Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act Upheld By Supreme Court
By Gaetana Drake
We’ve all heard by now that the Supreme Court gave a 5-4 ruling in favor of the Affordable Health Care Act.
I’d like to point out some very positive aspects to the plan. Young adults who are over the age of 19 can stay on their parent’s insurance. This effects millions of college age people in the country, who are struggling to go to school and find jobs at the same time.
A person can’t be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition such as diabetes or high blood pressure.
Your current insurance cannot drop you if you become ill.
There is no longer a lifetime maximum coverage amount. Most policies were limited to $1,000,000 of lifetime coverage, which could easily be wiped out by cancer treatments or care for chronic conditions.
And the best part of all….it will be illegal to charge a woman more for insurance than a man. Some states actually allowed insurances to charge a woman up to 80% more for insurance coverage. President Obama has made it illegal for insurances to consider having a uterus a “pre-existing” condition and charging more for coverage.
Several studies have suggested that passing this law will actually result in lower insurance premiums. This is what happened in Massachusetts when then-Governor Romney mandated that everyone purchase insurance. 97% of the citizens of Massachusetts have coverage and the average cost of premiums declined.
Some people are concerned about the tax penalty for not purchasing insurance. The plan calls for a $150 tax penalty in 2014, if you have not purchased insurance, with the penalty going higher each year, to a maximum of $695. However, there are no “teeth” to this penalty. The plan specifically says that if you fail to purchase insurance and do not pay the penalty, there will be no liens on your tax return, or your property. The prospect of a penalty simply encourages people to purchase insurance.
All in all, the Affordable Health Care Act will be beneficial to millions of American citizens. The Supreme Court was right on this one.
Eye On Modesto 
Is this another new math thing? Falsely declaring Mass insurance costs are down is as bad as California claiming $15,000,000.000.00 in budget cuts even thought they are spending 5% more than last year.
When Massachusetts passed its pioneering health care reforms in 2006, critics warned that they would result in a slow but steady spiral downward toward a government-run health care system. Three years later, those predictions appear to be coming true:
~Although the state has reduced the number of residents without health insurance, 200,000 people remain uninsured. Moreover, the increase in the number of insured is primarily due to the state’s generous subsidies, not the celebrated individual mandate.
~Health care costs continue to rise much faster than the national average. Since 2006, total state health care spending has increased by 28 percent. Insurance premiums have increased by 8–10 percent per year, nearly double the national average.New regulations and bureaucracy are limiting consumer choice and adding to health care costs.
~Program costs have skyrocketed. Despite tax increases, the program faces huge deficits. The state is considering caps on insurance premiums, cuts in reimbursements to providers, and even the possibility of a “global budget” on health care spending—with its attendant rationing.
~A shortage of providers, combined with increased demand, is increasing waiting times to see a physician.
With the “Massachusetts model” frequently cited as a blueprint for health care reform, it is important to recognize that giving the government greater control over our health care system will have grave consequences for taxpayers, providers, and health care consumers. That is the lesson of the Massachusetts model.