OOPS!  CNN.com's Headline (likely pre-written) announces the wrong ruling:

(thanks to KY3's Jay Sherder for the timely screengrab)

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT (or want to dissect it), below is President Obama's address following the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

==============================================

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                           June 28, 2012

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON THE SUPREME COURT RULING

ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

     THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.  Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.  In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin. 

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.  That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.  But that discussion completely misses the point.  Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. 

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.  Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.  They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.  They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.  They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.  They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.  And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. 

There’s more.  Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.  And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support.  And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.   

Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from.  Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too.  And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one. 

Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition.  They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman.  They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else.  And if you can’t afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it. 

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance.  This is important for two reasons. 

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums. 

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need -- which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.

That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so.  In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.

Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive.  I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared.  And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically. 

Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics.  I did it because I believed it was good for the country.  I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now.  It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield.  For years and years, Natoma did everything right.  She bought health insurance.  She paid her premiums on time.  But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer.  And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year.  And despite her desire to keep her coverage -- despite her fears that she would get sick again -- she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. 

I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law.  It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well. 

Natoma is well today.  And because of this law, there are other Americans -- other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers -- who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance.  These are the Americans for whom we passed this law. 

The highest Court in the land has now spoken.  We will continue to implement this law.  And we'll work together to improve on it where we can.  But what we won’t do -- what the country can’t afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. 

With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law.  And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time:  putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. 

But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. 

Thank you.  God bless you, and God bless America.

The top Republican in Missouri responds:

==============================================

MOGOP Chairman: “Supreme Court decision crystallizes the stakes in this election”

JEFFERSON CITY—David Cole, Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, released the following statement about the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare:

“This morning’s Supreme Court decision crystallizes the stakes in this election:  Will we elect Democrats intent on implementing this law, or will we elect Republicans who will work to repeal and replace Obamacare?

“It’s important to remember that just because a law is ruled constitutional doesn’t make it good policy—and in fact, it’s not. Under Obamacare, health care costs continue to increase, choice in health care has been severely restricted, and businesses have been saddled with burdensome regulations.  Making matters worse, Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history.

“Missourians deserve real, market-based health care reforms that give patients more choices at lower costs—not a one-size-fits-all mandate that puts government bureaucrats in the middle of Americans’ health care decisions.”

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon chimes in:

======================================================================

Statement from Gov. Nixon on ruling by U.S. Supreme Court

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Gov. Jay Nixon today issued the following statement regarding the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“We’re just now beginning to review this ruling so that we can understand exactly what it means for Missouri.  This ruling has significant complexities and implications for families, health care providers and insurers in our state.  Here in Missouri, I'm committed to working collaboratively with citizens, businesses, medical providers and the legislature to move forward in a way that works best for families in our state.”

A close second, Senator Roy Blunt:
(press release below)
======================================================================

Senator Blunt Responds To ObamaCare Supreme Court Ruling

Blunt: We Must Repeal Entire Law, Replace With Common-Sense Solutions

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) released the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision surrounding President Barack Obama’s government health care takeover:

“The three questions about the President’s health care plan that have needed to be answered from day one are: Is it constitutional, is it a good idea, and can we afford it? The Court, in a 5-4 decision, answered the first question. The American people now will decide if the President’s health care takeover is the right thing to do and whether we can afford it.

“In 2010, Missourians overwhelmingly rejected the individual mandate and sent a clear signal to Washington that Americans oppose ObamaCare. Elections matter, and this decision underscores the fact that we need new leadership in the White House and the Senate.

“This decision does not change the fact that ObamaCare will lead to higher health care premiums, increased federal spending, and greater uncertainty for small business owners nationwide. That’s why Congress must repeal this deeply flawed law in its entirety and replace it with thoughtful, common-sense reforms that put patients and doctors in control of health care – not Washington bureaucrats.”

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler is first Ozarks elected official with response to SCOTUS healthcare ruling

No, it's not a race, but if it were, Hartzler won.  Maybe her people can just type faster.  I don't know.  Her press release from 10:30 AM is below.  More undoubtedly to follow.

=================================== 

Hartzler disappointed with Supreme Court ruling which fails to overturn President Obama’s health care law

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler (MO-4) is expressing disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court’s failure to overturn President Obama’s health care law.

“The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allows for the full implementation of the 2010 law, despite its flawed design and questionable constitutional basis,” said Hartzler. “The law still fails to address the issue of adequate funding, and will drive up health care costs, making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.  But while the ruling is cause for dismay, supporters of the free market and individual liberty can take some comfort in the dissenting view that this law violates the U.S. Constitution.”

“My House colleagues and I remain committed to repealing this troublesome law in its entirety,” added Hartzler. “This ruling highlights the critical need for a Congress and White House committed to refocusing attention on health care legislation that provides affordability, cost transparency, choice for senior citizens, and will protect the right of citizens to keep their current insurance policies.”

Since coming to office in January 2011, Congresswoman Hartzler has opposed President Obama’s expansion of federal control over health care.  She has voted 30 times to repeal, defund, or dismantle the President’s health care law. Congresswoman Hartzler serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agriculture Committee.

 (end press release)

McCaskill won't attend DNC

WASHINGTON (AP) - Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2012, says she will skip the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C.

McCaskill's campaign says she will spend the week campaigning in Missouri instead. She joins a growing list of Democrats in conservative districts who have decided to avoid the convention, which will be a showcase of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

McCaskill's absence is notable because she played an early and prominent role in Obama's 2008 campaign, endorsing him during that primary with then Sen. Hillary Clinton.

McCaskill attended the 2008 convention, though she was not up for reelection. McCaskill has previously skipped her party's convention in year's she is on the ballot, including in 2004 when she ran for governor.

Candidate filing ends

Jefferson City, MO – Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today announced that 576 candidates have filed for state and federal offices for the 2012 election as the filing period ended yesterday, March 27, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.
Candidates running for the five statewide offices of governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, treasurer and attorney general; one U.S. Senate seat; all eight of Missouri's U.S. House of Representatives' seats; 17 odd-numbered state Senate districts; various circuit judges; and 163 state House of Representative seats were required to file with the secretary of state’s office. Any candidate filing for a county office filed with his/her local county clerk or election board.

Currently, there are 313 Republican candidates, 234 Democratic candidates, 22 Libertarian candidates and seven Constitution Party candidates filed for office. For more information regarding the candidates and offices, please click on the following link: http://1.usa.gov/GWRuLC.

Candidates who filed on the first day at the secretary of state's office drew a number to determine the order in which their name will appear on the primary ballot. Candidates who filed after the first day are placed on the ballot in the order they filed.
Candidates seeking to file for governor, state Senate in districts 5 and 7 or state representative in districts 49, 93 and 112 may still do so until 5 p.m. on Friday, March 30, 2012. In accordance with Missouri state law, the filing dates for these offices have been extended because an individual withdrew his/her name as a candidate within two business days prior to the filing deadline.

Missouri's primary election is on Tuesday, August 7, 2012. The deadline for voter registration for the August primary is July 11, 2012. The general election is Tuesday, November 6, 2012, and the voter registration deadline for that election is October 10, 2012.

David Catanese on C-SPAN talking about the South Carolina Senate race

Where Scott Eckersley stands on 9 issues

Q: How should we hand the immigration problem with Mexico?  What do you think of the Arizona law?
We must secure the borders.  It is more than an immigration issue; it is a question of national security.  As for the Arizona law, I respect a states' right to govern itself.  I do not support legislation that may impinge on Fourth Amendment protections of citizens of the United States.  I will be an interested observer as Arizona enforces this law and as the courts take up its constitutionality.  Regardless, it is time for President Obama to close the border now.  This administration and Congress must address meaningful immigration reform this year.
Q: How can the Congress promote economic growth and  jobs?

Taxes are too high.  We must reduce taxes on individuals and corporations in order to spur economic growth and provide jobs.  Government debt and out-of-control spending chill investment and stagnates job growth.  It's time for congress to balance the budget and make the cuts necessary to unburden the American taxpayer.  These steps toward stability will spur investment, innovation, and prosperity will follow.
Q: What can Congress do to make our education system more effective?

Our educational standards need to be set high.  Our kids need to compete worldwide and the federal government has a role to play in setting these standards and incentivizing performance thereto.  We are all stakeholders.  It is up to parents, school boards, local communities, the state, and federal government to ensure our children's success.   

Additionally, the federal government needs to set low interest rate loans for college students.  Rising tuition costs and high rates of return are burying our students in debt.   

Q:  Earmarks: what do you think about them and why?
I am opposed to earmarks.  It's time to increase transparency at the federal level.  Right now, we need legislators with the courage to vote on our nations laws, not based on what's in it for them.  I want a vote on the bill, not on the special interest pay-off.    
Q: Health care: where do we go from here now that the U.S. has reformed health care?
The fundamental question is can we afford this bill.  We cannot.  I would not have voted for the healthcare bill and I submit that it must undergo significant revision to be sustainable.  The solution to the country's healthcare crisis is in improving the health of its citizens.  I would like to see bipartisan support for a revision of this bill that focuses on the root cause of health costs and not a more expensive bandage. 
Q: What is your opinion of drilling for oil in national park land and how do you prevent another Gulf oil slick?
We need off-shore drilling to decrease our dependence on foreign oil.  By putting in place stronger regulations and bigger penalties for failures, fewer failures will result.  I support drilling for oil to decrease our dependence on middle-east oil.  It is also important to protect park lands.
Q: Discuss the balance between personal privacy and individual freedoms versus protection from terrorists.
It's a delicate balance.  We live in a free country.  The government is expected to protect its citizens.  The government and its agencies need to share information and take the least intrusive approach to safeguarding America and protect its principles of freedom.
Q: How can our government realistically cut the federal debt?    
It's time to exercise serious "fiscal constraint" in government spending.  We must both plan and take steps certain to balance the federal budget.  Entitlement programs need to be addressed to ensure fiscal viability.  Income taxes must be reduced on individuals and capital gains taxes need to be reduced to spur business investment and jobs creation.
Q: How can the federal government reform Social Security?
The President has appointed a bi-partisan committee to address federal debt and spending.  The report is expected to come out December 1.  It is my understanding all tax and spend items are on the table, including social security.  I intend to review the findings and work with members of congress to ensure social security benefits are protected now and funded in the future.