Sen. Brown, Elizabeth Warren Weigh in On Health Care Decision
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren react to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act.
Photos
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger in the 2012 election Democrat Elizabeth Warren clashed in their reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's health care reform ruling.
On June 28, the court decided 5-4 to uphold the mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance, the most controversial component of the Affordable Care Act.
According to the Huffington Post, if the mandate had been ruled unconstitutional, the minority opinion shows that the conservative justices were ready to throw out the entire law. President Obama proposed the law and spent much of the first 15-months of his presidency drumming up support for health care reform.
As expected, Brown and Warren differed in their responses to the decision.
In a statement this afternoon, Sen. Brown said "The federal health care law may be constitutional, but it is wrong for jobs and the economy."
"In Massachusetts, we had already dealt responsibly with the problem of our uninsured without raising taxes or cutting care to our seniors," Brown continued. "All we got out of this massive new federal entitlement is higher taxes, cuts in Medicare and additional debt at a time when we can least afford it. The bottom line for me is this law makes it harder for our economy to add jobs and for that reason I continue to oppose it.”
Warren, on the other hand, applauded the court's decision. In a statement, she said the decision "ensured that every American can get access to high quality, affordable health care and fair treatment from insurance companies."
She added the ruling would also help protect Massachusetts families.
“Now is not the time to re-fight the battles of two years ago," Warren said. "Our country needs to move forward to create jobs and opportunity for all Americans— not fight endless political battles. Massachusetts led the way in health reform, and we will continue to lead the way in our efforts to reduce the costs of health care and ensure a level playing field for middle class families.”
What do you think? Do you agree with the ruling? Which candidate do you think got it right? Let us know in the comments below.
Paul Bishop
9:05 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
I still cannot understand the people who are upset the law has teeth.
If you freeload on the system, you pay a penalty, which recaptures some of the costs of carrying the freeloaders.
There isn't a sane argument against this, the only 'people' who rail against something as simple as this are the people who advovate we turn away people at hospitals based upon ability to pay... People not even deserving the monniker 'people'.
Bryan McGonigle2
9:21 am on Friday, June 29, 2012
Many of the those you call "freeloaders" are healthy young people who don't have jobs with health care benefits. It makes no sense to pay for some Cadillac health insurance plan that they probably won't use. No Corolla type health plans are available due to government regulations.
Rather than force these so called "freeloaders" to buy exorbitant products that don't fit their needs, why don't we offer them affordable products that do - like the Corolla.
The law is unfair.
Paul Bishop
6:44 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
But that isn't the case. Minimal insurance. Students remain on parent policy until twenty six.
Reading is good you know, turn off Faux news once in a while and read.
Additionally, whether of not it is a good law was decided two years ago.. And confirmed by the SCOTUS now.
Michael Quinlan
10:34 am on Tuesday, August 14, 2012
'good law' and 'constitutional' are not necessarily the same.
Bryan McGonigle2
9:43 pm on Friday, June 29, 2012
No need to start with the ridiculous and inappropriate personal attacks Paul when someone doesn't agree with you. It makes you look mean-spirited.
I didn't say anything about students. I was talking about healthy young people - those who don't need or don't want a Cadillac health insurance. I think you need to read more carefully before you respond.
I totally agree that the law was passed two years ago. And I agree that the Supreme Court said the personal mandate was Constitutional. They didn't rule on many other aspects of the law.