Affordable HealthCare Act upheld

gurrlballa10

No CN needed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18630837 

What do you think about this decision?

mari0225

I think it will be good for me because right now I do not have health insurance through my job, I had to go out and pay for it myself. So if this makes it cheaper and more affordable than paying $300 a month for ins. then i'm cool with it. But I really don't understand all the ins and outs of it though.

aragx6

My thoughts: Chief Justice Roberts actually understands precedent and did what was required of him. Very pleased indeed.

hoffse

Ummm - I think the Supreme Court just said, "you know what?  Let's forget the part of the Constitution that require bicameralism of Congress and Presentation to the President and rewrite this ourselves."  

It IS constitutional under the taxing clause, but that's NOT the clause Congress cited, most likely because it would make low-income folks recoil, and they are a large part of Obama's constituency ("my president?  Taxing ME because I don't have health insurance?").  So they cited the commerce clause.  Well it's NOT constitutional under the commerce clause - which most legal people pretty much agreed on, at least in the academy, and the Supreme Court even said so.  But then they decided that instead of striking it down and requiring Congress and the President to hash out the same deal under the taxing clause, they were just going to skip that part.  So we have an unconstitutional provision - which Roberts acknowledge is unconstitutional as written - but we're "reasonably construing it as a tax."  Somebody alert the IRS.

mica178

I love Justice Roberts for his involvement in the decision.

I hate the ACA.  I think it continues the damaged healthcare system.  But I don't question its constitutionality.  I just think it sucks and hope that someone (who won't sell out to the big insurance companies or to other special interest) comes up with a better, financially feasible option.

The nice thing about the SCOTUS ruling is that it's sort of win-win for both political candidates.  Obama can say that he came up with ACA.  Romney can say that if you hate Obamacare, you'll have to vote for him to get it repealed.  Neither has to come up with a new plan during this election period.

ILoveToRobot

The article I read left me puzzled and disgusted by the argument made to justify the decision.

"If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

My first problem with his argument is that the citizen pays the government a fee. Like the government is really going to distribute that well... We should've reformed insurance laws to make it more competitive than subsidizing and "taxing" people. Requiring insurance companies to do things against their will is only going to make premiums go up. My second problem is that they are justifying taxing people for something they aren't doing. So, what's next? Tax people who don't eat their 5 servings of fruits and veggies everyday? It's out of hand I tell ya.

side note - My quote is from another article I was reading. I didn't open the BBC one.

pkontk

I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the law, but overall I'm glad it passed.  Something needs to be done about healtcare in this country, and the big things like not barring insurance for preexisting conditions is HUGE.

I'm in Mass, and my taxes were penalized one year when I went without insurance for 5 months.  I don't know where that money actually goes, but I'd like to see it used for preventive care services or something like that.  Paying the fine wasn't ideal, but it was something that I accepted, and moved on with my life.

[Deleted User]

I think my friend's husband will follow thru and drop healthcare coverage for his employees.  It is cheaper to pay the penalty now that healthcare costs have skyrocketed.
Only way to survive I guess otherwise he closes the doors to his business

crash2729

I don't know the Ins and outs of the law either. We dropped our healthcare coverage last year for employees.
I don't see how this is any different than requiring auto insurance. I have to have insurance or my car can be impounded plus paying fines. 

Knittibell

I'm very happy.

Meegles4

I think it's not ideal, and I'm still not totally sold on the individual mandate and certainly see all sides of that argument. I have no idea how high the "tax" is, what the exceptions are, etc. etc. etc. so it's hard for me to really comment on that.

However, as someone who has a pre-existing condition, it's a bunch of crap that I could be denied health coverage. Especially when it's entirely possible that I'm healthier than someone with no pre-existing conditions but who lives an unhealthy lifestyle.

So, I'm happy it passed and I hope that it's one step toward better healthcare in the country, knowing full well we still have a long way to go.

aurianna

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:f9d56c51-bb4d-412b-8650-1cd301754fe0">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]I don't know the Ins and outs of the law either. We dropped our healthcare coverage last year for employees. I don't see how this is any different than requiring auto insurance. I have to have insurance or my car can be impounded plus paying fines. 
Posted by crash2729[/QUOTE]

Owning a car and driving is a choice. You choose to take on the privilage of driving then you sign on for the responsibilities required.
Just existing isn't the same kind of choice... yet you are being required, by the government, to purchase something.

Funny you should mention cars though... I'm wondering when there will start being a higher "tax" (not a mandate!) on non-government-approved cars we purchase (aka not hybrids or GM)

Though... ironically pretty much the president and every high lefty in congress strongly denied allegations of its being a tax back when they were trying to pass it...
Yet now that the "tax" is the only thing keeping the mandate afloat they're all, "yeah, we know that.... it's all good!"

Whether you think the health care bill itself is a good idea or not (though, whether it's good for your personal situation or not wasn't the issue here; the issue was whether or not pieces of the law are valid and constitutional), there are other things here that are kind of shady...

Meegles4

<div align="left">In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:b1706807-fa7e-4cd4-93c0-b6003bc6a6c6">Re:
Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld :  Owning a car and driving is a choice. You choose to take on the privilage of driving then you sign on for the responsibilities required. Just existing isn't the same kind of choice... yet you are being
required, by the government, to purchase something. Funny you should mention cars though... I'm wondering when there will start being a higher "tax" (not a mandate!) on non-government-approved cars we purchase (aka not hybrids or GM) <strong>Though... ironically pretty much the president and every high lefty in congress strongly denied allegations of its being a tax back when they were trying to pass it...</strong> Yet now that the "tax" is the only thing keeping the mandate afloat they're all, "yeah, we know that.... it's all good!" Whether you think the health care bill itself is a good idea or not (though, whether it's good for your personal situation or not wasn't the issue here; the issue was whether or not pieces of the law are valid and constitutional), there are other things here that are kind of shady...
Posted by aurianna[/QUOTE]

Duh, it's politics. Can't use the "bad" word in the court of public opinion. I agree that it's kind of funny though only because us lefties really do love our taxes ;-)</div>

pkontk

A lot of what the government does in the name of a better, safer nation is shady (exhibit a the patriot act, exhibit b new spy drones making the rounds).  Politicians are politicians, and nothing can change their sleezeyness or shady behavior.  There will always be random crap thrown into whatever bills just so laws go through without too much fanfare or publicity.  That's just the way politics in our nation works.

whitsy

The FB comments have started up from those who are half-asss following it:

"I think I am going to quit working, quit school, & live off the government like the vast majority of America is doing. Free food, free housing, welfare cash, free cell phones, & NOW free healthcare! It just gets more & more tempting everyday. Why should I struggle to keep my full time job & go to school full time, to become a nurse just to support those who are unwilling to support themselves?!?!"

I mean, it's not free healthcare, right?

whitsy

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:abaa6bc9-8ed1-4c4a-9248-492bf2d3de58">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : Not even close.  In fact, none of the requirements for Medicaid (i.e. government subsidized healthcare) have changed.  These people are morons.
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]

<div>Ok, that's what I thought. That's very close to what I said.</div>

LeiselEB

Stage, I'm agreeing with you quite a lot here. Though I'm not happy it was upheld. 

I don't believe this Act will do as much good for the American people as we've been led to believe. I'm happy that there's been actual attention paid to the issue, and I suppose I'm happy that something was passed - but it's not the best "something" out there, and I wish there'd been a reason to go back to the drawing board, so to speak. 

melb2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:caba11c1-1210-4daf-b4c3-143038ef8f3f">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : It actually probably won't make it more affordable at all, but you will get part of the money back in Health Care Subsidies, so that is something. I'm vehemently against the individual mandate and I'm still pissed that the public option we were promised went off the table so fast, but overall I'm glad they upheld it.  It would have been throwing the baby out with the bathwater in a big way. <strong> Sucks to be the working class self-employed right now though...</strong>
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>OH yes it does!  I have limited insurance and have no problem with that.  I honestly would rather a bill that just paid for insurance for more people who can't afford it, but leave my insurance alone!!!  I will no longer be able to afford it and I really don't like the government telling me what I can and cannot afford.</div><div>
</div><div>I just love how they decided that you can't force states to insure those who take the penalty, but they can force us to pay for insurance... can you say "double standard"?  I was planning on just taking the penalty since I can't afford more expensive insurance, but I'm sure my state will opt out now since they understand they can't afford to insure all those people (very fiscally conservative state NH is).</div><div>
</div><div>I'm pretty sure this is going to lead to more layoffs since most companies already announced they couldn't afford to raise the standards of their insurance... that's just peachy for a struggling economy. Rant over!

</div>

melb2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:8e987b42-33f1-499b-8925-1d12f8d719e1">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]I'm unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the law, but overall I'm glad it passed.  Something needs to be done about healtcare in this country, and the big things like not barring insurance for preexisting conditions is HUGE.<strong> I'm in Mass, and my taxes were penalized one year when I went without insurance for 5 months. </strong> I don't know where that money actually goes, but I'd like to see it used for preventive care services or something like that.  Paying the fine wasn't ideal, but it was something that I accepted, and moved on with my life.
Posted by pkontk[/QUOTE]

<div>This was  state decision also known as Romneycare.  It's what Obamacare is based on.  That money went to the state of MA.  I have self employed friends in MA who have seen their insurance prices quadruple since Romneycare went into affect... ya affordable health care (sarcasm)</div>

melb2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:abaa6bc9-8ed1-4c4a-9248-492bf2d3de58">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : Not even close.  In fact,<strong> none of the requirements for Medicaid (i.e. government subsidized healthcare) have changed.  </strong>These people are morons.
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Exactly!  So what was this law really about?  Helping the under privileged and uninsured, or gaining control over the rest of us?  Because that's all I really see going on.

</div>

divinemsbee

I'm also really pleased with Roberts right now for the way he handled this. I actually called it last night with FI that if it was upheld or mostly upheld, that Roberts would swing for it and Kennedy would be in the dissent. I think that Scalia and Thomas have so politicized the court and themselves, and one of Roberts' major issues is that he doesn't want a politicized court, that he had no choice. My opinion of him may not be completely changed, but I think it is intriguing and was a good call. 

I'm not surprised at Kennedy is the dissent, I've long thought him much less moderate than he is represented to be.

Overall, I'm please with the decision, but I think there's a long road ahead. I don't think this is going to affect voters who were probably already going to vote for Obama, but I do think it will be interested to see how it plays with undecideds. With this, and the endorsement of gay marriage, I really think Obama is moving out of center and more to the left (say what you want, he's one of the most moderate Democratic presidents or presidential candidates we've seen in a long time; the problem is that "center" has moved so far to the right that some of Reagan's policies would be considered pinko-lefty). I, for one, am happy about that. Lord knows, no one can lose an election like us Democrats, but I'm glad there's starting to be some fight in this. I think while Obama may lost some people who were already leaning right, he's going to pick up a lot more of the undecided younger vote and people who are more socially liberal. 

I also think that the way they narrowly discussed the Medicare expansion is pretty interesting. I do like that if the states want extra federal money, they have to play by the federal rules, but, thank God, it doesn't affect the regular Medicare money for states who are too stubborn to take advantage of that (because it would only hurt really poor states who aren't going to make enough in taxes to provide Medicare money if all of it were taken away). 

melb2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:5349faf0-aed3-47a7-b493-d40612567530">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : While I agree that while exisiting isn't much of a choice, while not everyone buys insurance, everyone uses healthcare. It's just that if you don't have insurance you go to the ER and when you don't pay your bill, costs increase for everyone who does have insurance. <strong>Very few people opt out of healthcare completely (those very few being those Alaskan survivalists on TV), so I think it is fair to make everyone participate.</strong> Since fuel is taxed, I feel like there is already a tax on having inefficient cars, it is the gas tax.
Posted by Liatris2010[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>No, but there are plenty of people who choose to have minimal insurance (that would be me and all of my self-employed family), who will no longer be allowed to do so.  Also, if I want to go be an Alaskan survivalist, I should be allowed to do so.  My choice to have insurance should be nobody's business but my own.  I don't like government making decisions for me because they usually mess it up.

</div>

mizutamababy

I dunno it seems like to some extent both sides have no idea what to expect.

In Japan we have national health care, which is paid 8 times a year based on salary.  (I assume the U.S. would bill monthly, though.)  You can't have pre-existing conditions, which make it somewhat useless for a portion of the population.  For me it costs about $250-$300 every billing cycle... so about $1,600-$2,400 a year.

This sucks because I hardly ever go to the doctors and I've never been to an ER here.  However, with a doctor's visit at about $150 a pop with medication without insurance, I'm glad I have it just incase I do ever get a serious injury or illness.

There are many people that abuse this system, particularly doctors who will have patients come in staggered visits so they can collect more money from the government.  Also, you can imagine that this cost might be hard for some people to come up with every payment period.  I also think that with the obesity problem in the U.S. and general unhealthiness of the population, in time the care will cost the government more than they're getting in citizen money.

But the pros are that it provides healthcare for everyone on it. Medicine and dental work is pretty much available to anyone at a fraction of the cost and there's no worrying about what to do if you should be hospitalized for a length of time.

Overall I feel that having national healthcare is better than having no healthcare back when I lived in the U.S. and was no longer a dependent = no insurance.  I get that some people in the U.S. can pay their medical bills without insurance, but this isn't a reality for the majority of people.  I grew up my whole life having to pick and choose between dental or optical insurance with a co-pay on doctor's visits because my single mom's company insurance wasn't all inclusive.  Even then it was hard for us to come up with co-pays and either paying for glasses for the both of us, or going without dental care.  (For the record my mom ended up choosing no dental care for about 10 years because we needed the optical care more and I've spent quite a bit of time fixing those dental issues in Japan because of it.) I can only imagine how it's difficult for people without any insurance at all.

runpipparun

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:f03d00ae-0604-40dc-b8a4-10bb15dc73a6">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : And again, the BS Flag.  I was uninsured for 6 years, as was DH.  We paid for every BIT of our healthcare, service by service.  The people who use the ER instead of the Dr's office and default on medical bills are NOT the majority of uninsured.
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Eeehhh... Just because you pay doesn't mean others who are uninsured do. Or that they pay in a timely manner. I know this from experience.</div>

melb2013

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_affordable-healthcare-act-upheld?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:03d8cef2-2449-46f2-8096-678086ad9a3dPost:01927354-c48e-4687-a21e-06c4864ed516">Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Affordable HealthCare Act upheld : Eeehh.... just because you have experience with some who don't pay, or don't pay in a timely manner doesn't mean that's the majority either. I'm not saying "I do it, therefore that is the case".   Is it a problem?  Yes. Is it as big of a problem as the political agenda making it out to be?  No. Is the mandate going to solve it?  <strong>Nope, it will likely make it worse actually, by forcing those who currently DO pay their medical bills to purchase what I affectionately refer to as "Holy F***, I wrapped my car around a tree!" policy in order to keep from having mounting tax penalties.  And what money will they use to take out these policies with ridiculous deductibles that cover no preventative care?  The money they were previously using to pay for their $400 doctor's visit and tests.</strong>
Posted by StageManager14[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>So true. 

</div>

Nickie431

I was initially resisting getting incolved in the discussion but can resist the temptation no longer...

I appreciate that much of the law is well-intentioned toward increasing healthcare access and therefore improving more people's lives--after all, government is supposed to serve the people (you may insert a sarcastic comment here).  And having pre-existing conditions and not having benefits through my husband's or my employment, I would personally benefit.  However, in practice, I find the law invalid.  Yes, everyone will at some time in their lives participate in the healthcare market (Alaskan survivalists who give birth at home and die in their sleep excepted), and we can't live without it.  The fact that we're alive should not obligate us to subsidize others' healthcare.  Whether that's morally preferable to allowing someone who cannot afford treatment to suffer is not the question; people have the right to determine how and in what manner their personal funds support others.  While it's good to do, we are not legally obligated to contribute to charity.  Of course, government has an interest and responsibility to "promote the general welfare," which is why we have taxes that provide services like education, highways, defense, even environmental protection.  I think this law goes too far in promoting the general welfare in that it infringes too much on individual rights.

My next objection is in regard to implementation/application of the law by the Dept. of Health and Human Services.  The law provides for preventative care, which HHS has determined includes services such as contraception at no cost.  There are also provisions for insurance coverage of sterilization and drugs that some consider to induce abortion.  Since we are now required to pay into (or, if you're an employer, provide) health insurance that is required to cover these services, that means the law requires us to subsidize them.  But all those services are directly against my religious beliefs.  I don't believe they're good or necessary medical treatment.  Whether you believe that or not is your choice.  The actual merits of those services is not the debate; it's that millions of Americans will be paying every month to provide services to others that violate their religion. Government does not have the right to demand this of people, which is why there is legal action currently pending reagrding this specific provision.

I know my comments are controversial, and I'm happy to discuss them.  I was pleasantly surprised reading the thread how generally respectful the tone has been, and I hope that continues.

Oh, I do 100% support the little part of the law that taxes tanning bed use.  I think it's about time for that.