.
Feedback

Poll: What's Your Reaction to Supreme Court's Historic Health Care Ruling?

What do you think about the decision—will it impact you and how? Did you favor or oppose the Affordable Care Act approved by Congress?

The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 5-4 decision, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.

The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax. It found that the U.S. government may use its tax powers to push Americans to buy medical insurance, although it limits the Medicaid provision, the New York Times reports. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Roberts in the majority.

Roberts wrote that the mandate provision "need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it."

As legal experts and pundits parse the ruling, and almost instant Republican threat of repeal (viewed unlikely given the Democratic senate majority and Obama veto power) here is a handy tool from Washington Post that allows you to check and see how this ruling affects you.

California will be impacted more than any other state simply because it's the most populous, but also because it has the highest number of uninsured residents, according to the California Endowment. The private, nonpartisan statewide health foundation was established to improve public health and increase health care access for Californians. The Endowment has invested in "a multimillion-dollar statewide education effort" to help people get enrolled.

Not only are Calfornians "less likely to be insured, receive employer-based coverage, or be able to afford coverage," an Endowment ACA background paper stated, "Californians are also at greater risk of being denied for pre-existing conditions than the rest of the nation."

For the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of what's been dubbed Obamacare, the formally titled Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, these are the key points that were under consideration:

The Individual Mandate

Should Americans be required to buy health insurance? Viewed by many to be the linchpin of the entire act, it requires most Americans to enroll in a health insurance plan or be financially penalized. Polls say that most Americans oppose this part. Its opponents have argued that Americans should haven't to buy something they don't want and might not need. The Obama administration says that all Americans will likely need medical care at over the course of their lives and that the uninsured who are now getting free health care increase costs for the rest who pay.

Shared Cost of Medicaid

Should states have to carry a greater share of the cost of Medicaid or face losing federal money? Some states argued that the federal government is overreaching by imposing these kind of conditions being placed on federal funding. The federal government has said that it is within its rights to oversee how this money is spent.

The Timing of the Challenge

Is is too early for the Affordable Care Act to be in front of the court, given that the individual mandate isn't even set to go into effect for another year and a half? Under the Anti-Injunction Act, citizens are barred from challenging the legality of a tax until they've actually paid it. But there's been disagreement on whether that rule applies and whether a penalty under the act is actually a tax.

Health Reform, Minus the Mandate

If the court struck down the individuate mandate, can the rest of the law be constitutional? Both sides have said that the mandate is essential for the act to operate. But some saw room for separate rulings on guaranteed converage for all those who apply for insurance—even those with pre-existing conditions—and whether insurance plans would have to offer coverage at similar prices to all of their customers, regardless of risk factors.

More on Thursday's decision:

  •  

----

Share in our conversation about this historic decision. What are your thoughts?

Irene Gibson July 3, 2012 at 01:43 am
True, the poll IS a laugh. Whenever anyone posts, they vote......even if they have voted before......over and over....and overandoverandover! The results are obviously distorted. Do we want THAT sort of government? or are we happy with some regulation and benefits and protection? Dave Peters is right. Watch, but don't get sucked into this game. Too much other stuff to do to support our president and ACA and all else in the mix.....including job searching. At the moment we are watching the effects of global warming as it happens here and there around the world and in scattered places in our USA. Unparalleled conditions presenting themselves. Our president is meeting all the challenges to the best of his ability......what if we all pitch in and help him?????
Jason Davidson July 3, 2012 at 01:49 am
Oh sweet Gayle,
My question about pro-choice or pro-life was to Jeff. I asked based on one of his previous posts when he was still posting as Cline. Anyway, I thought Jeff was YOUR cheerleader not the other way around. The reason I don't usually post grafts from politically driven sites is because they're nearly always skewed. If I post hard data it's usually from an almanac or something that gives more of a historical perspective. I also try to post things based on personal experience and combine it with some factual data.
Greg A Jones July 3, 2012 at 01:58 am
The vote's I read are an indication of the growing ignorance perpetrated by our forth branch of Government at the behest of their corporate sponsors. A privatized for profit healthcare mandated, will bring nothing but private profit at the expense of care!
Private clinics competing for business from a regulated fair compensation schedule would actually work. That would cause the top holders to loose their margins of profit in a business where the outcome is life and death.
Jason Davidson July 3, 2012 at 01:59 am
Hey Irene,
How many years until we all melt? I guess everyone needs something to cling to.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:03 am
No thank you. If your techniques are what depicts Republicanism, no thank you at all.
Jason Davidson July 3, 2012 at 02:04 am
Irene,
If you're referring to a poll about people disagreeing with SCOTUS on the ACA decision. If most of the people in our country want it overturned then it stands to reason (there's the magic word) most would disagree. Complex or no.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:06 am
Thank you, David. I concur. I would have provided single payer, but it wouldn't fly...yet. The hypocrisy of many who take the programs for themselves but want to exclude everyone else doesn't escape me. in the current system, I've had elderly relatives who have had to make some difficult choices about medication. That hardly seems fair.
Jason Davidson July 3, 2012 at 02:07 am
Yo Dave,
I wish those who hate "commie" programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., would show some backbone and refuse to enter these socialist programs and be the stand-alone individuals they profess to be. All I ever hear is "I have to take Social Security and Medicare. I don't want to. I got mine, but I will make sure that nobody younger than me gets it. That's my contribution." What a sacrifice. We would be glad to if we didn't have to contribute to them through our taxes. Think, then post is the usual method. Nice try though
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:07 am
I agree. Did a bunch of research on Teddy a few years ago, and actually went into a restaurant and a now university, used to be hotel, where he went into riding his horse. I revisited my Teddy studies when I gave a speech recently to Daisy Scouts about Eleanor, his niece, and her assistance to Marian Anderson.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:11 am
Oh, darling Jason, while your question was to Jeff, you were taking the dialogue into another sacred cow of which most men have no perspective. When I refound my child, I spent 2 years involved with those in the adoption triad in all directions. It is not the panacea most believe, though there are clearly some great success stories, but it's full of secrets and lies and great heartache. As for cheerleading one to another here, that's not my purpose. I hate bullies, I saw him being runoff by some, and jumped in to build a backfire when needed. But that's not cheerleading. It's keeping the Patch from being like a number of fora (The Time Blog comes to mind) taken over by bitter and sarcastic Conservatives who bully ad infinitum.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:13 am
Cline/Holmgren, i found his posts and the allegations against you. I don't care if they are true or false, they are immaterial to this discussion, and I refused to be pulled into your team of bullies. It's hot out in Murrietta. Stay out of the sun. It may be impacting your judgment.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 02:18 am
Cline/Holmgren, talk to the people in Atlanta, the East Coast, and much of the Nation with soaring, record temperatures about global warming. I don't much are about your position on it. It's another red herring you've thrown in to conscript the ACA debate to your favorite topics. Stick to the subject of health care reform.
Jeff Walters July 3, 2012 at 02:45 am
From what I understand is that the bill passed because there was some tax related issues included within the bill therefore making it fair and legit because congress can raise, lower or implement new taxes. However if this is suppoosed to be done the correct way, the people should have the final say, not big business or big government. In fact, congress should not even be allowed to vote on it, just the people. If we the people take away the power (money) from our elected officals and pay them only if and whne they work, (work meaning doing something for the people), then I think we will have a better government overall because there would be nothing for them to steal.
Dave Peters July 3, 2012 at 06:34 am
Gayle, on another article someone had begged to ban Jeff as he was posing as James Cline. I actually came to his defense & begged not to have him banned saying the bickering was all too funny to read. He immediately started attacking me with his visceral hatered for conservatives, tea party, & anything not in line with his own thoughts. He claimed I was Holmgren at first, then someone who ran as a far right winger in the senate. Even after I explained I was not with ANY party he still attacked me with his seething hatred. And all I did was say please don't ban him or Roy.
The sad thing is Gayle that I've actually met Jeff in real life. I know details about him that would make Roy drool. But I refuse to feed into this feud, I simply watch as a quiet observer. It's funnier to me to watch 2 "grown" men bicker like school girls pulling each others hair. It's all a joke & best not to get sucked into it & simply watch from the side lines. While I tried to defend their free speech Jeff attacked me, but Roy was at least man enough to admit how childish the bickering was.
ATC July 3, 2012 at 10:53 am
Wow, are you that much of a hypocrite? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You threaten to work with Gayle to shut down his posts, and then cry foul when he responds in the same way? How sick is that? Yup, it's settled...you, Jeff, have proven yourself to be the real James Cline.
Sam Burgess July 3, 2012 at 11:58 am
Dave Peters,
Long ago I gave up hoping for a rational conversation on what is an important, country-wide issue. I was beginning to allow anger at the childish bickering among the RoyHolgremsJamesClineJeff Kleiner's on this blog to get to me. Until you pointed out the obvious answer: Sit back, relax and as a quiet observer watch the bickering children "...derail another comment thread...". A question Dave: Gayle Montgomery has spent an inordinate amount of time defending Jeff Kleiner as the allegations against him are "...immaterial to this discussion". Do you believe she would say the same if (before his conviction) Jerry Sandusky was supporting her position?
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 01:05 pm
This thread has deteriorated into a hate fest between two grown men who have decided that the rest of the world should know how much they believe the other is slime. I do not want to be involved with their battles. I came to defend the ACA not to get drawn into some slugfest. I defended one when the hatred of the other rose to the top and he seemed to be bullying so as to shut him up for reasons I attributed to the ACA. I still believe the one had valid points about the ACA, and I do not regret them or for taking exception to the other's position on same. At this point, we are so afield from the topic, I think the moderators ought to shut this thread down and start a new thread that deals only with topic. That said, there are now allegations against me, implications that are so stupid they must be addressed. See next post.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 01:13 pm
Sam, your comments about me are defamatory and absurd. If Sandusky were addressing the ACA and had only the same level of information i had about either participant and if Sandusky were defending ACA, I would probably concur.
But to align me with Sandusky is pathetic. I spent most of 20 years volunteering, fund raising for, and supporting children's shelters including Maryvale, McKinley, David and Margaret, Leroy Haynes, and Orangewood. We're talking things like mentoring a 9-year old born addicted to crack, finding a job and getting her into college for an 18-year old who timed out of the system, putting on Christmas for over 600 kids in SoCal, taking the teenagers to volunteer at Special Olympics and become involved with the athletes, taking them to work on the floats, and creating a literary fest. So don't try to tie me to Sandusky because my position on ACA is different than yours. For the greater part of this discussion, Jeff Kleiner was being bullied by Roy Holmgren, and there was an hypocrisy that said Kleiner could not address mental retardation but Holmgren did. At this point, I'm done with their pissing contest, but I will not let you tie me to Sandusky, and to associate him with me is immaterial. Stick to the topic at hand, the ACA. I don't want to hear these ancillary battles.
Dave Peters July 3, 2012 at 02:59 pm
With all due respect Sam, that was uncalled for. Gayle showed the maturity to have a civil conversation with another person who had a different view from hers. She even took the time to read his articles & view points to the point of removing some of her posts. She may have unknowingly come to the aid of somebody she felt was being threatened or bullied without realizing a lot of the arguing stemmed from years of fighting on both sides. Neither Roy or Jeff are victims of each other, but more victims of themselves. The name calling has been going back & forth for years & shows how unwilling either is to get on with their lives & grow up. I think Gayle may regret getting sucked into it. But she does seem like a perfectly rational adult that is willing to sit & talk differences out. Like I said, I'm neutral in all this & enjoy seeing both sides of the argument. But I also love these childish Jerry Springer moments between 2 "grown" men.
purplepeopleeater July 3, 2012 at 03:38 pm
I just checked them. Their rates appear to be better than our rates.
United States is at number 38 for life expectancy. If I remember correctly, it is because we do a great job saving people from death from rare things, but a terrible job saving them from death from common things.
purplepeopleeater July 3, 2012 at 03:49 pm
Did you know the cost of having minimal insurance for the uninsured is far less than the cost of emergency room care for the uninsured? This solution might not be perfect. A completely socialized system might not be perfect. But you do live in our country, and we've already decided we're going to pay for healthcare in an emergency whether someone could afford it or not.
The remaining choice you get to make is: Do you want the cost of that to be in the form of state taxes and astronomical hospital fees for people to receive their primary care in the E.R.? Or do you want to pay for people to receive primary care from a doctor, and reduce the congestion at the E.R.? We already have free health care. It's a nightmare and it's destroying our hospitals, and we're all paying for it through the nose.
Ken July 3, 2012 at 03:59 pm
This is how Beaumont is run...This is how Washington is run....
http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/blog_posts/beaumont-observations
Marcus July 3, 2012 at 04:18 pm
Medical Loss Ratio is another great part of the ACA.
Insurance providers have to spend at least 80-85% of a patients premium on medical care, other than marketing, sales and pure profit. If they don't cross this threshold, then the patient expects to be paid a refund. Sales have been designated a non-medical cost and so accounting will catch out tricky health companies. I like this. It makes the private companies act more like non-profit companies.
Skraeling July 3, 2012 at 05:07 pm
Theg DMV works very well I called, made an appointment, stepped in, and within 15 minutes left with everything I had to do completed...And, Medicare is the best run program in govt serving millions, paying Dr's, and actually highly solvent..Sometimes, Steve, you have to turn off the talk radio and talk TV and actually find the truth...Ask yourself why is it you need a MIDDLEMAN to scrape off a huge slice of the pie before it actually cooks?
Skraeling July 3, 2012 at 05:10 pm
Oh, I doubt that, after all, the present financial problems we have can be traced directly back to Ronald Reagan and his pals and the entire crisis that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown came to a head under the Bush Cheney cabal..remember..."deficits don't count"? Seems Republicans always forget what happens during every GOP administration since Ike..the last decent Rep. president...
The Gorilla July 3, 2012 at 05:19 pm
Part One
Gayle M you seem to be a real life part of your community as I am. We both have friends and family in our local areas. We both participate locally in social and clubs and socialize in our respective towns in real life. Gayle I even have a close friend in Belmont Shores that knows my kids intimately and I have visited your area . Then you have the Jeff Kleiners of the world that live outside both our counties and do not socialize at all in both areas. Yet they interject themselves into area politics as if they are a part of it. Is that strange? Jeff likes to use divorce accusations made 4 years ago and twist accusations into fact. The court took normal temporary precautions that are done in all cases where serious accusations were made . However in my case I fought back and gathered evidence. I have never been arrested or been in cuffs. Kleiner likes to lie about that based on his interpretation of records. I had my kids interviewed by the court and in mediation my ex threw up the white flag because of all the perjury with the end result being my win. My kids were found not to need therapy. As a matter of fact my kids are the judge of me. If anyone asked them how they viewed me they would say I was a great Dad. I told Kleiner if he had guts he would accuse me in public the same way he does here. I told him my daughter who is in high school has read his statements on here and has words for him. Kleiner twists this into a threat. How pathetic.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 05:36 pm
Gorilla, stick to ACA. I am through debating the merits of the two involved in the giant urine fest. You want to discuss ACA, I'm around. You want to talk badly about someone else on this venue to make yourself look good or justify your actions, I'm not down for that. There are just too many other things in need. Since my last post, I put up 23 sets of job leads to my 3.77K Museum Jobs Board, put up a volume of grant requests and leads to the Museum funders and administrators, and participated in discussions about politics within my own town. I'm not going to be party to these cow pie throws. If either of the participants wants to discuss health care in America and can do so intelligently, without name calling, whether I agree or disagree with their position, I'm interested. Other than that, don't call me, I'll call you, Gorilla.
The Gorilla July 3, 2012 at 07:38 pm
ACA is such a mess that the details of it don't matter. It needs total repeal. So vote Republican in November and take over the Presidency and Senate and repeal it with simple majorities. We don't need massive tax increases in a fragile economy and between ACA and Bush tax cuts expiring there is little doubt that keeping the Obama debt and tax machine in power is a huge mistake for America.
Gayle M. Montgomery July 3, 2012 at 08:32 pm
Gorilla, you cannot itemize specific items of ACA with which you take exception. You are broadbrushing it and throwing in other items not having to do with same. I shan't vote Republican. I do not share those values, though I have considered them in the past, and, if your arguments are what constitute Republicanism, I want none of them. I've never seen such hate mongering, fear tactics, some based on absolute racism, as I have over the last few years. It is divisive, disruptive, counter productive, and disgraceful.
Diana Swartz (Editor) July 3, 2012 at 08:50 pm
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation. Comments are now closed. Patch will continue covering the Affordable Care Act's implementation and health care reform as an issue in the upcoming presidential election. If you'd like to continue sharing your opinions, please contact your local Patch editor about starting a blog.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Belmont Shore-Naples Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 17, 2013 at 01:40 pm
Hi Mark. I'll see if I can find out. Roughly what time and nearest landmark if any?
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 3, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Love it! Thanks to our new bloggers. :D
Should he be teaching your children?
Mike Ruehle June 3, 2013 at 01:36 pm
Prior to his election as a write-in candidate, Councilman Patrick O'Donnell told the Long BeachRead More Business Journal on February 28, 2012 the following:***** LBBJ: If you win the reelection, will you commit to a full four-year term?***** Councilman O'Donnell: If you run for four, you serve four. ***** LBBJ: So, you're not going to run for Assembly in two years? ***** O'Donnell: Correct. ***** LBBJ: No matter what? ***** O'Donnell: Correct. If you run for four, you serve four. ***** If you can't trust O'Donnell's word, why would anyone vote for him to be their representative for political office? ***** http://www.lbreport.com/news/jan13/odonlbbj.htm
Nancy Wride (Editor) June 3, 2013 at 02:22 pm
And do his supporters care about this, do you think? No doubt others will.
Mike Ruehle June 3, 2013 at 11:43 pm
Regarding, "do O'Donnell's supporters care?", many of O'Donnell's supporters are inRead More elected and appointed public positions, and their support of O'Donnell includes placing the financial burden of a $150,000 special election on the taxpayers. I would think that a responsible journalist would ask each of them about that issue.
This is what the new path will look like.
Richard May 31, 2013 at 10:54 am
This opinion piece is so full of self-serving hot air it could float. Two paths will make the beachRead More look like a freeway? The author clearly hasn't seen too many freeways lately. Speaking of seeing, if the author would care to spend a little time looking at the beach (which I do on a daily basis, as I live overlooking the Bluff) they would realize that the current bike/pedestrian path is the most heavily used and enjoyed segment of the beach from the Belmont Pier to Shoreline Village. On any given day, there will be hundreds of people on the paths, compared with a handful on the sand itself. The author inadvertently makes that point when he or she writes that the beach "...should be valued for its own recreational value." Clearly, many more people enjoy walking, running or bicycling on the path than on the beach itself. Give the people what they want, and not what a mysterious, nameless, faceless group is trying to block.
Shore Resident June 3, 2013 at 08:37 am
Uh, Richard? Opinion pieces are by nature self-serving and one sided. I'm not saying that is agreeRead More with the opinion, just saying that gordana can have her say.