Barack Obama | Health | News | Supreme Court

Obama Speaks Out on Supreme Court Consideration of Health Care Reform: VIDEO

Obama

At a press conference outside the White House today, President Obama preempted a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of health care reform with some remarks in light of the discussion about arguments in the case last week, saying he's confident that SCOTUS would uphold the law:

“I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care...I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. If I were a student in his constitutional law class at University of Chicago I would demand a refund!

    There, I said it. Bring on the piranhas. Bottom line, he would recognize the constitution if it were read to him! Pathetic to say the least!

    Posted by: RB | Apr 2, 2012 9:10:53 PM


  2. Errr...uh....uhhh....errr.....errr.......uh......er.......uh......uh.......er........uh......uhhhhh.....errr....

    This physician is going to break out the Krug and dance on the roof when it goes down. Hey anyway, The NYT said the SC tossing it out would be "a great victory" for him!

    Posted by: MarkUs | Apr 2, 2012 9:33:16 PM


  3. Obama voted against Supreme Court justice nominations when he was Senator, but then demanded Republicans support his. The President then wagged his finger at the Supreme Court justices during his SOTU over the Citizens United decision. Whatever your take on these issues, there is something unseemly about this behavior on the President's part. Imagine the horror, outrage, and calls for impeachment if Goerge W. Bush was bullying Justices in order to get a favorable decision.

    Posted by: LincolnLounger | Apr 2, 2012 9:36:05 PM


  4. @LINCOLNLOUNGER, where is that "like" button? Oh wait, this isn't FB! You are so 100% correct!!!

    Posted by: RB | Apr 2, 2012 9:38:09 PM


  5. I concur with RB. I'm out & proud gay, but the idea that the US Gov't can FORCE me to enter into a contract is LUDICROUS. The law is CLEARLY unconstitutional. If the gov't can make me do this against my will, there is no limit to what they can dictate.

    Verrellii - Columbia Law Review
    Obama - Harvard Law Review

    Clearly, Ivy League educations are not what they once were.

    And Obama was a constitutional law professor?!? ROTFL. What a joke.

    Posted by: Troy | Apr 2, 2012 9:41:56 PM


  6. "in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care"

    You're wrong Mr. President. All you have to do it to pass a law that compels every insurance company to do it. And accept the fact that they will give you no more money.

    We don't need health reform. We need health INSURANCE reform.


    Posted by: sp8ce | Apr 2, 2012 9:45:28 PM


  7. Wow Barbarians at the gates. I expected more sanity from Towleroad - unless we've been infiltrated by Fox News.

    It is amazing to me the discourse about the ACA up to this point has border-lined on the ridiculous. Yes, many people aren't satisfied with the law, mainly because it didn't go far enough. It was a compromise. The liberals wanted single payer or at least a public option. The individual mandate was a conservative idea. The only way to have a private insurance based heathcare system is through the mandate. It's not rocket science folks. Nobody knows what the court will do... oral arguments aren't necessarily a Ouija board, many times the court is playing devils advocate. If the court does strike down the ACA then people will realize they have been screwed as soon as they all pull their heads out of their collective butts. Those against can celebrate the fact that they have succeeded in the elimination of health insurance for millions of people. How proud they can be... If those who are against the mandate think they're going to make positive political points out of this, they are insane. Realistically, in this day and age EVERYONE needs healthcare insurance. The idea that you can't be forced to purchase it is a distinction without a difference. This crusade to destroy the ACA is a Quixotic quest which will end in ruin if it succeeds. If there ever was an example of cut of your nose to spite your face this is it.

    Posted by: MikeH | Apr 2, 2012 9:55:17 PM


  8. I am all in for insurance reform. Hell, I am in for anything but Obamacare! There is NO constitutional right given to congress to require our participation in commerce.

    I thought he was another Jimmy Carter but lately he is beginning to look a lot like FDR. Who by the way had his policies struck down by the supremem court more often than most presidents and caused the US to languish far longer in the great depression that was necessary.

    I didn't vote for Obama the first time, I am not surprised by anything he has done and yes, Obamacare is unconstitutional!

    One more thing, I am gay, I am out, I am proud and I do NOT support Obama!

    Posted by: RB | Apr 2, 2012 9:57:27 PM


  9. ten bucks says you can't put a face to your comments "RB" :D

    you Gay Conservatives sure do love to boast, until someone calls your bluff. then y'all run away like wimps. every time. :D

    such proud "out" gay men, yet none of you can back that claim up.

    you know, i'm frankly stunned at the profound selfishness of so many - why do the GOP-base scream "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION!??!" when it comes to hating gays and Muslims, but never
    THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION!! when it comes to helping other americans get much-needed medical treatment?

    the US has a healthcare system run for PROFIT - not to help Americans. it's an absolute affront to human decency.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 2, 2012 10:05:05 PM


  10. Rb

    But when it was put foreword by newt gingrich and every single last republican in the 1990's as a free market response to "hillary-care" national healthcare...........

    crickets

    You dislike it because a dem put it foreword and he is black. Stop with the BS

    Ah well, it will just push the masses harder to demand a Nationalized health care system eventually and the Insurance companys will be put out of business. Under Obamacare the insurance companies would have survived. Cest la Vie burn the fuckers down then and bring on the National health Care system

    Posted by: say what | Apr 2, 2012 10:10:26 PM


  11. You know what's constitutional? The public option, or, better, Medicare for all. Onward.

    Posted by: Mike | Apr 2, 2012 10:12:38 PM


  12. Wow is right! Never thought I'd see so many teabagging nutjobs come out of the closet.

    You'd think gay men, disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS, aka a "preexisting condition," would understand better than anyone the need for universal healthcare.

    Wake up boys!

    Posted by: dh | Apr 2, 2012 10:15:16 PM


  13. Oh Gay Republicans. Hating Obama in the hopes that one day it'll get them written back into the will....keep dreaming, wimps.

    http://littlekiwilovesbauhaus.blogspot.ca/2011/07/goproud-my-ass.html

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 2, 2012 10:16:07 PM


  14. @DH - it's not really "so many" - it's the same old closeted right-wing trolls trying out new sockpuppets.

    you gotta love the "i'm a proud out gay man who doesn't support Obama!" comment, though. i blast-laughed.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Apr 2, 2012 10:19:41 PM


  15. @LittleKiwi, watched the your vid on GoProud. Basically, summed it all up quite nicely. Gay Republican is an oxymoron.

    Regarding Single Payer, Public option... I would have preferred that - and I wish Obama would have pushed more for it; but the ACA as imperfect as it is, at least is something. It's better to have something in effect now that can be tweaked than waiting who knows how many years before we finally get Single Payer.

    Again, all this crap about the mandate is a distinction without a difference. Healthcare is unique and I believe SCOTUS realizes it. I think they will uphold it.

    One last thing about the faux horror about Obama mentioning Judicial Activism. I can't tell you how many times, ad-nauseum I've heard the wingnuts whine about Judicial Activism. It's fricken non-stop. Obama is just taking a page out of their well-worn playbook. If they are so offended by that term, stop using it.

    The hypocrisy of these people is just stunning.

    Posted by: MikeH | Apr 2, 2012 10:37:48 PM


  16. Simply put - Obamacare is a great idea, poorly executed - I do hope the mandate is overturned and the great minds this country has will focus and give us a National standard, administered by the States.

    Posted by: DVDINORL | Apr 2, 2012 10:44:24 PM


  17. Be careful what you ask government to MAKE citizens do, because you never know who will be in control of the government in the future and then what will they make YOU do?.?.?

    Posted by: JohninBR | Apr 2, 2012 11:38:45 PM


  18. @Johninbr... Healthcare is somewhat unique... these arguments about being forced to buy broccoli, cell phones, burial insurance are ridiculous... reductio ad absurdum... the truth of the matter is that if congress were to pass something completely over the top, they would be voted out of office and the law would change. That is how our government functions. The fact is that most americans don't give a crap about the theoretical nonsensical argument about being forced to buy health insurance, because they want to buy it. Again, this is a distinction without a difference.

    Posted by: MikeH | Apr 2, 2012 11:48:27 PM


  19. kiwi,

    I'm dissappointed in you. You didn't tell RB that his father hated him. And you've posted 3 (three) comments already. If you're a two-trick pony you must do both tricks.

    Posted by: AG | Apr 3, 2012 12:12:53 AM


  20. for all you conservative "textualists" out there, did you ever stop to think that health insurance in the modern form did not exist when the constitution was ratified? if we're going to strictly adhere to the intent of the drafters of the constitution then i'm sorry, but that document is outdated and unfit to meet the demands of modern reality.

    also, even according to commerce clause, you have to admit that the actions of others affects the health insurance you can/do receive. it is commerce! end of story.

    if this get's overturned then...well this is what happens when you try to take the middle road and adopt a "moderate" approach to appease obstructionists. we should have pushed for single-payer all the way, which WOULD be completely constitutional.

    Posted by: Bryan B. | Apr 3, 2012 12:33:20 AM


  21. Conservatives love to shout judicial activism only when they don't like the decision. SCOTUS may very well strike down the individual mandate, and when they do Obama will look even better in the eyes of Americans because he tried to do something. Waffling Mitt Romney can't touch him in the polls.

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Apr 3, 2012 1:53:19 AM


  22. The argument that the individual mandate is unconstitutional is plainly wrong. There is no difference between the government forcing you to buy insurance, and the government raising your taxes and buying the insurance for you. They both result in money coming from your pockets, and you receiving health insurance, whether you want it or not. So unless we're arguing taxation is also unconstitutional, then this is just a plainly political game being played by the conservative judges.

    I'm surprised on a gay blog that people are attacking obama for not understanding the constitution because of the mandate. The mandate isn't the problem, it's his attack on judicial activism that's the problem. How can he attack the supreme court as unelected individuals overturning a decision by an elected congress as judicial activism? First, that's essentially their job, but more importantly, that's exactly what we want them to do on DOMA. We can attack the court for overturning the mandate based on faulty legal reasoning, but not on charges of judicial activism, without serious repercussions for the fight to overturn DOMA.

    Posted by: Brian | Apr 3, 2012 2:26:34 AM


  23. How can we be required to buy car insurance when we drive a car but not be required to buy health insurance when we will all eventually need medical care? Who pays the bill when uninsured motorists have accidents? Tax payers and other insured people. Who pays the bill when someone goes to the hospital without health insurance? Other tax payers.
    To use a conservative argument, I shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's irresponsible behavior. I don't see how these two arguments aren't identical. Can someone help me with this?

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Apr 3, 2012 6:48:34 AM


  24. As a side note, it will be very interesting to see Romney defend Romneycare if Obamacare gets struck down.

    Posted by: D.R.H. | Apr 3, 2012 7:04:37 AM


  25. D.R.H I so agree with you.I have got to wonder if some of these know it alls that are giving their constitutional opinions even carry health insurance at all. Or do they just show up in the ER and then who pays the HUGE bill them or the taxpayers. A bee sting costs about two grand if you go to the ER.

    Facts of life
    Everybody needs some sort of health insurance!
    Everybody needs some sort of car insurance!

    Posted by: SOLUS | Apr 3, 2012 8:16:45 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Dan Savage is a Visiting Professor of Sex in 'Savage U': VIDEO« «