1) Does the law overstep federal authority in the "individual mandate" requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a financial penalty?
2) Must the entire PPACA be declared if that key provision is unconstitutional (or, in contrast, are the offending provisions "severable" such that the constitutional provisions may stand without them)?
3) Are states being "coerced" by the federal government to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration, with the risk of losing that funding if they refuse?
Most notably being covered by the press is parts 1 and 2 - Rightly so since number 3 was ruled out (5-4 vote, by the way).
First of all, I'm incredibly irritated by everyone referring to this law, including news reporters and radio announcers, as Obamacare. Yes, yes, I understand that is the nickname of the law and they most likely refer to it as Obamacare so the general public will readily understand what they are referring to. HOWEVER, it is their DUTY to keep the general public informed - So, can we please start referring to this law by its name and/or abbreviation which, if you haven't figured it out by now is - The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA or ACA or PPA.
I'm also concerned for the fact that I bet most people believe the PPACA has not gone into effect yet and it was being "held up" by the Supreme Court. I hope that I'm wrong, but I have a feeling most don't know that this law went into effect back in March of 2010 (March 23, 2010, to be exact). It's going into effect in "small parts" - The law is incredibly, seriously super long - Our states take direction from the Federal Government on how to put these "parts" into effect, which, by the way, as a result of this law going into force has created a substantial amount of jobs, which, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Fun Fact: The Federal Government is using/has used Minnesota as its example on how to put many parts of this law into effect - Our state has the best healthcare system in the nation, however, I must point out, we pay into this program in our taxes - it. is. not. free.
I consider myself to be a person who remains "moderate" when it comes to political parties and all things political and I was honestly shocked the individual mandate passed through the Supreme Court. And it passed through because of congress' ability to imply a tax - which by the way, President Obama argued strongly and ruthlessly that this was not a tax, it was a penalty. I find it
I know the viewpoint above does not sound moderate, but I do believe the government should not FORCE any American to do anything they cannot afford to do. Obviously this is a loaded statement, but we are the land of the free and the home of the brave and to me this is crossing the line. And as a result of individuals not being able to afford it, they have to pay a penalty - Really, Uncle Sam? Come on, now.
That being said, I also do not like the fact that for individuals who choose not to have health insurance, even though they can absolutely afford it, when BAM something happens to them, guess who pays to help that person pay for the healthcare costs they cannot afford because they chose not to buy their own health insurance? If your answer is the government pays for it, you're wrong. You do. You pay for it in your taxes and your health insurance premiums (which are expected to keep rising FYI).
You know who really benefits from all this at the end of the day? The insurance companies and you guessed it, the government. The insurance companies benefit because everyone is being FORCED to buy coverage. The government benefits because if you choose not to buy coverage, you have to pay a penalty (tax) to Uncle Sam.
Unfortunately, this law is not a good thing for the insurance agent and financial professional community. Because of the states being allowed to create their own health insurance exchanges (again, they will receive instruction from the feds on how to do this), they are hiring a lot of employees for these programs. Part of those employees will be "advisors" to help individuals pick which plan is right for them and their families. These "advisors" do not even have to be insurance licensed professionals. Why? Because the government says they don't have to be. However, anyone else in the insurance or financial community will need to maintain their licenses and pay for continuing education - Strange. I know. Also, as a result of the "penalty" in the PPACA, companies will also pay a "penalty" of they do not offer health insurance to their employees. This "penalty" for bigger companies is actually cheaper than offering their employees benefits - So, as a CEO, what would you do? Pay the penalty and send your employees out into the exchange or continue to break your bank offering benefits? Hmm. Tough choice. The financial community will be taking a hit for this - They will lose clients to the exchange - No doubt about it. Especially if health insurance is their bread and butter. And let me tell you, they are fired up about this and are concerned for their clients well being.
I personally don't believe the PPACA does not address the real issue at hand with healthcare in our country - The issue of the lack of primary care. Our country does a fantastic job of instituting programs and initiatives and federal and state programs for those that are chronically ill. What are we doing to prevent people from becoming chronically ill???? Our country does not do a good job of taking care of its healthy population and most of all, KEEPING US HEALTHY and LIVING INDEPENDENTLY. And that, ladies and gentleman, is what is/and is going to continue bankrupting our country.
YOUR HEALTH IS EVERYTHING. Who are you without your good health? Heck, I complain even when I have a minor cold or sinus headache. Can you imagine being chronically ill and the amount of time you have to take off work, away from you family, and how quickly that BREAKS YOUR BANK.
Or how quickly you become mentally certain or sorry for my lack of etiquette with this next phrase, but brainwashed into believing you are unable to work or stay independent and anxious to have others take care of you or take advantage of state and federal programs - I understand not everyone does this and again, it's another loaded statement, but we have to have more programs and companies HELPING people stay financially independent for as long as possible. We need more companies like Lifesprk - check them out.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of everyone having access to healthcare. I don't, however, like the idea of government forcing Americans to buy health insurance coverage, especially those that do not have the means to do so or those that may have religious implications. I don't like the negative effect of this law on the financial community because it is one I work in and one I am passionate about. I also don't like that the PPACA does nothing to solve the primary issues at hand with the healthcare system in the United States, which is lack of primary care and lack of efforts to keep our population healthy and financially independent.
Phew. End rant. For update on what's next for the PPACA VISIT THIS SITE.
