $500M to IRS to implement healthcare reform law

By Sam Baker - 04/09/12 05:15 AM ET

The Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding to implement the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides whether to strike it down. That ruling is expected by June, and oral arguments last week indicated the justices might well overturn at least the individual mandate, if not the whole law.“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare and is in a closely contested Senate race this year.

The Obama administration has plowed ahead despite the legal and political challenges.

It has moved aggressively to get important policies in place. And, according to a review of budget documents and figures provided by congressional staff, the administration is also burning through implementation funding provided in the healthcare law.

The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers are perfectly legal and consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past. The $1 billion fund was set aside for “federal” implementation activities, the GAO said, and can therefore be used by any agency — not just HHS, where the money is housed.

Still, significant transfers to the IRS and other agencies leave less money for HHS, and the department needs to draw on the $1 billion fund for some of its biggest tasks.

The healthcare law directs HHS to set up a federal insurance exchange — a new marketplace for individuals and small businesses to buy coverage — in any state that doesn’t establish its own. But it didn’t provide any money for the federal exchange, forcing HHS to cobble together funding by using some of the $1 billion fund and steering money away from other accounts.

The transfers also allow the IRS to make the healthcare law a smaller part of its public budget figures. For example, the tax agency requested $8 million next year to implement the individual mandate, and said the money would not pay for any new employees.

An IRS spokeswoman would not say how much money has been spent so far implementing the individual mandate.

Republicans charged during the legislative debate over healthcare that the IRS would be hiring hundreds of new agents to enforce the mandate and throwing people in jail because they don’t have insurance.

However, the mandate is just one part of the IRS’s responsibilities.

The healthcare law includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect. The tax agency wants to hire more than 300 new employees next year to cover those tax changes, such as the new fees on drug companies and insurance policies.

The IRS will also administer the most expensive piece of the new law — subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are structured as tax credits. The agency asked Congress to fund another 537 new employees dedicated to administering the new subsidies.

The Republican-led House last year passed an amendment, 246-182, sponsored by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) that would have prevented the IRS from hiring new personnel or initiating any other measures to mandate that people purchase health insurance. The measure, strongly opposed by the Obama administration, was subsequently dropped from a larger bill that averted a government shutdown.

[Ryan Ruck]

Massive $17 Trillion Hole Found In Obamacare

March 30, 2012

Two years ago, when introducing then promptly enacting Obamacare, the president stated that healthcare law reform would not cost a penny over $1 trillion ($900 billion to be precise), and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt. It appears that this estimate may have been slightly optimistic… by a factor of 1700%. Because coincident with the recent Supreme Court debacle, in which a constitutional law president may be about to find that his magnum opus law is, in fact, unconstitutional, someone actually read the whole thing cover to cover, instead of merely relying on the CBO’s, pardon Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs’, funding estimates. That someone is Republican Jeff Sessions who after actually running the numbers has uncovered that the true long-term funding gap is a mind-boggling $17 trillion, just a tad more than the original sub $1 trillion forecast. This latest revelation means that total underfunded US welfare liabilities: Medicare, Medicaid and social security now amount to $99 trillion! Add to this total US debt which in 2 months will be $16 trillion, and one can see why Japan, which is about to breach 1 quadrillion in total debt (yen, but who's counting), may want to start looking in the rearview mirror for up and comer competitors. And while Obama may have been taking creative license with a number that is greater than total US GDP, he was most certainly correct when saying that Obamacare would not add a penny to US debt. Because the second the US government comes to market to fund a true total debt/GDP ratio of 750%, it is game over, and the Fed will have its hands full selling Treasury puts every waking nanosecond to have any time left for the daily 3pm stock market ramp.

What is it that brought about this discovery of some inverse cash under the rug? The Daily Caller explains.

The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.

The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leaves taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.

Regular readers are well aware that when it comes to US insolvency, the underfunded American welfare state, whose obligations now amount to $100 trillion!, is the primary cause of this country's ultimate downfall. This latest revelation only makes it that much more certain, and likely, faster.

Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.

The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.

The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.

Of course, that this "discovery" happened two years after the law was originally proposed and enacted merely once again confirms that other banana republics have nothing on the US, and that America continues to live in a state of sheer chaos when it comes to understanding that every use of funds must ultimately have a source as well.

Jeff Sessions' full presentation.


As a reminder this is what One trillion looks like.

[American Patriot]

mind-boggling $17 trillion, just a tad more than the original sub $1 trillion forecast.

What's the problem then? It's only a "tad".....

[Ryan Ruck]

Large Swathe of Physicians Shun Medicaid, Medicare Patients

May 25, 2012

Medscape Link

Thirty-six percent of physicians are not accepting new Medicaid patients, and 26% see no Medicaid patients at all, according to a new survey from a staffing company called Jackson Healthcare.

The firm's online survey of 2232 physicians in April found that dermatologists are the least likely (34%) among all specialists to accept new Medicaid patients, followed by endocrinologists and plastic surgeons (36% each), general internists (42%), and physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists (43%). The specialists most willing to make an appointment for a new Medicaid patient are pediatric subspecialists (95%), pathologists (90%), radiologists (86%), anesthesiologists (83%), and general surgeons (81%).

The numbers also reveal a lesser degree of physician disenchantment regarding Medicare. Seventeen percent of physicians said they are not accepting new Medicare patients, and 10% said they have closed their practice to Medicare entirely.

The specialists least inclined to see new Medicare patients are adult psychiatrists (57%), plastic surgeons (68%), general internists (73%), family physicians (75%), and obstetricians-gynecologists (76%). In contrast, rates of accepting new Medicare patients top 90% among cardiologists, hematologists/oncologists, general surgeons, anesthesiologists, and neurologists.

Richard Jackson, chairman and chief executive officer of Jackson Healthcare, attributes the widespread closed-door policy regarding Medicaid and Medicare patients to paltry reimbursement.

"Physicians say they just can't afford to be a part of a system that generates so many patients for so little compensation," Jackson stated in a press release. He said that the unwillingness of physicians to treat Medicaid patients does not bode well for healthcare reform, which will extend Medicaid coverage to an additional 16 million people by 2019.

[Ryan Ruck]

BREAKING: Ruling coming down now.

Opinion written by John Roberts.

[Ryan Ruck]

FNC saying the Individual Mandate will stand not based on Commerce Clause but rather as a tax.