http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?src=me&ref=general
So the Supreme Court — defying many expectations — upheld the Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare. There will, no doubt, be many headlines declaring this a big victory for President Obama, which it is. But the real winners are ordinary Americans — people like you.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Related News
Times Topic: Health Care Reform
Roberts Shows Deft Hand as Swing Vote on Health Care(June 29, 2012)
News Analysis: G.O.P. Vowing to Take Battle Over Health Care Law Into November (June 29, 2012)
A Vindication, With a Legacy Still Unwritten (June 29, 2012)
Related in Opinion
Brooks: Modesty and Audacity(June 29, 2012)
Egan: Romney's Supreme Burden (June 28, 2012)
Greenhouse: A Justice in Chief(June 28, 2012)
Op-Ed: A Confused Opinion(June 29, 2012)
Editorial: A Moderate Ruling With Risks Ahead (June 29, 2012)
Editorial: A Muddled Political Response From the Right (June 29, 2012)
Op-Ed: A Pyrrhic Victory (June 29, 2012)
Campaign Stops: Bending History’s Arc Toward Universal Health Care (June 28, 2012)
Campaign Stops: Seven Consequences of the Health Care Ruling (June 28, 2012)
Campaign Stops: Will Time Heal Health Care Wounds? (June 28, 2012)
ROOM FOR DEBATE
What's Next for Health Care?
Watch a video roundtable, via Google+, about the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
How many people are we talking about? You might say 30 million, the number of additional people the Congressional Budget Office says will have health insurance thanks to Obamacare. But that vastly understates the true number of winners because millions of other Americans — including many who oppose the act — would have been at risk of being one of those 30 million.
In short, unless you belong to that tiny class of wealthy Americans who are insulated and isolated from the realities of most people’s lives, the winners from that Supreme Court decision are your friends, your relatives, the people you work with — and, very likely, you. For almost all of us stand to benefit from making America a kinder and more decent society.
But what about the cost? Put it this way: the budget office’s estimate of the cost over the next decade of Obamacare’s “coverage provisions” — basically, the subsidies needed to make insurance affordable for all — is about only a third of the cost of the tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the wealthy, that Mitt Romney is proposing over the same period. True, Mr. Romney says that he would offset that cost, but he has failed to provide any plausible explanation of how he’d do that. The Affordable Care Act, by contrast, is fully paid for, with an explicit combination of tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere.
So the law that the Supreme Court upheld is an act of human decency that is also fiscally responsible. It’s not perfect, by a long shot — it is, after all, originally a Republican plan, devised long ago as a way to forestall the obvious alternative of extending Medicare to cover everyone. As a result, it’s an awkward hybrid of public and private insurance that isn’t the way anyone would have designed a system from scratch. And there will be a long struggle to make it better, just as there was for Social Security. (Bring back the public option!) But it’s still a big step toward a better — and by that I mean morally better — society.
Which brings us to the nature of the people who tried to kill health reform — and who will, of course, continue their efforts despite this unexpected defeat.
At one level, the most striking thing about the campaign against reform was its dishonesty. Remember “death panels”? Remember how reform’s opponents would, in the same breath, accuse Mr. Obama of promoting big government and denounce him for cutting Medicare? Politics ain’t beanbag, but, even in these partisan times, the unscrupulous nature of the campaign against reform was exceptional. And, rest assured, all the old lies and probably a bunch of new ones will be rolled out again in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. Let’s hope the Democrats are ready.
But what was and is really striking about the anti-reformers is their cruelty. It would be one thing if, at any point, they had offered any hint of an alternative proposal to help Americans with pre-existing conditions, Americans who simply can’t afford expensive individual insurance, Americans who lose coverage along with their jobs. But it has long been obvious that the opposition’s goal is simply to kill reform, never mind the human consequences. We should all be thankful that, for the moment at least, that effort has failed.
Let me add a final word on the Supreme Court.
Before the arguments began, the overwhelming consensus among legal experts who aren’t hard-core conservatives — and even among some who are — was that Obamacare was clearly constitutional. And, in the end, thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court upheld that view. But four justices dissented, and did so in extreme terms, proclaiming not just the much-disputed individual mandate but the whole act unconstitutional. Given prevailing legal opinion, it’s hard to see that position as anything but naked partisanship.
The point is that this isn’t over — not on health care, not on the broader shape of American society. The cruelty and ruthlessness that made this court decision such a nail-biter aren’t going away.
But, for now, let’s celebrate. This was a big day, a victory for due process, decency and the American people.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on June 29, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: The Real Winners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/the-real-winners.html?src=me&ref=general
-
- Stephen
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
-
Verified
Wonderful column as usual with wonderful observations. The reality is that the Republicans can only appeal on the basis of emotion and not on the basis of logic. Logically, no one can deny someone the medical attention he or she needs but emotionally one can feel that government is big and bad and that ACA is proof of this. The American people are slowly growing up and understanding what the rest of the industrial world has recognized for some time: that we have a responsibility to all citizens for their basic good. The Democrats should campaign on the simple fact that we are all brothers and sisters and to deny this only helps to maintain plutocracy and eradicate democracy.
-
- ANetliner
- Washington, DC area
-
Verified
I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act by invoking Congress's power to tax, but the remainder of the decision is a profound setback for the role of the federal government.
By limiting permitted federal actions under the Commerce clause and invalidating the federal government's ability to reduce federal support of state Medicaid programs if the states do not participate in the ACA, the Court has restricted the role of Congress considerably. Liberals and progressives may have won an important battle today, but this decision continues the erosion of the federal role by the Roberts Court.
-
- hestal
- glen rose, tx
When Medicare was passed, I was a young teacher turned programmer. I was part of the team that developed one of the first, and ultimately the most widely used, Medicare claims payment system. To my then naive eyes it seemed perfectly natural to widen the scope of Medicare to include all Americans. I am a happy Medicare beneficiary now, and I am still surprised that it has not become the universal system. From a pragmatic analysis of the effects that such a change would have on the common good, there is no better option.
The vicious political opposition to anything that helps the other side, even if it would also serve the common good, is appalling. And it won’t stop. Human nature will not change; just look at our history. Our national government, our political system, our medical system, our economic system, our education system, and all our other systems must make fundamental changes—even investment banker Jamie Dimon must be changed.
You, Professor Krugman, have talked courageously, vigorously, and effectively about changes that are needed in your field. It is sometimes said that integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching. That may be so. But courage is doing the right thing when everybody is watching and is trying to get you to do the wrong thing. Thank you for doing the right thing.
But where are your counterparts in other fields?
The supporters of the common good have a little momentum right now—we must press our advantage.
-
- Ken H.
- Athens, Alabama
There are no soft edges to the far right. They create no place for a society to nestle down and be comfortable with one another. Words that in the past were uttered to unify -- words like freedom and equality and democracy -- are used by the far right like sharp blades and blunt instruments. No argument is too small to justify vehemence, and no difference too insignificant to evoke rejection.
I am weary of them. I am tired of their urgings to fear and hatred and irrefutable moral codes, and of their prejudices and unrelenting nationalism. I am uninterested in their continuing assault on science and reason and their biblical literalism and their paternal high-handedness.
I know that eventually they will self destruct because intolerance cannot tolerate even the intolerant. I hope the end is near. I fear that it is not.
-
- Matt
- Brussels
You are right as usual in your assessment, I would just complement it with a few good words for justice Roberts. I think you have to give him credit for being a conservative who showed restraint. One could easily construct arguments against the constitutionality of the ACA as the question is not whether it makes sense as policy but whether Congress has the power under the constitution to enact it. Nevertheless he felt that it is just not right for 5 justices to strike down a law of this magnitude that has been adopted by the democratically elected Congress. That is, he rose above partisanship, did not use the lever at his disposal and accepted the decision of the democratic majority even if he might not agree with it. And in doing so saved the reputation of the Supreme Court and in a broader sense strenghtened the faith in the system of government. Contrast him with Republicans who use the filibuster, who blackmail the president using the debt ceiling etc. If all conservatives were like him, maybe the US would be more governable.
-
- J.P. Coen
- the Netherlands
According to the OECD the US has the highest % of health care costs in the world. We in Europe have a lower % while covering all our citizens. The crisis in Europe has nothing to do with the rising costs of health care. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.
-
- tom mcmahon
- millis ma
-
Verified
Health care is not a privilage, it is a right. Clearly this should have been the debate to begin with. One that should have been cleared up, to shut up the conservative blue bloods who have never been without. I personnally watched as my own mother was denied healthcare due to pre existing mental conditions which prevented her from ever obtaining insurance. Where our own family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1960's exhausting a complete inheritence of over a half milion dollars. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed, but one cannot enjoy them when they are sick. Under the general welfare of the people, gov't holds a large degree of responsibility for the health education and general well being of the people. The Supreme Court made the right decision. Conservatives are wrong, the highest ranking conservative in the United States just sided with the Obama Administration and the American People. Romney and Co, are on the wrong side of history as the conservatives have been in the U.S. for a century and a half.
-
- Daniel Bennett
- Washington, DC
First, upholding is a victory for the American people. A lack of interest by some is due to the full enactment being in the future and the other reason is that this has been sold as helping a few million who currently don't have health insurance. This liberal understanding of the law has made it seem as if the legislation was a safety net. Krugman states the true effect of the law, that everyone is effected.
ACA effects every single person. No person will have to worry about losing access to health care. No employee has to worry that quitting their job to start a business will mean as they do now that they are risking the lives of their family. No small business owner has to battle to survive an illness because of lack of access to medical care. Everyone without exception will be protected from prenatal care to their final breath.
Fortunately, the law survived the poor handling from liberals who misunderstand the nature of the law. Liberals are tripped up in basic policy terms. "Safety net" is misused to refer to programs that are social insurance. The term refers to the net that is below the trapeze artists that fly above or walk the tightrope. So the protection is for those who "fall through the cracks." In fact, Social Security is for when things go well, it is a pension program. And the ACA is a program that pushes us all into a comprehensive system, not a "safety net" or welfare. Knowing this will help us to better understand the law and protect it.
Daniel Bennett
-
- Jim at the Beach
- Southold, NY
I live in the Philly area and work for a global company that provides great benefits, for which I pay a fair price. But my son graduated college last year and is working a number of freelance TV production jobs in LA, making his start in the world and chasing his dream (and supporting himself!). The fact that he can stay on my benefit plan until he is 26 is a major factor in his ability to do this, and in my peace of mind. We are both winners in the Roberts decision. Thank you Nancy Pelosi and Justice Roberts!
-
- Rachel
- NYC
I read a lot of commentary on websites such as Yahoo from people who were upset about the Supreme Court ruling. Two things became clear:
1) The majority of people who were against the law were primarily frightened about how it would affect them financially. People who had insurance were worried that their rates would go up so much that their employer would have to drop coverage, and people who didn't have it were terrified that they would now have to pay for insurance they couldn't afford. (One person was sincerely frightened he would have to go to jail because he couldn't buy insurance.)
2) The misinformation about the content of the law is truly astonishing. I saw posts from people who believed that we now had fully socialized medicine, that the majority of people getting coverage would be illegal aliens, and (from one elderly person), that people over 75 would have to face death panels.People were terrified of cost explosions but didn't seem to realize a huge chunk of the 2000-page bill was a bunch of pilot programs testing ways to manage cost control.
The deliberate misinformation about the bill has actually been quite sad. The "huge opposition" to the bill is really just a symptom of an astonishing level of ignorance and fear, which is heightened during a bad economy. "We can't afford it" was the refrain -- but no one seemed to realize we can't afford not to do it, either.
-
- dpr
- California
Exactly who is getting a massive tax increase? If you have insurance, the tax does not affect you. If you lose your job and therefore your insurance, you will not be responsible for the tax, so it will not affect you, but you will, in the states that accept the expansion of medicaid, still be insured.
The only ones frothing at the mouth right now are the frenzied conservatives who can't see the forest for the trees -- the goal is to provide health insurance to all; what's the conservative plan for that? Emergency rooms? That the insured are now paying for that kind of care is the hidden "tax" that conservatives routinely ignore.
-
- David R
- undefined
I've said this again and again--it's time to end health care benefits for Congress. Let them buy it on the open market like so many other people. If they feel we don't deserve health care as a birth right, then they don't deserve it at all.
I my mind, the only real question is whether or not we should even legally allow members of Congress to buy health care. Just imagine what would happen if people who aimed to be our politicians knew they would have to pay all of their medical expenses out of their own pockets--full charge.
-
- John T
- NY
So many of the problems of our society seem to stem from a failure to understand basic economics. To say that someone who doesn't buy health insurance is not engaging in financial activity which affects others - is not engaging in commerce - only shows that five members of the Supreme Court have a seriously naive understanding of economics.
It's like saying that smoking only affects the individual who smokes. Or that we shouldn't mandate the wearing of seat belts because that only affects the driver. Both of these things have costs far beyond the individual driver or smoker. There is a tremendous real cost to society of lost productivity of someone dies early of cancer or a car accident. Not to mention the medical costs, the costs of care, and the cost to that individual's family, etc.
Those members of the SC seem to think that if one doesn't see an actual exchange of dollars, then there isn't any financial or economic activity going on. This is just a truly childish.
And I think the same sort of thinking infects much of the Republican party. For they seem incapable of understanding that tax cuts are a form of spending. And they seem to think that the total cost, e.g. of a pound of beef, or a gallon of gasoline, is reflected in the market price.
The mandate was and is simply to get individuals to pay for the real cost of their behavior, which until now they had been asking and getting others to pay for.
-
- ed connor
- camp springs, md
Big whoop for the Chief Justice.
Thank you very much...
The act is now settled law. It will do much good, especially for people with pre-existing conditions. But it will annoy young healthy people, trying to pay off their college loans, who must join the pool which, primarily, pays benefits to the old and disabled.
The requirement for employers to pay for all employees' health care will not lead to job growth; if you have 49 employees, are you really going to hire #50, and bring yourself under the law's requirements?
The court has done its job. Now it's in the political sphere.
-
- jhillmurphy
- Philadelphia, PA
Yesterday, my friend put this into perspective for me: "Finally, my cancer can't be used against me for insurance purposes. And the nightmare my family went through without insurance while I was being treated will never happen again."
My friend had leukemia as a child and was the only one of her group of children getting treated to survive -- because her parents pulled her out of the group which was receiving very aggressive treatment and took her to a different doctor. She told me her family was psychologically traumatized and fractured by her diagnosis and treatment, but I hadn't learned until yesterday that her family did not have health insurance.
I had been fretting over how messy the ACA was -- the process of putting it together, the elements of it, and the politics. None of that seems important now that I know my friend and many people and families in similar situations will not have to go through such trauma if the act is implemented.
-
- Larry
- Richmond VA
Actually, the biggest winners are the folks who scream the loudest - those cowboys who think they don't need no stinkin' health insurance, but who surely will at some point in their lives. And when they do, they will be able to buy coverage at community rates, the same rates as everyone else, no matter how sick they may have become. Yes, to maintain that privilege they will pay a small fine or tax or whatever you want to call it. But certainly much less than any free-market insurance company would charge for such a provision. The mandate may be coercive, but it's the bargain of the century.
-
- Stephen J Johnston
- Jacksonville Fl.
Don't think that the for profit Health Insurers aren't breathing a sigh of relief today. They have been gearing themselves up for two years now to sell health insurance the same way that cell phones are sold. The buyers it is assumed will be unsophisticated, and friendly store fronts inhabited by marginally educated sales people will shill insurance policies about which they know next to nothing. The agents who are in the know have been flat rated, and they will be pushed out of the system in order to beef up Medical Retention Ratios which Wall St. loves so much. Service? There will be no service, just millions of people who have bought something which they don't understand, and who are lost in the system. Yet, Krugman is right that this debate began in dishonesty. I remember well the specious assertion of death panels made by the right when an attempt was made to reduce intensive care expenses by providing funding for consultations regarding the need for advanced directives. However, I also remember that this process excluded advocates of a single payer system or a public option from the get go. I'm afraid that I see this entire piece of legislation as a tax payer subsidized bail out of a moribund for profit health insurance model. This is nothing more than Obama's payment of tribute to an enormous corporate monopoly, when we so badly needed a civilized system of universal coverage. What on earth is Krugman celebrating about?
Comments are no longer being accepted. Please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration
- Stephen
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Verified
Wonderful column as usual with wonderful observations. The reality is that the Republicans can only appeal on the basis of emotion and not on the basis of logic. Logically, no one can deny someone the medical attention he or she needs but emotionally one can feel that government is big and bad and that ACA is proof of this. The American people are slowly growing up and understanding what the rest of the industrial world has recognized for some time: that we have a responsibility to all citizens for their basic good. The Democrats should campaign on the simple fact that we are all brothers and sisters and to deny this only helps to maintain plutocracy and eradicate democracy.- ANetliner
- Washington, DC area
- Verified
I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act by invoking Congress's power to tax, but the remainder of the decision is a profound setback for the role of the federal government.
By limiting permitted federal actions under the Commerce clause and invalidating the federal government's ability to reduce federal support of state Medicaid programs if the states do not participate in the ACA, the Court has restricted the role of Congress considerably. Liberals and progressives may have won an important battle today, but this decision continues the erosion of the federal role by the Roberts Court.- hestal
- glen rose, tx
When Medicare was passed, I was a young teacher turned programmer. I was part of the team that developed one of the first, and ultimately the most widely used, Medicare claims payment system. To my then naive eyes it seemed perfectly natural to widen the scope of Medicare to include all Americans. I am a happy Medicare beneficiary now, and I am still surprised that it has not become the universal system. From a pragmatic analysis of the effects that such a change would have on the common good, there is no better option.
The vicious political opposition to anything that helps the other side, even if it would also serve the common good, is appalling. And it won’t stop. Human nature will not change; just look at our history. Our national government, our political system, our medical system, our economic system, our education system, and all our other systems must make fundamental changes—even investment banker Jamie Dimon must be changed.
You, Professor Krugman, have talked courageously, vigorously, and effectively about changes that are needed in your field. It is sometimes said that integrity is doing the right thing when nobody is watching. That may be so. But courage is doing the right thing when everybody is watching and is trying to get you to do the wrong thing. Thank you for doing the right thing.
But where are your counterparts in other fields?
The supporters of the common good have a little momentum right now—we must press our advantage.- Ken H.
- Athens, Alabama
There are no soft edges to the far right. They create no place for a society to nestle down and be comfortable with one another. Words that in the past were uttered to unify -- words like freedom and equality and democracy -- are used by the far right like sharp blades and blunt instruments. No argument is too small to justify vehemence, and no difference too insignificant to evoke rejection.
I am weary of them. I am tired of their urgings to fear and hatred and irrefutable moral codes, and of their prejudices and unrelenting nationalism. I am uninterested in their continuing assault on science and reason and their biblical literalism and their paternal high-handedness.
I know that eventually they will self destruct because intolerance cannot tolerate even the intolerant. I hope the end is near. I fear that it is not.- Matt
- Brussels
You are right as usual in your assessment, I would just complement it with a few good words for justice Roberts. I think you have to give him credit for being a conservative who showed restraint. One could easily construct arguments against the constitutionality of the ACA as the question is not whether it makes sense as policy but whether Congress has the power under the constitution to enact it. Nevertheless he felt that it is just not right for 5 justices to strike down a law of this magnitude that has been adopted by the democratically elected Congress. That is, he rose above partisanship, did not use the lever at his disposal and accepted the decision of the democratic majority even if he might not agree with it. And in doing so saved the reputation of the Supreme Court and in a broader sense strenghtened the faith in the system of government. Contrast him with Republicans who use the filibuster, who blackmail the president using the debt ceiling etc. If all conservatives were like him, maybe the US would be more governable.- J.P. Coen
- the Netherlands
According to the OECD the US has the highest % of health care costs in the world. We in Europe have a lower % while covering all our citizens. The crisis in Europe has nothing to do with the rising costs of health care. Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.- tom mcmahon
- millis ma
- Verified
Health care is not a privilage, it is a right. Clearly this should have been the debate to begin with. One that should have been cleared up, to shut up the conservative blue bloods who have never been without. I personnally watched as my own mother was denied healthcare due to pre existing mental conditions which prevented her from ever obtaining insurance. Where our own family spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 1960's exhausting a complete inheritence of over a half milion dollars. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed, but one cannot enjoy them when they are sick. Under the general welfare of the people, gov't holds a large degree of responsibility for the health education and general well being of the people. The Supreme Court made the right decision. Conservatives are wrong, the highest ranking conservative in the United States just sided with the Obama Administration and the American People. Romney and Co, are on the wrong side of history as the conservatives have been in the U.S. for a century and a half.- Daniel Bennett
- Washington, DC
First, upholding is a victory for the American people. A lack of interest by some is due to the full enactment being in the future and the other reason is that this has been sold as helping a few million who currently don't have health insurance. This liberal understanding of the law has made it seem as if the legislation was a safety net. Krugman states the true effect of the law, that everyone is effected.
ACA effects every single person. No person will have to worry about losing access to health care. No employee has to worry that quitting their job to start a business will mean as they do now that they are risking the lives of their family. No small business owner has to battle to survive an illness because of lack of access to medical care. Everyone without exception will be protected from prenatal care to their final breath.
Fortunately, the law survived the poor handling from liberals who misunderstand the nature of the law. Liberals are tripped up in basic policy terms. "Safety net" is misused to refer to programs that are social insurance. The term refers to the net that is below the trapeze artists that fly above or walk the tightrope. So the protection is for those who "fall through the cracks." In fact, Social Security is for when things go well, it is a pension program. And the ACA is a program that pushes us all into a comprehensive system, not a "safety net" or welfare. Knowing this will help us to better understand the law and protect it.
Daniel Bennett- Jim at the Beach
- Southold, NY
I live in the Philly area and work for a global company that provides great benefits, for which I pay a fair price. But my son graduated college last year and is working a number of freelance TV production jobs in LA, making his start in the world and chasing his dream (and supporting himself!). The fact that he can stay on my benefit plan until he is 26 is a major factor in his ability to do this, and in my peace of mind. We are both winners in the Roberts decision. Thank you Nancy Pelosi and Justice Roberts!- Rachel
- NYC
I read a lot of commentary on websites such as Yahoo from people who were upset about the Supreme Court ruling. Two things became clear:
1) The majority of people who were against the law were primarily frightened about how it would affect them financially. People who had insurance were worried that their rates would go up so much that their employer would have to drop coverage, and people who didn't have it were terrified that they would now have to pay for insurance they couldn't afford. (One person was sincerely frightened he would have to go to jail because he couldn't buy insurance.)
2) The misinformation about the content of the law is truly astonishing. I saw posts from people who believed that we now had fully socialized medicine, that the majority of people getting coverage would be illegal aliens, and (from one elderly person), that people over 75 would have to face death panels.People were terrified of cost explosions but didn't seem to realize a huge chunk of the 2000-page bill was a bunch of pilot programs testing ways to manage cost control.
The deliberate misinformation about the bill has actually been quite sad. The "huge opposition" to the bill is really just a symptom of an astonishing level of ignorance and fear, which is heightened during a bad economy. "We can't afford it" was the refrain -- but no one seemed to realize we can't afford not to do it, either.- dpr
- California
Exactly who is getting a massive tax increase? If you have insurance, the tax does not affect you. If you lose your job and therefore your insurance, you will not be responsible for the tax, so it will not affect you, but you will, in the states that accept the expansion of medicaid, still be insured.
The only ones frothing at the mouth right now are the frenzied conservatives who can't see the forest for the trees -- the goal is to provide health insurance to all; what's the conservative plan for that? Emergency rooms? That the insured are now paying for that kind of care is the hidden "tax" that conservatives routinely ignore.- David R
- undefined
I've said this again and again--it's time to end health care benefits for Congress. Let them buy it on the open market like so many other people. If they feel we don't deserve health care as a birth right, then they don't deserve it at all.
I my mind, the only real question is whether or not we should even legally allow members of Congress to buy health care. Just imagine what would happen if people who aimed to be our politicians knew they would have to pay all of their medical expenses out of their own pockets--full charge.- John T
- NY
So many of the problems of our society seem to stem from a failure to understand basic economics. To say that someone who doesn't buy health insurance is not engaging in financial activity which affects others - is not engaging in commerce - only shows that five members of the Supreme Court have a seriously naive understanding of economics.
It's like saying that smoking only affects the individual who smokes. Or that we shouldn't mandate the wearing of seat belts because that only affects the driver. Both of these things have costs far beyond the individual driver or smoker. There is a tremendous real cost to society of lost productivity of someone dies early of cancer or a car accident. Not to mention the medical costs, the costs of care, and the cost to that individual's family, etc.
Those members of the SC seem to think that if one doesn't see an actual exchange of dollars, then there isn't any financial or economic activity going on. This is just a truly childish.
And I think the same sort of thinking infects much of the Republican party. For they seem incapable of understanding that tax cuts are a form of spending. And they seem to think that the total cost, e.g. of a pound of beef, or a gallon of gasoline, is reflected in the market price.
The mandate was and is simply to get individuals to pay for the real cost of their behavior, which until now they had been asking and getting others to pay for.- ed connor
- camp springs, md
Big whoop for the Chief Justice.
Thank you very much...
The act is now settled law. It will do much good, especially for people with pre-existing conditions. But it will annoy young healthy people, trying to pay off their college loans, who must join the pool which, primarily, pays benefits to the old and disabled.
The requirement for employers to pay for all employees' health care will not lead to job growth; if you have 49 employees, are you really going to hire #50, and bring yourself under the law's requirements?
The court has done its job. Now it's in the political sphere.- jhillmurphy
- Philadelphia, PA
Yesterday, my friend put this into perspective for me: "Finally, my cancer can't be used against me for insurance purposes. And the nightmare my family went through without insurance while I was being treated will never happen again."
My friend had leukemia as a child and was the only one of her group of children getting treated to survive -- because her parents pulled her out of the group which was receiving very aggressive treatment and took her to a different doctor. She told me her family was psychologically traumatized and fractured by her diagnosis and treatment, but I hadn't learned until yesterday that her family did not have health insurance.
I had been fretting over how messy the ACA was -- the process of putting it together, the elements of it, and the politics. None of that seems important now that I know my friend and many people and families in similar situations will not have to go through such trauma if the act is implemented.- Larry
- Richmond VA
Actually, the biggest winners are the folks who scream the loudest - those cowboys who think they don't need no stinkin' health insurance, but who surely will at some point in their lives. And when they do, they will be able to buy coverage at community rates, the same rates as everyone else, no matter how sick they may have become. Yes, to maintain that privilege they will pay a small fine or tax or whatever you want to call it. But certainly much less than any free-market insurance company would charge for such a provision. The mandate may be coercive, but it's the bargain of the century.- Stephen J Johnston
- Jacksonville Fl.
Don't think that the for profit Health Insurers aren't breathing a sigh of relief today. They have been gearing themselves up for two years now to sell health insurance the same way that cell phones are sold. The buyers it is assumed will be unsophisticated, and friendly store fronts inhabited by marginally educated sales people will shill insurance policies about which they know next to nothing. The agents who are in the know have been flat rated, and they will be pushed out of the system in order to beef up Medical Retention Ratios which Wall St. loves so much. Service? There will be no service, just millions of people who have bought something which they don't understand, and who are lost in the system. Yet, Krugman is right that this debate began in dishonesty. I remember well the specious assertion of death panels made by the right when an attempt was made to reduce intensive care expenses by providing funding for consultations regarding the need for advanced directives. However, I also remember that this process excluded advocates of a single payer system or a public option from the get go. I'm afraid that I see this entire piece of legislation as a tax payer subsidized bail out of a moribund for profit health insurance model. This is nothing more than Obama's payment of tribute to an enormous corporate monopoly, when we so badly needed a civilized system of universal coverage. What on earth is Krugman celebrating about?
Comments are no longer being accepted. Please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration
653 Comments