Obamacare Survives, Supreme Court Rescues 'Big Health'

[herring_RN]

[color=#365f91]obamacare survives, supreme court rescues 'big health'

[color=#333333]just a quick comment on the supreme court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the obama healthcare legislation, i.e. that the single mandate stands.

i recently watched a fascinating video of a talk given by dr oliver fein, a member of the physicians for a national health program, that is doctors in favor of socialised medicine or as it is called in the us, 'single payer', analysing the obama health reform. his view on the supreme court decision was that the judges, and in particular chief justice john roberts, would rule in it favour for fear of what come if they didn't. in other words striking down obamacare would put single payer or other radical reform back on the table. well, roberts deserted his conservative colleagues and voted for obama's law. so dr fein may well be right. ...

[color=#333333]... [color=#333333]this statement just in from one of america's largest nursing unions:

[color=#333333]nurses: 'court ruling does not end healthcare crisis or the need to continue the campaign for reform'

[color=#333333]the supreme court decision should not be seen as the end of the efforts by health care activists for a permanent fix of our broken healthcare system, said the nation's largest union and professional association of registered nurses today.

[color=#333333]to achieve that end, the 175,000-member national nurses united pledged to step up a campaign for a reform that is not based on extending the grip of a failed private insurance system, but "on a universal program based on patient need, not on profits or ability to pay. that's medicare for all," said nnu co-president jean ross, rn. "it is not time to stop, but a reminder to begin that effort anew."

[color=#333333]"nurses experience the crisis our patients continue to endure every day. that's the reason we will continue to work for reform that is universal, that doesn't bankrupt families or leave patients in the often cruel hands of merciless insurance companies," said nnu co-president karen higgins, rn.

[color=#333333]stepping up the fight for medicare for all is even more critical in the midst of the still persistent economic crisis," added nnu co-president deborah burger, rn, noting that nurses have seen broad declines in health status among patients related to loss of jobs, homes, and health coverage. ...

[color=#333333]http://thebrokenelbow.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-survives-supreme-court-rescues-big-health/

[DebblesRN, ASN, BSN, RN]

You assume a lot and know NOTHING about me. Who said I voted for any of them??

It doesn't matter which loser you vote for, they all hike the taxes after saying they won't, so it's a moot point anyway.

[duckyluck111]

My husband is an orthopaedic surgeon. He has seen many patients from Canada. Such patients have chosen to leave their country and have surgery here because they have been on a waiting list for two years or more, to have a hip or knee replacement.

The patients are in pain and cannot ambulate freely or live an active life. Unfortunately surgery is not available to them because their age or particular diagnosis is not a priority.

Many of these patients are in their 40's and told they will simply have to wait. Unable to contend with their condition, they come to the states and pay out of pocket.

Canada has socialized medicine. They pay nothing. That is not what we are talking about doing here. Rest assured capitalism is alive and well in the US. There are people here in the US who have issues such as the ones you describe who can't even get ON a waiting list. They will never get care because they don't have insurance. The affordable care act will help them get insurance. That is all.

[hawkfdc]

"well, if you refuse to obtain health insurance, you should be penalized. how is it your constitutional right to be irresponsible? the greater good of the society overrides individual rights."

i don't think so comrade. in the bill of rights, article v of the united states constitution, no one in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. and yes, being irresponsible provided your rights and the rights of other are not infringed upon by my irresponsibility is guaranteed by the constitution. if i choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-by being irresponsible i have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.

i'm all for the greater good provided it does not interfere with my individual freedom. is it lost on you that the government just said in this ruling that if you do not buy what they want you to buy, you must pay a tax?

[hawkfdc]

"Well, if you refuse to obtain health insurance, you SHOULD be penalized. How is it your constitutional right to be irresponsible? The greater good of the society overrides individual rights."

I don't think so comrade.In the Bill of Rights, Article V of the United States Constitution, no one in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. And yes, being irresponsible provided YOUR rights and the rights of other are not infringed upon by my irresponsibility is guaranteed by the Constitution. If I choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-By being irresponsible I have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.I'm all for the greater good provided it does not interfere with my individual freedom. Is it lost on you that the government just said in this ruling that if you do not buy what they want you to buy, you must pay a tax?

[elkpark]

if i choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-by being irresponsible i have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.

ummm, yes, you have -- because when you get hauled into the ed after you are in an automobile accident, fall off your roof, whatever, all the rest of us will have to pick up the tab.

now, if the emts were going to leave you lying in the road after your accident if you don't have insurance or proof of ability to pay the full bill yourself on you at the time of the accident, you might have a point. but, thank goodness, even in america, land of rugged individualism, that doesn't happen ...

[wooh, BSN, RN]

But, thank goodness, even in America, land of rugged individualism, that doesn't happen ...

I think unless that actually DOES start happening, people won't get it. As I said in one of these many threads, people are all about their "freedom" and "liberty" until it's time to put their health where their mouth is. They don't want to put any of their money into a system if there's a chance of someone they don't deem worthy benefitting from it. But none of them seem willing to die for it. Even those who were gun ho enough about it to swear in an affidavit to the Supreme Court they'd NEVER use healthcare without "self-insuring." Nope, when faced with death or sticking the rest of us with the bill, they stuck the rest of us with the bill. I'll believe all the chest beating about "liberty" when one of these people actually REFUSE healthcare when they need it and can't afford it.

[wooh, BSN, RN]

Article V of the United States Constitution, no one in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I believe you meant Amendment V.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

Fact-checking claims about the individual mandate -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/28/fact-checking-claims-about-individual-mandate/

Top 5 falsehoods about the health care law -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jun/27/top-5-falsehoods-about-health-care-law/

[duckyluck111]

and yes, being irresponsible provided your rights and the rights of other are not infringed upon by my irresponsibility is guaranteed by the constitution. if i choose not to have health insurance this has no impact on you-by being irresponsible i have not infringed upon your life, your liberty or your property.

i'm all for the greater good provided it does not interfere with my individual freedom. is it lost on you that the government just said in this ruling that if you do not buy what they want you to buy, you must pay a tax?

you deciding not to buy health insurance does impact me, because inevitably people like you who don't want to buy insurance are going to end up in emergency rooms, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of care (which covers like 3 days of care in a hospital), for which many of you will not pay. this cost gets spread out over the other users of health care, and makes the cost of my care more expensive. further, the hospitals get tax relief for providing care to people who dodge their bills, therefore, i'm paying for your care any way you slice it.

i'd rather you pay for your care and pay for it up front! as far as i'm concerned, if you can afford health insurance (which you now will be able to ,thanks to the lower premiums and subsidies) and you don't buy it, you area freeloading off the rest of us and that is infringing upon my rights! heck yah you are going to be taxed!!!

[SC_RNDude]

I believe there will be more expensive plans you can choose if you wish more coverage than what Obamacare reguires in a basic plan. There is nothing in Obamacare that limits your choice of choosing a "premium" plan and it does not prevent you from seeking treatment outside the U.S. on your own dime. Kind of a high class problem in my view.

Why would they have to go out of the U.S? Providers will treat the out-of-pocket payers and those with premium plans first over everyone else. Unless of course the government is going to take that choice out of the providers' hands.

[Nurse Rob]

So my question still remains:

What does this do to the job outlook of nurses and healthcare professionals?

[TiddlDwink]

I wish everyone would quit comparing health insurance to automobile insurance.

In the USA we are required to carry auto Liability Insurance. This is to pay for the OTHER car, in case we're in an accident that is our fault. Liability insurance is to protect other people against our driving. Liability insurance covers nothing about our own car or person.

If you have a loan on a car, the people to whom you owe the money also require you to have comprehensive insurance. This is so if you wreck their car before you get it paid off, making it yours, they will still get the money you owe them. Once you pay the car off, and it's yours, you can drop the comprehensive insurance.

In other words, any auto insurance you are required to have is for the protection of other people, not you. That's why it's mandatory.