View Topic

Since many Wintreans are Americans, and there also seems to be a general interest in law and politics, I figured this might be an interesting discussion.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, for the second time, legitimised the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).

"In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." Chief Justice Roberts in the majority, joined by Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan.

"... this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites." Justice Scalia, in the dissent, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.

Full opinions: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

Background:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/25/8804053/king-v-burwell-obamacare-scotus-in-favor
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/obamacare-explained-idiot/story?id=21292932

Has anyone here been affected by Obamacare? What are your views of its purpose or practicality? Is the Supreme Court right on Obamacare? Is it constitutional - and does it matter?

Ehh, I'd prefer a single payer system like the NHS in the United Kingdom, but it's an OK step for now, I suppose. We're making progress here in the United States, even if it is fifty years overdue...

Your opinion?

I think it's a double edged sword.

While I do like the idea that anyone can get health care and even those with low income can get it (for example, I have Washington Apple, which is essentially the option that you don't pay for if you have a low enough income).  However, I also think having healthcare should be optional.

But instead, they've made it completely mandatory and punishable by fine, like car insurance is.

The problem with that, much like car insurance, is that for those who don't fit the low income would have to pay a specific amount each month (which of course, increases depending on your family size) to be able to have healthcare and to avoid the hefty fine (though of course, there is no "free" auto insurance).  Another is that while people may have healthcare, they also still have to pay a normally hefty deductible to be able to even take advantage of it, so in my eyes it sort of defeats the purpose of even saying you "have" it if you're putting so much into it.

It makes economic sense to make everyone participate...previously, insurance companies denied people that were unhealthy or had preexisting conditions because they would have been a financial burden on the system, and if it were voluntary they would be the only people that would sign up. Having healthier people pay is supposed to effectively subsidize coverage for those less healthy so insurance costs don't spiral out of control.

Besides that, it's a good thing for everyone to have. I was fortunate enough to have insurance through my employer before the ACA, although I had never used. Then suddenly three summers ago I started getting headaches and having static in my vision, and after seeing both a GP and an optometrist, it was decided that I needed a MRI. I payed $350 after insurance to have it done (netting a 10% discount for paying upfront) for a 45-minute scan that would have cost nearly $5000 without insurance, or about 1/7 of my yearly income.

And that gets to what I think is the core problem with healthcare in America...the out-of-control skyrocketing cost to have anything done. A few months back, I happened upon this article in the Washington Post, about a team of researched that investigated how much a simple, common, standardized blood test would cost a person in hospitals throughout California. They found that the range that hospitals charged was between $10 and $10,000. Why is there so much variation? Again, this is a standardized test that wasn't done any differently between hospitals. The problem then becomes that hospitals bill insurance for this who pays these expectorant charges and passes them on to their clients through reduced benefits and higher premiums and deductibles.

If you want to truly make healthcare affordable for all, this is where you need to start. I wouldn't nationalize the hospital system, but I would strictly regulate it...for starters, require them to publicly display what they charge for common tests and require insurance companies to decline charges that are a percentage above the average without those charges coming back to the patient. It's silly that a team of researchers was even needed to find this information to begin with. It's even sillier that companies and people are making a killer profit off the lives and well-being of other people.

The ACA isn't perfect, but it's a good start. More needs to be done though.