SCOTUS and Obamacare

So many mixed feelings:

I'm thrilled and relieved that the Supreme Court found the Affordable Care Act constitutional.

I'm very surprised and taken aback that Roberts voted with the "liberal" judges. (And I'm suspicious about his reason.)

I'm very concerned that reframing the penalty as a tax gives the Republicans ammunition for the fall election.

* * * * * * * *
Some of my favorite comments from FB:

"Brace yourselves - everyone on Facebook is about to become a constitutional scholar."




This comment on a friend's page is almost exactly what I think~

the free market has had over 100 years to get it right. the care that we receive is far too expensive. the u.s. has by far the highest cost per capita for health care in the entire world. and for those dollars our level of health care quality is very far from the highest. do you want to know what most of the countries that have the lowest cost, highest quality health care have in common? you guessed it: nationalization. so explain to me how nationalization is a bad thing. my body doesn't understand the difference between free-market and nationalized health care. it all feels the same to me. the free market has had its chance and i don't think it works for health care. actually the more i think about it, having a corporate profit motive on my health is starting to disturb me more and more.

And this, which I've said several times on this blog~


"The remarkable thing about the heated debates about the law is just how modest these reforms really are . . . there is no 'government takeover' underway. Some lower-middle-class families are going to get some subsidies to buy insurance, maybe ten million or so more poor people will be eligible for Medicaid. Insurers will get some new regulations that are popular even among Republicans."