patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

POLL: Would a Court Decision Against 'Obamacare' Impact MA Regulations?

With the US Supreme Court hearing arguments this week about the Affordable Care Act, we want to know what you think about the 6-year-old state mandate.

 

In 2006 Governor Mitt Romney introduced Massachusetts to a bill mandating all citizens to have health care.

According to a Boston.com article the Massachusetts bill hasn't faced a legal challenge since it was passed.

The federal mandate, on the other hand, was challenged immediately and is before the US Supreme Court. According to the article there are people who say if the federal legislation is overturned the state mandate will be challanged as well.

Opponents of the bill say it is unconstitutional to force any citizen to buy a product, in this case health care. 

Proponents of the bill argue that buy requiring everyone to have health care the cost will be driven down.

We want to know what you think about the health care law. Share your opinions in the comments and tell us why you feel that way in the comments.

  • Do you think a Supreme Court decision may spur challenges to the mandate here, and should it be dropped anyway?

    (Voting has been closed for this question)
    • Yes
        167 (59%)
    • No
        110 (38%)
    • Other (tell us in the comments)
        6 (2%)
    Total votes: 283
  • Your vote will only count once. This is not a scientific poll. View Results Vote!
Related Topics: Affordable Care Act, Individual mandate, U.S. Supreme Court, and obamacare

kathleen byrne

6:41 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Its just plain wrong for the government to make me buy health insurance. Right now my employer is offering health insurance with a 3000.00 deductible. I wouldn't pay that off for 10 years much less one year! I would be throwing my money away each week (68.00) They need to seriously get back to the drawing board and see why meds cost 10 times more in usa than anywhere else. Now i see why tribes use witch doctors!

Reply
Comment_arrow

neb skram

6:52 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

well if you get insurance with your job then you wont have to buy insurance silly so you wont be wasting your $68 and i wont be wasting what i pay in taxes to pay for your emergency room visit next time you do some thing silly and hurt your self

Comment_arrow

Jaime Layng

7:06 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

If it would take you 10 years to pay off $3000, then how long would it take you to pay off more than that? Because I can guarantee you any emergency hospital visit is going to cost more than that, and if you ever need treatment for anything serious you'll be glad you had the coverage to pay for much of it.

A $3000 deductible is quite bad, I agree, but you're paying for something you might need at any random time - even if you haven't had a need so far. I randomly had my first kidney stone at 20 and the ER visit was over $5000. I've had a half dozen or so more over the last 10 years and the ER visits are typically $6000-8000. I've certainly paid several thousand in medical costs out of pocket for those visits, and some amount of money for health insurance, but it's nowhere near the cost of these visits.

Point is you never know when you'll need healthcare, but at some point you will need it. Everyone does. To have not paid a relatively minor ongoing cost to help cover the unexpected catastrophic costs, thereby dumping such costs on everyone else, is irresponsible.

Comment_arrow

dinky

7:17 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Take off your selfish hat and put on a sensible one which understands that at some point all of us are going to the hospital for a very costly visit. THIS IS WHAT INSURANCE IS ALL ABOUT. When your time comes, and it will, if you do not have insurance, the I and most of the other citizens pay your ticket. Nice is'nt it. Free coverage that other people pay for. Do you think this is fair? get real miss.

Comment_arrow

neb skram

8:16 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

well if you get insurance with your job then you wont have to buy insurance silly so you wont be wasting your $68 and i wont be wasting what i pay in taxes to pay for your emergency room visit next time you do some thing silly and hurt your self
so you have to help pay for your insurance big deal why dont you try and find some insurance on the open market and see what it would cost then you will be happy to spend $68 a week to have insurance that about 25% of what your employer pays for you

Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Mary MacDonald

8:17 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

I can appreciate everyone's criticism here, but many Americans are paycheck to paycheck, to the point that to put food on the table, the car doesn't get registered on time. I can appreciate someone wondering how they will ever cover a $3,000 deductible. And I don't think she's being selfish: this is a very real situation for many Americans.

Comment_arrow

ger

8:41 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Mary's comment is the reason the mandate feels so wrong--but, on the flip side, if you get hit with say... cancer, or a broken spine, society has two choices. Pay for your care or let you rot. Personally, if that misfortune happened to me, and the choice was that I rot, I would want nothing more than a chance to go back and make that insurance payment--at any cost: no coffee, cable, beer, or steak--especially if the HC would provide even a few more painless days.

For society, letting people rot is....uhmmmm....bad.

And the result is what we have now--free riders and high premiums. (tort reform would also be a huge plus--but thats only complimentary without Obamacare. Most healthy people will not start buying insurance at 200 if they were not at 250 or 300.

Yes. More young people paying for boomers health--as if we don't do enough--but thats a diff problem in need of a solution. Repubs would be all over Obamacare if they thought it would help them--as they were as late as 2008. So this is just another example of job security over solving real issues. Ohh, and dems would find Obamacare disgusting given that insurers still get to profit 20% of the premiums (actually try to profit no more than 20% with no real penalty attached). An analogy: every time I see that damn gecco on tv I think it's an extra dime on my car insurance rate

JoJo

6:54 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

States can do things the federal government cannot. It's the same healthcare plan, but it's comparing apples and oranges from a Constitutional standpoint.

Reply

Tommy

6:57 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Time for te Justices in the Supreme Court to go aead and run for what has become a political office. Presently the Court Members are only a little better at hiding their connections to peddlers

Reply
Comment_arrow

yodadog

7:40 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Amen! Our entire government's been bought off in all three branches by corporate interests with a combination of campaign contributions, lobbyists and the revolving door in staffing. Not to mention the lunches, hunting lodges, golf games etc that give them direct access to the justices. Until people rise up and bring it to a stop, we have no government.

Steve Vaughn

6:58 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

This case is about whether the US Constitution limits the power of the Federal government or not. The MA constitution is a completely different document. From a US Constitutional point of few, the states are supposed to retain all powers not specifically given to the Federal government. The irony is the the MA law may need to be changed (or revoke) if Obamacare is upheld. But if Obamacare is struck down, the power it attempted to exercise is clearly one the states could retain.

Reply

kathleen byrne

7:05 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Hey Neb, I have to BUY insurance weekly for 68.00. Learn how to read, silly....(face palm)

Reply
Comment_arrow

neb skram

8:18 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

paying $68 a week for insurance is so cheep i cant believe you are whining about it why dont you see how much a trip to the emergency room will cost then you will be happy to pay a measly $68 a week

Paul Michael

7:09 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

While JoJo is correct I think there will still be challenges, As to whether it 'should be dropped', only if there's something better.

Reply

Bill

7:17 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

It is just as wrong for the federal government to tell me what I have to buy as it is for it to tell me who I can marry or what medical procedures I can have.

Reply

Burnard Pearce

7:19 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

With an individual mandate, we are all in it together in attempting to survive. Otherwise, alone we face the unaffordable life-saving cost of drugs other forms of health care. Given the current crashing sounds of the elephants stampeding through the fabric of public and private life, health care will not be the end of unraveling of the fabric of public life. Thomas Jefferson envisioned every individual being self-sufficient and, although a laudable abstraction, self-sufficiency for him meant every person having his own spinning wheel and cotton to make his/her own garments. American society has changed since Jefferson's time and we are now mutually dependent upon one another in multiple areas of our lives. Without an individual mandate in health care, those of us with health insurance pay an increased tax in the cost of our insurance premiums for those who do not have coverage.

Reply
Comment_arrow

milfordman

7:36 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

So, basically, you want the young and healthy -- typically those who pass on buying health insurance -- to subsidize your costs. This is really just another generational rip-off by baby boomers of younger people.

Personally, I think we should do exactly the opposite of what Obamacare tries to do. Rather than tighten the yoke of governmental regulation, we should cut the health care industry loose. Let the dogs out! Let them have at it. I am not pleased with what Massachusetts ended up with when Romney signed Romneycare into law, but it is the right approach, in that, we need to experiment with new ways of delivering and administering healthcare. Obamacare will stifle such innovation.

One thing we learned from the Massachusetts experiment, is that this model does NOT reduce costs and does NOT reduce the reliance on emergency rooms for healthcare delivery (note Milford Regional Hospital recently announced plans to greatly expand its emergency room facilities.)

The same technology and IT revolution that is turning other industries upside down (in a good way) needs to be utilized to streamline our healthcare systems.

Carla McNeal

7:25 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Our President just want you to be responsible for your own medical care and that basically doesn't start until 2014.Why should other people pay for you? The truth is I don't believe the majority even know all the great things the health care plan encompasses.

Reply

mike boring

7:25 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

I believe all of you have a good point but its hard to think do I spend 68.00 a week for my health or do I use that 68.00 for gas,food or clothes for my kids.I think they should give it to use for free canada,england. Get free health insurance and we are suppost to be the wealthest country. Ok that's my two cents thanks

Reply
Comment_arrow

milfordman

7:38 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Nothing is free, Mike. You're basically asking other people to pay for your care. That's all.

djh

7:39 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Mike nothing is for free. For all of those people who do not want to buy insurance, come to the ER with money. I feel my liberty is being violated by having to pay for your medical care. Hospitals are required to treat you but I should not be required to pay for you

Reply

ger

7:48 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

That 14th amendment, though, silly, applies that bill of rights to the states. It's uncharteded territory federal and statewise--I'm sure you'd find it equally abhorrent for the state to mandate your level of GM or broccoli consumption. Categorizing the penalty as a tax credit would have easily passed scotus review, but, either due to political chess or checkers, due to grounded or shallow confidence, due to an attempt to not increase the Code's complexity, or due to god knows what, the higher tax with a credit was not argued (from what I understand) which means the penalty must pass some really tough wishy washy balancing tests to pass scotus, and it could, but that wishy washy test would apply equally to the fed, Hawaii, NH, or MA--unless the states recategorize the penalty a tax--leading to a question of form over substance.

Basically, opine on things you have some knowledge of, and stop repeating what in the business world would equate to new advertisements of Windows ME--I myself, after paying 72$ for my tank, said I am 100% Gingrich--meaning 36$ or so.

I'm a finance/biz law person and know little about con law, but I can opine that if the fed can regulate domestic relations under the commerce clause it can regulate just about EVERY thing it chooses--so if the fed can't do it, the MA bill won't either unless it is legally reframed.

Reply

ger

7:50 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Part 2
I'm a finance/biz law person and know little about con law, but I can opine that if the fed can regulate domestic relations under the commerce clause it can regulate just about EVERY thing it chooses--so if the fed can't do it, the MA bill won't either unless it is legally reframed. And, btw, J. Kennedy is not Simon Powell and pointed question may be as much to create a bright line test btwn HC/ broccoli as they may be to show the justices' feelings.

Repeating others' $$$ sponsored 'facts' is not your own opinion, and, considering you are not judged by your confidence in the delivery of text comments, repeating ignorant facts makes you sound just that: ignorant.

Reply

branden

7:51 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Energy education healthcare what do these have in common the govt has gotten involved and prices have gotten astronomically high afterwards. We need to turn back the clock pre Wilson and everything would improve one more thing no one has touched on maybethe prices are high because our dollar is losing value everyday instead of micro managing our lives the govt should be exceeding some fiscal responsibility

Reply

ger

7:56 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

And even at the age of 28, I need to adopt to our current reality: If your idea don't fit on a bumper sticker, it ain't worth marketing----or as GWB geniously put it "this guy...this guy (gore) is all about #s and ....". We want slogans not information. Yes, webmaster, this means I do not appriciate cutting my msg into pieces--on an iPhone at that :)!

Reply

ger

8:06 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

To branden: If your comment was directed at my gas price joke, then two things: the dollar has nothing to do with the(recent) gas prices--even Bachman's threats on Iran have likely surpassed the dollars effects on gas---and btw, same goes for that pipeline, which should be approved for the sake of the jobs alone IMO). The fed is a beast with a gazillion conflicting heads--and with each head looking to increase its share--and never give up a bite. This beast is also beneficial, but clearly at a cost. I can't tell you what the efficient level of govt is, but Im pretty certain it ain't our current 'states'. Read agency theory and why firms cannot grow forever for an analogy.

Reply

yodadog

8:28 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

kathleen byrne-if you think $68 a week is bad, try this on for size! My wife & I are 56 and 60, respectively. We live in NH, where the only insurer is Anthem BC, a subsidiary of Wellpoint Corp. We pay $9,500 a year, for a policy with an annual $10,000 deductible. After that, they claim they cover 100% of all costs until the end of the calender year. $20,000 a year before they cover a thing.
Now it gets better-I was diagnosed with lymphoma at the beginning of Feb and just passed that $10,000 deductible simple being tested! I was in a CT scanner for 15 minutes, three scans, and my responsibility for the cost? $7,300! That's what put me at the $10,000 mark. If I need chemo, will they pay it? I don't trust them to. And what can I do if they refuse? Their NET income, every year good and bad, is in the billions-how would I fight that? And is Obamacare and its onerous mandate going to change this? I seriously doubt it, and here's why....according to Frontline documentary that follows the passage of that insane bill, when it came to getting it through the senate, the White House had to negotiate with Montana senator Max Baucus. He conveniently produced two staffers to negotiate with the WH team, one a former United Heathcare exec and the other a former Wellpoint exec. Howard Dean looks right into the camera and says they re-wrote this bill in favor of their former employers, eliminating all the very safeguards that would prevent what is happening to me! more 2 say-but no space left

Reply

yodadog

8:31 am on Saturday, March 31, 2012

Obama accepted these changes to get it passed. It appears to be more about ego, than fixing healthcare. Oh-and 30 to 50 million uninsured coming on to insurance through the mandate? Who's paying for that? All of us taxpayers, who can't afford it for ourselves! How does Wellpoint get away with this? They have a 16 member board with four very heavyweight members: Donald W. Riegle, Jr., 8 term congressman/senator from Michigan (and member of the Keating 5-those esteemed senators and reps. that helped Charles Keating bring on the Savings and Loan scandal 22 years ago), William H.T. Bush, brother of Bush 41 and uncle of Bush 43, Susan B. Bayh, attorney and wife of Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana (how cozy, with Wellpoint based in Indiana) and Sheila P. Burke, secretary to the senate in the mid 90's, to name a few. Oh-they also have one physician on the board.

That's one of the two companies that brought us Obamacare-God help us. And to all of you-do not get sick!

T Brown

Reply

bob b

8:18 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012

If the government can't require consumers to pay for services they use then it also cannot require providers to render those same services without a guarantee of payment.

This would make your ability to pay the very first vital sign that EMT's and ER staff will check as they determine what course of treatment you will receive.

Liberals will argue that this will make illness a capital offense for those on the lower end of the economic scale.

Conservatives will argue that this is how the free market should work and that a person's fate is the cumulative result of their life decisions.

The question is which vision is consistent with view of how Americans should manage our nation's wellbeibg?

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Mary MacDonald

8:39 am on Thursday, April 5, 2012

That's a decent argument if every person seeking medical care has had time to have cumulative life decisions. But children don't quite fit into that scenario. And since most Americans have health insurance through employers, and many have lost that insurance through job loss or layoffs that are not their fault, it would seem it is penalizing people for the choices of others.

Guest

12:33 pm on Thursday, April 12, 2012

I would be a whole lot more in favor of Obamacare if the people who created and voted for it didn't also vote themselves exempt from having to use it. If this insurance is so awesome, why don't THEY want it???

Reply

Leave a comment