Supreme Court Upholds Most of Health Care Law as the Inquirer and Other Outlets Get It Wrong

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States voted to largely uphold the health care law that has been the central, legislative focus of President Barack Obama’s administration. A majority of the Supreme Court, including conservative chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., supported the law with their ruling. [SCOTUSblog]

As news of a decision broke, many news sources, including the Inquirer, reported that SCOTUS had voted to strike down the law. Many people were confused as CNN and AP had conflicting reports.

The New York Times has a detailed analysis of what the SCOTUS ruling means for the health care law.

But the court ruling is a crucial victory for the law that will allow its introduction to continue in the coming years. Passed in 2010, the law is intended to end the United States’ status as the only rich country with large numbers of uninsured people, by expanding both the private market and Medicaid.

The key provision that 26 states opposing the law had challenged – known as the individual mandate – requires virtually all citizens to buy health insurance meeting minimum federal standards or to pay a fine if they refuse.

Many conservatives considered the mandate unconstitutional, arguing that if the federal government could compel people to buy health insurance, it could compel them to buy almost anything, with broccoli becoming the central example in court arguments.