The Supreme Court’s decision on immigration turned out to be a mixed bag with some extras thrown in from an executive order. But today’s ruling on the health-care law was probably the most anticipated announcement especially in an election year. I won’t get into the semantics of what constitutes — in the constitutional terms– a tax (i.e. the penalty in the law that’s collected by the IRS for not having insurance) or if the law is a tax hike in disguise. I’ve always questioned the need for the Supreme Court to be involved in a law that hadn’t even taken effect. Isn’t that debating hypothesis? What I am concerned about are costs and services and whether this law seriously solves a fundamental problem of health care in the United States.
I’ve mentioned before, you never know how well or how badly your health insurance or the health-care system functions until you have to use it. For example, if you’re insured and are having numbing pains in your head, should it take 3 – 9 months to get an appointment with a neurologist or other specialist? With or without a referral. Is the emergency room the only entry point to treatment; and if there’s nothing they can do and they send you home on the second visit, do you need to open a vein to be taken seriously on the 3rd visit. I’m just sayin’.
There are good doctors out there. Good doctors who take insurance and good doctors who don’t take insurance or Medicaid. And as far as I know, Medicaid doesn’t reimburse you for your visit to the good doctor who will take you right away.
So, yes, today’s decision to uphold the healthcare law aka “Obamacare” was good news for some politicians. Interesting news about Chief Justice Roberts who gave the deciding vote. A relief for people who were dependent on some of the provisions of the law. And of course candidate Mitt Romney was for it (when it was Massachusetts “Romneycare”) before he was against it. But the problem has yet to be solved.