SCOTUS Upholds Affordable Care Act!

ANYONE who tells you that they KNOW what will happen under ACA is lying to you.  The administrative rules to enforce the law are still being written, and the wording of those rules will have a significant impact on how the law will actually work.  No one will really know until it is fully implemented in 2014, and at that point, it may be too late to offset any unintended consequences.

Those small businesses that aren't going to hire more employees because doing so would cause penatlies under ACA will not be helping the unemployment rate which has been unacceptably high since Obama took office.

Most people who don't have any insurance qualify for assistance, or for programs designed to help people with no insurance.  The women on these boards who worry the most about affording care have insurance, it is just lousy insurance, and this law virtually guarantees that there will be more of them.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.  Those who think this law will change that are sadly mistaken.

Pat, you say that anyone that says they know what will happen under this law is mistaken, and yet you proceed to tell us that you know what will happen.  Please try to keep this conversation civil.  It has been a very good discussion, where everyone has felt free to express their ideas without attacking.  I, for one, would like it to stay that way.  I know that it felt good to be able to express both my appreciation for the law as well as my misgivings.  I would like a place where I can continue to do just that without being on the defensive.  Claire

I guess that only those who think the law doesn't go far enough are allowed to express their opinion here. 

I didn't attack anyone here, but the two posts right after mine attack me directly, and by name, and then tell me to "keep this conversation civil".

Nice support.

Pat...there are plenty of folks who have expressed that they feel this law is a mistake, with the implication that it is in the wrong direction.  I was marvelling at how everyone seemed able to express their opinions without denigrating the opinions of others...as so clearly happened with the Komen-Planned Parenthood debacle.  I was hopeful it could stay that way.  I will bow out of this conversation now, with regret, because it had been informative and thoughtful.  Claire

My issue with ACA is that it is government run.  I have yet to meet a US Gov't run program that isnt loaded with nonsense at a ridiculously high price.  IMO, my gov't is incapable of running a single payor system.  I believe earlier an Aussie said she paid 1.5% of income for universal care.  My hats off to the Aussies because I dont see our gov't being able to pull that off.  It doesnt mean I dont think people should have healthcare because I do.  It just means I dont like the democratic plan to deliver and keep its costs in check.  I also dont like the republicans gutting of everything democrat.  I love my country but I question the out of control spending.   

CLC don't leave because of one person. Stay because of the many.

Mardibra - The system here is flawed. I wouldn't risk my life going to a public hospital. One man we know had to wait 3 months to get surgery for bowel cancer at the major hospital in my city. We don't get free consultations with GPs unless they choose to bulk bill the government. Some GPs charge extra. Even with having private health insurance I was out of pocket a lot for my surgeries and radiation (at least 5,000 each time) due to the prices the specialists charge - way over the government scheduled fee. The government only give refunds based on their suggested fees which are so low they're ridiculous. One good thing is that all hospital costs were covered by private insurance and I didn't pay a cent for my chemo and herceptin. We do get a 30% rebate on our private insurance charges, but this terrible socialist government has now cut that for higher income earners which will force many to give up their insurance and then place more strain on the overburdened public system.

My worry is that with a government program here in the US, and the new rules under ACA, that the government then will also dicate treatment. So now we have a choice, even if you have DCIS, you can have a mastectomy. If you have Invasive cancer, you still can get chemo, even for a small tumor. Once we have a government program, I'm fearful that they then will dictate what surgical chioces and medical treatment you can have for which type and extension of cancer.  It will no longer be a choice.  Don't others worry about that?

Bessie makes an important point. The new system creates unlimited access to a product (health care) for which there is unlimited demand -- certainly anyone with BC doesn't want limits placed on access to treatment due to cost. I can't see how this is sustainable without the government putting some sort of system in place to rationalize use of resources. For anyone with an expensive disease the rejoicing may be premature.

The insurance companies now dictate our treatments. I'd rather have those decisions lie within my government than for profit driven corporations.

I agree. One book that compares health insurance coverage said the US is the only country in the world where for-profit entities are the ones who decide what gets covered. What a huge conflict of interest. FWIW, right now I'm 6 weeks into battling with my insurance company to get a B-MRI as annual screening test, even though all three of my docs (BS, RO, MO) recommend it.  

bevin, Do you know anyone on Medicare? My parents have received excellent coverage (better coverage than I had when I bought my own individual plan; that was pre-BC, so I could still buy it on the open market, even though I paid a lot for very little coverage.) Employer and groups plans can provide excellent coverage. Unfortunately, not everyone has access and this is the problem. If you've never shopped for an individual policy, I recommend that you try, so you can begin to understand what people are up against. There are websites with basic info, like eHealthInsurance.com. Of course, those are the rates for people that the insurance companies are willing to insure. Now that we all are wearing the scarlet BC, we can't get any insurance on the open market. So that means the insurance companies will deny me coverage for everything. Luckily, I have good coverage today through my DH's work. If he loses his job, wants to work as a consultant, etc  I will have no access to coverage (unless I go 6 months without and then apply for the expensive high-risk pool). This is what I worry about. In this economy, it seems like people are in danger of losing jobs or are not able to change jobs as they like, for fear of losing health insurance. I worry about this too.

"A perfectly healthy 67 year old has a limited time horizon. Wouldn't the government quite rationally intitute policies that would direct health care resources to extend the life of a younger person who might still be contributing to society? "

 I think this confusion comes from growing up in a 'for profit' medical system.  Your life does have a certain 'value' when profit is the main priority.  

In Canada, everyone's life has value.  Decisions are not made on the basis of who you are, how old you are or whether or not you have a favourable prognosis. I can understand how this is hard to grasp when so many Americans don't see health care as a 'human right'.

The very "group" that wants desperately to curb federal spending seems to be campaigning against an advisory board that will provide advice on how to curb unnecessary spending.  Where's the logic?