Obama health care law upheld.

Nurses Activism

Published

Talk to the thousands of people that have paid insurance premiums for years and been denied when they got sick or the thousands upon thousands that are turned away from doctors offices every year because they cannot get passed the first question....How are you going to pay? Or worse the thousands upon thousands that are "allowed" to enter the hospital only to be put out without getting the treatment they truly deserve as another human being. "First do no harm" ever heard of that? Shoot... pretty soon in good ol Mississippi women will no longer be able to choose what they can and can't do with there own bodies!

this comment illustrates why a discussion can be so challenging...you go from thousands buy insurance and cant get health care, to thousands go into hospitals to get put out-so you pretty much covered it all, those who buy insurance cant get health care, those who don't buy cant get health care...then you jump to women losing the right to an abortion...im sure you did it for hyperbole's sake...but who knows anymore

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency.
this comment illustrates why a discussion can be so challenging...you go from thousands buy insurance and cant get health care, to thousands go into hospitals to get put out-so you pretty much covered it all, those who buy insurance cant get health care, those who don't buy cant get health care...then you jump to women losing the right to an abortion...im sure you did it for hyperbole's sake...but who knows anymore

Truth hurts?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Truth hurts?

The truth is I don't know what the law will mean. If another monster has been created or we are one step closer to the world Marx envisioned. I for one, am actually hoping the law grease the wheels for some hiring-yes selfish, because I can't expect the government to pass a law giving out free houses.

As far as the knowledge you've bestowed on me gets dropped into the rhetoric bucket I've heard from both sides of the argument. Truth is the last thing I teased out of your post.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in FNP, ONP.

I'm not even going to take the bait on the whole documented vs undocumented worker issue except to say unless you agree to pay $14 for a head of lettuce without complaint, you should not even go there.

The affordable care act is imperfect because it does not go far enough. Every American is entitled (by virtue of the fact that they are human beings) to basic preventive health care. 80 year olds should not be entitled to bypass surgeries and joint replacements, but oddly enough they are getting them. That is what is wrong with health care in this country, our priorities. Spend billions fixing what we won't spend a cent preventing. The French have perfected it, and the Canadians are doing a good job too. All the idiots that are now moving to Canada to get away from our socialized medicine ;) are going to be so much better off. Obamacare Oppenents Vow To Move To Canada | Happy Place

Isn't is ironic?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

Why should a healthy 80 year old not be entitled to a joint replacement? A friend of my dad is 92, plays a round of golf every day in the heat of ne kansas. He should not get a joint replacement if he needs one? And there is the tiny old and bentover lady who walks every street of this small town, picking up trash every day. She can walk rings around me....and she doesnt deserve proper care. What happened to the concept of good and addordable care FOR ALL?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
Ideas were discussed for many years, but the the bill that was signed by the President in March of 2010 was published online for the first time in November 2009 and had been passed by congress by Christmas. Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

And, there were many omissions and additions of the bill in between, (first bill in November had 2000 pages, bill passed in December had 2400) many at the last minute, and many that were the result of "closed door" deals. Payoffs for states get Harry Reid to 60 votes - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

The bill went through formatting and legal-speak changes which added page length between November and December, if there were 400 pages of substantive changes you should have no problem citing at least one.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency Department.

For those of you that think that Chief Justice Roberts handed a "win" to the Democratic party by upholding the ACA, he also dealt them a very significant blow or two. First off, he and the 4 dissenting Justices demolished the Individual Mandate's use of the Commerce Clause to compel people to engage in any sort of commerce. He also limited the Federal Government's use of spending... Now the Federal Government can not threaten to take away existing funding from States as a condition of not participating in a program. In this case, States were required to participate in the new medicaid expansion OR they would have no medicaid funding. The other thing he did was confirm that the penalty portion of the IM was indeed a tax. That ran counter to how the bill was sold. It would NEVER have been passed in the first place if the ACA had 1) relied upon the Government's tax authority (which is extensive) and 2) the "penalty" within the IM was described as a "tax penalty." Look for challenges against the Tax Authority being used as an end-run around the Commerce Clause in the future.

It basically breaks down like this:

5-4 Commerce Clause can NOT be used in that manner.

5-4 Tax authority can be used to encourage an individual behavior.

7-2 Congress can NOT use federal funding mechanisms to compel an action by the state. (In this case, medicaid funding)

If the back-up argument that the IM really does contain taxes had not been made, Roberts would have sided with the more conservative wing of the Court and demolished the entire ACA. They probably wouldn't have gone so far as to limit the Commerce Clause as Roberts did. Roberts, I'm sure, has a method behind what he does and why. I'm sure he's looking for specific cases... what and why, I'm not 100% sure.

Don't get me wrong. There are significant portions of the ACA that I like. Just remember that employers will choose to drop their healthcare coverage benefit for their employees if it's less expensive for them to do so and they can do it without breaking existing contracts to do it. There is no "Public Option" in the ACA. Using the calculator that is on the WSJ page (from earlier in this thread) I would currently pay LESS monthly for insurance than I do now, in 2014. Once I'm no longer in my current job (because I will have found a new one, better one), I would no longer qualify for any Federal Assistance for paying the healthcare premiums. Then I would have to pay whatever the market rate is, on my State Exchange, because my employer would probably LOVE to pay only $2k than perhaps $12-14k per employee, leaving ME to pay the entire cost of coverage.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
For those of you that think that Chief Justice Roberts handed a "win" to the Democratic party by upholding the ACA, he also dealt them a very significant blow or two. First off, he and the 4 dissenting Justices demolished the Individual Mandate's use of the Commerce Clause to compel people to engage in any sort of commerce. He also limited the Federal Government's use of spending... Now the Federal Government can not threaten to take away existing funding from States as a condition of not participating in a program. In this case, States were required to participate in the new medicaid expansion OR they would have no medicaid funding. The other thing he did was confirm that the penalty portion of the IM was indeed a tax. That ran counter to how the bill was sold. It would NEVER have been passed in the first place if the ACA had 1) relied upon the Government's tax authority (which is extensive) and 2) the "penalty" within the IM was described as a "tax penalty." Look for challenges against the Tax Authority being used as an end-run around the Commerce Clause in the future.

It basically breaks down like this:

5-4 Commerce Clause can NOT be used in that manner.

5-4 Tax authority can be used to encourage an individual behavior.

7-2 Congress can NOT use federal funding mechanisms to compel an action by the state. (In this case, medicaid funding)

If the back-up argument that the IM really does contain taxes had not been made, Roberts would have sided with the more conservative wing of the Court and demolished the entire ACA. They probably wouldn't have gone so far as to limit the Commerce Clause as Roberts did. Roberts, I'm sure, has a method behind what he does and why. I'm sure he's looking for specific cases... what and why, I'm not 100% sure.

Don't get me wrong. There are significant portions of the ACA that I like. Just remember that employers will choose to drop their healthcare coverage benefit for their employees if it's less expensive for them to do so and they can do it without breaking existing contracts to do it. There is no "Public Option" in the ACA. Using the calculator that is on the WSJ page (from earlier in this thread) I would currently pay LESS monthly for insurance than I do now, in 2014. Once I'm no longer in my current job (because I will have found a new one, better one), I would no longer qualify for any Federal Assistance for paying the healthcare premiums. Then I would have to pay whatever the market rate is, on my State Exchange, because my employer would probably LOVE to pay only $2k than perhaps $12-14k per employee, leaving ME to pay the entire cost of coverage.

There are many views floating around out there as to what CJR did or did not do, and why he voted the way he did, however the general opinon seems to be the court did not do any great harm to the power of Congress to use the Commerce Clause.

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law - CBS News

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in FNP, ONP.

tntrn-

If they can pay for the surgery and rehab, I think it's fine.

All that talk about rationing health care was ridiculous. We are already rationing it, and doing it improperly. The wrong people are using up the largest amount of resources. People with the most potential should be getting the most resources. That problem still wasn't solved with the ACA, which is one of my many complaints about it. It is only a small step in the right direction.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.
tntrn-If they can pay for the surgery and rehab, I think it's fine. .
Thats how i feel about birth control and abortion.
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.
Thats how i feel about birth control and abortion.

why would you want to limit access to oral contraceptives within a health insurance policy?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

I have no desire to limit access. But i dont think it should be free. But i wouldnt expect deserving elders to get their surgeries without paying the going rate of copay either. You, on the hand, say they dont deserve the surgeries, even if they have insurance.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment