Why the SCOTUS Ruling on ACA is a Significant Win

[berni_mccoy]

I remember the summer of debate when the health care law was being crafted in Congress. I hated how long that summer was and what was the beginning of the Tea Party who spent considerable effort over the summer sabotaging the town hall meetings on the topic. The debate raged on long after the summer and for most of the remaining year.

And ever since it was passed into law, Republican politicians kept whining about it and using it as an excuse for every little victory, every little inch they gained. They'd say "SEE!!!! American's don't want OBAMACARE!!". This has continued on and on and on with legal challenges that started the day the law was passed up until March when the SCOTUS heard arguments to make today's historic decision.

Now, it's June before an election. There is nothing left to argue about. The ACA stands as law and the mandate, the lynch-pin that makes it all work, *is* Constitutional. Said. Done. Over.

And I think the emotional relief many of us who live with chronic medical disorders who depend on a system where healthy people contribute so we can benefit, breathed a heavy sigh of relief that we won't be denied health care because we live with a pre-existing condition. But some of that relief is that the arguments are over. We are tired of hearing about it. And I think this frustration is shared by many Americans. I think the people who are truly undecided on who they are going to vote for are willing to move on with the ACA as long as they don't have to hear further debate on it. Those who want to repeal and replace are already going to vote the way they are. Those who want to keep the ACA are going to vote the way they are. But this election is about the undecideds who have seen this thing run it's course.

So that brings us back to the election. Romney has based a large part of his Campaign on Repeal and Replace. Do Americans really want to go back to hearing about this for another 4 years or are they ready to accept the law as upheld by the SCOTUS and move on with doing what is right by everyone?

I think the answer is clear at this point.

[freshwest]

1. What's the difference between a taxes for insurance and single-payer system paid by taxes?

This is my interpretation. It's different pockets being paid in, same job in the long run and insurance companies knew they were going to lose money or they wouldn't have started a scare campaign which is still going on. The stock market just dropped their share value, knowing their profits were going down.

But the shares for providers, doctors, hospitals, etc. that we care about getting the job done, went up because of the way the payments are structured under Obamacare. Instead of the stock holders and CEOs ripping off the customers with gatekeepers and headchoppers as called by some. Think of what that means to a sick person. The current system sends them die. Now the focus goes back to what it should have been, health care and not insurance. I'm not looking at the names, I'm looking at the results, as amazing as they may turn out to be.

Forced to cover pre-existing and millions without insurance now, forces profits down. These now strictly regulated companies cannot charge women more than men and other measures are being taken. This is what we need to do with corporations for the common good.

They are not allowed to take more for profits as part of administrative costs than the Medicare system does now. They are being forced to give back the amount they tried to sneak into direct patient care costs for advertising, which cut their profits and which they'd been doing for years. They knew about that percentage so their lobbyists screamed when they could not change that part of the act.

They are forced to treat people equally without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, etc. When they had control of the system, they could deny anyone for any reason. The chief one was employment ending or that a company could not afford the premiums.

This is not the case in the countries with national healthcare. Waiting or applying for unemployment when a person is able bodied and ready to work is nothing compared to the misery of a sick person who cannot work although they want to. They are swept aside and never thought of, except by their loved ones or some government agencies. They may never get back into the work force because they no longer have health care to keep them going. The private sector does not seek out the poor and sick; but they do seek contracts to care for them from the government agencies. When all is said and done, it all leads to the government. If this was not evil before, in the case of the poor and disabled, why is it evil now?

Here is part of what they were screaming about that I mentioned above. There are many other provisions that they failed to get rid of since the ACA was enacted.
the current amount they will have to pay as scheduled is noted here:

HHS Says Health Insurers Will Pay Beneficiaries $1.1 Billion In Rebates

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Home/Daily-Reports/2012/June/22/health-insurance-rebates.aspx

In order to get out of the ACA, they got a front group to sue Sibelius, head of HHS.

Knowing some private care companies were trying to escalate the costs of the coverage onto existing clients, they were forbidden to raise rates. This has had good outcomes for many on private plans for a while now, because of the ACA. They had been doing it for years to cover up the fact hospitals were going broke covering emergency care and charging more than the cost of service to those who had insurance. There was no way to keep their system going with all those people and make the profits they were making before. So they passed it on.

This will gradually give the single payer public option. Those who cannot afford to pay, will get big discounts or not pay at all will get it. Just like Medicaid. This is why Bernie Sanders supports the ACA.

In traditional terms, it does not seem to say that it is single payer. But when put in the context of a tax, that is exactly what it becomes. Those who would pay a higher tax in a country with universal health care from their income taxes, will pay a higher premium which is, when all is done, the same money. Those who cannot, will pay less or none. This is the same as universal health coverage in all but name.

This is going to change a lot of things. For those afraid they will lose something, and the fear is not unjustified whenever we face something new, we might ask a question to put it into perspective Just how much do we lose as a nation with millions of sick, unable to work or take care of themselves?

We do not escape the consequence of that in society as a whole, anymore than we escape pollution or anything we consider negative. We're here together. It all adds up, because all those that could contribute are not, which costs us all, including the ones worried they are not going to enjoy the same lifestyle. Just changing names won't take it away.

I'm looking at results and not the names. I say the pockets end up being the same because we are in this whether we want to be or not. There is a lot of wealth in this country, we just think of it differently.

The next big thing will be reducing the cost of higher education for the jobs of tomorrow. Or helping those that don't fit that have a decent life with worthwhile and constructive work. That will involve changes we don't like, just like this for many people.

We have to convert spending on taking the world's resources with contracts, the MIC and energy giants, to peaceful and sustainable ways of living. There will be a fight and fear and business will have to change. Those who are afraid they will lose their status in society may or may lose it, but we can all survive this.

JMHO. Just some ways of looking at this. EOM.