inquisitrlogo

 
Health Care Law Headed to U.S. Supreme Court for Review

Posted: November 14, 2011

health-care-law-affordable-care-act-2012-supreme-court-reviewThe U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the justices will hear arguments on a key provision of President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

The decision, made earlier today, had been widely expected since late September, when the Obama administration asked the country’s highest court to uphold the centerpiece insurance provision and 26 states separately asked that the entire law, known as the Affordable Care Act, be struck down.

The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.

Supporters of the law say the insurance purchase is needed to spread the cost of health care among all Americans. They say that if people waited to buy insurance until they needed help paying for their health care, insurance premiums for others would be unaffordable.

“We are pleased that the court has agreed to hear this case. We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement.

Other legal issues on Obamacare that will get attention from the justices include whether the entire law can stand if the mandate is struck down, if the law’s Medicaid extension is constitutional and if an obscure tax law blocks any legal challenge to the law.

Oral arguments to the Court are expected in March and a decision on Obama’s health care law would likely be postponed until the last week of the court’s term in late June, just months before the 2012 presidential election.

via Reuters
Image:Shutterstock

Comments


18 Archived Responses to “ Health Care Law Headed to U.S. Supreme Court for Review ”

  1. Yes, I support Obama's health care reform. We need affordable health insurance!

  2. ….at what cost ????? are you aware that these types of programs have nearly bankrupted the governments of every country that has tried them….also taxes have had to increasing skyrocket…you re not getting more affordable healthcare,you re going to pay more in the long run for less efficient coverage….read the whole proposal…..why do you imagine we haven t done this before….i can tellyou….it can t be supported financially…..don t let the word affordable fool you……..

  3. Philip McCormick
    I can read, Pat. I pay $1,406.00 a month for our health care premiums for a family of 4. The insurance companies are ripping the American people off and something needs to be done about it. As far as I can tell, the GOP has done nothing to help, because they seem to be in cahoots with the insurance companies, the banks and the big corporations. At least Obama is trying to help the little people, and not supporting the wealthiest people in the country. Something needs to be done, and the GOP have no answers!

  4. Philip McCormick Canada has been so successful in saving money that they recently announced that they will be paying for their citizens prescription drugs, they expect that their focus on preventative care and RX will save them upwards of $40 billion per year. I lived in Canada for several years as well (I have duel citizenship) and the care was excellent, my mom had surgery twice, we had several sickenesses in the family and the doctors were wonderful. In Britain they have great care as well and the Pound is current at 1.558 Pounds against the dollar, while the region is one of the stronger Europe compared to areas with non-universal coverage. Sweden also has a great system that hasn't crippled their economy but they are a little too socialistic for my likes. The truth is the issue with some systems tend to come in poor countries where the medical programs were filled with fraud, a lack of preventative medicine, etc….

    Of course there will always be a price to pay for more coverage…for example 17% VAT in England, taxes paid by renters for renting a home or apt, etc…..

    With that being said, I don't agree with much of the Health Care Reform Act (although some of the checks and balances I think you can agree have been needed for a long time and much of the act is based around checks and balances). The first issue should have been fixing the backwards medical industry we have now. I fought for 3 years over 5 bills, only to have the hospital agree to cut the bill by 90%. It's funny how they will say "You owe us $30,000" then when you argue enough and ask for itemized bills to find out you are being charged $40 for one Tylenol they all of a sudden say "We'll take $2700." Then again I wouldn't be asked to pay $30,000 for a $3000 surgery if more people had insurance and could therefore pay their bills and have their bills paid my insurance companys.

  5. I support the health care reform, I'm tired of paying for Medicaid for people who do work, who could afford some sort of insurance. Blue Cross raises it's rates every year, and part is to lower the cost for seniors, which is maybe fair. But we need to know what is meant by penalty…maybe just refusing for the person to be eligble for medicaid if they would have been able to purchas insurance and refused.

  6. @ Rita, yes, my boss pays close to $2,000 per month for Blue Shield of Michigan, for himself and two kids only. @James, why didn't you have health insurance? Yes, I believe that the republicans have tried to make us believe that Canada and Britian kill people while they wait in line for medical care, but reports from people who have been thre seem to be the oposite. My mother in law and sister both got sick in London, the hotel got a Dr. to their rooms the same day and it was free, they were not charged. I thought that was weird, they were US citizens!

  7. I have always had health insurance, I was saying in Canada when we were there my mom was treated really well and I always was for my few hospital visits. My wife works for the state now and we pay $500 a month for the two of us (which doesn't go up with kids thankfully).

  8. I disagree completely with it. I know a trap when I see it! First off if you want universal healthcare to be basically socialized the way the new plan calls you are going to be lining the pockets of shareholders in the pharmecutical industries and the big wigs of insurance companies. This may look good at first but I PROMISE YOU that if you pass this proposed form of healthcare as it is written currently you are simply playing into a suckers bet. If you want it socialized then you better just socialize the guys who really have the pull over where the pricing will be controlled. Phamacueticals, and the price gougung of the claims and processing dept. and the billing departments for these assholes. This is going to be worse than with the banks. they going to find any and every way to add in charges where they can squeeze them, then claim that "we have no choice but to raise premiums accross the board." So it wont be some, it will be all americans paying, and then paying higher and then overcharged once again. And the ones who aren't even able to afford it to begin with because they are making minimum wage, what the fuck are they suposed to do? "Oh, I'm homeless, But at least I have healthcare." This is not like auto insurance where if you don't pay you stop driving. You can not force a person to pay for the chance he may get sick enough to need a hospital. Why don't you just cap the profits on these assholes that profit off the sick and put those billions back into the system? Hell we are already trying to occupy everything else in this country! those who are insured are paying these jacked up prices because the men who are up top are spiking the profit margins. when the margins drop they don't say "oh well I don't get as much profit this quarter", they say raise premiums. Because the root of this issue is profiteering on the sick. If you eliminate the profit, or at least cap it and regulate it you will drive the prices down! Another way is passing laws of corporations and their employees in insurance companies from buying stock in phamacueticals. or vise versa. It allows for what I can only refer to as a" back door Monopoly" on peoples health. they make money off the drugs and off the raised premiums. Of course this is most likely a waste of my time to blog because most people in this country are completely blind to the hustle. You're distracted by the magic show while the theif picks your pocket. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

  9. understand this is not how they do it in the countries who have real socialized health care. It is worked into the taxes. Look at the obvious. Do you pay amonthly fee for the use of the Post Office? Or how about public schools? Nope it is in the taxes.

  10. James Johnsonabsolutely right,except do you actually believe that the insurance companies here in the united states are gonna let obamacare cut into their profits by telling how much they can take in for premiums ? while they continue to pay out the fees to doctors and hospitols…i doubt it. during my career,i traveled extensivly in canada…..most said that their medical care was good,but they all agreed they were being forced to pay ridiculous taxes to support it…also,for the last 20 years or so a large number of medical professionals have headed south for more lucrative opportunities….a lot of these insurance companies and medical people will be seeking more profitable ventures….obama care can t force them to stay in the medical insurance business …..they will just invest their capitol elsewhere,and go on their merry way…leaving the cost squarely in the lap of the american taxpayer….you are right….canada is a shining example of overtaxation….

  11. Philip McCormick Philip, I actually agree, if you look at countries where it has worked they had to chip away at those fees…I like in Canada and the UK how you can buy into private insurance which provides a biggest network of providers. Doctors in the UK are very well compensated though, they realize that buy creating cheaper medical care through better preventive care and by better managed care they can be paid more because the governments medical expenses are cut down. I'm a strong believer that we need coverage for everyone, it's just a very unique situation we face in the United States because of our messed up system. Canada does over tax but my mom 15 years ago was making more per hour as a sub shop worker than the minimum wage is now in the U.S. – Her starting pay was $8.50 an hour….they make a lot of money with really big sin taxes (cigarettes are ridiculously expensive, alcohol is more, etc….I new less poor people in Canada than in the U.S. but again it's all geographical considerations.

  12. Jan Briney
    Nov 15, 2011

    WEALTHY JERKS!–if the working poor could afford to buy health insurance, they would. Who will pay their penalty for the insurance they cannot pay for?