Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!High court upholds key part of Obama health law
Thursday, June 28, 2012
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama’s historic health care overhaul.
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.
Breaking with the court’s other conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “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.
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.
Republican campaign strategists said presidential candidate Mitt Romney will use the court’s ruling to continue campaigning against “Obamacare” and attacking the president’s signature health care program as a tax increase.
“Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause,” said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. “This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history.”
———
Online:
http://hosted.ap.org/interactives/2012/healthcare/
Where states stand on implementing health care law
By The Associated Press
Here is a look at where each of the 50 states stand on implementing President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul, which the Supreme Court ruled Thursday can go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.
———
ALABAMA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 720,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15.4 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Gov. Robert Bentley, a physician, created a commission in 2011 to recommend a plan for a health insurance exchange, but he successfully opposed efforts by some legislators to enact one in May. Critics said the bill would have limited the exchange to companies operating statewide, which is one at this point. Bentley said it was premature to act before the Supreme Court ruled.
———
ALASKA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 125,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 18 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Alaska, which is among the states that sued over the constitutionality of the federal health care law, has yet to implement a health care exchange. The health department has hired a consultant to help design one, and that report is expected soon.
———
ARIZONA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1.28 million state residents not covered, or about 19 percent
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Arizona is among the states challenging the constitutionality of the health care overhaul. The lawsuit covers about 22,000 people statewide, including some 14,000 people in the Phoenix area. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration is moving to implement part of the contested law by reviewing health insurance rates to see if they should be labeled unjustifiably high. The state also has accepted a federal grant to create a state health insurance exchange.
———
ARKANSAS
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 539,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Arkansas decided on a federal-state partnership for its health insurance marketplace. Legislators blocked a bill by which the state would have created its own insurance exchange but have since accepted a grant that will allow it to at least have a role in the federally created exchange.
———
CALIFORNIA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 7,209,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: California has worked to be a model for the health care law and has begun implementing parts of it already, including creating the beginnings of health care exchanges to provide consumers a marketplace to purchase insurance policies starting in 2014. The state has also already banned insurers from refusing coverage for children with pre-existing illnesses and young adults are allowed to stay on their parents’ plans through age 26 in California.
———
COLORADO
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 656,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Colorado lawmakers passed legislation in 2011 to set up health insurance exchanges, and a commission is in the process of implementing them. The exchanges are set to start October 2013.
———
CONNECTICUT
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: About 377,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 11 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Connecticut has hired staff and a board of directors to begin implementing health care exchanges and have them in place by the 2014 deadline set by the federal law. The state already is allowing people under 26 years old to stay on their parents’ health insurance policies, which is part of the federal law.
———
DELAWARE
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: Between 100,000 and 110,000 Delaware residents are uninsured, about 11 percent of the state’s population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Delaware officials are working on a health care exchange. State officials also are accepting public input as they come up with minimum coverage requirements that must be included in health care plans for individuals and small businesses.
———
FLORIDA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 3.85 million Floridians are uninsured, or about 21 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Gov. Rick Scott ordered the state not to accept federal money for implementing the health care law after he took office last year. Florida has rejected or declined to pursue more than $106 million and has returned $4.5 million. The state has its own health insurance exchanges, mainly for small businesses but without an individual mandate. The state has not implemented an exchange that would meet the requirements of the federal law.
———
GEORGIA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 111,000 state residents are uninsured, or 19 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Georgia has done nothing to implement a health care exchange. Lawmakers have introduced bills that would either allow or hinder implementation of the law, though none have passed.
———
HAWAII
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 97,000 state residents are uninsured, or 7.7 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Hawaii has been moving at full speed in anticipation the overhaul will be upheld. It joined several states last year in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the law. Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat, said at the time the law preserved the best elements of Hawaii’s long-standing health care statutes. The state also used a $300,000 private grant to create a state job for a coordinator to implement the overhaul. Hawaii plans to develop its own insurance exchange, a key component of the federal overhaul.
———
IDAHO
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 294,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 19 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Idaho has not implemented health insurance exchanges, over objections from insurers including Blue Cross of Idaho. The GOP-controlled Idaho Legislature declined to accept federal grants for the project and also balked at putting together a scaled-down state-funded version while awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.
———
ILLINOIS
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1,914,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Illinois has received three federal grants to study and start building its health insurance exchange, but the Legislature has failed to pass a law establishing it. Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat, has considered an executive order to do that, but now may pursue a federal-state partnership instead.
———
INDIANA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 850,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13.4 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels ordered state agencies to build a framework for a possible exchange, but he has not implemented one pending the Supreme Court ruling. Indiana also has pushed to use its health savings account to help cover an estimated 500,000 who will become eligible for Medicaid in 2014 under the federal health care overhaul, but federal officials denied the request in September, saying it was premature.
———
IOWA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 366,000 Iowa residents are uninsured, about 12 percent of the population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: The state does not have a law establishing a health insurance exchange, and Republican Gov. Terry Branstad has said Iowa will create a state-based exchange only if the law is upheld. The Republican House Majority leader says the state has already enacted several pieces of the law, including a website that helps residents find insurance, but the state has yet to comply with other requirements.
———
KANSAS
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 350,000 state residents are uninsured, or almost 13 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: The Republican-dominated state government has been hostile to the 2010 federal law and hasn’t moved to set up a health care exchange. Last year, GOP Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration returned a $31.5 million federal grant.
———
KENTUCKY
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 640,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Kentucky has laid the groundwork for a statewide health insurance exchange, but Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear opted to wait for the Supreme Court ruling before moving doing anything more.
———
LOUISIANA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 886,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 20 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Louisiana has not implemented health care exchanges, instead choosing to have the federal government create and operate them. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal and Attorney General Buddy Caldwell oppose the health care law, and Louisiana is one of the states challenging it in court.
———
MAINE
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 121,000 state residents uninsured, or about 9.4 percent. The number may rise due to Medicaid cutbacks authorized by the latest state budget.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Maine had a task force to create a health care exchange, but legislation implementing one was set aside until after the Supreme Court’s decision. Maine has passed laws implementing components of the law, such allowing parents to add coverage of children up to age 26 and outlawing denial of insurance coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Maine has also passed a law that will allow consumers to shop out-of-state for coverage.
———
MARYLAND
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 747,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Maryland has passed legislation to create a health care exchange, setting up standards and regulations to run the program and creating the framework for a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can purchase coverage.
———
MASSACHUSETTS
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: Massachusetts says 120,000 people, or about 2 percent of the population, remained uninsured in 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau had a somewhat higher estimate of about 370,000 people, or more than 5 percent of the population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Massachusetts passed a sweeping health care law in 2006 that became the blueprint for the federal overhaul. Many of the key elements of the federal law, including the “individual mandate” requiring nearly everyone have insurance, remain the law in Massachusetts.
———
MICHIGAN
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1.27 million Michigan residents are uninsured, about 13 percent of the population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has been working to set up a health insurance exchange but has had limited success because House Republicans refuse to let it use $9.8 million in federal planning dollars. Because of looming federal deadlines to have an exchange in place, state officials are planning for a state-run exchange while also talking to federal officials about a possible partnership on a federal exchange where the state handles just some responsibilities, such as customer service.
———
MINNESOTA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 509,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 9.8 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Minnesota has embraced the health care overhaul more than many states. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton used a provision in the federal law to extend Medicaid coverage to more than 80,000 vulnerable adults as soon as he took office in 2011. His administration has focused on developing an online health insurance exchange envisioned as a key part of the law, securing $28.4 million from the federal government for Minnesota’s planning efforts.
———
MISSISSIPPI
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 618,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 21 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, a Republican, has been working on a health care exchange and has accepted federal money for the project. The exchange originally was proposed by Republican Haley Barbour when he was governor.
———
MISSOURI
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 835,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 14 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Missouri received an initial planning grant but has not implemented a health insurance exchange because of opposition to it by some Republican state senators.
———
MONTANA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 176,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 18.1 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican lawmakers in Montana who controlled the Legislature rejected any efforts to establish a health insurance exchange.
———
NEBRASKA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 237,000 Nebraska residents are uninsured, about 13 percent of the population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: The state does not have a law establishing a health insurance exchange. However, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman has instructed the state Department of Insurance to plan for one in case the law is upheld.
———
NEVADA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 563,000, or about 21 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS NOW: The Nevada Legislature in 2011 passed a bill implementing the Silver State Health Insurance Exchange and creating a seven-member board to oversee it. Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval opposed the federal health care law as a candidate. He also allowed a private attorney appointed by former Gov. Jim Gibbons to continue representing Nevada in the lawsuit filed by more than two dozen states challenging the law. State officials estimate the Affordable Care Act would cost Nevada $575 million in the first five years as more people become eligible for Medicaid.
———
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 134,000 state residents are uninsured, or just more than 10 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: New Hampshire currently has laws that echo portions of the Affordable Care Act, such as allowing dependent unmarried residents to remain on their parent’s health care insurance until age 26. Last year, state legislators passed laws that said residents cannot be required to obtain health insurance or be fined for not being covered. They also established a state oversight committee that must give its OK before the federal law is implemented. Democratic Gov. John Lynch’s office said it has done some work on implementing aspects of the Affordable Care Act, but has put plans on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court makes its ruling.
———
NEW JERSEY
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1.3 million, or about 15 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: The Legislature passed a law to set up a state health insurance exchange, but Republican Gov. Chris Christie vetoed the measure in May, saying he did not want to spend money on something that could be ruled unconstitutional.
———
NEW MEXICO
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 433,000, or about 21 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: New Mexico this week announced formation of a task force to develop a proposal for creating a state health insurance exchange. Republican Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration is also working on an overhaul of Medicaid to try to slow the growth of the program without cutting enrollment or changing who’s eligible to receive medical services. The state wants to have the revamped Medicaid program implemented in the fall of 2013.
———
NEW YORK
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 2,886,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 15 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order April 12 to establish a statewide health insurance exchange, where individuals and small businesses could tap up to $2.6 billion in federal tax credits and subsidies, planning to show by January that the state is ready to participate, start taking applications the following October and start operating Jan. 1, 2014.
———
NORTH CAROLINA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1.57 million state residents are uninsured, or about 17 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Legislation aimed at prohibiting the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance was the first item introduced after Republicans took over control of by North Carolina’s General Assembly last year. Lawmakers haven’t been able to overcome Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue’s veto of their bill. But work to design health care exchanges has stalled since last summer.
———
NORTH DAKOTA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 83,000 North Dakota residents, or about 13 percent, had no health insurance in 2010.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Legislators rejected a state-run health insurance exchange last year. Majority Republicans said it was too complex and too expensive and to do so would be tantamount to accepting the federal health care overhaul.
———
OHIO
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: More than 1.5 million state residents are uninsured, or about 14 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Ohio has not moved to create a health care exchange but is evaluating its options. It received a $1 million federal exchange planning grant in 2010. Republican Gov. John Kasich’s administration has taken advantage of some parts of the new law to expand coordinated care and propose changes to Medicaid eligibility. Democrats have unsuccessfully pushed bills in the Legislature to set up a state-run exchange. But Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, who is also Ohio’s insurance director, frequently criticizes the overhaul and says it’s premature to plan for an exchange without further clarification from the federal government.
———
OKLAHOMA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: About 624,480 Oklahomans are uninsured, or about 17 percent of the state’s population.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS NOW: Oklahoma lawmakers first rejected $54 million in federal funding to create a health care exchange and then decided to take no action on developing an exchange, deciding instead to wait and see whether the law is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
———
OREGON
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 612,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 16 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Oregon is working aggressively to implement the health care law and is farther along than most other states. The federal government has committed more than $60 million in grants to develop a health insurance exchange that could be duplicated in other states.
———
PENNSYLVANIA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 1.37 million state residents are uninsured, or about 11 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, as state attorney general in 2010, joined a group of state officials in challenging the law. Still, Pennsylvania is working to set up a health insurance exchange required by the law, although the state Insurance Department says it is waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision before it touches a $33 million grant it won in January to build out the exchange.
———
RHODE ISLAND
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 119,000 state residents are uninsured or about 11.4 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Rhode Island has received $58 million in federal funds to assist in the creation of its health benefits exchange. Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent, last week picked a former state health official to direct the exchange.
———
SOUTH CAROLINA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 930,000 state residents are uninsured, or more than 20 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: South Carolina, which is among the states that sued over the constitutionality of the federal health care law, opted not to implement health care exchanges after a panel concluded there were too many unanswered questions.
———
SOUTH DAKOTA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: Federal officials estimate 105,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13 percent; South Dakota officials say state survey data is lower, about 9 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard has delayed work on setting up a health insurance exchange until the Supreme Court’s decision.
———
TENNESSEE
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: About 930,000 people, or 15 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Tennessee has laid the groundwork for a health insurance exchange but would have to wait until the Legislature returns in January to complete it.
———
TEXAS
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: About 6.2 million, or about 25 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Texas has not implemented a health care exchange. Texas has joined with other states in challenging the law in court. Gov. Rick Perry, who is vocally opposed to the law, says the state can “deliver health care more efficiently, more effectively and cheaper than the federal government can.”
———
UTAH
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 386,000 state residents are uninsured, or nearly 14 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Utah implemented a health insurance exchange before the federal Affordable Care Act was passed to help small businesses obtain insurance coverage for their employees. Utah is among 26 states that sued the federal government over the law. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has criticized the individual mandate and the expansion of Medicaid rolls that administration officials say would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
———
VERMONT
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 59,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 9.5 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Vermont in 2011 passed legislation to use the insurance exchange called for under the federal health care law as a springboard to launch a statewide, universal, publicly funded health care system by 2017.
———
VIRGINIA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: Nearly 1.1 million state residents are uninsured, or about 14 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Virginia has expressed its intent to create a health care exchange, but Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell has not acted on recommendations made by a gubernatorial advisory council. Virginia filed its own lawsuit challenging the health care law, but lost in federal appeals court.
———
WASHINGTON
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 927,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 13.8 percent
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Republican Attorney General Rob McKenna signed on to the health care lawsuit against the wishes of the state’s Democratic governor and majority Democrats, but Washington state moved ahead this past legislative session with implementing its own health insurance exchange.
———
WEST VIRGINIA
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 244,000 West Virginians are uninsured, or about 13.5 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: West Virginia has enacted legislation allowing for a state-run health care exchange, but the state has slowed the pace of setting it up to see how the Supreme Court rules.
———
WISCONSIN
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 526,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 9 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Wisconsin has not begun setting up its health insurance exchange. Work on that was put on hold in January by Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who wanted to await the Supreme Court’s decision.
———
WYOMING
NUMBER OF UNINSURED: 93,000 state residents are uninsured, or about 17 percent.
WHERE THE STATE STANDS: Wyoming has not implemented health care exchanges, but a steering committee is studying an exchange for Wyoming and will present a report to the Legislature this fall.
Hospital stocks jump after health care ruling
By The Associated Press
Stocks of hospital companies are moving sharply higher after initial reports said the Supreme Court upheld the individual insurance requirement in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
HCA Holdings stock is up 10 percent. Community Health Systems is also up 10 percent.
Stocks of drug companies and medical device makers are slightly lower for the day as analysts sort through the Supreme Court’s ruling. Stocks of the biggest insurance companies are also lower.
Marry Me
Comments
newone 11 months ago
Great news!!!
newone 11 months ago
Oh I am happy, now my aunt how has cancer and is not able to get insurance anywhere can actually get it!
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
Why don't you help auntie yourself? I am helping my brother who is in the same predicament. Our family is pooling our resources to help out. That is the right and charitable thing to do. You would rather force others to do what you should be doing. You call people like me selfish because I loathe this law. Look in the mirror. When you can face yourself, get off your rear and go help your aunt.
newone 11 months ago
Never once did I say anyone was selfish, please do not put words in my mouth, re-read my statements. I do help my aunt more than you will ever know but like every other person in this country my pocket is a bit small these days. You are already paying for people to go to the doctor, the ones that CAN go out and work, who are perfectly healthy choose not to becuase they know we the tax payers will foot the bill, it happens every day, probably every hour so why not help people who actually need it!
John 11 months ago
And now your pocket is even smaller! When will everyone realize it is NOT the GOVERNMENT's money they are spending, it is YOUR money. Therefore, your pockets will continue to get more and more emply.
newone 11 months ago
YOU ARE PAYING THESE PEOPLES BILLS NOW!!! See, I can yell also :-) When someone without insurance goes to the ER and cannot afford to pay the bill that bill is put on tax payers to pay..This is not changing anything, you are paying for these people regardless, now the hundreds of thounds of people in this country that need insurance and who can afford it but are not able to get it due to a preexisting condition are going to be able to get it, how anyone can be against that is beyond me.
newone 11 months ago
And you don't seem to grasp the fact that we are already paying for these people, if people have thier own insurance why in the heck would those bills get bigger? And where did you come up with the idea that we would get less value and quantity for what we pay? You are saying this stuff as if you know for a fact what is going to happen, sorry but you do not know how this is going to turn out, you just think you do because Obama is the one that came up with it, had it been Bush or any other Republican that came up with this you would be behind it 100% but you know what no republican has come even close to coming up with a solution to the healthcare issue, is this going to be a sure fix, heck I don't know but its a start and it is a hell of a lot more than any republican has done in the past 30 years, something has to be done about healthcare it is getting out of hand and at least Obama is trying to do something, if a Republican gets into office it will go back to the way it was and nothing will ever change and insurance companies will continue to screw people,why becasue republican's are only for the rich, they look out for themselfs and no one else. Ok, I am done! :-) Have a good evening!
John 11 months ago
The money has to come from somewhere (the PEOPLE). All Obama's tax does is get even more of your money, 1%. Oh, and remember, those who fall below a certain level of income STILL ge their insurance and are absolved from paying the 1%.
kunderwood5 11 months ago
Good luck with that. This bill isn't set to go into effect until 2014. If your aunt's cancer isn't aggressive she may get to use it, if she is able to find a doctor to treat her and isn't put on a waiting list. Otherwise the only thing she will get to do is pay for it, because her taxes, like everyone else's are going up astronomically.
MO4LIFE 11 months ago
@ all of you republicans and tea party types. I TOLD YOU IT WOULD STAND!!!!! WWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
gofish 11 months ago
"Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court’s judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans."
This is a good thing. Especially in the present economy where people like me, who even with insurance, can't afford to go to the doctor because of excessive copays and deductibles. Maybe now there will be safety net.
asb 11 months ago
It is the bringing of the United States of America, role model (and occaisional enforcer) for the techniques of maintaining a modern democracy for the rest of the world, into the modern age of healthcare. Yes, it will be expensive, and oh boy will it be abused and scammed, but active participation, constant vigilance, and sound management will assure we not be a modern ludite state. As long as the no-tax-increases-for-the-rich movement can be brought under control, and the GOP can be returned to sensible legitimate conservatives, the union will be fine; with or without whiners, middleclass apologists for greed, and teabaggers who hate government in any form.
newone 11 months ago
Amen!
asb 11 months ago
There NEEDS to be sound management, which is really the greatest challenge of every program, from a personal allowance account up to the UNs' accounts. It's a business thing, and while governments are seldom as well managed as Lehman (oh, sorry) I mean AIG (oh, sorry), I mean . . . management is NOT political, it's a skill set. It is YOUR responsibility to hound whoever's in charge. The world has been collapsing for thousands of years Grace . . . could it be that a suddenly huge component (your new cause) of a new and long overdue social program will end civilization? Just this morning you had the last nail in the USs' coffin, and now it's the whole of humanity . . . I tremble . . . with mirth . . .
dokeus6 11 months ago
No matter how much you complain about it Grace, it is still in effect. All the crying in the world won't stop it. Just like the ruling about how a corporation is considered a person. Who knows how this is going to turn out.
RobHunterJohnson 11 months ago
Then leave! Reagan and Bush 1 had 12 years, Bush 2 had 8 years to get it right. NOTHING. Good Health Insurance has been needed by all just look at the uninsured figures from each state. Rob
joda 11 months ago
That type of talk is seditionist... Is that allowed Rick?
joda 11 months ago
Actually sedition is not allowed... you obviously never heard of the Alien Registration Act or "Smith Act" of 1940. It is a federal crime punishable by up to 20 yrs in prison and/or $10,000 fine.
him 11 months ago
Why is that great news? Its great news that the highest courts don't even follow the constitution anymore? What are we coming to? To me this is about the Government being able to mandate pretty much anything they want to. I hope everyone that don't have insurance can afford to get some. Because that's what you'll have to do. Its not going to be free! There is a reason people don't have insurance, its because they don't have jobs and can't afford it. I guess somehow the 50% of people that pay the taxes will pay for it.
newone 11 months ago
oh honey we pay for the ones that are not able to afford it anyway, who do you think pays for those medical bills of people with no insurance and rack up thousands of dollars of Dr. bills?? That is right, us, the ones that do have insurance because when the people with no insurance do not pay then that raises the rates of the ones that do pay.
newone 11 months ago
Insurance has been going up every year for the last 10 years my dear, I am ok with it going up if people who acutally need the coverage and was not able to get it before can get it now, before it was going up because of greed!
newone 11 months ago
My insurance has been going up for years, each year less is coverd and more is coming out of my pocket, it is happening already so if even one person is able to get coverage that wasn't able to before and is able to get treatment for a cancer that they would die from otherwise then that is fine, I would much rather pay out more to help others get the treatment they need than to pay more for the pure fact of greed!
JMO 11 months ago
Just because you don't agree with the court's determination does not mean they didn't follow the constitution. In fact, they specifically found it is permissible under the constitution. Unless you are a constitutional scholar, I don't see where your opinion is any mroe valid than theirs. Actually less so, since that's pretty much their entire job. And it's my understanding that some people will have it free, just like they do now under existing Medicaid programs.
newone 11 months ago
It is great news because now people who have cancer or any other medical condition are now able to get coverage and will be able to be treated!
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
You just described the collapes of a free society. I am forced to pay for others' wants and needs, and now at the point of a gun. So much for giving to charity, now my dollars will be forcibly taken from me to go to charity cases.
newone 11 months ago
again, you were paying for them anyway, just in an under the table kind of way.
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
I think the operative word in your post is "you", as in "the rest of us", because it sounds like you (newone), are more in line to be on the dole as opposed to a tax payer. Sounds like you are a leech off of society and have no problem with it.
newone 11 months ago
lol...if wanting other to be able to get the treatment they need that they are currenlty not able to get makes me a leach of society than yes, I am a leech and proud of it.
asb 11 months ago
Sounds like some of us (grumpy) have forgotten that this is a society, not a collection of hermits agreeing not to eat each other. You've been forced to pay taxes at the point of a gun for nearly 250 years, that's your contract for having civilization. Collapse of a free society? Overreact much?
newone 11 months ago
I can tell you get your news from Fox..lol
newone 11 months ago
Fox News spouts lies and hate, period!
newone 11 months ago
Let me guess this came from Fox News, the same place that is STILL saying that Obama is not a legal resident of this country..lol
JMO 11 months ago
Where exactly does it say a bureaucrat will be dictating medical care in that quote?
JMO 11 months ago
I'm sure that was the "royal We" and Obama will be personally looking over every case.
Honestly, who do you think tells people with HMO's and other insurance plans what care they can receive or what is covered? Insurance companies do it now. I'd rather have a panel of some sort, perferably with doctors on it, than the people who DON'T want you to be making a claim.
JMO 11 months ago
Utter bunk. If your insurance carrier says something isn't covered or won't preapprove something you need, you can't just "shop somewhere else" because any other company will call your medial issue a preexisting condition and not cover it either! You think insurance companies don't make their decisions based on dollars? Your last two sentences are so much conspiracy theorist garbage I can't even think of any reason to respond..
asb 11 months ago
I'd rather have a bureaucrat, following rules I have some control over, make these decisions than a penny pincher in a profit-driven insurance tower using the bottom line as their only guide, and over whom I have no control at all, make the decisions. Both examples are, obviously, exaggerated. Extremist rhetoric will only delay the needed adjustments and establishment of the needed oversight groups.
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
Just pray you don't get sick and require expensive ongoing treatement. You'll find out just how much that faceless bureaucrat cares about you.
asb 11 months ago
As I said, better a government decision than an insurance Co decision. They'll be looking at cost, that's what insurance is all about.
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
So if Obummercare is constitutional, does that mean future congresses would not be able to nullify it? Can having something AND not having that thing both be constitutional? What else can congress mandate we purchase lest we be taxed? I weep for my children because of what we are leaving them with...intractable debt, and fools in postions of power who lord over us.
asb 11 months ago
Abolishing the progam will also be constitutional. And only time will tell regarding what congress can or will require of us to maintain the greatest nation on earth. A draft perhaps, to support imperialistic adventure? A national ID system to protect us from all the evils the world might throw at us? The list is endless, and scarey. Such is life in fear of the slippery slope.
Sequoia 11 months ago
This is just how the process is supposed to work. This is a blow to the conservative movement who wants activist judges to bring their politics to the bench. Justice Roberts seems to have proven himself a real conservative, with a limited decision on the legal question at hand. From what I'm hearing on the decision, it seems Roberts just stepped through the horns of left-right commerce clause arguments. I can't wait to read it.
It is a victory for conservative legal principles.
It is a victory for those who support health care reform.
And, it is a victory for Romney. Now, he can make repeal a pillar of his campain, and he doesn't have to explain what he'd do instead. He can just say "I'll repeal." If the law had been struck down, Romney would need a much more detailed plan. He doesn't have it.
This is how politics works. If you don't like legislation, make your case, persuade people, win the election and get your way. Don't rely on judicial political activists like Scalia, with liberal views of judicial power, to legislate from the bench. Now, people who don't like the ACA have a real choice in this election.
Gus, instead of weeping, you need to take civics class again.
asb 11 months ago
You good big tree . . .
Sequoia 11 months ago
That's true I was wrong (or, at least, the majority thought I was wrong). The conservatives got the limitation of the Commerce Clause they wanted. We'll see what this means for the Wickard precedent line.
Anyway, this seems like a pretty complex decision. The effect of this decision.. and, indeed, the full impacts of the ACA... won't be fully known for some time. That's why the Court's carefulness and restraint is a good thing. Let this play out, and let the voters decide.
For me though, it is a good day. A conservative judge, Roberts, acted like a conservative judge, not like a conservative movement activist. Maybe this distinctinction between true conservativism and the reactionary right wing "conservative movement" that I've been talking about is gaining some traction. Maybe some people will begin to realize that Fox News doesn't inform them, it hypes them and suckers them into coming back for more hype.
It is easy to be pessimistic that conservatism is turning into a hyper-politicized echo chamber where propaganda replaces principle, and hype replaces careful reason. Today is a day for optimism that fact and reasoning can still win the day.
Today, true conservatism beat out the conservative movement in the mind of the chief justice of the supreme court.
Is it too early for happy hour for this cranky old tree?
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
I will weep for my kids because you and your ilk's largesse will be heaped on them. Their share of the national debt is now in five figures each, and my oldest is only 6. The idjit politicians sit in DC and don't give tinker's dam about the people they are there to serve, only about solidifying their power. 236 years ago we told a king to pound sand. We will do the same to the reprobates in congress and the white house.
asb 11 months ago
If the tax deniers would cough up as much as you do, you're kids will have less debt and better healthcare. We will not revolt, we don't need to, we must remove most of the vote of money and exercize our own.
viktorkowski 11 months ago
I look at these number and I cannot fathom in a country that touts itself as the light for democracy has 20% of its people without access to healthcare.
asb 11 months ago
which is why Romoney needs to take care on the rationale he chooses for repeal, because he DOES need an alternative to our present shameful situation.
connor 11 months ago
With the number of states being against the legislation perhaps it is once again time for a Constitutional Convention. Something is totally fishy about this, for Kennedy to dissent, well nothing unbelievable about that but Roberts to join with the Medusa girls? That almost makes me believe in the 2012 end of the world myths.
Every business which cannot get a special Obama-waiver will now simply cut health insurance benefits and begin paying the fee which is much cheaper in total for them. How this will then hit the common person who must find insurance on the exchange and pay with their own money or pay a fee (excuse me tax) is yet to be seen. I would guess the government provided medicare type option will then become the cheapest entity and force all medical providers to accept it. Ultimately leading to a single payer system.
With this ruling the Federal government will now become the defacto medical care and industry financier. Complete with huge spending not only for individual care but even greater affirmative action type financial spending for social engineering on who is accepted to medical schools, where hospitals are developed, what type of care can be expected etc etc etc.
It isn't much of a stretch to see governmental control over what we eat and how we live our lives either especially if we have to take the government health care choice because we cannot afford the high end insurance that is left.
The super rich and powerful. Politicians, union leader goons, CEO's etc will still have very expensive insurance type systems available to them of course through a waiver system or a separate branch of the system. The run of the mill government employees will have the same system in name only but government in house clinics while the private employees will be thrown in with the masses.
Free abortions and birth control pills will flow.
Your place in line will be determined by your affirmative action protection status.
asb 11 months ago
You need to find a bridge to jump off of dude! You've just pretty much described what we have NOW, except that the poor rely on ER costs. Sign up, take part, avoid the fear of the slippery slope. The government cannot say what you can eat . . . oh wait . . . well heck who knew! My insuance company does, by giving folks who do certain healthy things a price break, facists! The state system also has their Lifestyle Ladder, which tells them show us you care or we'll charge you more. It makes sense actually, the healthier you are the less your contribution should be. How about a government office (right down the hall from the death panel) where you have to be weighed in each year to determine your fee, er tax.
Littleinvestor 11 months ago
I'm flabbergasted. Thought it would be overturned. The law has some serious flaws that need to be fixed pronto but at least it will get the freeloaders off my back and the back of my insurance company.
MO4LIFE 11 months ago
Boy Graceful Last week the mandate was the crucial part of the act that was unconstitutional. They said it is under the taxation clause and noy you change your whole stand to say the medicaid coverage was the crucial part. MY Motto in Life and for anybody that doesn't like this. You live in the USA! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT IT IS THE LAW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Flip floppin Romney from the Fright side isn't going to win un;ess all of these republicans cheat and purge all the voters off of the rolls like they did for bush to win. Pa congressman already came out and said "as long as we purge the voter rolls and get a Voter ID law which requires ID & birth certificate to vote as well as stopping early voting three days before the election to stop the black churches from bringing citizens en masse to the polls Romney will win." 3% voter fraud in the last 20 yrs is hte reasoning that they are giving which is nothing at all but partisan gamesmanship.
viktorkowski 11 months ago
I find it hard to believe anything that comes out of Romney's mouth at this point. This law mirrors the one he touted and passed in ma. just a few years ago. now he is against it?
newone 11 months ago
Of course he is, he is runny for President silly, he can't suport anything that will make him look bad come election time.
newone 11 months ago
Running*
tonto_goldberg 11 months ago
He is not "runny", he is "flippy".
GrumpyGus 11 months ago
You mean its mirrors it other than the fact the Constitution allows for states to have laws like this and restricts the federal govt. At least it used to until 5 people rewrote the commerce clause without a vote of the states. But its a tax, not based on the commerce clause, right. The inanity of this ruling is mind-boggling.
tonto_goldberg 11 months ago
How do you get that? More specifically, how do you reason with yourself to come up with that statement? As far as I can tell, the constitution does not in any specific place "allow" states to have health care programs, nor does it "prohibit" the federal government from creating another one in addition to Medicare and Medicaid.
The Supreme Court ruling is interesting with respect to Medicaid, too. The ruling said the feds can offer an expanded Medicaid program to the states but can't make the expanded Medicaid program mandatory. That will make it more costly for the feds if they have to induce state participation.
tonto_goldberg 11 months ago
Medicaid has never been an either/or proposition, which is probably a big part of the Supreme Court refusal to allow the mandatory expansion. States traditionally have quite a bit of flexibility in setting eligibility and benefit standards, and the feds offer a set of inducements and waivers that are supposed to allow the states to match the funding to their needs. The Missouri Medicaid program has a colorful history, with some really creative ways of "interpreting" federal law.
JCLifer 11 months ago
Anyone who thinks that the federal buracracy can run a healthcare system more efficiently that private enterprise is very delusional. The Federal government had created expensive messes wherever it sticks its nose in anything.
Anyone who thinks costs will be lower under Obamacare is nuts.
This is no where a federal issue, but only an issue if the states want to do it themselves.
Repeal this horrendous scab on our liberty and fight the never ending tyrrany of greedy bureaucrats feeding a bloated federal government.
asb 11 months ago
Then we can count you as undecided?
viktorkowski 11 months ago
have you seen the CEO pay for some of these people running these HMOs? They can do that by giving you less service than you pay for. under the affordable healthcare act they must spend 85% of the income on healthcare or refund the money. I call that efficiency
Sequoia 11 months ago
I heard some interesting buzz about this case... that Scalia was basically set to write the majority opinion, but that he lost Roberts along the way, because Scalia was so strident and over-reaching.
If that's true, it is basically confirms everything I've been saying about the conservative movement writ large.
The conservative movement will bash Roberts as a liberal in disguise.
But, the truth is that if conservatives really want to blame the person who is responsible for upholding the ACA, they should point the finger at their supposed champion, Scalia. I have a hunch Scalia had Roberts on his side, then blew it.
Gotigers 11 months ago
I don't pretend to know any of the answers that most on the board do....BUT we should DEMAND that whatever politicians (Democrat and Republican) vote for us they should be required to use it as well!!!!!
Why do we let these people off the hook and let them have their own healthcare system and guaranteed pensions and not pay into Social Security? We should all be mad as heck!!!
viktorkowski 11 months ago
how is romney going to convince the people to vote for him with a platform of to defeat romneycare err i mean obamacare? after all he did invent it.
RobHunterJohnson 11 months ago
Grace are you planning to use MediCare? Rob
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID