Officials respond to Supreme Court's health care ruling

Friday, June 29, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the national health care bill Thursday morning received opposing viewpoints on both sides of the political spectrum.

On a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld provisions of the National Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle said the Supreme Court's decision ensures hard-working, middle class families will get the security they deserve while protecting Americans from the worst insurance company abuses.

"A major impact of the court's decision is the 129 million people with pre-existing conditions and millions of middle class families who will have the security of affordable health coverage, said DeParle, who also serves as an assistant to President Barrack Obama.

In a press statement released shortly after the ruling, DeParle emphasized that insurance companies "no longer have unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women more than men."

In addition, Americans will no longer be denied health care or charged more due to a pre-existing condition, like cancer or asthma. Meanwhile, efforts will remain in place to strengthen and protect Medicare by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse, she added.

Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) called Thursday's ruling "very disappointing" and doesn't reflect the ruling Americans wanted.

In a press statement, Crapo said Americans "overwhelmingly want solutions" to provide access to high-quality, affordable health care.

"This law did not fix the rising cost of health care," the senator said. "This law... fails on promises to lower health costs and premiums for working families. It fails on promises for American people to keep their health care plan if they liked it, and millions of people have learned they cannot."

The bill also increases the burden on small businesses to hire workers and ultimately "threatens our country's financial strength and the American way of life," he added.

During the earlier debate on the health care law, the president pledged to the American people that family making less than $250,000 would see their taxes increase. However, the high court's ruling today further confirms that this bill violated this pledge, the senator added.

"The Congressional Budget Office has stated that more than 75 percent of the individual mandate -- a tax -- will be paid by those middle-income families the president pledged to protect from any tax increase," Crapo said.

Meanwhile, Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) said the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the health care bill on the basis it was a tax increase -- something the president and Democrats have adamantly denied.

"The Supreme Court has now ruled that it is a tax increase, underscoring the deception by which this law passed," Risch said in a prepared statement.

"Also, the provision of the Supreme Court's decision which prohibits the federal government from forcing the states to expand Medicaid is a major issue," the senator added. "This holding will greatly limit what the law intended to do, which was to provide free health care to an additional 20 to 30 million people. With today's ruling, states will be relieved of this burden, and the law's primary objective will fail."

Risch urged members of Congress that voted in favor of this law to join efforts to repeal what he called a "massive tax increase." The senator seeks to see it replaced with a "reasonable and understandable plan that reduces costs and allows Americans to choose the health care plan and provider they want."

Responding to critics of the Supreme Court decision, DeParle emphasized that having health insurance will continue to be a choice.

"If you can't afford insurance or you're a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to your employees, you'll get tax credits that make coverage affordable," she said. "But if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, the taxpayers will no longer subsidize your care for free."

In addition, DeParle said it's time to focus on implementing the law.

"The last thing Congress should do is refight old political battles and start over on health care by repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class," she said. "The president refuses to go back to the way things were."

In addition, Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and creating jobs, DeParle said.

"What's at stake is our chance to seize this moment to build an economy not from the top-down but one based on a strong and secure middle class," she added. "It's time for folks in Washington to work together on behalf of the American people."

Crapo emphasized his plan to continue to address the nation's health care problems and to reform the tax code "to make it simpler, not more complex and burdensome," for Americans.

"With increased public awareness and clarity, we can improve our health care system and reform our tax code accordingly," Crapo said. "Today's ruling makes it even more important to do so."

Comments
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • 1. ACA penalty for not having health insurance is actually based upon the Obama assumption that the majority of those not insured are doing so by choice rather than inability. 2. IF the courts had not struck down the massive Medicaid expansion requirements imposed, a large number of states would have had to drop it leaving people completely without any Medicaid coverage at all because even with the proposed increase in federal funding many states still could not carry the additional burden of expense most of which lies primarily with them. 3. The rest of the ACA accepted "as is" which is NOT being discussed in the news has even greater pitfalls than the Medicaid, Medicare, and other health care insurance issues that are actually being discussed. 4. Media hype is primarily posting health care professional's opinions in favor of ACA while avoiding those opposed as it would only bring to light the many pitfalls that actually has a greater chance of harming health care quality and access for all patients. 5. ACA does not address the increasing shortage of doctors (or nurses) except to say basically that it intends to reward "good" doctors while stretching existing medical staff with further work burdens by extending their services into private homes-- without addressing the mass amount of additional time this takes and travel expenses. Something was mentioned about basic training of lay persons to do home triage to determine if medical care was needed. "Sorry you're patient is dead now. I thought it was just a chest cold!" rather than a cardiac insufficiency leading to fluid build up the lungs...

    -- Posted by Delightful on Mon, Jul 2, 2012, at 2:26 AM
  • Continued: They don't tell you about the panic of health care institutions struggling to figure out how to meet demands of increased patient numbers in states that can and do decide to adopt Medicare expansions or for handling the shift to providing more care in the home when already without sufficient staff. They do not tell you how without its adoption most who are currently without Medicaid do not even pay taxes due to being below/at poverty level anyway and who will really being paying more taxes (if at all) for the ACA to work as stated. They do not tell you how it fails to address physician and specialist shortages. Even if they did it takes YEARS to become trained as a doctor so what do we do in the meantime? Nor does it address malpractice suits and rising malpractice insurance costs that cause many to leave their practice or field of specialty or opt for earlier retirement. It does not address the rising cost of medical advancements in technology. Oh wait! That is being addressed! The current Obama gov't review board has made several "recommendations" such as eliminating routine mammograms and PSA testing for early breast and prostate cancer detection and other routine procedures such as papsmears as well as decreasing the number of tests and surgeries performed on the elderly instead giving only paliative care. While of little consequence before (and ignored by the medical community) it is likely that with passage of the ACA these "recommendations" might now have some bearing and influence--particularly on Medicare cost cutting measures. ("Sorry but after 65 years of age we don't recommend post-stroke brain aneurysm neurosurgery followed by physical therapy but we'll allow the doctor to keep you as comfortable as possible--with the drugs whose coverage is allowed--until your bleeding brain kills you and, who knows, maybe it'll stop on its own and you'll just be in a vegetative state until you die of another age related cause.")

    -- Posted by Delightful on Mon, Jul 2, 2012, at 4:18 AM
  • See also: cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57464594-503544/health-care-law-reverberating-in-battleground-states/

    for how some states are responding in regards to Medicaid expansions.

    -- Posted by Delightful on Mon, Jul 2, 2012, at 6:54 AM
  • There are perfectly wonderful hospitals across this great nation who have to transport even the best-insured patients to hospitals in other states not because they lack the surgical or testing/diagnostic equipment, and facilities, etc. required to treat them, but because they lack the physicians and specialists needed and the number of those physicians continues to dwindle.

    Many fail to see how the ACA will cut costs stating it is more likely to drive up health care and insurance costs while actually providing less coverage for the majority of people not to mention the increased taxes (federal and state)that will be required --beyond their so called "penalty tax" --just to cover what is being proposed.

    It is often already difficult for patients to find a doctor accepting new patients in the current over burdened health care system. It is even more difficult to find one accepting new patients which also accepts Medicare--much less Medicaid. They don't address that issue either in the ACA.

    A small bit from the daytondailynews.com:

    " The act expands access to Medicaid, but while more adults will be able to sign up for the program, the law upheld Thursday makes no provision to increase payments to doctors or hospitals, Kumar said.

    "If a physician had to rely only on Medicaid payments, they cannot stay afloat. Neither can hospitals," he said.

    Some practitioners around the state are already turning away Medicaid patients, Kumar said. That's not likely to change as the program expands.

    "Just because you have the insurance doesn't mean you are going to get the care," he said. " *******************************************

    Also, many small businesses won't be able (or won't want) to handle the additional taxes, penalties, and red tape now required. Likely more will opt not to provide coverage at all leaving even more individuals to fend for themselves and uninsured. Under the ACA many small to moderately sized businesses will find it is far more economical to pay the less costly penalties than it is to continue providing the employee insurance packages they do currently leaving them to purchase their own through health insurance exchanges set up by states (or if states miss deadlines exchanges set up and run by the federal government).

    THIS now physically injured and permanently disabled middle-aged Medicare recipient who does not qualify for Medicaid under our current system even with a family (and formerly a college and university graduate and licensed health care provider) sees all of the many faults in our current system, BUT also sees the even greater flaws in the ACA and the dangers it imposes to the future quality of our health care as well as our economy. Even the few aspects of the ACA that are positive are undermined by the negatives--not to mention those few positives legislated by the ACA are being executed/carried-out in such a way that is grossly detrimental to our nation in more ways than one. Yes, certainly we need health care reforms but the ACA is NOT the way to reach those desired reforms!

    -- Posted by Delightful on Mon, Jul 2, 2012, at 8:57 AM
  • Here's a summary of just one portion of the 2,000+ page ACA you may not be aware of:

    Title IX. Revenue Provisions

    This section covers the financing for slightly less than half the cost of the ACA. Key provisions establish new Medicare taxes on high-income wage earners, as well as new taxes on pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurance providers, and medical device manufacturers. Also included is an excise tax on high-cost, employer-provided health insurance; changes to health savings accounts and other individual health accounts; and a 10% tax on indoor tanning services.

    -- Posted by Delightful on Tue, Jul 3, 2012, at 12:49 PM
  • Ohhhh noooo, not the scary "socialism" term.

    -- Posted by idahogeek52 on Fri, Jul 6, 2012, at 3:35 PM
  • Conservatives have a very different view of democracy, which follows their moral system. Their moral system is more complex than ours is. The basic idea in terms of economics is that democracy gives people the liberty to seek their self interest and their own well-being without worrying or being responsible for the well-being or interest of anybody else. Therefore they say everybody has individual responsibility, not social responsibility, therefore you're on your own. If you make it that's wonderful. That's what the market is about. If you don't make it, that's your problem.

    Funny how conservatives can transform a modest 3 percent tax hike on the wealthiest Americans into pernicious "class warfare" and an intolerable example of "socialism."

    -- Posted by idahogeek52 on Fri, Jul 6, 2012, at 3:36 PM
  • Idahogeek52, the Declaration of Independence states that we "are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are familiar with life and probably familiar with happiness. But it amazes me how many liberals have no concept of liberty. According to Merriam-Webster, liberty is defined as: "1)the quality or state of being free: 2)the power to do as one pleases 3)freedom from physical restraint 4)freedom from arbitrary or despotic control 5)the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges and 6)the power of choice." The words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the shot heard round the world. These 3 words lead us into rebellion. Now, an intelligent person can see that Obamacare breaks at least definitions 1, 2 and 6. We are not free if our government can mandate us to purchase "anything" or be taxed for not doing so. We certainly do not have the choice to do as we please. Personally, I have health insurance for myself and my family and certainly don't need the government telling me to purchase it. Lastly, the power of choice is probably the strongest definition for liberty. If our government can tell us to purchase health insurance, what's next? You see Geek, it has nothing at all to do with our moral system and everything to do with the principles that founded the United States of America in the first place; an intrusive, bloated, overbearing government that places itself above the will of the people in order to serve it's own best interests. Can you understand that?

    -- Posted by GetRealNow on Sat, Jul 7, 2012, at 10:40 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: