.
Feedback

POLL: What Do You Think About the SCOTUS Decision to Uphold Affordable Care Act?

A majority of U.S. Supreme Court Justices voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts. 

From the decision: “Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." 

Do you agree with the Supreme Court's ruling? How do you think the ruling will impact residents of Smyrna-Vinings? What does this mean for President Obama's chances at re-election? Tell us in the comments below.

Kamma June 28, 2012 at 03:27 pm
This means that:
*Children will no longer be denied health insurance due to a pre-existing condition, effective immediately. *Young adults can stay on their parent's health insurance policy until age 26. *Adults will no longer be denied health insurance due to a pre-existing condition, effective in 2014. *Health insurance providers can no longer cancel your policy because you get sick. *There can no longer be annual limits to health coverage. If your illness is incredibly expensive, you won't have to worry about reaching a limit to what your insurance company will pay.
Sydney Busby (Editor) June 28, 2012 at 03:37 pm
The President and CEO of Vinings based Digital Insurance said he thinks not much will change. Read his letter to the editor http://patch.com/A-v9MB
Freya Stark June 28, 2012 at 03:40 pm
The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.
In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8%, or approximately 47 million uninsured people. More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it.
Lissa K. June 28, 2012 at 03:59 pm
The Repubs are spinning. Spinning like Whirling Dervishes.
Observer June 28, 2012 at 04:00 pm
My wife's company, a Fortune 200 Company has already gone on record as saying they will end coverage in 2014 as a result of the ACA.
What does that mean for me? Well the Supreme Court ruling contains this passage "... that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation." What that means is that I will pay the tax for not purchasing insurance as it is likely to be substantially below what I pay for insurance coverage on an annual basis until I really have to have coverage due to a major medical emergency then I can't be denied coverage under the ACA for an existing medical condition. Finally, like the non-productive I have a way of having other people pay for my wants.
Richard Steiner June 28, 2012 at 04:29 pm
SCOTUS just rules on the constitutionality. The rising cost of health care is a very important concern, but that's an issue for the legislative branch, not SCOTUS. Maybe we'd see some progress on that if they stopped concentrating so hard on the next election cycle and started actually governing the country...
Sydney Busby (Editor) June 28, 2012 at 04:37 pm
Here's what Dennis Kiley, CEO of Emory-Adventist Hospital said about the Supreme Court's decision: "As part of Adventist Health System, we are pleased that the court has upheld the health care reform act and specifically the individual mandate. Without that provision, we believe that the other provisions such as elimination of pre-existing condition would become financially difficult to implement. We also believe that the uninsured problem would have continued to grow which would have put greater and greater pressure on hospitals to continue to subsidize care. We recognize that the health reform bill is not perfect, but it does much to lower the number of uninsured and to increase access to care. We will continue to work with others, including Congress, to create a system that reduces the overall cost of health care, builds a healthier state and improves outcomes and the patient experience."
C.J. June 28, 2012 at 04:40 pm
RE: "What that means is that I will pay the tax for not purchasing insurance as it is likely to be substantially below what I pay for insurance coverage on an annual basis until I really have to have coverage due to a major medical emergency..."
Dangerous plan. The coverage applies for only expenses incurred AFTER your policy goes into effect. Any medical expenses incurred during your uninsured emergency--perhaps thousands or tens of thousands of dollars--are entirely on you. Incidentally, before the Affordable Care Act, U.S. taxpayers were already taking up the slack for the uninsured (supporting the argument that the mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause). To the extent that the law reduces the number of people who are uninsured, it saves taxpayer money.
Observer June 28, 2012 at 05:12 pm
The SC did not uphold the individual mandate. It ruled that requiring individuals to have health insurance could not be sustained under the commerce clause but that under congress's taxation authority that a tax could be assessed on those who do not want to purchase health insurance. It also stated that the tax could not be so high that it was equivalent to requiring the purchase of insurance.
J. B. Smith June 28, 2012 at 06:31 pm
How will this be enforced?
C.J. June 28, 2012 at 06:57 pm
The maximum penalty is $695 (By comparison, Romney passed law charging about $1,200 in Massachusetts.)
From Kaiser: http://healthreform.kff.org/faq/will-everyone-have-to-buy-health-insurance.aspx "Several groups are exempt from the requirement to obtain coverage or pay the penalty, including: people who would have to pay more than 8% of their income for health insurance, people with incomes below the threshold required for filing taxes (in 2009, $9,350 for a single person and $26,000 for a married couple with two children), those who qualify for religious exemptions, undocumented immigrants, people who are incarcerated, and members of Indian tribes. The penalty for people who forego insurance is the greatest of two amounts: a specified percentage of income or a specified dollar amount. The percentages of income are phased in over time at 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015, and 2.5% starting in 2016. The dollar amounts are also phased in at $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 beginning in 2016 (with annual increases after that). The Congressional Budget Office projects that 3.9 million people will pay the penalty in 2016. The total penalty for the taxable year will not exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a bronze level health insurance plan offered through the health insurance Exchanges. Health insurance plans will provide documents to people they insure that will be used to prove that they have the minimum coverage required by law."
Observer June 28, 2012 at 08:58 pm
CBO has estimated the cost of the ACA at 2.7 trillion dollars. I guess for people that prefer monopoly money to real money that this is not a concern. Been to the grocery store lately? Notice that the cost of everything has gone up but your wages have not? Welcome back Carter, stagflation is here.
C.J. June 29, 2012 at 12:13 am
RE: "CBO has estimated the cost of the ACA at 2.7 trillion dollars."
When savings exceed costs, then you ON NET, budget deficits fall-- "On net, CBO and JCT’s latest comprehensive estimate is that the effects of the [PPACA and the Reconciliation Act] on direct spending and revenues related to health care will REDUCE federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012–2021 period http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf
C.J. June 29, 2012 at 01:37 am
RE: "...[the health care law] gives the government unprecedented access into & dominion over our lives..."
Many, if not most, of the same people who make this argument are working to pass laws to prevent women from have the choice as to whether to have an abortion...even if they're the victims of rape or incest... even to save their own lives...even if prenatal tests show that the fetus isn't viable outside the womb. Many, if not most, of these same people want to MANDATE that women who do seek to get a legal abortion must first have (i.e., purchase) a medically unnecessary ultrasound. Many, if not most, of these same people oppose allowing sick people to purchase medical marijuana to ease their suffering from cancer and other debilitating diseases. I could go on. With all due respect, when people complain about laws that give the government control over our lives, while simultaneously advocating for laws that give the government control over our lives, well, I find it hard to take such complaints seriously.
C.J. June 29, 2012 at 02:43 pm
RE: "Now point out where I advocated for any of the things you mention?"
Chris L., I repeatedly said, "many, if not most,..." I have no idea what your positions on these issues are. If you're the exception, then I commend you on your consistency. On the other hand, if you're an advocate for big government with abortion, gay rights, medical marijuana, contraception, and/or the rest, then your complaints about big government ring hollow. As I said, most of the people who oppose President Obama's policies are against big government, except when they're for it (and they're for it a lot).
Jim Johnson June 29, 2012 at 03:31 pm
Want the government telling you what procedures you can have or not have? Want government telling you that before you buy an item you want you have to pay them first for health care you used to have under your employer but no longer have because your company opted out? Want a government panel telling you that you are not productive enough to have a life saving procedure? Look at England and Sweden - the government decides who gets what and when you can get it. Want to live in pain for 9 months because the government has determined that too many of a particular procedure have all ready been done. This law is an abomination (every pun intended). It will bring this country to its knees. The people who used every political trick and device available to them to get this thing to pass are laughing at us because they are exempt. They don't have to worry about it. A few sheep will keep putting them back in office and they continue to feast at the public trough. This was a very, very sad day in this country - life as we knew it has changed for the worse. If this thing stands through implementation it will bring this country to its knees and those that put this piece of garbage together will be patting themselves on the back and laughing all the way to retirement on you and me. As Jefferson once said - Democracy will be in peril when those that write the laws discover they have control over the treasury.
C.J. June 29, 2012 at 04:27 pm
For the record, no provision in the Affordable Care Act allows the government to say that you are not productive enough to have a life saving procedure or that you must live in pain because too many of a particular procedure has already been done. Opponents made similar claims about Medicare when it passed, but none of these fears have been realized.
On the other hand, starting next year, the new health care law prevents private health insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. It has also already eliminated the caps on coverage so that those of us with insurance can't go bankrupt after actually running out of insurance after a major injury or illness. Here's one to pay attention to. The Affordable Care Act has also eliminated insurance co-pays for checkups, pap smears, mammograms, and other preventive care. Most people don't know about this, and many doctors take advantage of this widespread ignorance by charging for co-pays anyway. So, the next time that your doctor's office tries to charge you a co-pay for a check-up or a pap smear, just tell them that youf insurance company doesn't have a co-pay for preventive care. They won't argue. (Feel free to call your insurer to confirm.) Incidentally, Brits tend to defend their health care system in the same way that Americans tend to defend Medicare: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/15/world/fg-britain-health15
Lissa K. June 29, 2012 at 05:00 pm
Bravo (or brava) Chris! Well said. Thanks for the info.
Observer June 29, 2012 at 05:29 pm
Whee! free pony rides for everyone.
JBN June 29, 2012 at 07:57 pm
You mean the government telling you as opposed to the greedy insurance companies???
Pam J June 30, 2012 at 03:26 am
The government tells us we have to have car insurance, otherwise our license gets suspended. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. We need some kind of health care reform so that people like me who can't afford insurance because of unemployment doesn't have to freak out when I feel bad or when I nearly kill myself doing something I probably shouldn't be doing (household things). The main problem that people have with this law is the word "require". We really don't like to be required to do anything, do we.
J. B. Smith July 3, 2012 at 04:20 pm
People who haven't been paying taxes won't start now!
J. B. Smith July 3, 2012 at 04:22 pm
You're right about that, but at the same time, premiums and deductibles have gone up enough to more than make up for it!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Smyrna-Vinings Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Atlanta Glamdoll June 15, 2013 at 07:04 pm
Are these the apartments that were once called "Garrison Plantation"?
Lissa K. June 15, 2013 at 09:32 pm
This is Garrison Plantation - Garrison Lakes - Lakefront Vista. I lived there when it was familyRead More owned. It went from sister to brother then sold. Changed name from Garrison Plantation (because it wasn't PC) (but no one thought about what a garrison was) to Garrison Lakes (there's only one lake) to Lakefront Vista (under new ownership.) It's a dump now. The layout and size of the apts. are great. Even the location is great. Still know some people there. But it went downhill.
MA Evans June 3, 2013 at 09:20 pm
I'd rather answer the question "How do you feel about Roswell Street Baptist Church?" MyRead More answer: can't stand it. This incident is just another in its long and bigoted history. During the anti gay lifestyle debacle it gave out copies of the 10 Commandments. That anti gay resolution drafted by Gordon Wysong and enacted by the Cobb Co. Commissioners cost the county an Olympic venue. Whenever I hear about that church I think of the OM who called the church's prominent members The Marietta Mafia!
Jim Lyon June 4, 2013 at 01:20 am
Its sad, that young people who are gay and often struggle to accept themselves as they are, faceRead More such fury and rejection by a church that preaches love, compassion and forgiveness for most but not all. No wonder many young people, the vast majority of whom are or will be heterosexual find the church increasingly irrelevant in their lives with attitudes like this.