Obamacare Upheld: What Does this mean for You?

Via on Jun 28, 2012

There are lots of ways to look at the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

I believe we are still working towards a complete solution where health care is involved. We haven’t arrived. We still have a long way to go.

I also choose to believe that today, with the Supreme Court holding up HR 3962, we are closer than we were yesterday. For the people whose lives have been affected for the better by these policies, we are getting closer.

I love respectful debate and discussion about these things. What I don’t love? When people decide to parrot their favorite pundit (liberal or conservative) instead of forming opinions of their own.

Before you start complaining about how horrible it is, take a minute and actually

Read it!


About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of elephantjournal.com. Questions? info elephantjournal com



28 Responses to “Obamacare Upheld: What Does this mean for You?”

  1. LibertyLover says:

    The libertarian argument, as I understand it, states that the government should be held to the same moral standards as the individual. So if Peter is selling Paul life insurance and Paul doesn't want to buy it, Peter doesn't have the right to charge Paul a penalty for not buying his service. If Paul refuses to pay the penalty, Peter doesn't have the right to put Paul in jail.

    If you believe healthcare is a right, than wouldn't education also be a right? Yet we don't tax parents when they want to opt out of public schools and send their kids to private school or homeschool them.

    The postal service might seem pretty cool, but we don't tax people when they opt out and decide to use fedex.

    I'm sure a lot of people are being helped by this, I fear in the long run it will hurt more than it saves. Brave New World comes to mind. There are other solutions to provide people with healthcare that don't involve more government and higher taxes.


  2. yogasamurai says:

    Obamacare means —

    1. Mega-profits for the health insurance industry., the chief promoter of the "individual mandate," which guarantees the industry millions of new health care consumers at market prices. No wonder the industry filed so many briefs in support of the law.

    (record profits after just first year – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14heal

    2. No guarantees whatsoever that our health care premiums won't rise, once the exchanges go into effect in 2014.

    3. No guarantees whatsoever that people won't end up losing their existing employer-based coverage, and have to buy it separately; in theory with subsidies as needed; in theory

    4. No way to enforce the fines or the penalties on people not buying "mandatory" insurance; worse, businesses can simply pay the fine anyway, which is modest, rather than offer coverage to their employees

    Up side —
    Lifting the pre-existing medical condition restriction is a good thing – but this should have been legislated separately, I think.

    Biggest downside of the Court decision:

    The majority actually ruled that the Democrats' rationale for the mandate – under the Commerce Clause – was unconstitutional. You can't force people to buy health insurance, or any other public good; this is a bit of a dangerous precedent , or a good one, depending on your view, but it's a precedent

    Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts decided that he would swing with liberals and justify Obamacare with the very argument that the Democratic majority said absolutely wasn't true – that Obamacare, especially the mandate, constitutes a new "tax."

    The right wing will have a field day with this, starting oh, tomorrow. American Crossroads just launched a $9 million campaign

    Justice Roberts is a sly sly sly fox. He protected the Court's and his own reputation, kept the conservatives from being blamed for killing Obamacare outright, and now shifts the onus to Obama to now justify the largest tax increase in US history.

    Things are rarely what they appear in politics. This will end up hurting Obama, I think.

    The whole thing was a big gamble, and once they ran into such serious opposition in 2009, they should have scaled this whole legislative initiative back I think, rather than ramming it through with dubious legislative tactics

    Opposition to Obamacare almost single-handedly produced the Tea party, and it led to the largest loss of congressional seats in 50 years

    Now the GOP controls the House – possibly for a long long time. Was it worth it? Some people think so.

    The fact is, most of the country, while liking several of the provisions, has consistently said in polls that it wanted the law – especially the mandate – overturned and a better approach taken

    So now we're stuck with it, and Obama is stuck with the fall-out. If more people were already benefiting, they might not care, but most of the law doesn't really go into effect until 2013-2014

  3. faye says:

    i am honestly curious – how do make the connection between today's supreme court ruling and a dystopian/utopian novel, depicting a totalitarian society. i find that to be a large jump. this ruling will not turn the US into Sweden nor Russia, two countries with contrasting political and social ideologies, yet offering their citizens some form of universal health care. the US is its own entity and will continue in its own path that does not include any form of totalitarianism (even the most liberals know better than that), only now your neighbor will not lose his/her home due to losing their savings for health reasons.

  4. brianculkin says:

    One of the basic problems in the debate is that the opposition to Obamacare is verbalized through the medium of the Fox news insanity and the leadership of the Republican party which is, truly horrific.

    We are through this dialectic given two options: Big Corporations or Big Government

    This is the inherent problem, the more rational, compassionate, and evolving paradigm would be neither — but a return to localized, unregulated, communal based health care — tribal if you will.

    You have to ask yourself, great American thinkers like Emerson or Thoreau — what would they think of Obamacare? Civil disobedience anyone?

    The real truth is that Obamacare will greatly benefit large corporations, centralize power, and when Obama leaves and a right wing a la Bush comes to office, everyone that supported this will be the first to revolt against it …

    And yes, the Huxlien future certainly comes to mind with this bill …

    You can not bureaucratize the truth
    There are no civil servants of the revolution

    Thank you Kate for starting the discussion … I'm looking forward to start writing articles again this fall

  5. ostrichsandwich says:

    I don't mean any ill will but I am saddened to see this posted here. I read Elephant as someone who is committed to the hard work of waking up and cutting through illusion and so I am rather ironically struck that your post mostly just aggregates a series of what I think are very, very illusory propaganda images. This really seems to be little more than another bailout for a deeply corrupt industry that operates dependent on the continued commodification of a fundamental human right. Over the past three years, the National Nurses Union (i.e. those on the front lines) has nobly argued against Obamacare's re-affirmation of the health insurance industry and demonstrated there remain many loopholes that may allow companies to continue to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. So, this is hardly some sort of intermediary step towards real universal healthcare. It neither implements quality controls on insurance providers nor meaningfully limits the cost of services. It feels lovely to see personal narratives like the ones above in which it appears that Obama ala Florence Nightingale herself has reached down to protect the most vulnerable among us. Yet I find it very upsetting. Because there is no equally easy way to encapsulate in narrative the larger tremendously violent picture I perceive – we've deeply and totally reaffirmed that each of us and our health is to be treated, in this country, as a commodity. Health Insurance stocks dropped Thursday, probably due to the confusion around the ruling itself and subsequent freezes on trading due to volatility. I will be stunned if they have not only recovered but climbed much higher by the end of next week.

  6. cathywaveyoga says:

    I am Obamacare. I no longer have insurance.

    I decided to nto pay for my old policy when year after year they increased the cost by 11% and said it was beacuse of the health care reform. I had the lowest rate possible in my state for my age with minimal coverage which I never used. I take vitamins, do yoga, get accupuncture, live conservatively, eat less than 30% processed, never drive in traffic rushes. I have a low income .

    For me, if I dont buy health insurance my low income will also be penalized on my income taxes.

    I helped Obama get elected, but I didnt do so to be forced into supporting the AMA, big pharma or wealthy medical insurance providers.

    Go a little deeper.. all these people who the companies must cover now.. infants, people with pre-existing conditions.. those and no more caps.. will COST a lot and 'affordable' means they set the payment and rates. "Afoordable' to someone making 200,00.00 or more and then major bonuses( read those stockholders finaincial reports) is not what "affordable' is to me.

  7. seaglasslvr says:

    You forgot one.. Adding millions more people to the system with the same amount of doctors getting lower payments. You want this person to do surgery on you or spend an extra 5 minutes in his office to explain all your ailments? His/her mind is on several other things… and one of them it getting you out of their face.

  8. LibertyLover says:

    In this famous passage from Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, the doctor explains why he refuses to practice medicine in a world in which his life and work are owned by the government:

    "I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything – except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but ‘to serve.’ That a man’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards – never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind – yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in the operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it – and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t."

    Is healthcare a right? I don't think so… http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz50.1….

  9. […] is a little thing called “Obama-care” cooking and apparently burning lots of people’s […]

  10. […] I don’t think Obamacare is the […]

  11. […] but everybody feels it like a giant open sore they don’t represent us anymore And blaming the President for the country’s woes is like yelling at a puppet for the way it sings Who’s the man […]

  12. Jack Harris says:

    Catastrophic insurance isn't that expensive. Forcing healthcare on everyone will make all visits to the doctor expensive, and mandatory. If you failed to get insurance and failed to have reserves to pay for something catastrophic such as a tumor or whatever, that's up to you and your family to find a way to pay for it. Take some responsibility. If you don't accept responsibility, you're sending the entire country down the path to a third world country. Chinese men will be buying your daughter's pussy in 15 years at a bar.

  13. […] ironic that half of America uses the word “Obamacare” as a curse and the other half dreams they are living in dark, cold places like Norway, […]

  14. richardblank says:

    OBAMACARE promotes outsourcing in Central America. Enacted in July 2010, The U.S. healthcare reform (“ObamaCare” or the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) is intended to pressure large and small employers through force and taxation. The end result will show North American companies deciding to send customer support, sales, lead generation and appointment setting jobs offshore or risk going out of business. Many will decide to hire a dedicated bilingual employee who is 100% committed to their project. ESL call center employees in Costa Rica are just as or more effective than transitional in-house staff. In addition, giving the owners the freedom to scale up their offshore staff without getting caught in the Obamacare challenge in 2014.

Leave a Reply