Obama Care Passed by Supreme Court!

[Evangeline]

I am crying tears of joy!! Here is the NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?hp

[bs69]

Not sure what it really means. We need an explanation from some of the local barristers. The way I read it, it sounds like they are saying that the government has the right to fine people who do not buy insurance. Seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Evangeline]

I am certainly no barrister, but this legislation will require people who can afford to purchase insurance to do so and fine them if they don't; will help people who cannot afford to buy insurance to do so through agencies like Medicaid; will allow children on their parent(s) health insurance to stay on until age 26; will prevent insurance carriers from rejecting anyone because of a pre-existing condition; and I am sure many more things. The idea behind the single mandate is that it will broaden the pool of people with insurance so that insurance companies are not compelled to issue huge percentage increases on renewals. As it stands now, insurance carriers do not have enough policies sold to populations who require fewer medical interventions. This means that for every dollar they take in, a larger amount is going back out to pay for health interventions, and this will only worsen as the boomer generation continues to age and need more and mroe medical care. The younger and healther people who do not pay into insurance need to join the pool to alleviate this. Please do not misunderstand me--I am not a big fan of health insurance companies, but this is the reality. Also, even if you are younger and healthy but do not have medical insurance, if you do get sick, you are probably going to a hospital emergency room and that is the most expensive form of care-whether you pay for it or Medicaid pays for it. Anyway, as the Republicans dispelled any form of government-paid medical insurance, this is the next best solution to our problem. Every single person in the USA needs to be covered by insurance. It works in a lot of other countries and I praise Obama for making a start!! Phew! That is the longest post I ever typed.

[bs69]

I understand what you are saying and you are right, the only way for it to work is to compel the young and healthy to join. I am, however, very uncomfortable with the government being able to force something like this on people. We are moving closer and closer to a "majority rules" type of situation and that is exactly what our government is supposed to be set up to prevent.

[Evangeline]

I definitely see your point, bs69.

[chuckvegas]

I haven't read the opinion but from what I have read in the media at least SCOTUS didn't compel compliance with the "mandate" as a function of the commerce clause, but rather as part and parcel of Congress' inherent taxing authority. FWIW I think that rationale for upholding this statutory scheme is less slippery as a precedent than saying that the government can force individuals to participate in "commerce."

[blythalala]

thought i'd just chime in here to share the best "plain language" explanation i've seen of yesterday's decision on the ACA for those who want to better understand it. i, for one, was basically blown out of the water as i thought this was DEAD in the water. but no! who knew?

as this kind of thing directly affects the work we do (i work at a public health communication firm that handles mostly federal clients, so...), our whole office was hitting a lot of "refresh" on msnbc/SCOTUSblog/etc. yesterday morning and then celebrating with champagne in the afternoon--despite some mixed feelings about big picture stuff, naturally. and i'm still not sure how to wrap my head around the whole roberts piece...

but yes. yesterday was an interesting one in public health land.

peace, all.

--lala

[Mango]

Don't say I didn't warn you when your train gets lost

[sgrmag2564]

Health insurance companies are now just as happy as they can be. Basically, this law says everyone who can afford it in the country has to buy their product, or pay a "tax" Those that can not, go on one form or another of medicaid (depending on the state). I think in the long run, this will work out for most Americans. I just don't like forcing young healthy people to buy something they don't need in order to make it more affordable for the people that do. But, I can't seem to come up with a solution that is better, and most of the republicans I have seen comment on this decision seem to be having the same problem.

Most of the best specialists do not accept Medicaid because they only pay enough to cover the specialist's expenses. I am on Tri-Care (pays only a small percentage higher than Medicaid) and it is very hard for me to find a specialist that accepts my health insurance.

Peace,

Joe

[Rude]

I worked in medical collections for years after college and you would be surprised the people who had insurance for 5 years that got rejected for pre-existing condition because the insurance said they had it before they got covered. Its insane that you can pay insurance for 5 years and the insurance can just say without any proof that you had a heart condition 6 years ago so we wont pay. Another thing they did was drop people once they got sick. They would cover the initial surgery then cancel the policy and send them back any remaining premiums because they knew it would cost thousands to treat this patient in the years go come. This bill will eliminate that as well. The only people the insurance companies treated well were members of group plans. If they tried that with a big company, they would lose the whole company's business. Its a dirty business. There was a 60 minutes episode on an insurance company that initially denied everyone for procedures over 2k. If the people fought it, they would eventually relent and pay, but many didnt fight and they just didnt pay those claims. They eventually were indicted by law enforcement for fraud or something, but I doubt anyone ever went to jail.