• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Obama's Healthcare Reform and the Supreme Court

Parity for mental health and substance abuse disorders is a big part of the plan for me. Working in those fields, with people who have no insurance, is a nightmare.

I hope finally people will get better from a $30 prescription instead of a $10,000 ER visit.

I've been reading the book "The Truth About Drug Companies" by Marcia Angell (former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine). There is some seriously dirty shit going on with that industry. People need to see what they do, and how they do it.

It's disgusting.
 
sidious618 said:
Robert Maxwell said:
Kira's Mom said:
Same here.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I'm glad it's sticking around.
Click to expand...

It's allowing me to stay on my parents' health insurance while I go through grad school which helps me save a bit of money so it had a pretty big impact on me.
Click to expand...

It's going to be good for my nephew, who really needs all the insurance help he can get. Without the changes, he would never be able to get coverage on his own. I'm glad he'll be covered until he's 26 if that's how long he needs.
 
I think it's great to hear how individual people will experience real benefits from this. I think one measure of great legislation is when people can point to a specific positive impact on their well being. I felt that way when FMLA was passed. I got to spend the first six weeks with our newborn daughter, and my job was protected.

I look forward to reading more about Robert's role in the decision (I haven't had a chance to read much today).
 
I'm very happy about the decision because I support the President, but wanted to point something out that no-one else seems to have caught: the decision in favor of the ACA's constitutionality was 5-4, not 6-3 (with Chief Justice Roberts breaking with his fellow conservative judges Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alia to side with liberal justices Breyer, Bader-Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan).

Incidentally, my mom (who is a registered Republican) is also happy about the court's decision, primarily because of the provision in the ACA that allows dependent children to remain on their parents' insurance until the age of 26.
 
I'm pretty much uninsurable due to "poor life choices" such as asthma, depression, and hypothyroidism, so I've been following this very closely.
 
DigificWriter said:
I'm very happy about the decision because I support the President, but wanted to point something out that no-one else seems to have caught: the decision in favor of the ACA's constitutionality was 5-4, not 6-3 (with Chief Justice Roberts breaking with his fellow conservative judges Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alia to side with liberal justices Breyer, Bader-Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan).
Click to expand...

From up-thread:

1001001 said:
Just to be accurate, the story has been updated to correct the vote. It was actually 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, cast the deciding vote.
Click to expand...
 
While I have no personal stake in this since I'm British, I do find it mildly interesting since I used to live in the US and had no health insurance while I was there.

And what I find absolutely hilarious is all these people saying "That's it! This country is fucked! I'm moving to Canada!" Canada already has universal healthcare, morons. Not to mention gay marriage, which I'm sure these people also hate.

.
 
This is great news. I keep hearing how unpopular health care reform is with the American people, but I've worked in health insurance now for about four years and I've never heard from one person who was against it. People love it. Especially the dependent eligibility provision.

Personally, the decision won't affect me much. The company I work for had already been doing most of the things that health care reform requires, even beyond Massachusetts law, and had intended to maintain the reforms even if the Court overturned the Federal law. But this is definitely good news for the country in general.

But the real problem still remains-- the high cost of health care itself, which drives the high cost of health insurance.
 
I get a kick out of the people who oppose the passage of "Obamacare" when they point out that a slight majority of Americans do not like the Affordable Care Act, but they conveniently (or in ignorance) leave out the fact that a majority of those people that do not like the act are Progressives who are unhappy with the Act because it does not go far enough to give everyone universal health care.

I have friends who are doctors who have endless stories about uninsured people who come in and make costly emergency rooms visits for their medical care. SO we tax payers are picking up the ridiculously huge tab for this.

There are problems with the current system and I am glad that Obama and many Democrats are trying to start a reform process. Wish they were getting some constructive assistance from the others.
 
Kestra said:
I'm pretty much uninsurable due to "poor life choices" such as asthma, depression, and hypothyroidism, so I've been following this very closely.
Click to expand...

I know the feeling. Apparently the combination of type 1 diabetes and bipolar disorder are too many strikes against me for many insurance companies. I don't think the healthcare plan is great, what we really need is universal healthcare, but it's a step in the right direction and hopefully someday we'll join the more enlightened western countries when it comes to viewing healthcare as a basic human right. Frankly, I don't see how it doesn't fall under the right to life.
 
Robert D. Robot said:
I get a kick out of the people who oppose the passage of "Obamacare" when they point out that a slight majority of Americans do not like the Affordable Care Act, but they conveniently (or in ignorance) leave out the fact that a majority of those people that do not like the act are Progressives who are unhappy with the Act because it does not go far enough to give everyone universal health care.

I have friends who are doctors who have endless stories about uninsured people who come in and make costly emergency rooms visits for their medical care. SO we tax payers are picking up the ridiculously huge tab for this.

There are problems with the current system and I am glad that Obama and many Democrats are trying to start a reform process. Wish they were getting some constructive assistance from the others.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but surely even if it's not what they want it's a step in the right direction. Which should be supported, it is possible to both support something and say it doesn't go far enough.
 
Let me relate a family story, if I may. One of my aunts got pretty sick a few years ago. She didn't have insurance. So, she flew to Mexico to get medical care. She got better, but the point is, she shouldn't have needed to go to another country to get care. She should have been able to get insurance and get it taken care of here. Hopefully, if she gets sick again, she'll now be able to get help here.
 
Stories like that make me angry.

It's terrible how we handle healthcare here in the US.

Especially when you see how many of the uninsured are actually the "working poor".

We won't give you a prescription for an antibiotic, but we'll treat you for pneumonia in the emergency room. It's stupid.

As RJDiogenes said upthread, now the next step is managing the ridiculous costs in healthcare. I know I'm repeating myself, but the pharmaceutical industry needs to be taken into the public square and flogged.

Another example: my wife passed out at a hockey game a couple of months ago. The ambulance came and took her to the nearest hospital, 4 miles away. (She's fine).

When we got our copy of the itemized bill, they charged our insurance comapny for the gasoline used. $200. No, I am not kidding. They charged $200 in gasoline for what must have been a three-step trip of 12-13 miles total. WTF???
 
Some states may have mandated higher ages for kids to stay on their parents' insurance, but the ACA mandated it as least 26 nationwide. Most states had lower ages, as I recall.
 
But can any of the provisions of the health care law survive when the individual mandate is stripped out, which the Republicans will be free to do because the mandate is now a tax, thus subject to budget reconciiation which can't be filibustered?
 
gturner said:
But can any of the provisions of the health care law survive when the individual mandate is stripped out, which the Republicans will be free to do because the mandate is now a tax, thus subject to budget reconciiation which can't be filibustered?
Click to expand...

As long as the Democrats hold either the Senate or the White House in the next election, the law will stand.

If it is a GOP sweep, then yes the law could be in trouble. I think that is unlikely myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top