The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to preserve the Affordable Care Act, preserving “Obamacare” as the largest expansion in health coverage in 50 years. While it’s a major defeat for Republicans, many must surely be breathing a sigh of relief because there is no plan for helping millions of people who depend on ACA for health insurance. A defeat of ACA and the subsequent loss of millions of customers would have resulted in huge spikes in insurance premiums that would hurt people and throw the health insurance industry into chaos.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s four liberals in the decision.
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” Roberts wrote.
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez offered the following statement on the court’s decision:
Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez (CA-46) today released the following statement applauding the Supreme Court’s Decision to rule in favor of the Affordable Care Act.
“I applaud and agree with the court’s decision to rule in favor of an individual’s ability to receive tax credits from the federal health insurance exchange, a program that has supported so many Americans and their families. I’ve said this before: we are dealing with families, not concepts. Millions of families rely on the federal marketplace to purchase affordable health insurance, and I am relieved that they will be able to continue to do so.
“With today’s Supreme Court decision behind us, it’s time for Congress to get back to work. The Affordable Care Act is settled law, and this ruling reaffirms that families are in control of their own health care.”
Congresswoman Sanchez is a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which was signed into law in 2010 by President Obama. Congresswoman Sanchez believes that the ACA delivers affordable and quality care to every American and she will continue to work to preserve health care reform. In early 2014, Congresswoman Sanchez launched Enroll OC, connecting Orange County residents with certified, in person bilingual health insurance enrollment services. In the first Covered California enrollment period, Enroll OC helped more than 2,000 people enroll in health insurance, contributing to the County’s unexpected success. After the first enrollment period, Congresswoman Sanchez followed up Enroll OC with Know Your Benefits bilingual workshops aimed at directly connecting newly insured Orange County residents with their healthcare benefits.
Otherwise known as “Gruber-care.”
We are also awaiting the SCOTUS decision on Same Sex Marriage (which I understand from comments Junior is vehemently against), which ironically coincides with SF Pride this weekend, perhaps the largest (or next largest) Gay event on earth. This should be an interesting weekend.
For three days this week, on drive time radio, I have heard Lorretta being vilified for everything from being a dunce, slut and apparently based on the OCR story, profiting on the sale of her home in Santa Ana, which will surely lead to accusations of abandoning “her “Latino” identity.
There are Democrats in Central County (me being one of them) who are rethinking any allegiances/support to the far reaching activist types that seem intent on destroying any real progress in OC.
Your statement regarding my view re. SSM is false – you have nothing on which to base that statement. You pulled it out of your ass.
If I am wrong. I sincerely apologize. I mean that.
I am a relative newcomer to this fourm (although not so much that I have escaped the salacious attacks reserved for others), bt I have read repeated remarks linking you to homophobic anti-gay commentary. AGAIN, I am sorry and I retract my above comment if I am wrong. I take this to mean that you fully support SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
I like so many others have been maligned as being someone else, in my case people I have never met accused me of being people I have never heard of. That is the delusional characteristic of internet bloggers.
I am glad you join me and most of the world in understanding that SAME SEX MARRIAGE is EXACTLY the same as OPPISISTE SEX MARRIAGE. It’s 2015 NOT 1915.
If I am wrong. I sincerely apologize. I mean that.
I am a relative newcomer to this fourm (although not so much that I have escaped the salacious attacks reserved for others), bt I have read repeated remarks linking you to homophobic anti-gay commentary. AGAIN, I am sorry and I retract my above comment if I am wrong. I take this to mean that you fully support SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
I like so many others have been maligned as being someone else, in my case people I have never met accused me of being people I have never heard of. That is the delusional characteristic of internet bloggers.
I am glad you join me and most of the world in understanding that SAME SEX MARRIAGE is EXACTLY the same as OPPISISTE SEX MARRIAGE. It’s 2015 NOT 1915.
Tommorrow, SCOTUS will tell us whether this is legal.
You don’t know me or my views, so don’t even try. I detest people who attempt to put words in my mouth or ascribe thoughts to my head.
You are probably Sean Mill.
no one is better at hiding their identity on the Internet, Junior
I don’t knowe who that is. I just read your comments and the links. I did NOT put words in anybodys mouth, but, I would suggest you have put your foot in your own pie hole.
I detest bigotry and those who ascribe to it and then hide behind fake internet names. So we are not all that different. If f the 50+ comments ascribed to you were false, I am sorry. You have bigger problems than me if people are making things up about you like that.
Regardless, I am happy for America, that equal rights can be enjoyed by ALL, Just as the founding fathers had inteneded.
prove ’em up big boy
Actually, the Founding Father were all about rights for landowners. Read your history
Founding Fathers and the Vote
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
But how would Americans “consent” to be governed? Who should vote? How should they vote? The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. They wondered about the rights of minorities. In their day, that meant worrying if the rights of property owners would be overrun by the votes of those who did not own land. James Madison described the problem this way:
The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed… . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] …may be overruled by a majority without property….
Eventually, framers of the Constitution left the vote question to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:
The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations… .
From the Library of Congress –
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/elections/voters.html