Health Care on the Line

The Affordable Care Act provides needed benefits to so many Americans that it's hard to understand why opponents want to destroy it.

This week the United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. 

These legal challenges are one element of a massive coordinated effort by Republicans and their conservative backers to repeal or undermine a law that has so much to offer Americans. 

Two years ago President Obama achieved what no other president had accomplished for decades – comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health care, and end the worst insurance company abuses. No longer will insurers be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, charge women more than men for the same coverage or place a limit on essential health benefits.

This law has already helped millions of middle-class families, seniors and young people receive quality affordable health care – health care they would not otherwise have been able to receive. And it has saved lives. 

President Obama kept his word and because of his tireless commitment to health care reform, Medicare is stronger for 47 million Americans, women can get free life-saving preventive services such as mammograms, children won’t lose their coverage just because they were born with pre-existing conditions like asthma and an additional 2.5 million young adults now have insurance because they can stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26. As a total package, President Obama’s health care reform will even help reduce the federal deficit.

Why the opponents of the Affordable Care Act would want to take these benefits away from the American people – and increase the federal deficit in the process – is hard to understand.

Thankfully, Americans can count on President Obama and Democrats to stand up for them and for access to affordable health care.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Cathy March 29, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Henry, the escalating cost to manage our collective health care with insurance companies has been affected by the fact that our government has been forcing doctors and other service providers to do run their business the gov't way that is causing doctors to consider leaving the field. I know a few who will be out of business soon. The fact that Mo's doctors are no longer accepting new Medicare patients speaks volumes. So when I get there... Of age... I hope there are doctors who are willing to do business with me. Why must we accept having gov't involved in our health care? What is worse in this bill are all the items that have nothing to do with health care?
Henry Bright March 29, 2012 at 02:53 PM
Cathy, on the new "sales tax on real estate transactions" you are wildly off the mark. There is no sales tax. There is an income tax, imposed on capital gains on real estate. For a joint return, the tax is only on the gain in excess of $500,000, and only if adjusted gross income is over $250,000. So if a couple sells their house and has a gain of $550,000, and their adjusted gross income (which excludes the first $500,000 of the gain) is $400,000, the tax is imposed only on $50,000, and amounts to $1750. Only a tiny fraction of taxpayers will ever pay this tax, especially nowadays when hardly anyone has any gain at all on selling their house. It may be true that states could require coverage for kids under age 26, but most have not done so and many would never do so voluntarily. I cannot imagine the current Florida Governor and/or legislature doing that. An article in the Washington Post, reprinted in today's Herald Tribune, headed "On Both Sides, Costs Misrepresented" says that the claim that the price tag is twice as much as originally thought is incorrect, since "the year by year budget numbers show little change in cost estimates". Read the article. It is really unfortunate that there is so much false information being circulated by people who want to see Obama defeated. I do heartily endorse the sentiment that elected representatives should honor their oath of office. I don't think that making the defeat of Obama the primary objective meets this criterion.
Henry Bright March 29, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Correction: In my previous example, the tax rate is 3.8% so the tax in the example would be $1900, not $1750.
Henry Bright March 29, 2012 at 03:02 PM
Many doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients because they feel the Medicare reimbursement rates are too low. If Medicare rates were higher, doctors would be more willing but healthcare costs would increase even faster. The doctors may be right, but there is something rotten in the private sector also. How else do you account for the fact that I get a bill for about $1200 for which the Medicare allowed payment is only about $100.
Cathy March 29, 2012 at 04:03 PM
Under a Rep Gov, CT, instituted kids living @ home up to age 26 could remain on their parents policy. Let's try asking our Gov to do the same. CT Medicade program was under $200 a month per person 3 years ago, with no pre-existing exemption conditions and a Million $ life time cap on benefits. So in the event of catistrofic illness, the gov't program leaves medicade customers without sufficient coverage because a millinon dollars doesnt go far these days. The gov't isn't be able to protect anyone from having to pay for (medical) services. The safety net system we currently have is not strong enough to support us all. Then, the costs went from under $200 to $446 per month per person so a family of 4 that earns $40 or even $60,000 per year is further strapped to put food on the table while bing forced into the gov't program because the regs 'allow' priviate insurance companies to not insure a significant portion of the population 'necessarly' 'forcing' govt to come to the rescue.. Inefficient bureaucratic interference only adds to the cost of our collective health care because the businesses have to spread their loss by charging outrageous fees. For $21,408 one should be able to purchase a much better policy than the gov't/Medicaid product 'they'have created. And while I mis-spoke about the additional cost to home owners/sellers technically, I still do not see where it is appropriate or helpful to resolving healthcare cost issues.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »