You certainly cannot avoid the latest news unless you are TV-less, radio-less, Internet-less, and friendless. This morning, the Supreme Court approved a key part of President Obama’s healthcare reform law be a ruling of 5 to 4. The official name is the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but most usually refer to it Obamacare. This means that by 2014, all Americans will be required to have some type of health insurance.
Also included in the decision was the fact that insurers will no longer be able to deny people insurance based on a pre-existing condition and families can carry children on their policies until age 26 if needed. Also, Medicaid can be expanded to those who are within 138 percent of the federal poverty line, whatever that means.
How did this happen? How can a free country demand their people have insurance? Well, as I understand it, the Supreme Court saw this insurance mandate not as a commerce clause, but as a taxing clause and as you know, they can tax us and we cannot refuse to pay this “tax.”
It was a conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts, that passed this piece of legislation with his vote.
Democrats are saying this is a victory and it should help Obama’s chances of being re-elected later this year, but Republicans are saying this is a huge issue that will only hurt Obama in the election. Reports are that Mitt Romney’s campaign received $300,000 in fund-raising right after the decision was announced.
Now, I am not that into politics, so I am not certain what all this means. The guy in my office is all fired up, saying this is the end of America. I do know that I think everyone in this country deserves medical treatment if he or she is sick. I also know I don’t want my insurance bill to increase, as everyone is saying it will. As for the pre-existing condition thing, it seems that people that don’t have one are against this, but people who do are for it. That’s to be expected. It’s not as black and white as it may seem. Some people have the ability to lessen conditions such as diabetes by exercising and eating better while some people with other conditions may not have that option. Are we just not supposed to treat them?
As for the 26 year old “child” thing, so many young adults are moving back home because of the economy, I wonder if it is better to have this provision.
To me, it is all very confusing and there is a lot I am going to have to digest about before I decide is this is a good idea or a bad idea for the country.