The courts denounced congress's attempt to force people to buy insurance. Yet it upheld their right to tax. So they can tax people without insurance (well do we tax people who don't buy auto insurance). This may seem picky , legalities often involve "picky." The problem is the original bill expanded medicaid to cover those who aren't on medicare but can't afford insurance. The courst left it up to the states of naturally states like Texas (the capital of retardation--Hey I"m a Texan!) refuse to expand even though the feds would pay for it. They have no good reason. Their argument is basically "It's too good to be true." That realy kills the whole idea, that they can't cover people who aren't on medicaid and can't afford insurance. now turns it into a burden rather than a life saving policy. Just in time for the election, people wont remember Obama's original bill included a way to pay for those who could not afford insurance but the court took that out. Now it's "the evil Obama care." Ne one is going to call it "court care."
The right wingers are furious that the court upheld "Obama CARE." they snear as they say the nasty title name. Some of the agonized protestations of yesterday were hilarious. One guy, who I think was a set up, on a tv station bemoaned the fact that "the President just declared a law and no one stopped him." NO, sweetheart that's what the fuss was about in the summer of 2009. The "Obama care" was before congress as a bill? Yes. It was passed by congress. It sure was. In fact that is why the court said "congress can't force people to guy things." They say "the President' that's the because Congress passed it as a law.
A more serious issue is rising costs I've seen people try to blame the legislation for the rising medical costs. That's absurd becuase there's no reason why it should increase the cost. For one thing it hasn't kicked in yet, for another it means people will be covered and get care more frequently before their conditions deteriorate so over time we will have less catastrophic care and costs will go down.
Health Insurrer Kaiser
Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over ten times the $256 billion spent in 1980. [1] The rate of growth in recent years has slowed relative to the late 1990s and early 2000s, but is still expected to grow faster than national income over the foreseeable future.[2] Addressing this growing burden continues to be a major policy priority. Furthermore, the United States has been in a recession for much of the past decade, resulting in higher unemployment and lower incomes for many Americans. These conditions have put even more attention on health spending and affordability. [1]
Since 2001, employer-sponsored health coverage for family premiums have increased by 113%, placing increasing cost burdens on employers and workers. [3] In the public sector, Medicare covers the elderly and people with disabilities, and Medicaid provides coverage to low-income families. Enrollment has grown in Medicare with the aging of the baby boomers and in Medicaid due to the recession.[1], [4] This means that total government spending has increased considerably, straining federal and state budgets. In total, health spending accounted for 17.9% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2010. [5]
THE PRACTICAL IMPACT In general, the decision means that tens of millions more Americans will have access to affordable health insurance and that reforms in how medical care is delivered and paid for can be aggressively pursued to bring down the cost ...
Buoyed by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the health care law, Kentucky pledged Thursday to move forward on creating a statewide insurance exchange to help more residents find affordable coverage in a state where more than one in six people are ...
I'm glad it's still alive and hope the Republicans don't succeed in repealing it before we've even gotten the chance to see it really working, which it won't till 2014.
ReplyDelete