SCOTUS and Health Care

[GoodEnoughForMe]

There is an income requirement that the states. If you make under that amount of money then you can attempt to get medical from the state. If you are over that amount then you are sol... even it it is just by a penny. the states were told that they had to raise the income that a person can make in order to being able to qualify for benefits not only for medical but snap as well. When the federal government put that into place it left many states in a bad position because they did not have the funding to provide insurance to all the people that were now eligible for it. The law says that anyone that meets the guidelines has an equal right to getting the service as any other person so that decimation is not a factor... Children are accepted no questions asked, the adults are placed into a lottery unless they have a life treating condition at that moment and delaying treatment could place the persons life at risk.

I hope that I made it more clear for you. Short of it... 2010- Obama says people can make more money and get state assistance with very little to no help from the federal government. Federal government for the most part says figure it out until 2014 and then we will give me funds for the program(s).

I am not talking about private insurance, I am talking about the medical insurance that the government requires each state to provide for the people that live in poverty and low income people that just barley make it. Anytime you have to pray that you win a lottery so that you can go to a doctor is messed up imo. That is what Obama has done so far. When the federal funding comes it it might be better it might not. i don't know. At this point I know that Oregon is barley hanging on and that they have to keep asking to federal government for assistance that they sometimes get and sometimes dont.

If we're talking about health care for poverty, then it's Medicaid, which hasn't had changed requirements and won't until 2014, when it goes up.

Obama did not bring you the different requirements and lottery on account of the fact that the Oregon lottery started in February/March 2008, a year before Obama assumed office, and because Oregon has their own state run health insurance program which sounds like it's being poorly mismanaged, but isn't run by the federal government.

[XxBarretxX]

I read this as "SCROTUM". lol

[jaded_sapphire]

As this site it outlines the changes that were to be made to the state funded medical programs. I am not sure about every state but here in Oregon we do not call it medicare or anything like that. It is simply The Oregon Health Plan. Its funding mostly comes from the tax payers in Oregon.

Federal subsidies would be provided to help people with incomes of up to 400 percent of the poverty level purchase coverage on the exchange. Proposed changes would sweeten those subsidies for lower income people.

Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor, would be available to everyone with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty level, which stood at $10,830 for an individual and $22,050, for a family of four. Many states have eligibility requirements below those levels.

When that change went into effect the states were required to comply with little to no federal assistance at that time.

As it clearly states from this site the law was enacted in 2010. This law has been hurting at the bare min the State of Oregon but as I stated before I am sure that there are more states that have been severely impacted by this law. From what I understand Ca and WA are in similar situations.

Of course, everybody knows that if the Supreme Court invalidates the mandate, the current Congress would not try to save it. Since the law was enacted in 2010, the membership of Congress has changed, and the health care law has become a central issue in electoral politics. When the plaintiffs brought their legal challenge to the court, they embroiled the justices in a political fight

At this point its not really a matter of if the law is over turned in some places the damage has already been done and regardless of if it stays in place or it is revoked it will take a long time for some of the states to recover.

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Jaded, the law was passed in 2010 but almost all of it hasn't even gone into effect. The biggest part that has taken place is being able to stay on your parent's health care until age 26.

- Medicaid has not changed, neither has low-income funding changed, and the whole 400% verbiage and 133% verbiage is not in action yet. These will take place in 2014 and will be fully federally funded, not state funded.
- The mandate is not in place, and won't be until 2014.

Nothing about the law has changed Oregon health care, because A) Oregon runs its own state program, and B) The entire lottery system was in place before the law, and C) the law hasn't even really done a whole lot yet besides allow young adults to get insurance via their parents. The low-income changes you mention are still 2 years away. It's even right there in your Wikipedia link from earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient...uary_1.2C_2014

"When that change went into effect" as you say, hasn't actually taken place anywhere. The Federal subsidies quote you used hasn't hurt any state because it doesn't exist yet. In 2014 it will. That's when most of the 2010 bill actually kicks in. It was passed in 2010 but the reform is gradually worked into the system, again, the most important pieces coming in 2014.

It has not affected the situation in Oregon, California, or any state yet, funding-wise, because it's still waiting to fully take place.