Yes, you, my fellow Americans. From the White House:
The transcript (with the lines I really like in bold):
Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth &ndash no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That's how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it.
And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.
First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.
There's more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.
All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today's decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.
Now, if you're one of the 30 million Americans who don't yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I've asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.
Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won't be able to charge you more just because you're a woman. They won't be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it.
Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.
First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.
And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the care they need -- which would also drive up everybody else's premiums.
That's why, even though I knew it wouldn't be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.
Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.
Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.
There's a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she'd been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage -- despite her fears that she would get sick again -- she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.
I carried Natoma's story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.
Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans -- other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers -- who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.
The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we'll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won't do -- what the country can't afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.
With today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.
But today, I'm as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.
Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America [President Barack Hussein Obama, remarks on Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, White House, 2012.06.28].
The Washington Post puts the PPACA in perspective with this interactive questionnaire to tell you how ObamaCare will affect your family. My friend Shane Gerlach ran his numbers through the widget and learned the PPACA will save his family $1000 a year. $1000 that the Gerlachs can spend the way they want. Sounds like an increase in practical liberty to me.
Worth noting: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor both have pre-existing conditions that would make them uninsurable on the private insurance market. Roberts and Sotomayor affirmed the PPACA... perhaps removing uninsurable from our health care lexicon.
The Gerlachs win. Folks with epilepsy and diabetes win. Millions of Americans win.
We still have work to do to get the most practical and moral system, single-payer health coverage. But we're working on it. The Supreme Court's affirmation of our responsibility to each other moves us toward that ultimate victory.
I ran a bit of a test on the Washington's Post's site, just to see if it would tell everyone they would save money. We have insurance, 3-member family, and a good income. I certainly don't expect to get a break from the plan, as I don't need it.
The site told me what might change in my existing plan - to keep my eye out for updates to preventative care and so forth. But, didn't promise me any savings. Gave me hope that maybe this does benefit those that really need it.
"We still have work to do to get the most practical and moral system, single-payer health coverage. But we’re working on it. The Supreme Court’s affirmation of our responsibility to each other moves us toward that ultimate victory."
Cruel irony, Cory: That statement might be completely wrong. If the law had been struck down, it might actually accelerate the drive toward single-payer. As things stand, the affirmation of the law might energize Republicans to turn out en masse in November with an aim toward the total repeal of "Obamacare."
Then we'll be back in the old system again, in spades.
In any case, I found Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning on the "mandate" fascinating indeed. He has one heck of a great mind.
On the other hand Stan- A repeal of "Obamacare" and a return to the old system may bring on single- payer faster than anything else.
The old system is nearing collapse with more and more folks opting out of health insurance because of cost and the Republicans have no real answers to replace "Obamacare".
One way or the other what happened today has profoundly changed America.
Tricky question, Stan and Barry. I could play chicken with disaster: root for repeal, watch the ensuing private-system collapse push us toward a radical solution. But I'm inclined to believe the majority decision helps toward my end by affirming our community responsibility to help each other with health care costs.
If Obama really dislikes Washington politics, he should stop engaging in the worst form of politics.
Obama says ". . . the Supreme Court . . . reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin."
But, the Court affirmed no such thing. In fact the Court made clear it was affirming no policies when it wrote: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies."
If Obama is to put principle before politics I expect him to respect the Court's ruling that Obama's claim that Obamacare is not a tax is completely false and so to work for the repeal of this massive tax as it violates his pledge to impose no tax increase on anyone earning less than $250,000 per year.
Speaking in Dover, New Hampshire on Sept. 12, 2008, Obama said: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.â€
". . . not any of your taxes."
I agree with Cory. I think. Kind of, at least. I think a repeal would just end up leading to more halfway measures like what we have now. No one would get anywhere, because things would just keep bouncing back and forth ineffectually. I think the real push for single payer will only come when people realize that halfway reforms don't work. Give ACA a few years, maybe a decade, and the cracks will get bigger and bigger.
I believe I've mentioned before that as long as the private companies are involved, it's only a matter of time before some politicians start finagling loopholes for the insurance companies to rip people off and make huge profits. That's when we'll start seeing a push towards getting rid of private insurance companies entirely.
Breaking: White House to investigate Bush regime for its role in Fast and Furious.
"But I’m inclined to believe the majority decision helps toward my end by affirming our community responsibility to help each other with health care costs."
Passing the costs on to future generations via debt may make it more affordable for you, but is that moral?
Right on, Steve. And since PPACA reduces the deficit, we pass fewer costs to future generations. Our grandkids won today, too. Ah, morality.
On October 4, 2008 Obama said that every American's right to health care ". . . should never be purchased with tax increases on middle class families. Because, that is the last thing we need in an economy like this. Folks are already having a tough enough time."
Right on, Obama
Just as the papacy changed the homosexual Cardinal Ratzinger into a head of state the office of the Presidency changed Barry Obama.
CH, while I disagree it will reduce the deficit, I would not be relying on the old info. The parts not constitutional will have a big budgetary impact.
If I were the GOP, I would ask for CBO to score it. The voters will not like the result.
Just for fun Troy, did you believe the CBO when they first scored the PPACA?
Well, I look forward to performing field surgery on myself a la Rambo if something breaks. Now I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Obama and MRSA for bringing about world peace, making the sun shine, and fixing our health care system.
Reduces the deficit, my swollen buttocks. This is one of those times that I have to agree with my good friends Mr. Howie and Mr. Sibson.
Keeping the dollar cheap increases exports.
Durable goods are up. People are spending: lemmings march on.
People are lemmings who killed another kitty or two in Custer. Now _that_ is an action that will help keep health care costs down.
Trahant: ACA makes tribes more equal to states:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/ict_sbc/obamacare-is-a-different-debate-indian-health-care-improvement-act-is-permanent
There is still much to figure out, but Troy's interpretation of things may be faulty. I'll admit right up front that mine may be, too. But it appears that the SCOTUS decision regarding Medicare may actually decrease federal spending. Hopefully, if that is indeed true, Congress and the White House can find an amicable way to pass those savings on to states like South Dakota who don't want to fully bear the costs of expanding the Medicare program.
Medicaid currently covers only some low-income people, primarily parents with children, pregnant women, people with severe disabilities and senior citizens. Adults without disabilities or children, in other words, aren't generally covered.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one of the goals of health reform? Shouldn't it be a goal our nation should continually strive to achieve, both morally and economically? Wouldn't finding a way to provide Medicare coverage to the poor be more economically efficient than the status quo, which forces us to watch our medical and health insurance costs skyrocket, in part, because we're already paying for poor or uninsured people's health care every time they need to visit the emergency room or be hospitalized?
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/235371-deficit-impact-of-supreme-court-health-ruling-unclear-cbo
Last sentence of the first paragraph of my post should end with "the Medicaid program" not "the Medicare program." My apologies.
Good eye, Dave: curious whether you saw this at Mt. Blogmore.
Today's decision may be the most important victory for small government Republicans in 150 years. The issue isn't ObamaCare, it's federalism and the power of the Federal Government over the states. Justice Roberts clearly drew a line in the sand limiting the use of the Commerce Clause for expanding Federal power for the first time since the Civil War amendments were ratified. Long after the health care debate is forgotten, this decision will stand as a landmark. It may very well be the Marbury vs. Madison of this millenium.
It was pretty slick when he got all the liberal Justices to sign onto that. Of course, since Kagan lacks the integrity to recuse herself when appropriate, I wouldn't expect her to follow her own precedence.
People are lemmings who killed another kitty or two in Custer. Now _that_ is an action that will help keep health care costs down.
No but here is what a real bunch of lemmings would think about politics http://grooveshark.com/s/Lemmings+Lament/4zurGO?src=5
I guess the only question left is “Who is a lemming?†Is it the person that likes things the way they have been going for the last thirty years, and will do whatever possible to keep it that way?
And looking at it from the other perspective . Or are they people that will follow one another off a cliff to their deaths?
I know a lemming is basically a rat but not to make the comparison between our two species would be short changing one or the other.
Man I’m so confused. The Blindman
The President ticks above Willard in Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll for the first time: these are likely voters, mind you.
In Rasmussen? Uff da!
Bree, Thomas and Scalia didn't recuse themselves, either. Boo-hoo.
"And since PPACA reduces the deficit, we pass fewer costs to future generations."
That was not true, until the Supreme Court cut out the expansion of Medicaid. Now the extra spending will be a tax on the working class who don't qualify for Medicaid.
Bush43 AG Gonzales (Wide Receiver Guy) still clueless after all these years: NPR's Tell Me More.
Rx and synthetic drugs killing US: AP.
Caravan for Peace, drawing attention to drug violence in Mexico, received by LA City Council. @KPCC.