Healthcare reform ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court

SDN Members don't see this ad. (About Ads)

The supreme court ruled that the affordable care act is constitutional by a 5 to 4 opinion. The initial readings show that the opinion was very nuanced, but essentially the law has been upheld.

I think it came down to "Congress has the power to levy taxes" and "this is a tax". You don't "need" to get free health care, but if you don't, you'll be taxed like you did anyway.

BTW- Roberts went with the liberals.

Awesome! Now the pathologist market will improve. All these insured patients has to create a lot of work.

Originally Posted by WEBB PINKERTON

Awesome! Now the pathologist market will improve. All these insured patients has to create a lot of work.

wrong. More work with same/less reimbursement.

Originally Posted by WEBB PINKERTON

Awesome! Now the pathologist market will improve. All these insured patients has to create a lot of work.

An extraordinary amount of additional power and leverage given to hospitals and CMS/federal government/politicians over physicians.

When have these crooks been our friends?

Originally Posted by gbwillner

I think it came down to "Congress has the power to levy taxes" and "this is a tax". You don't "need" to get free health care, but if you don't, you'll be taxed like you did anyway.

BTW- Roberts went with the liberals.

Hard to follow this logic:

1. Individual mandate is NOT a tax as it relates to the anti-Injunction Act (which essentially states that taxes cannot be challenged until they are implemented)

2. Individual mandate amounts to a "tax" and you can choose to have health insurance or choose to pay higher taxes.

I guess the subtleties of constitutional law allow this, but from a common sense perspective it seems illogical.

From the decision:

"(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
294. Pp. 33–35."

Right, it's not a technically a "tax" because Congress didn't specifically call it a tax. However, it is effectively a tax and is, therefore, constitutional.

Looks like now insurance companies have a stronger grip on us now.

So much for single payer health care. The administrative hassle and costs will remain.

Originally Posted by TMZ2007

Right, it's not a technically a "tax" because Congress didn't specifically call it a tax. However, it is effectively a tax and is, therefore, constitutional.

Clearly no one gives a rats behind about pathologists' opinion on the SCOTUS decision:

http://www.medscape.com/features/sur...y_aca_20120627

(Just try to find pathology under "What's your specialty?"... Clearly, we're with "Other".)

This argument about whether it is a "tax" or "not a tax" is driving me insane. Do people honestly believe the stuff that politicians say? They obviously must because politicians keep saying this. It's a tax. It's a fee collected by the government. That's a tax. Who gives a **** whether you call it one or not? Because the supreme court says it should be called a tax doesn't change things one iota. So why are people acting like it does change things?

You know what? I think this was a stupid law. There are some good things in it. Expanding medicaid is a weak political ploy but also is not the worst thing in the world. Charging freeloaders who don't want to pay any healthcare bills but stil want "the best care" is not unreasonable. Looking for ways to save health care dollars is also not a problem. But you have to be realistic and not just dump on doctor's salaries and hospital reimbursements while ensuring that everything that people want from gastric bypasses to penile implants to sleeping pills to viagra has to be covered. I also don't think the supreme court had any business overturning it. The legislature was elected. They passed the law. If you don't like it STOP VOTING FOR THE SAME STUPID PEOPLE! And stop rewarding extremists by voting them in. The next legislature has the opporuntity to get rid of it or modify it. They won't because they all suck and they only care about political posturing. They would rather something fail because then they can say they were right all along.

90% of americans think congress sucks and doesn't deserve to be reelected, yet over 90% of congresspeople get reelected. "Obamacare" is not the problem. Obamacare is a ****ty law but that's all it is. It's not a constitutional crisis.

Originally Posted by scienceguy19

Looks like now insurance companies have a stronger grip on us now.

So much for single payer health care. The administrative hassle and costs will remain.

Insurance company stocks took a hit after the ruling was issued. The ruling is not that great for insurance companies, better for hospitals.

?? Don't understand the reference to single payer health care - this would increase the grip of insurance companies on providers even more.

canada has single payer care. i don't think the insurance companies rule over there.

Originally Posted by yaah

Insurance company stocks took a hit after the ruling was issued. The ruling is not that great for insurance companies, better for hospitals.

?? Don't understand the reference to single payer health care - this would increase the grip of insurance companies on providers even more.

Originally Posted by yaah

The ruling is not that great for insurance companies, better for hospitals.

It's good for hospitals, better for insurance companies, and best for pharmaceuticals.

Not all insurance company stocks have fallen, just the companies that dont have much of a presence in managing publicly-funded health programs like medicaid. The large companies will find a way to capitilize on expansion of medicaid and the money will be rolling in. We will have practically a single payer system at some point.

Another one of those 'it isn't what it is because they say it's not, but it is what it is because I say it is, so neither both apply'. Kinda a mockery of the system, not to mention the English language.

Originally Posted by Pathwrath

It's good for hospitals, better for insurance companies, and best for pharmaceuticals.

Random democrat: Nuh UH! It's best for patients!!!!!!

Originally Posted by lipomas

Random democrat: Nuh UH! It's best for patients!!!!!!

Maybe it will bring us all closer as a nation. Now more Americans get to experience crappy health insurance, not just those who could previously afford it.

I feel sorriest for the poor schmucks who will still face bankruptcy just for using it.

"The ACA also requires that plans cap the maximum out-of-pocket costs for enrollees, based on the out-of-pocket limits in high-deductible plans that are eligible to be paired with a Health Savings Account. The current limits are $5,950 for an individual and $11,900 for a family, and will be adjusted over time after 2014 based on increases in premiums."

"Subsidies would assist those with lower incomes, but for this population even the most modest out-of-pocket cost sharing expenses can create financial barriers to care. As income increases, the subsidies diminish and eventually phase out altogether. The 2014 limit for maximum out-of-pocket spending will be $6,350 for an individual or $12,700 for a family (on top of the portion of the premium that that must also be paid). These income-adjusted increases in cost sharing will still be excessive for most individuals and families with significant health problems and with all of the other financial problems that often are associated with ill health.
This is what we mean by underinsurance. The new standard plans to be offered by the state insurance exchanges will not offer enough protection to prevent financial hardship for those with health care needs."