President Obama spoke from the East Room this afternoon, briefly heralding the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, before spending some time explaining the benefits of the law that so many Americans don't understand.
The full transcript of the president's remarks is online, but I was struck by the way in which Obama characterized the near future in a campaign-style frame: do you want to go forward or backward?
"The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won't do -- what the country can't afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.
"With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.
"But today, I'm as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward."
Polls make it clear that the law isn't popular (though polls make it equally clear that the component parts of the law are popular), but the president seems to believe Americans wouldn't welcome yet another protracted debate over health care. The subtext of today's message seemed to be, "Remember how miserable we were, fighting for a year over health care? Republicans want to do all of that over again, and this time, the end game means fewer benefits for working families."
Incidentally, Obama spent a little time in his remarks talking about a woman named Natoma Canfield, whose letter the president framed and placed on his office wall. For those who aren't familiar with her story, here's some background on Natoma.
Leave a Comment:
AMEN Mr. President!
I'm so happy today, I'm giddy!
You shouldn't be happy. It fired up the Republican base. If anything this health care law is very complicated and very expensive to implement. By being called a tax is already problematic at that. Remember Mitt Romney could still repeal it if elected. I bet you Obama would have been so happy if it was struck down completely, that would have been his rallying cry for the Democratic base. Always think outside the box.
Cindy, Romney can not repeal the law. He will need a 60% majority in the United States Senate. Not going to happen. The law is here to stay. Perhaps some tweaking, but still here to stay.
Cindy,
Do you understand why John McCain LOST the election in 2008??? It is precisely because he did "fire up the base" and in doing that, lost everyone else. So yea, I hope this DOES "fire up the base" because it is the BEST thing Romney could do for Obama!!! The "base" may be loud but they really DON'T have the votes!!!
You think this is good? The minority imposing their will on everyone and forcing the purchase of a product? You think this is good now.....
Just wait till the Repubs get a hold of this law and impose their will on all of us with things the Dems don't want.
The giddyness is going to wear off really fast.
Real problems lie ahead in the new social anarchy called the United States.
Come on, "down here". As it is, we are "forced" to pay for seat belts in our car. We are "forced" to pay for all kinds of expensive emissions control equipment in our cars. We are "forced" to pay for highways and road construction via various kinds of taxes and fees. I'm sure that other readers can think of dozens of "products" we are "forced" to pay for... No man is an island, and we are all in this life in the United States together. Get over it.
Yes, now we will have to purchase health insurance or pay a fee, which is sort of like a tax for everyone, only not really because this fee will only apply to those who chose not to purchase health insurance. You know, those people who chose not to be “personally responsible” for their own welfare.
Health care insurance is currently rising at a rate of 12% - 60% a year. The only other industry outpacing the rates of health care is.... oh yea, another government subsidized industry, college tuition!
This law does nothing about the rising crippling costs and funnels the taxpayer money of the 99% to support the new 1%.
Wanna get rich from the masses? Let's all start up a new health care insurance company!
Thank you, Mr. President.
Call me a cynic, but John Roberts has always been about, well, John Roberts. Considering the speed with which 'spin' runs the conservatives I will not be a bit surprised to hear less and less about "Obamacare" and start hearing more and more about "Roberts' courageous Affordable Care decision...". Probably be hearing a phrase like that by the end of the
year, November election, summer, 4th of July, month, week,day.I have yet to see a statement from a conservative politician that indicates that they are moving forward, however. It's all about repeal, repeal, repeal (although I've seen a very that still mention "replace", I assume that will soon fade).
I will be interested to see public opinion polls in a month or so, however -- especially if we start seeing more advertising about the component parts of the law.
GOP response seems to be "repeal, repeal, repeal, revolution, secession!" I don't agree with anything they say but you've got to admit, they do have a penchant for the over-dramatic.
Yeah, I hadn't thought about it 'til your post. Repugs are drama queens!
Yes they have. I think the last NBC/Marist poll did that, for example and the "not far enough" number is a significant part of the opposition.
I thought it was "defile and displace", it sure seems like that's what it is..
Deride and disgrace?
"Polls make it clear that the law isn't popular (though polls make it equally clear that the component parts of the law are popular)..."
Has any poll bothered to break down the disapproval of the ACA into "because it's bad" and "because it doesn't go FAR enough"? The component parts are all popular, so you'd think the pollsters would tweak the questions to find out what's really behind the contradictory outcomes...
You would think pollsters would break the issue down, but the pollsters aren't trying to find anything out on this issue. They are trying to drive the results to help Republicans.
You'd think, that for a law like this, the folks being polled would be intelligent enough to understand it's principles, do a little research, and not take the party rhetoric as the truth.
Just sayin'...
If anything, polls make it clear that most Americans don't know much and care even less. TV news does little more than drive enthusiasm for controversy.
The opposition to the Act is rooted in 4 areas.
1. Ignorance of the law's benefits. 2. Right wing propaganda. 3. Distaste for all things Obama. 4. Lack of compassion for the less fortunate in a supposedly Christian nation. We shall overcome.
Knobson/Dan_p: While I share your impatience with Americans who don't have the full picture, I also have to give the benefit of the doubt. Most people are simply so involved with trying to work, keep food on the table, a roof over their heads...and yes, health insurance, a very expensive item in itself... they literally don't have the time or the energy to research this stuff. It's not like it used to be where one could depend upon the news media to keep the populace informed.
This is the one profession protected by the constitution, and it has overall become so consumed with sensationalism, controversy and beating the other guy to the punch that there's no fact checking anymore. Lies are regularly reported as if they were true.
This failure was exemplified by the initial reporting done this morning by Fox, CNN and at the least some local news outlets here in Phoenix. In huge headlines and banners running along the bottom of the screen, they all incorrectly reported the SCOTUS ruling, then had to hurriedly correct it.
Just sayin' but not all the blame is on the American people.
January 19, 2011
by NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/bullish-blue-dogs-oppose-health-care-repeal/
NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released tonight had those opposed to appeal with the nominal plurality, 46 percent to 45 percent.
Other pollsters have put more choices before their respondents than simply repealing the bill or letting it stand. Significant numbers want to repeal only parts of the bill, an alternative the Republicans are apparently not contemplating. Others would like to see it expanded rather than contracted. Depending on differences in question wording, it is not clear which of these four options — repeal the bill entirely, repeal it partially, expand the bill, or leave it as is — constitutes the plurality, but it is clear that no one choice dominates over the others.
Just like immigration and gay marriage ,the public will come around now , ,and Barak will walk on water again , with gop head explosion as a wonderful back drop lol
I just finished watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and came away with the impression that the Supreme Courts Decision was a giant victory for the Republicans. It energizes their base, they are going to be allowed to demogogue the entire law as a giant tax increase (apparently without MSM pushback), Democrats (presumably Harold Ford and his third way friends) are going to run away from defending the law and progressive Democrats don't have a political Supreme Court as a rallying point. That is Andrea Mitchell and her "guests" on the "liberal" MSNBC. One has to wonder how CNN and the major networks are reporting the decision.
Once again the Republicans dominated the discussion on Mitchell's show and Democrats were trying to find places to hide.
You should have watched Now w/ Alex Wagner who had Chris Matthews, David Korn, Dee Dee Myers, John Podesta - democrats one and all. Then you should now be watching Tamron Hall who has had several middle of the road dems on, all of whom supported the win. You do know Andrea Mitchell is the wife of former Chairman Alan Greenspan - Republican appointee by Reagan to the FED. She only reports what others say and never pushes back - that she had a lot of Republican response, other than Rachel's comments, shouldn't surprise you. Neither should you assume her guests' positions are correct, or that Dems were "trying to find places to hide."
Whatever it is, whenever it happens, its always "Excellent News!!! For Republicans!!!!" in Andrealand. Besides being married to the chief author of our current economic catastrophe, she's also deeply embedded in the "villager" MSM culture that still thinks Reagan is president.
You should have watched Now w/ Alex Wagner who had Chris Matthews, David Korn, Dee Dee Myers, John Podesta - democrats one and all.
Judy,
I actually switch between Fox and MSNBC during different times of the day and the bias is usually pretty obvious. So while Andrea Mitchell may seem to be leaning to the right, she is on MSNBC where the vast, vast majority of commentators are pro-Democrat/left. I would think that Andrea at least makes MSNBC seem a little "balanced" compared to Fox which is entirely one-sided. I really see no problem with her on MSNBC.
I also find that the real story of any topic is somewhere in between the two networks. It is fun to watch which stories the morning shows lead with...if its good for the Democrats, MSNBC trumpets it as their lead story and vice versa with Fox. Soooo predicitable and in a way a little insulting to my (our) intelligence that they think we can't see through that bias.
The big difference between MSNBC and Fox is Rachel. Fox doesn't have anyone like her. Maybe that is because she is still "young" and has a genuine sense of humor.
Points well taken. And maybe it's also because of her brilliant, sexy, BRAAIIIN (I'm still a "love-zombie" for you, Rachel!) and that Oxford University D.Phil. in poli-sci that helps her to actually know what the heck she's talking about, so unlike the vast majority of the rest of the punditocracy in various media...
;-)
Skip, I should have mentioned Alex also had Michael Steele on with the others -not a Democrat and who was also on later broadcasts. The thing about Mitchell is that for every Dem she might have on, she will have four Republicans. Other hosts at MSNBC seem to split 50/50 most of the time, whereas, FOX has about 8 to 1 Rs to Ds. I can deal with Steele, but I really have trouble tolerating Mark Halperin. He might as well be Romney's Press Secretary. You have my admiration tho to watch Fox that much; my blood pressure goes too high when I watch them for more than ten minutes at a time (and I'm not as young as you are!)
Now, I can see it in his eyes.Godspeed Mr. President, Godspeed.I have faith in our President.
I am supremely happy today.
The point that I think needs to be articulated, and I have yet to read in any media, is this: We Americans are spending billions of dollars on the uninsured because if a citizen has no insurance, but a medical need, we pay the bill. Of course, there are many in this country who would, sadly, let them die. But my point is that we are paying a lot of money, and ObamaCare cures that... it makes coverage affordable for everyone... it says that the government will help people pay the premium when they can't... it says that if you get a disease or illness that you don't have to worry about reaching a lifetime cap in your coverage... it says that your medications are affordable... it says if you lose your job, insurance will still be available and affordable... it says that you are covered even if you have a preexisting condition. I'm tired of hearing from the extremists that it won't work... just MAKE it work.
I'm not so sure it makes medical care/coverage cheaper. For now I don't think neither insurance premiums nor the actual cost of medical care will drop drastically - just that the government will foot the bill now for those that can't. I do understand your point that we just have to "MAKE it work", but in the short term I think it will be closer to the costs we already pay. It is possibly good legislation, but I am still not throughly convinced on HOW some rather expensive medical procedures/programs will somehow be drastically more "affordable" AND still have it be of the highest quality. Whether I pay the premiums or the hospital bills OR the government pays the premiums or hospital bills, someone is still paying the same amount (for now).
I think that as more and more Americans join the ranks of the medically insured and as various provisions of the law continue to take effect (e.g. the requirement of insurers that they spend at least 80% of their revenues on actual care and must provide refunds if they can't meet that goal) we will see some improvement in the overall cost of care. Lots of room for further cost containment, but this isn't a bad start.
:-)
That sounds good to me Pretzelogic, but as "more and more Americans" DO join the ranks of the medically insured, that means that more and more people will be visity doctors and hospitals - and in pretty large numbers. Some of those may have already been visiting emergency rooms, but I would venture to guess that Millions and Millions have not visited any medical facility/office for years if ever - and that means Millions and Millions of brand new patients and/or office visitors. And with those Millions of more brand new patients, there will be Millions of new prescriptions/procedures and other fees that either the government or insurers will have to pay for. So if the insurers have to pay 80% on actual care, it will go from say 80% on 100 Million patients to 80% on 150 Million. Now of course you could say that the insurers were making a good profit, but with (in my opinion) a rather large increase in the number of patients that they would have to cover, either they lose money and go out of business or they increase premiums to cover the millions of new insured people - and since theoretically a good number of those new insured folks are not going to pay a premium (the whole reason for this ACA) the increased premiums (both in volume and $$ amt) will be paid by the collective public. I may be off here on the numbers but it seems to me there will be a great increase in hospital visits and costs with a smaller increase in people paying into it.
First of all get rid of the insurance companies have a low percentage
universal sales-tax on everything. if you eat too much or drink too much our
smoke too much are have babies everybody in this country would be covered
because everybody purchases products services . If you have babies you by baby
close baby toys diapers so you pay taxes on that stuff if you smoke you pay
taxes on that if you drink you pay taxes on that so even if you have what some
people would call bad habits our choices you would still be covered employers
would not have to pay for your insurance so they could pay you better wages are
us better wages also we would save money by getting rid of the insurance
companies. doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies would still make
good money but it wouldn’t be about being rich it would be about having
compassion for your fellow man healthcare should be a right not a privilege this
is my opinion if you have a better idea I will listen just letting insurance
companies sell insurance over state lines this will not help people get
insurance and lower the cost of insurance long-term one insurance company would
eventually get the monopoly on healthcare than they would raise their prices to
whatever they want I don’t think there’s a perfect plan but I think this plan is
better than most. yes the big thing about my plan is employers would not have to
pay for I like the affordable health care plan but at least the affordable
health care plan is better than no plan at all by the Republicans. also on my
plan we would investigate doctors hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and
find out why they have to charge so much I think doctors and hospitals and
pharmaceutical companies should be paid well but should not be about being rich
should be compassion for fellow man. ( I believe healthcare should be a right
not a privilege)
Wow! Can I buy a period or even a comma? I've given a lot of thought to a national sales tax and come to the conclusion (mine only) that it won't work for several reasons.
Like Florida, many states have a relatively high sales tax to offset the lack of a state income tax. Every state would have to rewrite existing tax law or find a way to allow some sort of deduction or credit against your IRS obligation. Then there's the passage of the funds from the counties to the state to the feds. Wherever money is transferred there's lots of room for fraud. That's just two.
I do offer, Stanley, that all internet sales should be taxed and strictly enforced; the salary cap on Social Security raised significantly and the actual SS benefit adjusted according to net worth with no exclusion for capital holdings nor gains. There is no reason for a Donald Trump to collect SS, unless someone realizes the emperor has no clothes, the whole thing comes crashing down and he goes broke.
I'd be delighted to see that happen and pleased as punch to share my SS benefits with him.
next step, abolish health insurance!
Yes, it cannabedone.
Polls regarding this issue are irrelevant. CBS News reports 48% find the law confusing which is not surprising considering its length but more significantly GOP efforts like "death panels" (see Sarah Palin two days ago http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77838.html) and almost all their other rhetoric about the law. What matters is that the law is now ruled constitutional, and when respondents are asked about specific provisions we see numbers like 85% want its preexisting conditions provisions to remain in tact, 77% want the drug donut hole plugged, 77% want some law if this one had been overturned. Lost in all these numbers, but mostly in the 36% support for the law, is the effect on polls of those truly dissatisfied with ACA not going far enough. Some sources suggest that these if added to supporters push the number of Americans who want this law or something stronger is well past 50%. Today's ruling was a huge victory, and history suggests that the law, as the President suggests, will be improved making that victory even more significant.
I am glad you brought this up!!!! The pollsters really DON'T ask the correct questions. I was NOT a fan of Obamacare, NOT because I didn't want covered health care, but because I thought we should have UNIVERSAL healthcare, or at least a public option, and I thought Obama sold out to the insurance and drug companies. I think there are a LOT of people who feel the way I do, but we get represented as being "anti- Obamacare" and lumped in with people who want the system just to stay the way it it.
The ONLY way to really save money for the taxpayer is to make it universal and get rid of medicaid, medicare and the insurance companies!!
I can live with Obamacare because it is SOOOO much better than what we have but if he and the Democrats had held the line, I think we would have had a MUCH better system!!!
What the polls indicate is the failure of the media, whether print, TV, audio or online, to clearly explain the law and how it works. As you said, many of the "anti-Obamacare" respondents want more, not less, of the coverage. The real purpose of HealthCare is just that: Care for the Health of all of us. What is being debated is the technical & financial aspects of the medical/industrial/political industries. If we, as a people, really cared about the health and welfare of our fellow humans, we would look for solutions that addressed humanity, not power and money. There is a war on healthcare. Let's end the war by recognizing that we are all part of One Global family, including all elements: People & Planet.
What gets me is how people are still so confused by what's in this bill. Time and time again over the last two years, the specifics of this bill have been listed and detailed, and yet people still don't get it.
You seem to be overlooking the well-financed, highly organized and energetic disinformation campaign which has been waged over those same two years, with the specific intent of confusing the people as to what's in the bill.
Sadly, the reason amoral (or worse) individuals/interest groups in society continue to use propaganda is that it has been shown time and again that it works. Remember, they don't have to confuse all of the people, all of the time... just enough of us enough of the time.
:(
Now that the "court has spoken," there has been much discussion about not "spiking the football." Apart from the tiredness of the metaphor, and the fact that it is too soon to get all celebratory, I'd question the strategy of an end zone celebration because there is something that would be far better—Get a nice, ceremonial football and give it to Mitt Romney as the "game ball". After all he is the player who got the health care act started. Giving him the game ball would be a fine embarrassment for him and the opponents of the ACA.
It sure is great that rights are not voted on because we would still have slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote! S/S started small,so did Medicare, people need to learn patience.
People are confused period, and that is the fault of ALL the 24-hr news media (sorry MSNBC, but you're in there). Normal people are two busy making ends meet to read this stuff line by line, nor should they have to. Broadcast news media used to attempt to be non-biased, but it's just not happening anymore. Newspapers still have some attempt it this, but it's fading and too slow to be effective anymore.
When news folks only had an hour each night to make all their points, they we're aimed at the truth and had no time for political ramblings. 24 hours of news, it's regurgitated spin followed by 23 hours of people shooting the breeze over it, making mis-statements, claiming opinion as fact, etc...
Today was a decision. 24-hr news will spin it to their side. Republicans will say it's the nail in Obama's coffin and they'll win in November. Democrats will say it's the vindication of their triumphant leader, and they'll win in November. In the end, it's just a court decision that says it's legal to have an insurance mandate. Anyone been forced to buy car insurance lately ... duh! Glad we spent all that time and money to figure that one out ... again!
When this nerd was asked point-blank by Stephanopoulos, "How is this not a tax?" Obama insisted it was not a tax. In his usual condescension, he even insulted G.S. by dismissing the notion that the dictionary is not a serious way to define 'tax'. Well, the Supreme Court decided that it's unconstitutional to force people to buy something, but it's OK to TAX them if they DON'T buy it. Thanks Roberts. This is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. It won't work properly. More people will suffer than will be helped. The economy will suffer. But the left always waves away the notion of 'too much government intrusion' as paranoia on the part of those who do not want a bigger, more expensive government. Oh those tea-party people, they're just a bunch of wackos who don't know how to spell. Well, all you folks popping Champagne corks today, just wait and watch how great it's all gonna be. Thank god Obama's here to take care of us all. Insert sound of vomiting here.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together . . .mass hysteria!
Why do you object to more people having access to affordable health care?
Middle Molly,
The answer to your question would be greed and cruelty, for starters.
Ooooooohh, the conservatives are mad, but they have nothing to replace, the repeal and replace. Wait for after the election? They just want everyone to be mad and scared all the time until Republicans get their way.
I am watching the House Dems. walk out and I agree. They want to force the AG to submit documents until they find something to hold against him ala Clinton.
I asked yesterday, "can't they abstain?" after NRA threatened.
It's all been said and I'm thrilled. My only comment would be that the fighting hasn't been over just the past year or two but through several administrations. Hate her or love her, before she almost ruined Bill's tenure before it got started, Hillary Clinton was the first to really push for universal healthcare for Americans - al most 20 years now - and who knows what LBJ (for all his faults) might have accomplished socially had he run again?
I can't imagine Romney can win at this point without a major democratic gaffe; or an elections supervisor here in Florida.
I am happy for all of you that think this healthcare bill is a wonderful thing, in the next six months when you start to loose your income, because of mass lay-offs in the private sector. When businesses start to use the RIF ideals on a daily basis in your work place, and you are faced with finding a new job...hopefully you will then look back and say darn I was happy the Supreme Court was pressured by the President to not rule that bill unconstitutional. Or at that point while you can still afford internet you will have all the time in the world to boast about what a great idea this is and how much progress we have made as a country...now be sure to hurry home if you are not already there because curfew is about to kick in due the mass riots from those lazy unemployed people...
@Baiteachrothi - What's holding up Boehner and the GOP-controlled House from passing the President's jobs plan today - a bill which would create over one million jobs right now?
Convenient factoids on the ACA here:
Kaiser Foundation Summary of New Health Reform Law
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
Watching the coverage of the todays Supreme Court decision on healthcare, it really struck me how much the political debate about this is like any debate that goes on in a persons mind when trying to make any decision that has a cost and a benefit.
Like when you're thinking about buying an ice cream on a hot day. You have one side of your brain is saying; ooooh, ice cream! that sounds like a good idea! The other side is saying yeah, but it's dollar and I only have four! This goes back and forth and back and forth until you finally make a decision on whether that ice cream is worth a dollar.
The difference between that and what's happening in politics is that a good 30% of either side of the brain/political party ( i may be being diplomatic in those numbers for arguments sake...) doesn't even hear the other voice. All they hear is: it's a dollar! it's a dollar! it's a dollar! or it's ice cream! it's ice cream! it's ice cream!
This makes it impossible to persuade the dollar people that ice cream would be nice or the ice cream people that it's worth paying for. 60% of the decision-making ability is simply gone.
There's no way I can see that the 40% that can hear both sides, that actually acknowledge the problem exits and understand it's going to cost us all something, can get anything done when the 60% in the bubble are deadlocked.
I just read today that in Texas Republican party has come out against critical thinking in there party's political platform, because critical thinking could result in questioning parental authority or or challenge firmly held beliefs....
I found this pretty funny just now:
I have the personalised iGoogle thing as my internet homepage, and one of the tabs I have on it is Fox News. Just so I can know what they're most upset about on any given day. That tab displays condensed versions of the 3 most talked about headlines at Fox (the ones with the most Twittering and Facebook activity around them).
On this monumental day, the top 3 are, in ascending order: Jerry Sandusky, a dead soldier, and Eric Holder. Affordable Care Act being upheld by SCOTUS isn't on the list, despite it's huge implications and all the attention it's gotten.
And why isn't it? Because it's a story that Fox viewers don't want to talk about. They lost, so they'd rather focus more on their stupid vote against a guy on false conspiracy theorist pretences.
They don't want to talk about their loss, when they were poised to dance in the end zone and rub liberals noses in it.
I have to add Faux doesn't want people to know that preexisting condition cannot prevent someone from buying insurance and exchanges, and the donut hole is closed. Today, the child up to age 26 can be in insurance.
I have friends against Obama, but they have gone through cancer and have preexisting conditions. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops "If something happens to your job, your spouse/domestic partner/parent's job or they/you get a disease, there may be a cap and/or you may be excluded from coverage if this is rescinded".
This is good for people in those situations.
One astute detractor on a Republican Congressman's web site said, "Do you realize this adds 10,000,000 people to health care? We don't have enough doctors now to care for people." Well, my reply was, "Are there really 10,000,000 people in the US who don't have any health care issues now? If there are, please tell me where and who they are...I want to do what they are doing."
Repeal this over reaching tax and start over.
Amazing! Even the dissenters, who would have eliminated ObamaCare in its entirety, agree with the majority's reasoning that it should be upheld. Here's what they say:
"With the present statute, by contrast, there are many ways other than this unprecedented Individual Mandate by which the regulatory scheme’s goals of reducing insurance premiums and ensuring the profitability of insurers could be achieved. For instance, those who did not purchase insurance could be subjected to a surcharge when they do enter the health insurance system. Or they could be denied a full income tax credit given to those who do purchase the insurance."
So they agree with Roberts (view the mandate as a tax deduction that you qualify for if you have health insurance), which makes the decision unanimous. Except that they disagree that Roberts is saying the same thing they're saying. And on this teeny tiny little smidgen of a excuse for a logical point, they want to burn the whole thing down.