Roseville Reacts to Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of the "individual mandate," the centerpiece of the Affordable Health Care Act that President Obama signed into law last year.

Five of the nine justices agreed that the key to the act—the requirement that people either buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty—is a kind of tax, which Congress is allowed to impose using its taxing power, according to the Bloomberg News-operated SCOTUSblog.

Because that mandate survived, the Court did not need to decide which other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding.

On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.

Other details of the high court's ruling on what is often referred to as "Obamacare" are still being examined.

Once news broke that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Affordable Health Care Act, Roseville Patch sought local reaction from several people in the community.  Here is some of the feedback we got:

Sara Barsel, Roseville community activist who suffers from MS:

"I am encouraged that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act.  I have not had time to read either the judicial opinions or the SCOTUSblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/) . 

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed that Republicans in Congress are continuing  their vitriolic attack on this legislation. They have called for a July 9, 2012  vote in the House of Representatives to repeal this legislation.    

I am encouraged that Minnesota is moving ahead with implementation of a health insurance exchange. Details can be found in a well written article published this morning on MINNPOST: http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/06/minnesota-moving-ahead-health-insurance-exchange . 

For Minnesota, as we enter an election season, I hope that all voters will consider the importance of this legislation and the viability of the health insurance exchange, when considering whom to support for office."

Mark Fotsch, Roseville resident and Repubican candidate for House District 66A:

"The Court's decision is a slap in the face to all of us, because it criminalizes not buying ObamaCare. It has already forced companies small and large to stop offering their employees health insurance, because it is cheaper for them to pay the ObamaCare penalties instead.

Americans can fix this problem by doing one very simple thing: Vote for Republicans instead of Democrats, because (1) we want to repeal ObamaCare and the out-of-control spending it requires, (2) we will change the rules so that Americans can buy the amount of health insurance each person or family wants, and (3) to do so across state lines in free and open markets - the same way we already purchase auto insurance.

We deserve better than the bureaucrat-enforced, one-size-fits-all approach that runs counter to everything else in Minnesota and our nation."

Joel Karsten, a Roseville resident, business man and originator of straw bale gardening:

"I think a lot of people need health care coverage in the country and now they will be getting it. But I'm not sure this is the way to implement it."

Gary Grefenberg, founder of SouthWest Area of Roseville Monitor (SWARM) and head of the Roseville Human Rights Commission: 

"I was glad to see--and relieved--that the Court has now recognized that every citizen has a right to affordable health care and that everyone has a responsibility to carry insurance in order to secure that right.  And that our government has a legitimate role in assuring that right is a reality."

John M. Kysylyczyn, former Roseville mayor:

"I think for the first few days, the mainstream media is going to miss several key points in the ruling and fail to see the big picture on many of those points.  We see these headlines like Obama triumph, etc. and that is just sensational journalism that doesn’t get to the heart of the issue.
 
For example, I found it interesting that the individual mandate did not appear to survive under the commerce clause, but only under a general authority of taxation.  I think that is key.  I will be looking for analysis on this issue.  The message appears to be that there are limits to the federal government’s use of the commerce clause that may not have existed prior to this ruling.
 
Another issue is the tax that the court ruled in favor for those who choose not to carry health insurance.  The tax was noted in one article I read that said the amount was around $750 and would apply to people who would be considered middle to upper income.  The Court apparently believes that this is a reasonable amount for a tax.  I could see that viewpoint, because the government gives a $1000 per child tax credit, so a figure of $750 is not out of the ordinary.
 
I question whether this ruling severely limits the ability of Congress to substantially increase this tax for failure to have health insurance.  I’m waiting for further analysis on this.  If Congress were in the future to try to raise this tax to $5000 or $10,000 to use it as an additional funding method, it would probably be back before the Court. 

Take a look at the court’s decision on the Medicaid expansion.  They ruled that an elimination of all funding for failure to expand was unreasonable.  If the failure of an individual to purchase health insurance resulted in a tax that was unreasonable or maybe more than the actual cost of getting insurance, it could reasonably be struck down in the future.
 
It seems that the court was clear that financial penalties or taxes cannot be so unreasonable as to essentially coerce people or the states into doing certain things.  I will be interested to read further analysis on this issue.
 
Now I just have to wait for the media hype to die down before we get articles that have good factual analysis."

Mindy Greiling, a DFL state House legislator from Roseville that is retiring this year:

"I am thrilled for the people of Minnesota and for our son who has a mental health condition. I was wonderfully amazed they (the justices) upheld mandatory health insurance. But if we can do it (mandatory insurance) for cars, why not people?" 

Greiling also said she was pleased that children up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance policies. Greiling said she is convinced that overall health care costs should drop because the law encourages people to get health help before they develop serious medical problems and have to go urgent care clinics or emergency rooms.