SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[justgo_withit]

Question for smarter people than me: just saw a conservative ad complaining that health care reform has already negatively impacted doctors and their patients and all. Obviously the ad had bias, but, I was under the impression that this bill won't go into effect for some time now- were there other health care changes that have already gone into effect, or was that commercial just completely wrong?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by justgo_withit

Question for smarter people than me: just saw a conservative ad complaining that health care reform has already negatively impacted doctors and their patients and all. Obviously the ad had bias, but, I was under the impression that this bill won't go into effect for some time now- were there other health care changes that have already gone into effect, or was that commercial just completely wrong?

Some parts of it have already. I believe the pre-existing conditions part, maybe, and definitely the carrying dependents until they're 26. It was a staggered rollout of the bill, I believe the individual mandate kicks in in 2013 or 2014 but I can't remember now. It's a big law.

[justgo_withit]

Originally Posted by agzg

Some parts of it have already. I believe the pre-existing conditions part, maybe, and definitely the carrying dependents until they're 26. It was a staggered rollout of the bill, I believe the individual mandate kicks in in 2013 or 2014 but I can't remember now. It's a big law.

That makes sense, thank you

[AGDee]

Some parts are in effect. Parents can insure their children up to age 26, insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge more for premiums due to prior health history. Those are all part of that law.

[AlphaFrog]

I've seen sources saying we will have mandatory health insurance requirements, and others that say that part was not upheld. Does anyone know the real deal on that?

[justgo_withit]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I've seen sources saying we will have mandatory health insurance requirements, and others that say that part was not upheld. Does anyone know the real deal on that?

It sounds like Chief Justice Roberts started out by saying "No, the federal government cannot force people to get health care" and those in the room jumped the gun and assumed that meant it was deemed unconstitutional, but he then continued with "but, the federal government absolutely has the right to tax those who don't have it". I believe the whole law was upheld.

[LAblondeGPhi]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I've seen sources saying we will have mandatory health insurance requirements, and others that say that part was not upheld. Does anyone know the real deal on that?

The individual mandate was upheld, but as an issue of federal taxation, which is different than how it was originally presented by Congress/The Obama Administration (I think it was originally argued as constitutional under interstate commerce?).

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I've seen sources saying we will have mandatory health insurance requirements, and others that say that part was not upheld. Does anyone know the real deal on that?

Congress, as it does presently, can offer money to the states to expand Medicaid and can attach conditions to such grants. But Congress cannot penalize states that choose not to participate in aspects of programming by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.