superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's sweeping health care legislation Thursday in a narrow 5-4 ruling.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, which said that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to require people to have health care, but that other parts of the Constitution did.

The court's ruling upheld the law's central provision -- a requirement that all people have health insurance.

The importance of the decision cannot be overstated: It will have an immediate and long-term impact on all Americans, both in how they get medicine and health care, and also in vast, yet-unknown areas of "commerce."

Five scenarios: Health care options before the justices

The polarizing law, dubbed "Obamacare" by many, is the signature legislation of Obama's time in office.

It helped spur the creation of the conservative tea party movement and is likely to be a centerpiece of the presidential election campaign.

Both Obama and his presumptive Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, have been firing up supporters this week by staking out their positions.

Speaking to supporters in Atlanta Tuesday, Obama defended his health care law as the way forward for the American people.

"They understand we don't need to re-fight this battle over health care," he said. "It's the right thing to do that we've got 3 million young people who are on their parent's health insurance plans that didn't have it before. It's the right thing to do to give seniors discounts on their prescription drugs. It's the right thing to do to give 30 million Americans health insurance that didn't have it before."

The real people behind health care reform

Romney told supporters in Virginia the same day: "If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president's term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people."

Romney, whose opposition to the law has been a rallying cry on the stump, continued: "If it is deemed to stand, then I'll tell you one thing. Then we'll have to have a president -- and I'm that one -- that's gonna get rid of Obamacare. We're gonna stop it on day one."

Opinion: Aging boomers need health care law

According to a poll released Tuesday, 37% of Americans said they would be pleased if the health care law was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Twenty-eight percent would be pleased if the Affordable Care Act is ruled constitutional, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed, compared to 35% who said they would be disappointed if the court came back with that outcome.

But nearly four in 10 Americans surveyed said they would have "mixed feelings" if the justices struck down the whole law. The survey of 1,000 adults was conducted June 20-24.

Previous surveys have indicated that some who oppose the law do so because they think it doesn't go far enough.

The Supreme Court heard three days of politically charged hearings in March on the law formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The landmark but controversial measure was passed by congressional Democrats despite pitched Republican opposition.

The challenge focused primarily on the law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance or pay a fine.

Supporters of the plan argued the "individual mandate" is necessary for the system to work, while critics argued it is an unconstitutional intrusion on individual freedom.

All sides preparing for political fallout from health care decision

Four different federal appeals courts heard challenges to parts of the law before the Supreme Court ruling, and came up with three different results.

Courts in Cincinnati and Washington voted to uphold the law, while the appeals court in Atlanta struck down the individual mandate.

A fourth panel, in Richmond, Virginia, put its decision off until penalties for failing to have health insurance take effect in 2014.

The act passed Congress along strictly partisan lines in March 2010, after a lengthy and heated debate marked by intense opposition from the health insurance industry and conservative groups.

When Obama signed the legislation later that month, he called it historic and said it marked a "new season in America."

While it was not the comprehensive national health care system liberals initially sought, supporters said the law would reduce health care costs, expand coverage and protect consumers.

Health care's big four issues: What the justices are tackling

In place of creating a national health system, the law banned insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, barred insurers from setting a dollar limit on health coverage payouts, and required them to cover preventative care at no additional cost to consumers.

It also required individuals to have health insurance, either through their employers or a state-sponsored exchange, or face a fine beginning in 2014.

Supporters argued the individual mandate is critical to the success of the legislation, because it expands the pool of people paying for insurance and ensures that healthy people do not opt out of having insurance until they needed it.

Critics say the provision gives the government too much power over what they say should be a personal economic decision.

Twenty-six states, led by Florida, went to court to say individuals cannot be forced to have insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need. And they argued that if that provision is unconstitutional, the entire law must go.

The Justice Department countered that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" whether to participate in the health care market.

Congress ready for high court's health care decisions -- then it gets tricky

The partisan debate around such a sweeping piece of legislation has encompassed almost every traditional hot-button topic: abortion and contraception funding, state and individual rights, federal deficits, end-of-life care, and the overall economy.

During arguments on March 27, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the law appeared to "change the relationship between the government and the individual in a profound way."

Chief Justice John Roberts argued that "all bets are off" when it comes to federal government authority if Congress was found to have the authority to regulate health care in the name of commerce.

Liberal justices, however, argued people who don't pay into the health system by purchasing insurance make care more expensive for everyone.

Timeline of the health care law

"It is not your free choice" to stay out of the market for life, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during arguments.

"I think the justices probably came into the argument with their minds made up. They had hundreds of briefs and months to study them," said Thomas Goldstein, publisher of SCOTUSblog.com and a prominent Washington attorney, though he conceded that "the oral arguments (in March) might have changed their minds around the margin."

Basics: Health care reform issues

The legislation signed by Obama stretched to 2,700 pages, nine major sections and some 450 provisions.

The first lawsuits challenging the health care overhaul began just hours after the president signed the measure.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
I see you are as stoked as I, midswat.

Big win for Obama too. Election is in the bag.
 

Cythim

2
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
0
lol

Ridiculous



Ayuh

Except it isn't a personal economic decision when hospitals are required to provide a service that 20% of households cannot afford to pay for. Give hospitals the right to refuse people who cannot pay and people can have the right to be unable to afford it.
 
Messages
46,859
Reaction score
5
Except it isn't a personal economic decision when hospitals are required to provide a service that 20% of households cannot afford to pay for. Give hospitals the right to refuse people who cannot pay and people can have the right to be unable to afford it.

Not my problem if people insist on having 500 a month car payments and 200 a month phone plans, but omg can't afford to pay their doctor bills.
 

superpunk

Pro Bowler
Messages
11,003
Reaction score
0
Not my problem if people insist on having 500 a month car payments and 200 a month phone plans, but omg can't afford to pay their doctor bills.

People should avoid making purchases just in case they become seriously ill one day. Your plan would help the economy.
 
Messages
10,636
Reaction score
0
Good, nothing's more important than being well. America is supposed to be just that bad ass.

I don't want people burning up because they can't pay their fireman bill
 
Messages
10,636
Reaction score
0
People should avoid making purchases just in case they become seriously ill one day. Your plan would help the economy.

I love the idea that youre supposed to work 1/3 of your life just to not die. Food, water, recreation, travel, communication? La de da
 

Cythim

2
Messages
3,919
Reaction score
0
Not my problem if people insist on having 500 a month car payments and 200 a month phone plans, but omg can't afford to pay their doctor bills.

If they can afford the car and phone then they can afford the health insurance as well.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
Not my problem if people insist on having 500 a month car payments and 200 a month phone plans, but omg can't afford to pay their doctor bills.

What about people that insurers refuse to cover?

No sympathy for them?
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
People are fucking clueless on this bill.

All they seem to say is, "I don't want to be forced to buy something" or "I don't want to pay for someone's healthcare".

Like either situation isn't already jammed in their ass in the first place.

Part of the reason health care costs are so high is because there are people that cannot pay right now.

If someone goes to an emergency room and is in need of emergent care, the hospital cannot refuse. It's a law and has been for a while. But, some hospitals got really slimey and they would stabilize people and then call a cab to take them to the next closest hospital.

So for those who can't pay, how does the hospital get it's money? They raise the fucking price for everyone else who can pay and everyone else who has insurance, thereby increasing premiums for everyone and increasing the amount that people have to pay out of pocket to cover their deductibles.

Additionally, the single biggest loss of tax revenue in the US comes in the form of tax breaks given to companies who provide employees with health care coverage.

The US government reduces the tax burden (aka gives money back to) companies that provide health insurance for employees.

Wow....that sounds a lot like the US government just buying health insurance for people.

Now, where do you think that lost tax revenue comes from? They just go without? Fuck no. They raise taxes in some other area and butt fuck everyone two or three times over.

And for anyone who's retarded ass complaint of the quality of healthcare declining........provided you have some rational reason for why that might even happen. It's not like the government is taking control of private hospitals and will all of a sudden run everything top to bottom.

There's a stipulation in the bill that sets reimbursement rates (what the government and what private insurance companies pay for a specific service) based on their HCAHPS scores which are essentially quality of care measures based on patient surveys. If your HCAHP scores suck, you'll lose a couple percent of your reimbursement. May not sound like much but to a single hospital, we're talking MILLIONS of dollars.

To put this in perspective, there are a few current reimbursement rate models. Some are based on efficiency which obviously neglects quality and outcomes. In and out is what they want. Another is based on occupancy which means the longer they keep you, the more the reimbursement amount will be to the hospital. And then there's one that's based on what is actually done. So, if you go in with an infection and all of a sudden are admitted and given 3 difference tests, an MRI and a whatever else they think is appropriate, the hospital will get WAY MORE money than if they had just given you an antibiotic and sent you on your way.

This sort of change might not sound like much but it's already having an impact in some of the biggest and best health care organizations in the country. That's a fact. Hospitals are now implementing things they hadn't really prioritized before because it will improve outcomes, patient happiness and reimbursement rates.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Just read the Roberts opinion and most of Scalia's dissent... yeah I'm a little masochistic.

The lengths the majority went to are just baffling. Mandate is not a tax for anti-injunction purposes, but is a tax for constitutional purposes. Obama says in 2009 it's not a tax. Sebelius says in 2012 it's not a tax. Obama's budget director says it's not a tax. Statute says it's a penalty, not a tax.

Supreme Court: It's a tax.

wtf
 
Top Bottom