In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Health Care Act -- ObamaCare -- giving the president a major political victory and maintaining health care coverage for thousands of Iowans.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority, said that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to impose individual mandates, the center-piece of the legislation, according to The New York Times.
"Holy crap," said Isa O'Hara, owner of the in Historic Valley Junction, in the minutes following the ruling. "There goes the country. I guess it was already sliding downhill."
The decision did significantly restrict one major portion of the law: the expansion of Medicaid, the government health-insurance program for low-income and sick people, The New York Times reported. The ruling gives states some flexibility not to expand their Medicaid programs, without paying the same financial penalties that the law called for.
The Affordable Care Act, which was signed by President Obama in 2010, puts in place consumer protections and provides additional coverage options.
The reforms were intended to gradually roll out starting in 2014 and through later years.
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the constitutionality of the law, focusing mostly on the requirement that Americans purchase insurance or face a fine.
O'Hara had multiple questions after the news broke.
"How on earth are we going to pay for it?" She said. "How many trillions is this going to cost us? What's happened to accountability? Is Congress going to be forced to take this on as their own healthcare?"
Affect on Iowans
Since being signed into law, Iowa families have received the following benefits from the Affordable Care Act, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
- 42,015 Iowans on Medicare saved an average of $616 on prescription drugs, for a total savings of $25,876,475.
- 18,012 Iowans under the age of 26 gained coverage under the health care law.
- 388,676 people with Medicare in Iowa received free preventive services – such as mammograms and colonoscopies – or a free annual wellness visit with their doctor.
- 1,187,000 Iowans, including 433,000 women and 311,000 children, are free from worrying about lifetime limits on coverage.
- Insurance companies are required to spend 80% of premium dollars on health care instead of overhead.
Bottom line is you guys have overplayed your hand in opposing the Affordable Care Act: polling data shows that most Americans want you to shut up so we can move on. More to the point is that healthcare organizations and insurors are now working to meet the mandates of the new law. The only folks who haven't moved on are those elements of the GOP who have lapsed on their rabies vaccinations. Shall I just call you "Ol' Yeller?"
How about if we stick to the conversation of the Health Care act and what it means to everyone ( if anyone has any idea , which I think the whole thing is full of surprises for all Americans, Dems Reps and Independents ). 2700 pages - that is a pretty huge document to expect anyone to comprehend.
Jack, your rants remind me of what conservatives were saying about multiculturalism in the 1990s, that we were encouraging people to identify themselves as victims. Think about that: you come off like a person who feels he's been victimized, and who seems to have a Jupiter-sized sense of entitlement. We used to call that "white skin privilege!"
Jack's means of identifying himself have been used to divide and oppress people in the past, and they continue to do so today. Jack could have easily identified himself by his profession, as a father, and yes, as a christian. Jack's posts are very relevant here: the GOP has been playing a divide-and-rule game with the American people, stoking fear and resentment, and the ACA has been a particular target. I do contend that many critics of Obama are motivated by resentment which is based on latent racism. You don't have to be obvious, overt, or even conscious of racist motives. That's why this part of the discussion is germane. Review this thread and tell me how many of the criticisms of the ACA are based on reason and evidence, and how many come from fear? And, why are the criticisms all negative, with no alternative offered to reform American healthcare?
Back to the subject - this act will be a real burden on an awful lot of people. Call it a tax, a penalty, or whatever. It is going to be a burden.
All I am saying is ..... with a 2700 page act, there is alot of wording going on there and I don't think there is anyone alive that understands the thing - tho Pelosi might claim she does. The last thing for all of us to ask is : why aren't the elected officials on this wonderful plan ? Maybe Grassley or Harkin can enlighten us.
BTW, I've already had one hip replacement surgery at University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. The cost was $33,000; Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield negotiated down the price to $19,000. If I were uninsured and had to pay out of pocket, I would have paid $33,000. In India I could have had the same surgery for pennies on the dollar with deluxe, resort-style care afterwards for six weeks. I actually thought about going out of country to have my surgery, but I wasn't sure my insurance would pay for it. Americans pay twice as much as any other country for health care, yet our outcomes are not as good as those in France. France is rated #1 in health care, not the United States, and care is cheaper there.
As a former social worker, I do believe that the War on Poverty has had some unintended effects on all races and they are alarming. Having said that, I think that with this economy, it's a hell of a time to cut back on food stamps, which is what the U.S. House just voted to do.
You won't be able to nationalize GSK, since that company is based in the UK, but the pharmaceutical industry is also wasteful: look at the money spent marketing name-brand drugs to patients. Another example where every dollar spent on advertising contributes nothing to patient care. Let's not forget the GW Bush Medicare prescription fiasco, with its "donut hole" of coverage and prohibition against the federal government negotiating with Big Pharma for reduced prices. Talk about interfering with the function of the "free market!" These guys will stoke resentment of us, since we have Wellmark insurance. Funny how they'll gripe about how "the gubmint" will prevent us from choosing our care providers: as you know, Wellmark has its network of "preferred providers," and my wife had to go to a different optometrist for her new glasses: our old provider wasn't part of Wellmark's network. But like rationing, that kind of behavior is okay, since its done by a for-profit corporation!
But, if going somewhere far away were part of the law ( the health care act ), could Americans actually do anything about it? I see this very similar to putting out bids on a new building , a new parking lot, etc. The low bidder usually gets the business ( if he/she is qualified, of course ). The difference is ...... the bidder ( in the case of a structure ) must go to the site. For health care, the patient would have to go to where the service will be provided. And..... in the case of negotiating a lower price, in your case you were successful. If the whole situation becomes a matter of dollars and cents , and there is little room for negotiating, then what ? ( i.e. what would have happened if Wellmark had negotiated a cost for you of $32,995 ? - take it or leave it . Would you have gone to India ? ) Like I said earlier, the whole act is not very clear yet. Especially in the area of costs. Does anyone reading these posts know if there is a bidding process as part of the services provided by the Act ?
The costs you are worried about are already astronomical. Americans pay twice as much as other countries for health care and quality of health care varies widely. A young friend of my daughter's went to Mercy Hospital in Iowa City and was not treated appropriately for an infection, probably because he had no health insurance. He didn't get antibiotics for a serious foot infection until his father took him to a doctor and paid out of pocket for the appointment and the medication. I was shocked. When I was a social worker, I took a client who had had an untreated ear infection since she was a child. She was in her fifties and she desperately needed serious intervention. But she lacked health insurance, so her Mercy-affiliated ear doctor refused to treat her. I was shocked, but I was there, so I know it happened.