Wrap-up of Affordable Care Act Hearings
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-03-29/wrap-affordable-care-act-hearings
One of the most closely watched legal cases in decades wrapped up yesterday afternoon. Ahead of this week’s Supreme Court hearing on the Affordable Care Act, people lined up all weekend hoping to secure one of the few seats open to the public. The historic nature of the case, and its possible political ramifications, have attracted much attention. A ruling is not expected until late June at the earliest – right in the middle of the presidential election campaign. A decision either way could well have a galvanizing effect on one or both sides. Join us as we breakdown the arguments, try to glean how the justices might vote and consider what happens next.
Guests
Joan Biskupic
Legal affairs editor for Reuters News. She has written biographies on Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia.
Stuart Taylor
author and journalist, covering the health care case for Kaiser Health News, and a contributing editor for National Journal
Susan Dentzer
editor-in-chief of Health Affairs, and an on-air analyst on health issues for The PBS NewsHour
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
99.5% of us are not born at home. So 99.5% of us access health care while we are still in the womb.
It is amazing that Americans will sob over having to shell out some dough to provide humane health treatment to poor Americans, but won't bat an eye lash when millions suffer silently because they have no access to health care. Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways
Your show today only helped promulgate some myths about the state of our health care system and why health care has become so expensive.
Several of your guests and callers referred to those of us who do not have health care as “free riders” on the system. I not only resent that remark, but would argue that we are the ones who are preventing the costs of health care from skyrocketing even further.
When I go to the doctor, dentist, etc., and tell them I do not have medical insurance, they do not tell me that my care will be free. Quite the contrary - in most cases they require me to hand over a cash advance, and once services have been rendered they hand me a bill which they expect to be paid there and then. And, I pay them.
The amount I am charged is the same as what the insurance providers pay. It is common for doctors to “overcharge” insurance claims, as they know that the insurance companies will only pay a certain percentage of the amount charged. The idea that I somehow get those same services at a reduced rate is pure myth.
Should I require catastrophic care, I will also be given a bill and expected to pay it. No one will allow let me off the hook simply because I cannot afford it. Even if it requires that I lose my home or have my wages garnished, I will pay.
The only “free riders” are those who are already feeding at the public trough and therefore receive care at no cost to themselves. And the new health care legislation does not change this in any way - these people will still not be able to afford care and will thus continue to feed at the public trough, being covered either by the taxpayers through Medicare or by the insurance companies via higher premiums on those who can and are forced to pay.
The entire program this morning was a complete and total farce. I, and others like me, are not the problem and forcing us to buy insurance to cover the care we are already paying for is not going to reduce health care costs.
Hi Diane, Others
ST: Ultra-Left Obama Supporters DoNOT make a News Show
First post since this topic is so important. I listen to the DR Show normally on Thursday night on WBUR 90.9 on a long drive.
First comment: The panel was pure Ultra Left Obama Supporters. I could not believe that Diane was so SO Biased. Now I have heard her do this before over the years, YET this issue is IMportant.
I noticed how she had on mostly gals, also that most of them found little tiny, tiny bits in this big law that might be good.
None of them focused on reducing the inflation rate of medical care, or stealing money from our youth.
MANY_MrDave
P.S. Sorry Diane that your voice has not improved. I thought you were getting surgery.
ST: Comments Back to First Posters
gary k on 29_10:41 Mar2012
>Excellent... Remember Dread Scott
>Public Opinion which is a form of Power might matter
--(I am ignoring your Racist comment since that is your aside
--(In Mass I and many hate Romney Care (and he is White)
Ladyingreen on March 29, 2012 - 10:45 am
>I have heard the Mariner Act discussed on CSPAN, yet it is when Commerce between the states is already happening
>Yes on the rest YET Congress should strive to control the costs on the existing system rather than becoming a way for Private Enterprise to make Huge Profits. Instead Congress pocket's the money from the medical establishment into their private wealth.
This is A Re Distribution of Wealth Act. The Rich and Connected get richer
ST: PCE Reduction
Personal Consumer Expenditure (PCE) is one measure of how an economy grows. You can listen to the Fed guy if you wish.
Money has Velocity. I spend and another spends
Reduce the availability of consumers, including young consumers to spend and the economy retracts. It is not even Rocket Science.
Yet these Ultra Obama Supporters discount this feature of the UnAffordable Health Care Act.
This Act is SO SO Bad on SO SO Many Accounts.
ST: Other Analysis Shows were Far Better
Hi Again, By now I have listened to several shows on the S_Court Hearings and so far the DR Show was the weakest. Let me give one example.
TMG (McLaughlin Group) has EleanorC from NewsWeek. She is an Obama supporter as much as she can be, which is almost always. Yet She works to give a fair assessment when the other side is more correct. It is hard for her yet she does it due to the "Truth Principle"
One of DR's guests gave compliments for the current SGeneral; whereas, Eleanor did see strong weaknesses. On Fox they noted how the Liberal Leaning Judges even helped him present his case.
Diane, you have several people in the DC area that could have helped including one from the Atllantic Monthly.
I forsee the entire act falling, yet they might do a swizzle and only remove the Individual Mandate. Legally this is plausible when one has a weak court. A stronger court would say start over build separate pieces of legislation.
Topic: Cost in Lives, Anyone?
Dear Diane:
Many, including Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have correctly detailed monetary savings expected from the Affordable Care Act. What about savings in lives? There are two sets of data measuring cost in lives to consider when passing
judgment on this legislation. First, according to Wilper and colleagues (2009) in the American Journal of Public Health, approximately 44,000 plus Americans die each year because of lack of access to health insurance.
Second, the National Academy of Sciences 2001 report on medical errors estimated that approximately 44,000 to 98,000 Americans die because of medical errors each year. A midpoint approximation is about 71,000 Americans. According to Lucien Leape, MD, from Harvard,who served on the Academy of Sciences Committee, "accidental injuries result from faulty systems not from faulty doctors and nurses.."
That is, the 71,000 dead per year, who have access to the health care system, i.e., overwhelmingly with insurance, die because of dysfunctional aspects of the system. That means 44,000 without insurance + 71,000 with insurance die per year because of our current health care system. If that's not an epidemic, what is? And those with insurance are subject to the draw of the dice, as well. Well, Obama Care appears better than de facto High Wire (not High Option) Care. Do we want 1,000,000 plus tragic deaths per decade? America is better.
Secondly, expanding Government involvement in health care is no different than Government involvement in the Child Labor laws. The people against the Government penalty for non-participation would be arguing for the right for private contracts over the Government's interceding against child labor. Government intercession into the families who were sending their children to factories was a definite action into people's (parents') private lives. Justice Scalia and Alito know better.
Thank you.