The Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance requirement of President Barack Obama’s historical health care overhaul.
In a 5 to 4 vote, the decision will bring on a complete renovation to health care in the United States.
As far as how the ruling will affect Gordon County locally, in a statement from Adventist Health System, which owns Gordon Hospital, it said they are please with the ruling.
“We are pleased that the court has upheld the health care reform act and specifically the individual mandate. Without that provision, we believe that the other provisions such as elimination of pre-existing condition would become financially difficult to implement. We also believe that the uninsured problem would have continued to grow which would have put greater and greater pressure on hospitals to continue to subsidize care. We recognize that the health reform bill is not perfect, but it does much to lower the number of uninsured and to increase access to care. Our organization has provided health care for over 100 years. We will continue to work with others, including Congress, to create a system that reduces the overall cost of health care, builds a healthier state and improves outcomes and the patient experience.”
However, U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ranger, called the high court’s decision “a dark day in our history.”
“While I’m disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision, I’m more resolved than ever to repeal this law in its entirety,” Graves said in a statement. “First the president told us the individual mandate was not a tax. Now, the high court is telling us it is a tax. What’s clear from today’s ruling is there are now no limits to how the federal government can tax the American people.
“House Republicans are firmly committed to removing this entire law. Once that work is done, and the nightmare known as Obamacare is fully behind us, we must engage in a thoughtful, common-sense approach to reforming health care in America. Any reforms we undertake pertaining to health care must let families make their own health choices and preserve the doctor-patient relationship. It’s time for a patient-centered, patient-driven, free market-focused solution for health care.”
According to the Associated Press, the decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling the Affordable Care Act can go forward with it’s goal to cover more than 30 million uninsured Americans, according to the Associated Press.
The justices of the court rejected two of the Obama Administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement, but the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax, according to the Associated Press.
“Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.
The court found problems with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states’ entire Medicaid allotment if they don’t take part in the law’s extension, according to the Associated Press.
The court’s four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.
Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
“The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding,” the dissenters said in a joint statement, according to the Associated Press.
“Here in America, in the wealthiest nation on earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin,” said Obama following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
It's not the best plan ever created, but I don't understand how someone that's being honest can read through that list and tell me that it's an abomination unto us all.
Two items: 1) we cannot afford it. Conservative estimates - ObamaCare will add $17 Trillion in unfunded liabilities to the debt. 2) Only look to other countries that have gone the socialized medicine route (Canada and the UK) and explain the advantages of waiting months or in some cases years for care. No thank you!
That you can't make your vague point without throwing out the buzzwords of obamacare and socialism is a good display that you don't truly know what you are talking about. First, it is Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; learn the name, use the name. Second, if this were true socialism, no one would have a choice in the matter; everyone would be under one plan, end of story. As it stands, if you already have health insurance, you have nothing to worry about. If you don't have it and can afford it, you purchase it or you pay a fine (this fine goes toward covering those citizens that cannot afford insurance)...if you don't have it and cannot afford it you basically qualify for Medicare.
We have a long, proud history of not being able to afford the things that we as a nation decide to get into. For medical care for all to be the thing that has driven people to the brink of insanity would be unbelievable it weren't happening before our eyes.
We couldn't afford the space race, the arms race, the war on drugs or the war on terror yet we happily jumped into all of them. All led to good and bad things and this will likely be the exact same situation.
There's always a price to pay for moving forward and while it seems that there's a great number of people that are terrified of moving forward, if we don't we cease to be. For what it's worth, my friends in Canada and the UK seem to be pretty happy with their health care.
The Democrats with zero Republican support passed ObamaCare. They ignored the will of the people, used a trick called “reconciliation” to get the bill passed, to paraphrase Ms. Pelosi, had to pass the bill before finding out what was in the bill, lied about it’s impact on the deficit, gave out kickbacks to compliant senators by rewarding states with special favors not available to the rest, and many more similarly corrupt schemes. It seems the radicals of generations past have given up bomb throwing and cop killing, put on suits and are content with a slower rate of change by corrupting the republic from within.
Many others and I are certain of this one thing: Obama will either be the worst ex-president we ever had (constantly meddling in his unfinished business and dogging subsequent administrations) or he will be the last president we ever have.
FYI: Our friends in the UK and Canada who cannot wait for care and can afford the expense continually flock here for treatment. Your Canadian and UK friends must be poor yet fortunately healthy.
I will close my participation in this pointless discussion (unless your retort is so egregious it must be challenged) with the anticipation of casting my anti-Obama vote in November, which I will do whilst recalling the following words of Thomas Jefferson:
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
See you at the polls!
There isn't an ounce of compassion or empathy amongst you all, just hate and fear and stupid.
I've worked all my life, taken care of others all my life because it is the right thing to do not because I was forced to, you people would stand by and watch your cousins die because they couldnt afford medical insurance. Just pathetic human beings or more likely the dredges of humanity dragged out of a sewer somewhere.
I don't ignore your respones I just don't see any worth replying to most of the time, you fine products of gordon county's educational system. Glad I escaped from it before becoming like you
Morn, NO ONE here has said that they did not care about others, nor did they say they would refuse care to others. I think anyone who uses that as an arguement lacks the understanding of the law and resorts to scare-tactics to make their opinion seem relevant.
The reason for the dissent lies upon the fact that the government is FORCING us to do something, without the support of a majority of the population. (I say majority b/c the last poll I saw showed a 61% disagreement with the mandate, but that was a few days ago, and yahoo may have a new number for us now.) Now, we are basically being TAXED (it IS a tax - SCOTUS said so) not only to assist those who truly need it, but also to assist those who refuse to carry their share of the load and ride on the backs of others. Unfortunately, I hear too many people say that this is "FREE Health Care from the governent," I hate to tell you this, but there is NO SUCH THING AS FREE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. The government does NOT have its own stash of money somewhere. The government gets its money from us (ie: taxes). WE are the deep-pockets the goverment keeps reaching into.
So again, let me rephrase this so you understand. NO ONE wants to watch others suffer. NO ONE wants anyone to die because they can't afford health care. What we want is an economically affordable way to solve the social issues we have, without damaging an already fragile economy.
All parties are composed of liberals, conservatives and whatever else.
The voters of Massachusetts did not vote for RomneyCare as by his own admission he did not plan his socialized medicine scheme until after the 2002 election. Romney foisted it upon the citizenry without warning and without any prodding from his Democratic rivals
The court essentially said that Congress could not require people to buy something in the private economy, but they (Congress) could fine them (people) if they didn't. The court found that power to fine, in the taxing power of Article I.
Now the president will have to figure out a way to make the fines in the law -- which are weak and toothless -- real.
To answer your question - NO!
Can a tax be imposed on me if I don’t buy solar panels made by union workers in the US? Can they impose a ”tax” on me for any purpose? Can they tax me if I’m overweight? Can they tax me if I don’t go to church? Is there any reason a tax cannot be imposed?
Obamacare. Romneycare. Virtually. Identical. Laws.
Can't escape the fact that Romneycare, of which he used to be so proud, and which Mass. residents love, is exactly the same program, but on a larger scale.
The point still remains…. those of us who work and pay taxes are being forced to keep up a segment of the population that doesn’t have anything beneficial to give back to society.
Obamacare was NOT presented to the voters.
There's your difference.
You said "...those of us who work and pay taxes are being forced to keep up a segment of the population that doesn’t have anything beneficial to give back to society."
Having read those pathetic words of yours reminded me of a quote I've seen around in some form or another. It goes "You can tell the character of a person by how he treats the least in his society."
Judging by your words, your namesake guitar has more character than you.