Do you agree with the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act?

37% (195 votes)
63% (331 votes)
Total votes: 526


Will be working for free in a few years

We are currently paying for the uninsured through higher premiums for health insurance. In our county, some indigent care is paid through our property taxes. The working poor will get access to preventative care rather than the emergency room as their medical home. The amount of uncompensated care is unsustainable.

Our family has benefited from the initial preventative care provisions such as flu shots, colonoscopy and we can keep our daughter on our insurance until age 26. In the past, our high deductible insurance paid for no care despite payments of $750 a month.

You know there will be limited funds assigned to manage healthcare. Health care needs and surgeries will be prioritized. I feel there will be treatment prioritized for the young and "more salvageable" diagnosis. The elderly will be placed on a waiting list and many will die before life-saving measures will be taken. Their cancer will not be treated as rapidly and it will be Stage IV before their time comes up. I feel this is genocide.

Working for "free", you think? It shall be more important that you remain "free." The U.S. Attorney's Office is part of the Executive branch. Even if the Supreme Court of the United States (Judicial branch) overturned, the movement may have been one of a more aggressive "heavy hand of the federal government" to find many ways that providers are not in line.

I can speak from first-hand knowledge. Without bias or prejudice, I think physicians and surgeons shall be better off. It is the patients I remain concerned about. I know the system and politics (either side of the aisle) are not in favor of us. Justice Roberts was very fair. Think about this. Justice Roberts' ruling now holds this matter in The People's hands and remains essentially "in the balance".

Do you think the system will fail you or work for you? What do you do? Get employment checks like V.A. physicians and surgeons as well as essential immunity from lawsuits as a "civil servant". Since, as a new member of the federal system, you paid the dues and you should get these (additional) benefits?

The bigger problem for D.P.M.s might be the fact that military and V.A, sort of programs regard certain professions as "allied" health servants.

In regard to worries about "malpractice" and related (medical) liability, perhaps we'll look back and say, "Remember when that's all we worried about?" (Rhetorical question?)

a) Something had to be done to address 40,000,000+ citizens without healthcare insurance.
b) The benefits of ACA are numerous and significant, most of which have not yet been implemented.
c) 40,000,000 new healthcare customers! Some of these people will certainly utilize podiatric care.
d) Though not without faults and imperfections (like any and all compromised legislation) Mass. now has near universal coverage for its citizens. The model does work.
e) One could debate the constitutionality of the mandate but that is what the Supreme Court is for and they have spoken.
f) Expect improvements and tweaks to the Act as it comes to fruition.
g) What is the alternative? "Medicaid for all" or similar like almost every other 'civilized' nation?

Let's work together to make the ACA work better.

The question is if we agree with the decision, not if we agreed with ACA. I happen not to agree with either one.

1) The increased premium for health insurance is a form of a "hidden tax" that was intended by its creators. If they had been forthright in saying they needed to increase income tax or add a "health tax" to pay for it, it would have not gotten anywhere. As middle-class citizens, we pay a higher premium to maintain our coverage.

2) That does not mean there is nothing good about the ACA. The coverage for pre-existing conditions was long overdue and should have been done without changing the whole system.

3) The coverage for "kids to age 27" is going to be a mixed blessing.

4) ACA never addressed the cost of care, only the access to care. It will be an albatross around the necks of our citizens for many years to come. I predict it will lead to more uninsured persons and a huge increase in cost of health care. If you think health care is too much now, wait until you make it "free" for even more people.

As to the court, their function is to determine if a law is "constitutional." It's not to try to manipulate a law so they can say it is constitutional.

While the ACA is very complex, some fundamentals are popular. It's a start or rough draft. But with tweaking, it has potential to give the average person or small group the collective bargaining power of numbers, much like Congress has in place for themselves.

The major insurer's goal is maximum profit, premium control and exclusion of those who are actually in need of medical care. Just some thoughts.

My favorite part is the 80/20 rule. This requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of consumers’ premium dollars on medical care and quality improvement. Insurers can spend the remaining 20 percent on administrative costs, such as salaries, sales and advertising.

I can't imagine an unlimited amount of quality improvement so if the CEOs want to make more money, then they have to pay us more.

The question of whether the U.S. government has the right to require citizens to buy health insurance and the subsequent consequences of such a plan are the same questions that were asked in the 1960s about Medicare. The AMA at that time stated that its members would go broke and they would not sign on. Neither of these happened and the APMA spent years getting podiatrists included.

The question now is: Why should those citizens over 65 be enrolled in a federal health care plan and those not be enrolled?

If you oppose national health care, you should oppose Medicare on the same principles. Do you really want to stop receiving Medicare patients? I realize a few doctors have but do you want all doctors to stop?

Is it okay for seniors to receive government health insurance but not okay for the young and the poor to receive the same?

Is it okay with you to have young people not have insurance coverage and rely on the taxpayer to pay their medical bills because they cannot be refused treatment?

How much per year are you paying for your county hospital system?

Will small business really go broke if they are required to insure their employees?

Will you go broke if this plan is legalized ?

I know the Supreme Court is its own little fifedom, above any law of the land. However, should the justices appointed by Obama not have recused themselves from the vote? Is it not a simple conflict of interest for them to participate?

I have heard the lawyers selling us the bull waste that they are policing the medical profession via malpractice law. Maybe it is time the judicial branch polices itself.

Or, possibly we should take it upon ourselves to police them. I see them doing a poorer job of policing themselves than we have done policing our own. Particularly seeing the legal (notice, I did not call it the 'justice') system has been involved in thwarting our efforts at policing ourselves at every step of the way (i.e., our board certification system which has been diminished to little more than getting a few signatures on a piece of paper). This has been accomplished with lawsuit after lawsuit and with the court's indulgence of 'fair play' over patient protection, public information and quality of care.

Add new comment