Health insurance ruling expected Thursday – and we want to hear from you!
From NCPR Program Director Jackie Sauter:
We’re standing by for tomorrow’s anticipated ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. This decision will be one of the most important legal and policy cases of our generation. We expect the court’s ruling will be released around 10am. The Court could uphold or strike down all or parts of the law, and it’s expected to be a long and complicated decision that may take time to fully analyze and understand. NCPR will provide special and extensive coverage of the decision from NPR and other news sources throughout the day tomorrow and continuing coverage in the days ahead.
From NCPR Reporter Julie Grant:
We want to talk with folks in the North Country who care about this issue. Please contact me if you’re interested in talking about health care, health insurance, and what you think about the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA. Please provide a phone number, as I’d like to do some interviews for broadcast. I look forward to hearing from you! Thanks. Julie@ncpr.org
Every time I have listened to health insurance agents talk about the cost of health insurance, all say “the bigger the pool, the lower the rates.”
If this is so, what is the big objection to a single payer system that includes everyone?
As to the Supreme Court, I’ll tell you what I think after this horse race is over.
Pete, A single payer system was the right option in my mind. Cover everyone for the basics of health care and let private insurance sell policies for add-ons. But because of politics they said it couldn’t pass. I always thought congress was supposed to make laws for the benefit of the people but it seems they’re only interested in those who fatten their wallets.
There is no question that the entire healthcare system needs an overhaul, from tort reform to insurance regulation, but Obamacare isn’t the answer. It only further entrenches the systemic problems inherent in our current delivery system and is a mind boggling advancement of the progressive, big government agenda. I find it most interesting that the debate has morphed from one of health care coverage to one of insurance coverage; unless I’m missing something, they are not the same thing.
Unless the Supreme Court saves us you can get ready to deal with the biggest federal boondoggle ever created. This plan will make the tax code look like basic math and it will help no one. Insurance is not the problem or solution. Cost is. Insurance companies do the math and pass the cost on to their policy owners, but if they can’t, as is expected under this law, you may see many insurers quit the business. What a mess!
Insurance IS the problem. I need health care, not health insurance. There are too many people involved who are not doctors and nurses. A single payer program would leave the rich insurance people out in the cold…maybe they’ll die off.
i have no idea how the court will rule. but the fact that there’s even a hint of debate over the constitutionality of the aca is ridiculous. as jonathan chait puts it:
there’s nothing hard about this at all!
correct! happily the aca isn’t just about covering the uninsured. it contains all kinds of cost control measures. and for sure, it’s way too early to say how well those will work, but the early indications are promising.
The conservative members of the court will either concede so as to preclude a voter backlash toward the republicans in November or else they will kick the can down the road, utilizing the Tax Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 as an excuse, until 2015 when the so called tax will go into effect and a law suit can be initiated to test it.
Bad argument for constitutionality. Slave trafficking was interstate commerce also and thankfully it was finally outlawed.
how does that stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny?
the aca is, in essence, a republican plan in origin. mitt romney passed basically the same thing as republican governor of massachusetts. the individual mandate was hatched by the heritage foundation (which is as mainstream conservative as you can get). these are not exactly progressive, big government heroes we’re talking about.
Saying that insurance is the problem is a sure sign you know little about how it works. You want to leave things in the hands of doctors? Good luck…doctors make insurance companies look like charitable organizations.
My prediction based on the questions during the process is that the court will not allow the mandated requirement to buy private health insurance.
what exactly do you think “unconstitutional” means?
it doesn’t mean “i don’t like it” or “i don’t agree with it.”
slavery was an abomination, but it was perfectly constitutional.
I recently read that an activist judge was one who doesn’t agree with me. Too true.
Greed is the problem, as it is in most of our issues, on so many levels.
Ignorance is a biggie, as well.
What is unconstitutional is decided by the Supreme Court and those decisions change, are reversed and reinterpreted over the course of time. Just because something is deemed interstate commerce does not make it constitutional. Finally, nothing is “perfectly constitutional”, not even slave trafficking which is not explicitly mentioned at all. The reference to it says it can’t be prohibited by Congress until 1808.
Slavery was wrong right from the start but our flawed Founders allowed it to stand. Providing universal health care is a human right that supersedes the Constitution which was written at a time that doctors still bled victims/patients to remove evil humors.
It is funny that the Conservative side constantly decries “activist judges” while the best examples of activist judges today are Roberts, Scalia, and Alito.
“universal health care is a human right that supersedes the Constitution”
Wow….think about that statement for a minute. Good to have, yes. Even, arguably essential. But, “a human right”…I don’t think so. And certainly, in a legal or governmental sense, nothing should supersede the Constitution. That certain things do is a shame and so will this be, if it passes.
Considering the chart at the top of the page, I already pay 11.8% of my gross in premium. I expect I pay 40 to 50% of the premium as my employer contributes a portion too. Is each of you going to contribute more to reduce what I pay? Our president seemed to infer that. Based on the numbers kicked around I might even get taxed because I have insurance.
Oh no. Keep your plan. We’ll offer a much less expensive plan to those who don’t have a plan and subsidize that too if they can’t afford what is offered.
It is a bit like a tub drain. A full tub (existing policy holders) suddenly is exposed to low pressure because the drain is opened (a much lower premium policy becomes available). What happens to the water in the tub? I doubt many employers would long hold on to the more expensive policies even if their coverage was better.
If we have to go to single payer, we all should get what Congress gets, there is no reason for anything less.
But considering this as interstate commerce would further remove states rights and diminish the need for states.
Obamacare will certainly level things out: everyone’s coverage and care will be lowered to the same level and those who are already paying a fortune for coverage will pay more. This will be such a disaster that single-payer will look good and will probably be adopted sooner rather than later. Then, we can enjoy the same Euro-care many liberals are so enamored of. Overall, it’s called socialism and that’s what this is all about. It doesn’t work and will destroy the American way of life.
Soooo,we go broke or we go broke, Larry?
Before everyone starts going on about how great Europe is and how much better off they are than we, let me say that although Europe is a wonderful place full of nice people, it is essentially a museum and a place who’s time has come and gone in world events. That’s not to say that I don’t admire their history but what are they now on the cutting edge of? Science? Technology? Manufacturing? Europeans may live well, by some definitions, but they largely lost their relevance many years ago.
No, we don’t have to go broke. We need leadership that will try to restore sanity to health care, not impose Euro-socialism on us. Democrats are always trying to replicate what they perceive as the success of 1930’s style socialism. It really didn’t work back then as well as they think it did and it won’t work now. The real legacy of the New Deal is the elections it bought. That, I think, is the real attraction.
” restore sanity to health car” ? Limit what doctors, nurses, other health care workers (including health care entrepreneurs) and premium boys(insurance companies can make?
what on earth are you talking about?
the european union is the largest economy in the world. germany is a manufacturing powerhouse. those horrible western european social democracies offer health care that is just as good as the u.s.’s at much lower cost.
try spending a little less time with talking points and more time with reality.
If the Supreme Court knocks this down, we taxpayers should demand that all elected officials from the President on down should be stripped of all benefits except for pay. No health insurance, no pensions, no nothing except for an hourly pay scale they must confirm by punching a time clock.
They love what they have but don’t want anyone else to have it.
Oh no! The Bill was found to be Constitutional! We are all going to die!
it’s not that we’re all going to die, pnelba. it’s just that this is the end of freedom as we know it.
(you know, just like ol’ st. ronnie said would happen with the passage of medicare.)
But hermit, you forget the death panels.
Well, I wasn’t talking about the aggregate size of EU member states’ economies. I was talking about world leadership in several areas and I don’t see that they are leading in any area. You want Euro-style health care? Get ready to wait almost 100 days for surgery (knee replacement in the UK, according to several current UK newspaper stories). There’s some reality for you. As for Germany, I do love their cars, but that hardly makes them a world leader in manufacturing.
The court let the individual mandate pass muster because it is a tax! That will drive some people batty.
Larry – could you wait 100 days for knee surgery if it cost you only half?
Mervel..Prediction WRONG AGAIN.
What an unmitigated disaster! First, the Supreme Court has affirmed the government’s power to compel you to purchase things you may not want, which puts entirely too much power in their hands. After telling us what we must buy, will they next tell us what we can not buy? Likely, as they are sure they know better than we do what we need and want. Health care aside, the government now controls our lives to a greater extent than it did yesterday.
Second, Obama has probably bought himself re-election, carrying on a Democratic tradition dating back to at least the 1930s. His smarmy power grab and election buying may usher in a new age of totalitarian social “democracy”. There’s nothing democratic about .it
Why would or should I wait? Yesterday I could do as I pleased vis-a-vis my own health care. Now, I’m not so sure. Freedom carries a price I have always been happy to pay.
Larry – Why should you wait? Again, if it cost you only half, would you be willing to wait a couple of months? For knee replacement surgery. If it was part of an insurance that you didn’t have to kick in anything for? Or you could pay $500 a month out of pocket additionally (forever) and get the immediate knee replacement possibility – which would you choose?
Depends on the circumstances but I would always want the choice to be mine. Choice may no longer be an option.
hey mervel, can we now get you to predict that romney will win the election? :)
Larry – you never had that choice. The Brits do have a choice. they can purchase additional private insurance if they want.
yes i know all this is besides the point of the thread, but i do think it’s useful and important to see how poorly people like larry understand the facts of the world we live in. here on planet earth:
word to the wise: don’t believe anything else larry says either.
Hermit, your intolerance is showing! Maybe it’s me; after all, you know how to reference Wikipedia.
the only thing i’m intolerant of is nonsense. everyone else should feel the same way too!
Talk about nonsense; first you need to recognize it and differentiate it from a difference of opinion. Not recognizing the legitimacy of a different opinion and telling people not to believe anything someone else says is most certainly intolerant. You don’t get to dictate how people think.
oh please, larry. of course i don’t get to dictate how people think. i get to make my arguments and try to persuade people to accept my viewpoints, just like everyone else.
when someone says that the largest economy in the world has lost its relevance, or that germany isn’t a world leader in manufacturing, then that’s just plain nonsense. the sort that, in my opinion, should mark that person as a know-nothing and immediately discredit everything they say.
i think you quit whining about being called out for your nonsense and get to work on getting your act together.
sorry, should be “i think you should quit…”
I think it is time for you to heed Abraham Lincoln’s advice on remaining silent. Less than two weeks ago, Reuters referred to the EU as “a socioeconomic system that’s lost its relevance for the most part.” That debate (EU relevance) has been going on for some time now. I don’t make this stuff up. Stop being so judgemental and accept that someone else may have avalid opinion different from yours.
let me tell you a story about larry.
larry is upset that his credibility has come under challenge. rather than just admit that it was ridiculous to claim that the world’s biggest economy has lost its relevance, or that germany isn’t a world leader in manufacturing, he’s digging in. he writes,
i sure don’t think there’s any way to read this but as an assertion that the quote appeared in a reuters news article. larry’s really saying that reuters itself made the quote. and it really would be a great quote, since reuters is such a widely respected news organization.
unfortunately larry doesn’t give us a link to the article. so i google the quote myself.
turns out that sure enough, the first hit that comes up is from reuters. i click on it.
but strangely, despite what larry had intimated, i don’t get a news article at all. rather i get an opinion piece on a reuters blog, written by gordon brown, former prime minister of the u.k.
i prepare myself to discover that gordon brown, not reuters, is the one claiming that the european socioeconomic model has lost its relevance, which is quite in contrast with what larry claimed.
i begin reading the piece. after a few paragraphs i begin to wonder how the money quote is going to fit in; the piece doesn’t seem to be heading in the right direction.
so i search the page for the text “a socioeconomic system that’s lost its relevance for the most part”.
sure enough it comes up!
only it’s not in brown’s piece at all.
it’s in the comments. right there, posted by the pseudonymous commenter “reality-again.”
it’s not a reuters quote at all. it’s just some line from some random pseudonymous commenter on a reuters blog.
this is what larry uses to try to defend his credibility.
is it any wonder i’m advancing the view that no one should believe anything he says? it’s pure clown car stuff.
You are right that I gave the impression the quote came directly from Reuters, but it was not intentional. The original statement about European relevance was mine and I stand by my opinion, despite your dedication to trashing me and my thoughts. As a matter of fact, you should read Gordon Brown’s piece; it’s fascinating, although pessimistic. But hey, what does he know?
Anyway, I’m tired of your snotty commentary and silly attempts to discredit me and my opinions. Apparently, the self-validation efforts of neo-fascist socialists include first shouting louder than the opposition, then trying pseudo-scholarship and finally, when all else fails, resorting to ridicule. Yesterday, I reminded you of Lincoln’s advice concerning silence, but it seems now that you’ve removed all doubt.
Larry, calling someone a fool indirectly by quoting Lincoln is still a matter of resorting to insult when the facts have failed you.