Wouldn't the exchanges make that possible?

Yeah. If there's a bright side, that's it.

Edit: Oh, wow. I'd seen it reported as 6-3 when everyone was rushing to report it and so assumed it was Roberts and Kennedy ruling for it, but it actually was only 5-4, huh?

Essentially not being in COMPLETELY in debt.  They programs ALWAYS end up having asset limitations that are usully very low otherwise they'd be expensive as hell.

Hey if not though sweet... I'd qualify for a subsidy.

I mean... a subsidy for anyone at 400% the poverty line?  

That would mean a single person who makes less then about 45K will get a subsidy... $60,500 for a married couple.

I like the part where my parents make under 45k.

That's the interesting thing. According to the majority decision, the case wasn't premature because the mandate wasn't intended by Congress to be a tax. But then as Roberts was writing his opinion, apparently, it somehow became a tax. Talk about legislating from the bench.

I don't see how.  I mean they're nothing but overexpenisve insurance websites from what I can tell.  Just pooling everything in one place so it doesn't take you a few days to find the best price.  Doesn't help if you can't afford the lowest price.

There is the "bring down costs" arguement, but I still don't get that logic, knowing that the poor are disproportionatly unhealthy, why would you lower your bottom rates? 

 Still the Exchanges I do like, even if i do think they're spending WAY to much money for glofrified E-surance websites.

I don't follow.... either way the Median Household income is 51K.   So I'm not sure what percentage of households would qualify (since the poverty line gets higher the bigger the family) but I wouldn't be surprised if it was half or larger.

Such a huge amount pretty much gurantees strict asset requirements that will make sure the vast majority of those people never qualify.   Asset caps can be as brutal as owning a car being enough to deny you.

Oh yeah, Obama was all worried about "Conservative Judicial Activism."

Wonder if he'll acknowledge the activism in the fact that the court ruled a way that both sides rejecetd. (well I don't... but it's ironic.)

It was a clear case of the court not wanting to stick with the status quo healthcare and finding any legal loophole they could to get it to pass because it was obviously unconsitutuitonal from the commerce clause to anyone who looked at it objectivly.

A status from Facebook that I liked:

I am shocked, utterly shocked, that the same good, upstanding, constitution-abiding organization that upheld Japanese internment, the Dred Scott decision, the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, drug-sniffing dogs as probable cause, and the thousands of pages of federal gun regulation has upheld Obamacare. How could we have ever seen this coming?

Roberts, maybe. Ginsburg's opinion (joined by Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan) made it clear that they still believe that the Commerce Clause has no practical limits, at least so long as they like the outcome.