If not Obamacare, what?
The Supreme Court could rule as early as today on whether the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is constitutional, a decision that will have an impact well beyond the tens of millions of people whose hopes of affordable health insurance are riding on the law. A story by Kaiser Health News and USA Today touches on what’s at stake throughout the health care and insurance industries.
Opponents have talked a lot about the constitutionality of the insurance mandate, designed to keep premiums affordable for everyone if today’s “uninsurables” are to be let in the pool. But I’ve heard little — actually, nothing — about what the government should do to assure affordable health care coverage to all Americans if that part of the ACA goes away or the entire law is jettisoned. Are you worried about that?
June 11, 2012 - 12:28 PM
Everyone I know who opposes “Obamacare” already has health care, usually through some govt. entity or their employer, and it’s costing them little or nothing. Perhaps if they had no health care insurance at all, or were paying thousands of dollars (around 10k in my case) per year for it, they’d realize that something has to be done.
#1 Carol, Then address those 15 million that truely can’t afford health insurance and leave the rest alone. Don’t force a “one size fits all” system on everyone.
A private sector system of health insurance is better where the individual can shop for the plan that suits their needs and pocket book. All polls show that Obamacare is still unpopular with the majority of Americans.
Carol, the cost of the health care system in this nation is out of control and the behemoth is only going to grow and become hungrier. There is no excuse for the people who want to destroy “Obamacare” not to have a plan on the table to face this juggernaut.
Medicaid, Medicare and the uninsured take a toll on the economy and our budget, mainly because we have put off doing anything about this problem for so long.
Of course the problems already there were going to be made worse when millions of people lost their jobs, homes and health insurance.
I wish you luck, we are all going to need it.
The biggest driver of the rising cost of health care insurance is state and federal mandates along with restrictions on shopping for insurance across state lines.
Why should a 25 year old single healthy male tea toteler have to pay for insurance that covers maternity care and drug rehab?
How can a health care plan written by the GOP be so despised by the GOP. Romney care mixed with Newt yet they cannot fathom that it is a private insurance plan. No government take over, no govt interference in your own health coverage unless you refused to get insurance. A complete GOP plan.
Did we Democrats want it, hell no. We want a single payer plan and firmly believe it would work better. But that was not possible politically. So Obama used the GOP plan to do something to reduce the costs of health care. What did he get. The GOP complaining that it is socialism. What a farce, the GOP simply wants the US GOVT to go broke so they can dismantle medicare and social security. Nothing would ever suit them.
#5 Richard & others like to rationalize “Obamacare” by comparing it to the Romney backed plan in MA. They conveniently leave out a major difference. The question before the Supreme Court is not one of policy or politics. It is not the role of SCOTUS to rule on policy. The question before SCOTUS is one of constitutionality.
Those powers not enumerated to the federal government are specifically reserved to the states. Using the commerce clause to attempt to justify a social agenda utilizing unwarranted powers is the issue. If allowed here, the federal government would have virtualy no constitutional limitations.
The same flaw exists in Roe v. Wade. It continues to amaze me how many “progressives” can weave constitutional powers from whole cloth, but refuse to acknowledge it’s explicit language.
Actually, I believe the biggest driver of the rising cost of health care is that we are far too willing to pay too much for worse or the same outcome as peer nations.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/
I also believe that the biggest driver of the rising cost of health care insurance is the idea that profit is the only motivator for anything in this nation to happen. Anyone who understands what an insurance pool is, realizes that unless the pain is spread, the gain will not be sufficient for any profit. Which is why big insurance is not going to be happy with the repeal of the ACA if the SCOTUS continues their political foray and knocks it down. They simply cannot afford sick Fred’s open heart surgery if healthy young Ted is not going to “pay for insurance that covers maternity care and drug rehab”. That is how the private insurance model works.
Little chance of the US GOVT going broke, it’s already broke! Social security and medicare very well may go broke sooner rather than later unless there is entitlement reform. Something Obama will not address.
Once again I point out, after 3 years the polls still show Americans are not pleased with Obamacare and Obama and the Dems continue to avoid bringing it up.
When the history books are written, it will be Obama focusing on Obamacare rather than the economy for his first 2 years as the cause of the demise of his one and only term as president.
Anyone who believes that Obamacare will reduce the cost of health care is about two years behind in history and concepts!
6. Jim Lucas – i will reserve judgement to the Supreme Court, however, they will be hard pressed to show the difference in the health care act and SSN or Medicare.
But my comments remain true about the health care act. Most of the ideas, especially the requirement to purchase insurance (see Newt) were GOP ideas. had the Democrats been bale to pass a single payer plan, the act would have been better. but we got what wee got and it is certainly better than what we had.
To hear Mitt rail against an act that along with Newt’s plan on forcing the purchase on insurance is simply absurd. Can we do better, of course, it is called medicare.
8. John R – “US Government broke” Then why are investors putting money into US Bonds that pay less than 0 percent interest. Are you telling me the investors are willing to put money into US Bonds for less than even return when the US is broke?
Surely you do not know what you are saying.
#10 Richard, he knows what he’s saying — anything he can, whether true or not, that is critical of Obama.
Putting aside the “legality” of it or not, we now get word some of the insurance companies are going to keep many of the things imposed upon them by the law because it’s what the market wants. Such things as free vaccinations and allowing children to stay on their parent’s plans until 26, etc.
NOW? NOW!!? Now the market wants this? Oh for pity’s sake!
Whether you agree with “Obamacare” or not, the fact is something needs to be done AND apparently it’s doable by a profit making corporation.
What we need is universal health care paid for from general revenues and a health care system free of the free-market! But personally, until we get to that point politically, I’ll take Obamacare.
Actually, the “question” of constitutionality, has already been answered as well. A Congress with members who could rightly be called “founders” or “framers” in it already mandated commerce to the people.
The points are well argued here:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/14/did-the-founding-fathers-back-health-insurance-mandates/
“ the very first Congress, in 1790, passed a law that included a mandate that ship owners buy medical insurance, but not hospital insurance, for their seamen. That Congress included 20 framers and was signed by another framer: President George Washington. In 1792, Washington signed another bill, passed by a Congress with 17 framers, requiring that all able-bodied men buy firearms. In 1798, Congress, with 5 framers, passed a federal law that required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.”
If the partisan SCOTUS finds this law unconstitutional, it will be for political and not constitutional grounds, per some of the very framers and founders so many quote regularly. Which might also explain their own “approval rating”.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120608/supreme-courts-approval-rating-falls-44-percent
The thing that cracks me up about this. While the Republicans are arguing in court “this is unconstitutional” they could if they wished be working on a Constitutional amendment making it constitutional.
But they’re not.
You know why?
Because this ISN’T about the constitutionality. It’s about money and getting re-elected.
But, the Democrats aren’t trying to get a Constitutional Amendment passed either making access to reasonable health care a right.
Do you know why
Because they’re stupid.
13 – I wasn’t aware that ALL US citizens back in the Framers’ day were able-bodied seamen, or even that ALL citizens were able-bodied men. Imagine that.
Not the same thing at all, Sandi, but it’s good of you to keep beating dead horses.
I should add, I fully expect the SCOTUS to either approve the mandate (and ACA) “straight up”, or to apply such minimal conditions as to make them moot.
It is not remotely a “dead horse” in the game of Constitutional inquiry. It is also true that not ALL Americans are uninsured. Imagine that?
The very argument so many have used for it being unconstitutional is that the founders/framers had some deep aversion to the federal government being involved, mandating a purchase or meddling in the health care of citizens and they did all three from VERY early on. Also, if they truly wanted a weak federal government, they could have just stayed with the Articles of Confederation. They wrote the Constitution because they wanted a stronger central government IMO.
What insurance companies are NOT going to keep are the changes that will cost them more money. One of the biggest things will be the “pre-existing” ban. They will not be able to survive if you can wait until you are sick to get health insurance. That one will be gone quickly. Believe it or not, they are in this to make money and only the changes that save them money will remain.
I fully admit to mixed “emotions” reference the health care situation, and even the ACA. I just can’t get my “arms” around it.
No doubt it’s a mess. But what’s the solution?
How did we get into this incestuous relationship between medical service/technology, the insurance companies & the government(s)?
Almost all other services, particularly technical ones, have seen their prices drop & their quality increase. Mobile phones? Calculators? Computers? Cars? Etc., etc.
My “innate” problem with ACA is it takes us farther away from a market based solution. See above. In addition, it seems joined at the hip with Obama’s & the “progressive’s” blanket solution , actually social formula, for all things. Government control.
Richard, as to SSN & medicare vis-a-vis ACA reference SCOTUS; SSN is a tax. Medicare is voluntary. It (part A) pays for less than 50% of seniors’ (disabled, etc.) medical expenses. The rest is usually covered in part B (& D, thanks George). Ask most on medicare where they choose to spent their part B premiums. Back to medicare, or to supplement with a private insurance company.
I am permanently disabled with severe medical problems. I am on SSN disability & (after two years) medicare. I am very glad it’s there. Yet, I paid into SSN from the age of 14, with a worker’s permit, most of the time self-em. ployed & paying both sides.
@18 Jim, I know people think of me as this big government communist but I promise you I’m not. I say in this particular case though, it is the government that should be paying for it for a couple of reasons.
1) Health care shouldn’t be subject to markets. Recall, markets distribute goods and services based on ability to pay.
2) Very low overhead. Being a non-profit, government can be very efficient handing payments. Things like SS have some of the lowest overheads anywhere.
3) Oversight. We have congressional committees always looking into stuff along with, what are those people called?, that do investigations? Not special prosecutors. Not attorney general. Crap I forget. But the point is, we can make the process transparent unlike with private enterprise.
4) If you pay physicians a flat fee to treat people, you eliminate unnecessary testing, fees for services, self-referrals, etc.
This is one case where government control should be in place.