SCOTUS Upholds Affordable Care Act!

Sometimes it does!

I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I don't support the ACA both because I'm socially liberal and because I'm fiscally conservative. 

The ACA is not anything close to universal healthcare and Americans deserve universal healthcare.  

The ACA is not fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible. Building coverage around a system of multi-payer for-profit service providers (insurance companies) inflates costs (the U.S. pays more for healthcare than any country in the world). Forcing businesses to provide coverage or pay a fine puts a burden on American business that is not faced by businesses anywhere else in the world. Forcing insurance companies to cover a wide range of new services for which they have not been paid will drive them out of business.  Legislating an unenforcable purchase/tax mandate will result in little extra money coming into the system to cover the additional costs therefore insurance premiums will go up for those who do have insurance.  

I wish that Obama had had the cojones to force through a government option when he had the super majority and he could have done it.  But he was not able to bring his own party to the table on that.  Instead, they passed a bill in which the math just doesn't seem to work for individuals, for businesses or for insurance companies. I appreciate that the bill has some excellent components and mandates well-needed changes but let's see how people feel in a couple of years when they get hit with an increase in premiums or insurance companies start going belly up or employers start pulling coverage.  There had to be a better way.

But then again, as I said before, maybe that's the master plan. Maybe the Obama administration and Nancy Pelosi know that it won't work.  And that will force them back to the table and at that point, a government option won't look so bad.  The plan might work, but it requires that Obama be re-elected. 

Time will tell.  

I have dealt with insurance companies, and my comments still stand.  I can't imagine having had to deal with them through my BC treatment, Thyroid Cancer treatment or my PD treatment.  Or the numerous surgeries as a result of those diseases.  That would have tipped me right over the edge!  Went to my doctor who requested the proper tests and then referred me to the appropriate specialists (the best in my opinion) who worked their magic. 

I'm not gonna give you a flowery novella, when I have something to say, instead I get straight to the point.  That's me in real life and on-line!  Why would MY opinion be uncivilized as opposed to someone elses who only cares for their own well being and not for the less fortunate. Defending a multi-million dollar entity vs. any human being.  I'm stumped!

Blue, that's one of the many things I like about you - there's no guessing with you! Love you!

Throughout this whole BC ordeal, I have never once dealt with my insurance company. I simply show up and present my insurance card. That's it. So, not all of us have that horrible insurance experience. And I get all of that for grand total of $1,200/year plus what my employer kicks in. Is that affordable? Yes. Did I receive great care? Yes. Do I think the US gov't could provide the same? No.

Mardi -



I, too, have great insurance and rarely had a problem with health care payments. Good for us! The point is that many do not have good or great insurance, or any insurance at all. I would like everyone to have the same access and health care that I have. Is that so wrong?



The government already provides similar care (insurance and otherwise) through Medicare, FEHBP, and Veterans' benefits. When I was a federal employee, I had fantastic care through the FEHBP. My mother has no complaints with her Medicare and my sickly neighbor speaks highly of her veteran's benefits. So you see, the government can and does provide the same benefits as for-profit insurers.

Not necessarily, Mardi. A for -profit insurer will cut costs to deliver higher profits to its shareholders, yes, but that doesn't always translate into higher efficiency for the same care. More and more often, the efficiencies are recognized through claim denials.

Scootaloo,

Those who believe both that everyone should have access to healthcare and that insurance companies add to the cost of that healthcare do not necessarily believe that creates no objection to single payer.

Do you believe everyone should have access to food?  Do you believe for-profit grocery stores add to the cost of that?  Well then, let's allow only government run grocery stores for all.

Do you believe everyone should have access to housing?  Do you believe for-profit landlords add to the cost of that housing?  Well then, let's allow only government/public housing for all.

I could continue with many analogies of why just because something is necessary does not support having the government be a single source provider.

Edited for typo.

I've never once met anyone who had their claim denied. Never. Maybe that is because most people I know are covered by group employer plans? I don't know.



The vast majority of Americans have healthcare and are happy with it. But they are scared to death that the gov't will mess with it and screw it up. Also, there is a limit to what they will pay. So, if ACA gets the uninsured some coverage, great. But the costs need to stay managed.

When the Healthcare bill was in Congress, over and over again Obama PROMISED the American people that "If you like your current plan you get to keep it".  Well guess what, the only people who have posted here recently who have that option are Bluedahlia, Beesie, Lassie11 and Susieq58, because they don't live in the US. 

Once again, this discussion has gone from a discussion on the impact of the ACA on the lives of people in the US to a scolding about how our country and economic system work by people who aren't affected by it. 

Yes, I know it is a global economy, but if you are so concerned about that, why aren't you taking Greece to task on their issues?

One more time.  The ACA bears no resemblance to the healthcare systems in Canada, or the UK, or in Australia.  They all have good points and problems, but none of them are anything at all like what is being forced on the American people. 

The majority of Americans don't like this law and don't want it.  The politicians who pushed it through Congress didn't know what they were voting for, and still don't know the impact it will have because much of the implementation is through administrative rules which are not yet fully written. 

Yes it includes some things that people like, but they are outweighed by the problems it causes, just like the extravagant gifts that a cheating husband gives to his wife to ease his guilt do not eliminate the damage he has done.

Implying that someone is uncaring or heartless because they object to an ill conceived, poorly written piece of legislation that has politicians lying and attempting to fundamentally change the powers of the federal government is not acceptable. 

Mardi, I believe the ACA attempts to manage costs through the 80% healthcare "floor." Because of that provision, insurance companies must limit admin costs to 20% of premiums.

PatMom, I believe our Canadian friends just offer their views on and experience with single payer systems. I didn't see that any of it "scolded" Americans for their ACA concerns. Its more bafflement - why wouldn't you want your neighbor to have access to healthcare?



There ARE people who have the "I have mine and I don't care if you get yours " mentality. I am not saying that's YOUR stance but its definitely out there as proved by the infamous "let him die" chants at republican debates. I surely hope no one here agrees with that.

Beesie: The ACA is fiscally responsible. The pay-go rules were applied. But I do agree that it does not come close to universal care and is therefore quite inadequate. For one, 20 million will remain uninsured.

The good news is that I do believe support for the ACA will grow as time goes by.

Monday's child - we have a mixed economy (capitalism and socialism). This means that, like other developed countries, we DO believe everyone has the right to, say, food, but that grocery stores have the right to a profit at the same time. Government can and does intervene to help those who cannot afford food. Thus, the government is the guarantor that everyone eats, but this does not preclude the existence of a private market in food.

Luckily, Bob Dole, a republican, had the sense to see eating as a universal human right, and so he banded with democratic Sen. Joseph MacCarthy to create the Food Stamp program. Unfortunately, many conservatives today do not believe health to be a universal human right. How they got onto a cancer board is beyond me. One would think they should just go to the "not diagnosed but worried" part of the board and say, "you don't have the right to health care so if you don't have insurance or a means to pay, keep worrying." Because that is where their value system appears to lie on this one.

Of all the places I imagined to read about how universal care may NOT be a right, a breast cancer board was never one of them. I still can't get over the shock. Even my settings don't protect me from that. Makes one shudder.

If your plan has changed, it's not from the ACA since most of the provisions take effect in 2014. Unless I am wrong?

scoot, based on what you are saying I imagine that some folks are attributing any change in their plan to the ACA? 

That depends....if you have a child under 26, he/she can stay in your plan now, thanks to the ACA. Otherwise, nothing should change. If anything changes it is more likely to be something favoring you, the consumer. And that is not so much due to the ACA itself, but to the political climate it created in which pressure mounted against insurers from the White House on down. Insurance companies have significantly softened their stance and no longer outwardly oppose the ACA. In fact AHIP said nothing bad about the supreme court ruling. And days before, when it was speculated that SCOTUS might overturn the law, insurers were saying that they planned to adopt some models/behaviors in the law whether it stayed or not. This includes things like ACOs - so-called Accountable Care Organizations in which clinical outcomes play a role in how well providers are reimbursed. This trend towards making providers accountable is also a growing one around the world. The ACA also seeksw to make insurers more accountable in their pricing. I see accountability as a good thing.