Kansas City Star: A health care victory for all Americans

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , Kansas City Star
  • Updated: June 28, 2012 - 11:35 AM

Americans in the years to come will recognize it as a gateway to medical and financial security.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
hobie2Jun. 28, 1211:44 AM

I was hoping the USSC would strike down the forced-to-pay-insurance-companies part and leave the rest, making government-paid insurance the only viable way out, so we could be dragged into the 20th century on health care... Now not only do we indenture students for life to banks paying off loans, the insurance companies now have all of us for life as well... Although, it really is about competition - banks and insurance company executives in competition over my pocket lint... after they have picked the change out clean...

7
4
chlyn001Jun. 28, 1211:50 AM

Congratulations to all of us. I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the news, not for myself but for many people I know who have little or no insurance if something goes amiss. From my perspective, the only way this could be better would be if somehow it all leads to "single payer", thereby cutting out unnecessary high insurance company salaries and useless duplication and overhead.

12
4
nowilffare1Jun. 28, 12 1:26 PM

This article is flat out embarrassing... They outright say that healthy people should be responsible for paying the health care bills of sick people who do not have health insurance. In what world is that a desirable outcome?

4
14
nowilffare1Jun. 28, 12 1:35 PM

Obamacare literally does NOTHING to address the real problems facing American consumers attempting to purchase health care. I read commentaries like this one and comments attached to those commentaries and I am appalled by the lack of knowledge about this bill and American health care in general there is out in the country and in the media. Will this make health care more affordable? Absolutely not. It will make health insurance more expensive for everyone in the market with the exception of uninsured sick people.... So if you have health care, you will be paying a lot more as soon as the law starts to get implemented. Will it improve the quality of care? Not a bit. Will it improve access to care? No, not really. This is a boondoggle for health insurance companies pure and simple. You may hope it leads to a single payer system that frankly the country couldn't afford to implement, but the reality is that it won't. It will lead to a cash cow for insurance companies and they will in turn line the pockets of their Democratic and Republican party stooges.

3
12
dschachenmeyerJun. 28, 12 2:29 PM

Today's ruling did not, as the article claims, declare the mandate constitutional. Rather, it declared that the mandate is not really a mandate at all. It cannont be enforced under the interstate commerce clause. It is a tax.

3
4
merkinJun. 28, 12 6:58 PM

Now on to the next step. We need universal single payer care, then reform the way doctors are paid for their services. Only then will we have a decent and affordable health care system in this country.

5
0
gimbelJun. 28, 12 8:21 PM

dschachenmeyerJun. 28, 12 2:29 PM Today's ruling did not, as the article claims, declare the mandate constitutional. Rather, it declared that the mandate is not really a mandate at all. It cannont be enforced under the interstate commerce clause. It is a tax.

Yes they DID declare the Affordable Health Care Act constitutional. AND the mandate IS a mandate, it's a mandate under the Constitutional right of Congress to levy taxes. The Act STANDS as written with the exception of forcing the states to accept expanded Medicare.

But the court did NOT tear down the whole act for that one exception. They just required that that part of it be changed to allow the states to opt out without penalty. And we're good to go.

3
0
gimbelJun. 28, 12 9:06 PM

From Marketwatch: Summary of Supreme Court Health Care Decision

"The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product."

"Because “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax."

Notice throughout this quote that the word MANDATE is used when referring to the bill.

Also note that SCOTUS is bound by previous court decisions to "save a statute from unconstitutionality" where possible. While Cons were screaming for the law to be thrown out, the Supremes were looking for ways to save it. Five of them were anyway. Which is what they are supposed to do.

4
0
chuckdancerJun. 28, 1211:56 PM

The mystery is hoe conservatives would achieve the goals they claim to seek. Where's the plan?

2
0
jurburJun. 29, 12 7:25 AM

Healthy people have been paying for sick people with and without insurance for years. The money that is collected each month from businesses/employers, governments, and individuals is pooled together to pay for the health care needs of the insured and the uninsured. It would make sense now that the Affordable Health Care Act was found constitutional that people that are without insurance or underinsured due to the cost of health care premiums are able to afford health care through the exchanges with the subsidies and the health care premium TAX DEDUCTIONS available to a majority of Americans the pool of money will get much bigger and therefore will cause everyone's health care premiums to go down. The health care mandate limited the amount of money health care companies can spend on administrative costs such CEO slush funds to 15% of money collected in premiums, and the mandate requires that any premium overages be returned to policy holders. Policy holders should receive their first check in August or September of this year and each year forward. This law levels the playing field for all consumers who have been held hostage by health care companies for years. It is a good thing.

1
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT