Thursday, June 28, 2012

 

Political Mayhem Thursday: The Supreme Court's Health Care Decision

I've been in DC this week (Advocacy meetings/BBC interview/White House meeting/some movie screeing), and there is quite a buzz about today's expected Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act-- an opinion which reportedly is being written by the Chief Justice. What do you think they should decide. And (after the decision is announced) what do you think?

Comments:
Predictions? An impossible task.

I think they will dump the mandate/penalty portion of the Act. I think they have to.

I think they'll try to keep the rest of it. I think Chief Justice Roberts wants to try to find a consensus on big issues, and he will have forged some type of middle ground. Perhaps I have higher hopes for the kind of CJ he's becoming than he will fulfill.
 
"I personally believe that U.S Americans are unable to do so because uh, some people out there in our nation don't have maps and I believe that our education like such as South Africa and The Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the U.S should help the U.S should help South Africa and should help The Iraq and the Asian countries so we will be able to build up our future for our children" -Scalia, J., dissenting. ____ U.S. _____, 2012.
 
This comment has been removed by the author.
 
In Minnesota, some of the major health care insurance carriers have already decided to keep parts of ACA - mostly political expedient portions, those that fit best into their premium / expense model(s).

The ongoing health care dance has incrementally increased efficiencies in delivery of care. With Hilary Care, some 28 years ago, many Fortune 500 companies chose, for apparently sound reasons at the time, to provide employer based care. Today, most of the same corporations can no longer financially afford to continue the practice.

Once a value added benefit, to attract and retain employees, has become one of many expenses (along with wages and certain regulations) making it difficult to compete in the global marketplace. When did Stockton, CA's collective bargaining decisions foretell of the bankruptcy they now face?

Most valued employees (public and private) have long accepted positions that "contribute" to their employer's businesses (accepting most business decisions will be made by management) agreeing and contracting for benefits and wages that support a modest living and promised hope of retirement - visions of fishing, gardening or… in good health and enjoying the presence of their children and grandchildren.

Compelling! - against the backdrop that during their work careers their incomes would allow themselves and their families to purchase the "goods and services" their employer's advertising campaigns promoted as living the "American Dream."

Architecture is capable of designing and overseeing construction of more “gated” communities. Is that the message we are sending to city planners. A vision of America that is not a Red State America or a Blue State America, but one of My America – with your “america” screened from my sight?

Availability of credit and the benefits of a consumption driven society were never employee collective bargaining demands. Businesses created “Pandora’s Box of Credit.” - Modern day feudalism’s method to assure those living outside the castle walls remained content?

We have all fed at “credit’s trough” and it will take more than, “Ask Jenny” for us to accept the changes required to once again embrace the notion WE are the United States of America.

Generations before built this nation for US. Will our legacy build upon JFK’s “Ask not…” challenge or will we leave the problems we helped create to our children? Health care, Medicare and many other entitlements await our response…
 
I'm excited that Mitt Romney now gets to run against Obama for increasing taxes exponentially through his health care plan.
 
ABLOO BLOO BLOO ROBERTS IS A COMMIE
 
sorry about my early post (7:05am) - I can't seem to delete it and start over. It is evident that I had not sipped any coffee yet by my lack of coherent thought.

I am very happy to hear about today's SCOTUS decision. I think this goes a long way to assisting people, specifically with pre-existing conditions.

In the mean time, there is nothing stopping Humana, BCBS, Aetna, United Health Care from jacking up my rates to what I consider an unaffordable level They are for profit companies.

Our policy renewal just arrived and the quarterly premium increased $300. If we up our deductable then the premium will go down $300 from where it currently is.

Needless to say,I need to start shopping which presents problems in itself. What state, FL or NC since we are still legal residents of FL. And then you do this over the phone and fill in very detailed questionaires andhave phone interviews. They will not give you a rate until you have completed this process - so trying to shop more than 1 plan is virtually impossible.

So as much as I like the concept of single payer and Obama care and general reform none of this addresses the fact that health insurance companys can continue to make it unafforable through rate increases. And it does not address the great rate disparity one finds when moving from state to state.
 
I think all legal writing teachers should now teach their students to save their best argument for third.
 
Justin T:

You made me laugh! But now I can't get this image out of my head of Scalia in an evening gown, sash and frosted lipstick...
 
I've written a couple of posts about the opinion on Mirror of Justice that you can find here: http://www.mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/.
I also wrote something for the Gospel Coalition (http://thegospelcoalition.org/) which should be up sometime soon.
 
The ER at Columbia Presbyterian in the city of New York is a study in social disparity that eloquently spells out the state of Health Care in the United States of America. The hospital is smack in the middle between Harlem and South Bronx, two painfully stereotypical (poor and violent) inner city areas. It is also a teaching hospital with a prestigious pedigree and some of the latest and coolest medical breakthroughs, which makes it also a main attraction for the afflicted affluent. The ER ends up as the universal clinic where everybody goes, emergency or not exactly. For those with no insurance; from ingrown toe nails or booger-stuck nasal passages, to gunshot wounds, to Siamese twins’ separation surgeries, to bone marrow transplants and quadruple bypasses. So even if you have decent health insurance you may have to wait in triage until your ankle is swollen to the size of a mature elm tree and hope you won’t break down bad enough to prompt additional time delay in psych evaluation. Hopefully universal insurance will alleviate some of the burden of ER administered Health Care, because all that comes to ER gets taken care of and paid for, whether you like it or not… whether you are a filthy Commie or a rabid Republican.
 
Excited. A masterful compromise on Roberts part in my uneducated opinion. (Far right is going nuts over his "betrayal.") But I'm leery of unintended consequences. I don't think the law is necessarily a panacea to our healthcare woes.
 
Marta--delicious writing yet again. I'm a fan. Jubilant about the decision from the High Court. At last the search for an honest man has proved fruitful. Perhaps Roberts can prove a shining example for the Congress. Or even the spiteful,fear-driven factions that would rather hate and polarize,than discuss with dignity.
 
One commenter on NPR--a law prof from GW-- said Chief Justice Roberts broke the tie because he was thinking of his "legacy," and trying to discourage 5-4 decisions on huge politically-charged cases split down party lines, a la Bush v. Gore. An interesting notion . . . he also hinted at perhaps some I'll-scratch-your-back-you'll-scratch-mine in Roberts' decision, but that seems rather unlikely for such a far-reaching case. I like to think that Roberts made this decision truly on principle. But I do think it's odd that he'd go for the "tax" argument.

Anyway, I'm glad it was upheld for many reasons; at a base level simply because turning around a ship that big is difficult (although I realize implementing a lot of it will be difficult, too). I wasn't looking forward to the intense election rhetoric that a defeat of the law was going to cause. And most important, there are good provisions of it that have already gone into effect.
 
It's the decision on Medicaid that concerns me. There's no way that Texas is going to expand its Medicaid coverage, no matter how much the feds pay. It's against the principles of the Lege. So I expect to see numbers swell at the charitable medical clinic my husbands runs.
 
SWISSGIRL!!!! OMG WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???? hahaha
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

#