PBS NewsHour talked about the case coming up in the Supreme Court where Obama Care will be argued.
Â
JUDY WOODRUFF: ... Summarize the basics for us of what this law is. How is it intended when it's all said and done, if it becomes law, to change the way Americans interact with the health care system?
SUSAN DENTZER (health analyst for the NewsHour): Well, Judy, of course, it's a big law.
But the most relevant provisions are these. Fifty million people in the country don't have health insurance. And the insurance market is fraying as the costs of health insurance gets so high, so expensive. So what the law does is essentially says for about half of those without health insurance who we're going to tack on -- actually, I should say that this law only solves about two-thirds of the problem of uninsured.
But for half of that two-thirds, we're going to take the Medicaid program and expand it for those people. So, Medicaid, which traditionally was our program for low-income people, we will make that bigger. We will write some new rules. About 10 to 20 million people will go into that.
Then, for higher-income people, not really-high-income people, but higher-income people, who are buying insurance on their own or who work for small businesses, we are going to create new markets in every state called health insurance exchanges. We are going to let people buy coverage through those new markets. We're going to give them federal subsidies to help pay for it.
And we are going to do something else. We are going to change the health insurance market, because right now for a lot of people, the health insurance market operates by leaving out people who are sick and just trying to insure the people who are healthy. It doesn't work very well.
We're going to change the rules. We're going to turn it around. We're going to get everybody in the pool. So in a sense, the government is saying -- it's like a lifeguard -- everybody get into the insurance pool. And that is the piece that is the individual mandate that says everybody's got to get covered.
Â
Â
SUSAN DENTZER: Well, there are four major complaints.
One of the primary ones, though, is that individual mandate, the government saying everybody get into the pool, is unconstitutional. And, in effect, if we think about most Americans, most Americans have health insurance. Most Americans work for large employers, have coverage. They don't need to worry about this. They're really not affected by it.
The mandate is really is there so that people who would otherwise stay out of coverage for whatever reason will get into the pool, because this whole system only works if everybody, healthy and sick, is in the pool and then we spread the cost of insurance across the whole population.
So that's the argument. Is the mandate constitutional, is it okay for the government to say everybody get into the pool, or not?
Â
Â
You can read the transcript or watch the video for the whole conversation about what is scheduled to be talked about during the days of arguments, on both sides of it:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/healthreform_03-22.html
Â
Â
Â














Comments: 50
My spouse is one of them. If you have children you win. You lose if you work at an old age, let's say 50 without children, there is a time in life when you really need care without going bankrupt.
Two reasons: There are no cures for measles and mumps. They're both highly contagious. I suspect a doctor would see any child who has a persistent high fever or seems to be developing some of the serious complications that occasionally go with measles or mumps. It's certainly a parent's responsibility to contact a doctor in case of either.
Eventually without we all suffer.
To reject this law without providing any solution is very stupid. The Court cannot provide a solution. That is not it's function in our Constitution. But it is very clear that Congress cannot (due to the influence of big money interests) provide a better solution. (Yes, I know that's stupid, too, but that's what money does to us. It makes us collectively very stupid.) So either we get this "half a loaf" or we go without any "bread" at all.
John Donne, Meditation XVII"
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the SCOTUS overrules this "Mandatory" requirement. FUCX. I'm really sick of this. ""LIFE, liberty, & the pursout of happiness"
However, this isn’t law yet and the Supreme Court may just say that and do nothing at this time.
Optimus: "I know many who drive with out Car Insurance" That's why I pay extra for my car insurance, you deadbeat. Go FXXX Yourself.
Where I live it's mandatory if you drive. It's mandatory if you register a car. There are all sorts of interesting consequences for uninsured motorists in California.
Car insurance requirements are State not Federal. US Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Romneycare is Constitutional, Obamacare is not.
NH & WI don't require car insurance.
I have yet to see a car insurance requirement to provide free tires and oil changes. I have yet to see car insurance required of someone who doesn't drive or own a vehicle.
Jim G. Mar 25, 2012, 1:24pm EDT
Rita:Yep. And we also pay for uininsuraed motorist deadeats. Does anyone ever stop to think that we're all in the same boat anymore?
Optimus: "I know many who drive with out Car Insurance" That's why I pay extra for my car insurance, you deadbeat. Go FXXX Yourself.
Deadbeat? Ha,ha,ha... I have Insurance -- Full Coverage -- Gieco. And More money than Georgia has Peach trees. I am hardly a Dead Beat. You know what they say about making assumptions Jim. And you just made an --- out of yourself.
Rita B. Mar 26, 2012, 8:51am EDT
Yes I thought that was a weird statement, naturally if you don't drive you don't need car insurance.
Naturally You don't need Health Insurance if you have the Money to pay your bills, and under the age of 50.
The reality is that too many Americans are losing their homes and going bankrupt over those expenses, and it is getting so bad it is making for an unstable society.
Old people are on Medicare anyway. Obamacare isn't about old people at all ... they all already have a government program so are already covered. Obamacare is about getting new people covered that weren't before.
Insurance the way it is now, before Obamacare, is killing people (doing "Death Panels") by denying the ones who need insurance because they need it.
http://www.seniorcorps.org/medicare/how-will-obamacare-affect-medicare/
Obamacare would not change that.
You've been listening to too much Sarah Palin!
Why does someone always accuse me of listen to Sarah Palin or listening to Fox news when I try to warn people what is happening to us. I do not listen to her and I do not listen to Fox news. I listen to CBS new reports. I can think for myself and I can read.
H.R. 3200, page 425: Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following: .... etc. etc.
I shall not type out this whole thing … look it up and read it! This provision will start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia. Heaven knows where else it will lead. Give the government an inch they will take a mile because we gave them the loophole to do so.
Think people, think! Please!
Obamacare leaves all the private industries that are involved in healthcare (and its science) to itself.