06-28-2012, 04:01 PM
I'm surprised by this as well.
I support health care reform. I support some of this law as well. In a way I was actually hoping that the supreme court struck down the public mandate portion. The reasoning for that is because there are a lot of things in the law that are popular, even amongst some of the more rabid "This is unconstitutional" folks. Mainly not being denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. So even the Republicans in Congress who want to get it repealed would be wary of just getting rid of everything.
Since insurance doesn't work without enough buy in and a public mandate would not be allowed had the court struck it down, the public option very likely would have ended up back on the table. I liked the public option. I think it would have saved money over what happens now with the government picking up uninsured emergency room visits already.
Another possibility would have been the expansion of medicare/medicaid which are essentially single payer public options but limited to age eligibility.
I still hope that the existing bill gets some changes and I think it will. Current political victories and climate aside, the bill will still get attacked, but the popularity of the changes it has and will create will help give momentum to better reform than what the current bill did/will do. Even in a divisive combative environment. I hope we will get to a public option solution. I don't think it will kill private insurance and I don't want to kill private insurance.
I do worry about what the decision means for the precedent it sets for expansion of governmental powers. I also really wish the Citizen's United decision had gone the other way too. I think they miss what needs to be done as far as governmental powers/regulation but on different places of the issues.
I'm very surprised by it too.
I support health care reform. I support some of this law as well. In a way I was actually hoping that the supreme court struck down the public mandate portion. The reasoning for that is because there are a lot of things in the law that are popular, even amongst some of the more rabid "This is unconstitutional" folks. Mainly not being denied coverage if you have a pre-existing condition. So even the Republicans in Congress who want to get it repealed would be wary of just getting rid of everything.
Since insurance doesn't work without enough buy in and a public mandate would not be allowed had the court struck it down, the public option very likely would have ended up back on the table. I liked the public option. I think it would have saved money over what happens now with the government picking up uninsured emergency room visits already.
Another possibility would have been the expansion of medicare/medicaid which are essentially single payer public options but limited to age eligibility.
I still hope that the existing bill gets some changes and I think it will. Current political victories and climate aside, the bill will still get attacked, but the popularity of the changes it has and will create will help give momentum to better reform than what the current bill did/will do. Even in a divisive combative environment. I hope we will get to a public option solution. I don't think it will kill private insurance and I don't want to kill private insurance.
I do worry about what the decision means for the precedent it sets for expansion of governmental powers. I also really wish the Citizen's United decision had gone the other way too. I think they miss what needs to be done as far as governmental powers/regulation but on different places of the issues.
I'm very surprised by it too.
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.