What’s at stake for you in the Supreme Court’s health care ruling?

Eric Ringham June 20, 2012, 5:00 AM Jun 20, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the Affordable Care Act, the health reform law that many Democrats regard as President Obama’s signature accomplishment. Today’s Question: What’s at stake for you in the Supreme Court’s health care ruling?

About the blogger

Eric Ringham

eringham@mpr.org

Clark

Hopefully, the defeat of obama, the worst president in 100 years. Newt was right, obama is so removed from private enterprise, he couldn’t manage a hot dog stand.

Duane

Unless the Affordable Care Act is overturned, I expect much higher cost for me. I am retired and on Medicare and covered well be supplemental health care and Plan D for medication. I don.t feel many people on Social Security know that under this plan, their cost would be higher and the coverage would be reduced if the act was allowed to stand. There are parts of the Act that needs to be retained, but I feel that needs to be done by a less partisan president. Lets wait until after the November election before we try to correct it.

Gary F

Do we continue to follow the European stagecoach over the cliff?

Do we celebrate Independence Day or “Dependence Day”?

Big government is unsustainable.

reggie

Gary F, Duane, and Clark,

Have any of you actually looked at the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or are you just parroting back the tea party line? The centerpiece of the act is private insurance markets; the individual mandate is the necessary tool to make the marketplace work.

I am really sick of the idiotic commentary that this is big government. It isn’t. It’s an efficient market, with the requirement that everyone participate. You can make your own choices about what you buy and who you buy from. The only thing you can’t do is be a free-rider on everyone else’s funding of the system. Think back to the Ron Paul debate when he was asked what to do about an uninsured young person with a serious medical issue. From the audience someone yelled, “let him die” and the room cheered. That’s stupid, callous, and most important, is not going to happen. We’ll just shuffle him to the emergency room and make the rest of us who play by the rules pay the bills.

Among the benefits of the ACA that directly affect my family: two kids in their early 20s who have continued coverage; a family member with a chronic condition who would be otherwise uninsurable if forced to seek new insurance; the ability to shop for better coverage or lower rates (since the person with the pre-existing condition can’t be denied coverage).

That’s a huge leap forward from the old system, and a damn sight better than anything the GOP or the Tea Party has put forward. Oh, wait. Those obstructionists haven’t put anything positive forward, as usual.

reggie

Duane, on re-reading, I shouldn’t have lumped you in with Gary F and Clark. My apologies.

Your observation that some people (seniors among them) will pay more and receive reduced benefits is correct. And it’s as it should be. When the nation is running a $1 trillion deficit, there are very few areas in which we won’t be paying more and receiving less, at least if we ever want to dig out of this financial hole.

Mike Allen

If it’s struck down and my parent’s insurance decides to go back to their old rules, I’ll lose my health insurance because I can’t afford individual care and my job doesn’t offer healthcare to me.

Dianne

I will see my insurance costs continue to rise if we go back to the old system. If I changed jobs, I could be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, as I am a breast cancer survivor.

Jim G

The private health care market in the United States is basically a wild west cattle stampede to higher corporate profit. It needs to be corralled, tamed, and made to serve the people the that pay the costs. Health-care CEOs making hundreds of millions off average policy holders is an affront to decency.

To understand the tyranny of unrestricted market forces and why the ACA needs to be upheld you need to read yesterday’s Commentary:

“Donating a kidney is a good deed that doesn’t go unpunished”

June 19, 2012

By Cathleen Cotter

Jack

Let’s not let this degenerate into that kind of silly emotional tosh. That’s the kind of thing that people who don’t have a real argument say.

I note the very same people who raise a hue and cry about the atrociousness of (shudder) Government-mandated compulsory health insurance, in the name of individual freedom, have no problem denying women the elementary freedom of deciding what to do with their own bodies.

Ann

It would be nice to be able to afford health insurance. I hope I will be able to get it! Instead of talking about “taxing the rich,” I wish our leaders would tax “cadillac” benefits that people have. Those without benefits shouldn’t have to subsidize public and union employees who get a lot of untaxed pay through benefits.

Emery

Unfortunately, I don’t see any way to make coverage of pre-existing conditions affordable for all without government redistribution.

Rich in Duluth

Affordable health care.

The logical way to get the price of healthcare down, is for everyone to pay into a pool of money that pays the healthcare bills for all of us.

Too bad we also have to pay insurance companies a profit instead of just paying government employees to send checks to your doctor.

Mike

No one complains when they are mandated to buy auto insurance … Granted owning and operating a vehicle is more of a choice than life. I suppose thought taking care of your body and your health is a choice too, but not for some. The individual mandate is a tricky one.

I was just denied health insurance from Health Partners for a repeat staph infection that my doc (a health partners doc) was pretty sure I was getting from my gym.

What if it were something worse?

Yeah, there needs to be some sanity imparted on the health care industries.

James

If ACA gets stricken, I expect this chain of events:

– insufferable gloating from the right

– an Obama defeat in November

– a healthcare coverage mess for another 4 or 5 years

– a stinging and long term defeat for Romney and a bunch of Republican congressmen and senators in 2016 when people realize ACA was a pretty good deal and the Republicans have no tools in their tool chest to solve this one.

Phil

If we want America to be number 1, we need to have an educated and healthy society. If you don’t want America to be number 1 then we need to shirk on education and health care so our population can become sick, stupid, poor, and pregnant. Eventually the majority of the population will be too uneducated and ill to know or care that other countries are kicking our ass. And as for Clark, I don’t know about the worst President in the last 100 years…wasn’t there a guy who took office with a booming economy and no wars and in a few years the economy was taking a nose dive and we were in two wars? Oh yeah and he sent billions to bail out the people who were tanking the economy. I don’t know, I think maybe that guy sucked more.

david

I guess if it gets stricken down i won’t have to listen to moronic tea baggers shout how they are going to repeal it anymore. Of coarse they don’t offer any alternatives except let the free market rule it. Only i for one don’t buy it. This year after cancer treatments I’m stuck with bills totalling over $12,000 and growing. And that’s with insurance, but crappy insurance, but it was the best I and my employer could afford. And now i have a pre- existing condition. Clark, gary, etc, offer sonething constructive or shut the F up, i for one am sick of listening to you idiots.

Steve the Cynic

I’m secretly hoping SCOTUS throws out the mandate and leaves the rest of the bill intact. That would immediately cause a crisis and force Congress to revisit the whole thing, show the public that the Gang Of Plutocrats has no good ideas, lead to a Democratic sweep in November, and then maybe Congress can do something rational, like learn from Canada’s success with single-payer. As it stands, the ACA is a half measure that will stave off real reform for another couple of decades.

BTW, reggie, the GOP has indeed put forward an idea. It got enacted in the ACA. The only reason they disowned their own idea was to be oppositional towardd the Obama administration.

matt

I have 3 sons with degenerative kidney disease, which means a lifetime of intensive medical care – drugs, transplants, dialysis. I have a lot riding on this. While I am not in favor of the ACA, I am also not in favor of the current system, but am quite convinced that we are fixing a mistake with a mistake. That being said, the die was cast, I hope the Act is upheld, is successful, and I can say I was wrong and stupid for being against it.

Hope and expectations can often be far apart so I have gone through the process of rearranging my life to deal with my kids medical issues the best as possible under what I expect to be a much worsened health care system.

Peggy Sannerud

Personally, this would mean I will never be able to leave my job, because I will never be able to get insurance again. I have Crohn’s disease, a lifetime of manageable condition. During times when I was underinsured, my health deteriorated. Now with a pitiful policy from my employer, I am maintaining, and productive, and paying taxes, etc.

When will health insurance be divorced from employment? This made sense as a benefit when folks stayed in the same job for a career, but now it is just a headache and an excuse for insurance companies to wash out the sickest people.

Also, I have a daughter in college, but she is a bit lost, and may drop out. None of the jobs available to her in our town carry benefits. The ACA helps us keep her safe until she gets turned around. And that is not free, by the way – I pay for her coverage, and am glad to do so.

Regnar James

When it gets struck down:

The big “O” would not get re-elected.

Maybe it would be less of a socialist nanny government.

People would have to be accountable for their own actions,,,, maybe even work hard to make life better for themselves.

∑

DTOM

clark

Reggie

Yes, and I am certainly not opposed to all of the regulations in the ACA. What I do know is it actually provides an incentive for companies to terminate their health plans. If companies with more than 50 employees do not offer health insurance, they are fined $2,500 for each employee. Given the average cost for providing health care coverage in the U.S runs employers about $6,400 per employee, even a moron like you can do the math. Take the penalty and terminate coverage. This will be effective in 2014. This makes your man obama either a lying liar or an fool.

david

Leave it to clark to open his mouth and say something extremely stupid. NO well run company would ever consider terminating their health plans to save a few thousand dollars per employee. If they did that why not pay all their employees minimum wage while they are at it. Eliminate all vacation time too. Obviously saving money is more important then having skilled, good employees to get the work done. If the financial industry has to keep ridiculous compensation packaged to keep the morons working there who drove the economy into the rocks, then other companies would have to maintain basic benefit packages to keep workers who ACTUALLY do work. Clark you are a moronic troll, and obviously not the financial employee you claim to be. Grab your mop, someone made a mess in the men’s room.

jockamo

There is a new top employee in town.(D.C.)

President Barack Milhous Clintonnixbama.

Will we see, this year, the First Black president resignation?

Time will tell.

Steve the Cynic

David, I notice you used the oxymoronic phrase, “financial industry.” There is, of course, no such thing. An industry is a sector of the economy that actually produces stuff and creates value. Financial service companies merely shuffle money around in exchange for fees. But you know that. so I assume the mistake was unintentional.

david

Good point steve. Group of delusional socialpaths is more apt. Just how much brain power does it take to take a 0 or near 0% loan from the government and loan it back to the tax payers at a higher interest rate?

inuit

“Just how much brain power does it take to take a 0 or near 0% loan from the government and loan it back to the tax payers at a higher interest rate?”

Exactly.

Obama and his BFFs on Wall Street making fools out of the People.

Most people have an idea that they are being taken to the cleaners, but few are aware of the extent to which the Democans are fleecing them.

JasonB

Either way, I’m sure the insurance industry will still get the money they wanted.

Steve the Cynic

Insurance isn’t an industry either, JasonB.

JasonB

Steve – they sometimes talk like they actually produce something. I guess when all you do is “shuffle money” it helps to at least think you’re being productive in a tangible goods sense. But your point is taken.

jockamo

From Merriam-Webster:

Industry:

A distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises (example: the banking industry)

Some folks, those with limited ability to think, cannot conceive of any product unless they can hold it in their hands and throw it away in the waste basket or a junk yard.

How………..1950ish………..

And………wrong………..

Rich

It could be improved it by paring back the minimum plan to a high deductible, high co-pay plan with a maximum on the co-pay.

In general, businesses would be better off if they got out of the benefits business and paid only in cash. All forms of compensation should be taxed with no exemptions.

Steve the Cynic

Merriam-Webster only reports usage. When people use language sloppily, words change meaning. Neither insurance nor finance actually add anything of value to the economy. At best they are useful services. Insurance helps people and businesses mitigate risk. Banking provides liquidity that helps productive sectors of the economy be more productive. By themselves, though, they don’t create any wealth. At worst, they are parasites on the productive sectors. And I’m sure when your city council zones an area for “industrial use,” they’re not thinking of banking or insurance.

Barb

Steve, try to be more concise in your sarcasm. It doesn’t improve with greater length

jockamo

How quaint of you. (Old fashioned)

And regressive. (Becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state.)

Reactionary, even. (Opposition to progress)

And……laughably wrong………..harharhar

And…….geezerly……..

(“I remember when “industry” meant stuff that was made out of REAL things, like STEEL, and WOOD, and…and…and GLASS, and PLASTIC!! Yeah, even PLASTIC!!! Stuff you could feel, and touch, and throw in the garbage, by god!!!!”)

Har

Steve the Cynic

The terminology is less important than the concept, jockamo. Banks and insurance companies create nothing that has value in and of itself. The value of their services is entirely derivative. Without manufacturing, agriculture, mining, arts, medical services, etc., there would be nothing to insure and no need for banks. They’re like oil in your car’s engine. The engine won’t run without it, but it’s not what actually produces the power. When insurance companies and banks are making more profit than the real industries they’re supposed to be helping, something is fishy.

Back to the topic for today: When health insurance companies are making more money than health care providers, something is out of whack.

matt

Without a financial industry there would be no capital allocation which would make all other industries shrink in a heartbeat. Your 401k/403b/IRA is a the financial industry, your mortgage and car loan is the financial industry. Student loans are the financial industry, bonds for road construction are the financial industry. Your company’s operating capital is the financial industry. Without the financial industry everything is cash in advance…lemme correct…gold or silver in advance…fiat currency is the financial industry. So they are not oil in the engine they are the transmission, differential and wheels. The financial industry crosses time and distance allowing us to operate as a demand economy as as oppsosed to a subsistence economy. There is indeed a huge amount of value created. They, like govt may indeed be suboptimal, evil and all other mean nasty things but to say they don’t create value is entirely wrong as much as a doctor, singer, or spouse does not create value.

…btw while the financial industry is suboptimal you still have the option to not participate…unlike govt.

Steve the Cynic

That depends on what you mean by “value,” matt, and on how you measure it. Economists define the value of a thing in terms of how much people are willing to give in order to get it, and they measure it in some kind of currency. By that measure, stock in a tobacco company may have a lot of value. But apart from it’s use by economists as a technical term, what does value really mean? If you ask yourself, “How much will my life be enhanced if I have that thing?” or “How does this affect the overall well-being of humanity?” you may get a very different answer from what an economist would say. Usually there’s a rough correlation, but not always. By those criteria, tobacco companies have negative value. Financial services create value only indirectly, by enabling other sectors of the economy to produce goods and services that actually have real (not mere economic) value.

Measuring happiness in dollars is a huge mistake.

matt

I have widget, I want to make more. I do not have capital to purchase widget machine.

Option A – no capital markets: I can save (aka underconsume – in this case I wont buy doodles for the year) for the next year to accumulate capital for widget machine. First recognize that by underconsuming I have temporarily decreased the economy by my underconsumption, this is later offset by my purchase of the widget machine but I have created a shift in the economy that affected the doodle maker. My utility is reduced by one years worth of doodles, because there is no capital market I do not gain any interest. Once capital is aquired I can produce N years worth of widgets.

Option B: I can borrow the money from the financial industry and produce widgets for N+1 years. Provided the marginal value of the widgets in the +1 year exceeds the interest the value of MV(+1) – i = Value created. Plus the economic value of my doodle purchases is restored in addition to capital purchase.Yes, that value is indirect but it can only be created by the financial industry, but the value of cars is an indirect product of the steel companies, computers from chip and software communities etc.So if you want to say capital/financial markets are raw materials I would agree. But again, sans capital markets we are reduced to substinence economics and a much smaller economy. It would be morally better in some aspects, capital gives us the time and resources to go to war, exploit children, rape women and make rap music, but we would need a huge decrease in population.

So that covers the $ side of things. If we look at non monetary value – what does 401k mean to most people? Security at retirement age. Life insurance, piece of mind for a father knowing his kids will be taken care of. Ability to access bond markets is an important measure when considering a city to live in.

Steve the Cynic

I get that, matt, but you’re making my point. The financial “industry” still isn’t making the widgets. It’s enabling the making of widgets. That’s useful, but it’s the widgets that are making people’s lives better (assuming they are), not the financing of the widgets. Unlike the widgets, finance is not an end in itself.

Retirement plans? You bet! But again, the financial services are not actually creating value. They’re helping people manage money, and money itself has no intrinsic value but only represents value. Money has no value beyond what we collectively agree to pretend it does. It’s a useful pretense that helps people organize economic activity, but it’s a pretense nonetheless.

jockamo

No, Matt isn’t making your point.

You aren’t making your point, either.

It is impossible to make your point. Because it isn’t true.

Fact is, money has MORE intrinsic value than anything else. Far more. That is why it is held in such high esteem.

Learn the facts. Quit wallowing in the dark. Come out into the light of the new Capitalist World. Tis good for the soul.

Steve the Cynic

“Tis good for the soul.”

Jockomo, your repeated use of that expression in the context of your rants suggests to me that you have an underdeveloped spirituality. If you think an ideology of radical libertarianism and laissez faire capitalism is “good for the soul,” I fear for your soul. Compassion, truth, beauty and love are good for the soul. The materialism that says “money has MORE intrinsic value than anything else” is bad for the soul. All the world’s religions and most of the philosophies agree on that. As Paul of Tarsus observed, “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.”

In fact, your insistence that money is the most valuable thing is so utterly preposterous that I’m beginning to wonder if you really mean what you’re saying, or if you’re actually a liberal satirically posing as a libertarian/conservative.

Money is not an end in itself. The economy is not an end in itself. Any economic system is valuable only to the extent that it serves the well-being of humanity. The economy is a human creation, not a force of nature. When we lose sight of that, we become slaves of impersonal market forces.

As the old saying goes, money is a great servant, but a terrible master.

matt

I hope this works out well for the health care system, I remain dubious but wish for the best.

I think this is another step back for freedom but not nearly as badly as the Patriot Act and the slow creep of bureacratic infringments.

To those who were unable to get insurance because of conditions or economics I am happy that you will gain relief.

j netherland

In answer to how Obamacare may effect me, I would have to reply that being 70 years old, I suspect that I am going to die somewhat earlier than I might have otherwise. Most likely it will come with the withholding of effective care or the ‘Give him a couple of pills and contact the authorities when it’s over’ scenarios….

It seems that the patriotic thing to do is for we elderly to just bypass going to any doctor and let nature take it’s course, after all, the most important thing in life IS money.

I am curious though as to why $120,000.00 can be spent saving a duck that some punk shot with an arrow but an elderly person is denied a hip replacement because it would cost $45,000.00.

One can only conclude that a duck is more voluble than a person..

Steve the Cynic

“Withholding of effective care”? An insurance company is more likely to do that than the government. Don’t believe the lies.

Gayle

From my YWCA newsletter:

“By now, you have probably heard that the Supreme Court recently gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act by removing section 4(b). See a copy of the Literacy Test that Louisiana required of all people who could not “prove” a fifth-grade education. This is the type discrimination to which we may now return.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/could-you-pass-the-literacy-test-given-to-black-voters-in-th
theoacme

Until everyone’s civil rights are accepted by all, we will never get to a post-civil rights era in the United States.

Given the Republican’s hatred toward the rights of women and people of same-gendered relationships, as well as all those who support these rights, I consider a Krystallnacht far more likely, and expect I will be brutally murdered within the next five years as a result of my supporting civil rights for all, not just for those the Republicans believe, as a result of a false interpretation of Jesus Christ, should have them.
- mason
  
  “expect I will be brutally murdered within the next five years”
  
  You should see a psychiatrist about your extreme levels of paranoia.