> >
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't understand why many conservatives focus on getting more money
> > > >> and never on giving something to humanity, even in their own country.
> > > >> Not everyone can afford life giving treatment and so die? thats so
> > wrong.
> > > >> I don't have class envy because in Australia we don't have that class
> > > >> system.
> > > >> Everyone is entitled to free health care and education. If you want
> > better
> > > >> you pay for it, and thats fine.
> > > >> it's called looking after you fellow man, or having a social
> > concience.
> > > >> --- On *Mon, 20/12/10, patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@* wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> From: patrick mc govern mcgvrn_ptrck@
> >
> > > >> Subject: [Politics_CurrentEvents_Group] Health reform for all
> > Americans -
> > > >> St Pete Times
> > > >> To: "free"
freethinkersclub@yahoogroups.com, "dea" <
> > > >>
DuanesEverythingandAnything@yahoogroups.com, "pcc" <
> > > >>
politics_currentevents_group@yahoogroups.com> > > >> Received: Monday, 20 December, 2010, 10:42 PM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Health reform for all Americans
> > > >> By Eric H. Holder Jr. and Kathleen Sebelius, Washington Post
> > > >> In Print: Wednesday, December 15, 2010
> > > >>
> > > >> In March, New Hampshire preschool teacher Gail O'Brien, who was unable
> > to
> > > >> obtain health insurance through her employer, was diagnosed with an
> > > >> aggressive form of lymphoma. Her subsequent applications for health
> > > >> insurance were rejected because of her condition. With each round of
> > > >> chemotherapy costing $16,000, she delayed treatment because she knew
> > her
> > > >> savings wouldn't last. • Then President Barack Obama signed the
> > Affordable
> > > >> Care Act. Thanks to this law, O'Brien is getting treatment through a
> > > >> temporary program that provides affordable coverage to people who have
> > been
> > > >> shut out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition.
> > Even
> > > >> better, she knows that in 2014 insurers will be banned from
> > discriminating
> > > >> against any American with pre-existing conditions.
> > > >>
> > > >> That's what makes the recent lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care
> > Act
> > > >> so troubling. Roughly 20 cases question the new law's individual
> > > >> responsibility provision, which says that Americans who can afford to
> > must
> > > >> maintain basic health coverage.
> > > >>
> > > >> Federal courts in Michigan and Virginia have upheld the law as
> > > >> constitutional, but Monday, a federal court in Virginia reached the
> > opposite
> > > >> result. These and other cases will continue through our courts as
> > opponents
> > > >> try to block the law. But these attacks are wrong on the law, and if
> > allowed
> > > >> to succeed, they would have devastating consequences for everyone with
> > > >> health insurance.
> > > >>
> > > >> The majority of Americans who have health insurance pay a higher price
> > > >> because of our broken system. Every insured family pays an average of
> > $1,000
> > > >> more a year in premiums to cover the care of those who have no
> > insurance.
> > > >>
> > > >> Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they
> > need
> > > >> it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry
> > insurance,
> > > >> and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum
> > > >> health coverage starting in 2014.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with
> > > >> pre-existing conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage.
> > Imagine
> > > >> what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after
> > they
> > > >> got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be
> > > >> unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the
> > market.
> > > >>
> > > >> The same is true for health insurance. Without an individual
> > > >> responsibility provision, controlling costs and ending discrimination
> > > >> against people with pre-existing conditions doesn't work.
> > > >>
> > > >> The legal arguments made against the law gloss over this problem even
> > as
> > > >> opponents have sought to invent new constitutional theories and dig up
> > old
> > > >> ones that were rejected 80 years ago.
> > > >>
> > > >> Opponents claim the individual responsibility provision is unlawful
> > > >> because it "regulates inactivity." But none of us is a bystander when
> > it
> > > >> comes to health care. All of us need health care eventually. Do we pay
> > in
> > > >> advance, by getting insurance, or do we try to pay later, when we need
> > > >> medical care?
> > > >>
> > > >> The individual responsibility provision says that as participants in
> > the
> > > >> health care market, Americans should pay for insurance if they can
> > afford
> > > >> it. That's important because when people who don't have insurance show
> > up at
> > > >> emergency rooms, we don't deny them care. The costs of this
> > uncompensated
> > > >> care — $43 billion in 2008 — are then passed on to doctors, hospitals,
> > small
> > > >> businesses and Americans who have insurance.
> > > >>
> > > >> As two federal courts have already held, this unfair cost-shifting
> > harms
> > > >> the marketplace. For decades, Supreme Court decisions have made clear
> > that
> > > >> the Constitution allows Congress to adopt rules to deal with such
> > harmful
> > > >> economic effects, which is what the law does — it regulates how we pay
> > for
> > > >> health care by ensuring that those who have insurance don't continue
> > to pay
> > > >> for those who don't. Because of the long-held legal precedent of
> > upholding
> > > >> such provisions, even President Ronald Reagan's solicitor general,
> > Charles
> > > >> Fried, called legal objections to the law "far-fetched."
> > > >>
> > > >> As these lawsuits continue, Americans should be clear about what the
> > > >> opponents of reform are asking the courts to do. Striking down the
> > > >> individual responsibility provision means slamming the door on
> > millions of
> > > >> those like Gail O'Brien, who have been locked out of our health
> > insurance
> > > >> markets, and shifting more costs onto families who have acted
> > responsibly.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have
> > taken to
> > > >> the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social
> > Security
> > > >> and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges
> > ultimately
> > > >> failed, and so will this one.
> > > >>
> > > >> Rather than fighting to undo the progress we've made, and returning to
> > the
> > > >> days when one out of seven Americans was denied insurance due to their
> > > >> medical histories, supporters of repeal should work with us to
> > implement
> > > >> this law effectively. The initial decisions about the Affordable Care
> > Act
> > > >> will be reviewed on appeal. We are confident that the law will
> > ultimately be
> > > >> upheld.
> > > >>
> > > >> © 2010 Washington Post
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment