Tonight on AC360: What the health care ruling means for you
June 28th, 2012
11:34 AM ET

Tonight on AC360: What the health care ruling means for you

Editor's note: Watch AC360° at 8 and 10 p.m. ET tonight for expert analysis on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance.

The Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act means that the predictions about how it will affect Americans remain in place.

The court did rule that a part of the law involving Medicaid must change. The law calls for an expansion of eligibility for Medicaid, which involves spending by the federal government and the states. The law threatens to remove existing Medicaid funding from states that don't participate in the expansion. The high court said the government must remove that threat.

Several groups that follow the health care law closely said they were keeping an eye on the potential impact of the Medicaid ruling.

Read the court ruling (.PDF)

Here are some highlights:

The uninsured

The decision leaves in place the so-called individual mandate - the requirement on Americans to have or buy health insurance beginning in 2014 or face a penalty - although many are exempt from that provision.


Post by:
Filed under: Health Care
soundoff (8 Responses)
  1. Andrew

    Is it possible for John King to cut someone who is repeating political talking points over and over again and try to make them answer the question? I guess not. Where is Anderson or Soledad when we need them.

    June 28, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
  2. Allen McCollum

    I don't comment on most things our government does because we feel they don't lhere us any more. But, this health care law is not a tax on middle class its a tax on the poor. The only ones that will gain is the Insurance Companies and the medical people not the American people. Note: Mr. Obama has lost my vote as of today.

    June 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
  3. Joe Thompson

    With so many people currently without affordable medical insurance, it seems the country is divided between people who have medical insurance and those who do not. My question for Anderson is about what healthcare plans do the lawmakers have? Can you investigate which members of Congress have health insurance provided by a federal group insurance plan and make public a list of those people who are enrolled without violating anyone's HIPPA rights? Can you reveal the actual cost of health care the lawmakers pay? How much premium do they have to pay out-of-pocket for their plan? After all, these are the people who are making decisions about whether other people can have a plan or not. If Congress repeals the Health Care Reform bill, the Federal Government should cancel their plan so they have to do what people who have no insurance have to do. This is an important election year issue in my view. Thank you.

    June 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm |
  4. Brenda Jordan

    I am happy that the health bill was found to be constitutional. I do not understand why Romney opposes this bill. He claim to be a businessman. This bill makes sense for business. The more people in the insurance pool the lower the cost. I believe the people who opposes this are the ones who can afford to pay for health care but rather spend their money on their seven hundred dollar car payment or on expensive designer clothes. These individuals go to the emergency room with non-emergency illness then do not pay the bill. Ask Romney if he ran a hospital would he allow this to happen. As far as I am concern Romney will said anything to become president.

    June 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  5. Dan Johnson

    who is exempt and why?
    Who will enforce?

    June 28, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  6. Henry

    I am a physician and have to deal regularly with patients that do not have insurance. It would certainly make things better if everyone had insurance. However, if medicaid is expanded as a result of an influx of lower income people that are required to have insurance, then I am against the law because medicaid does not reimburse adequately. Medicaid does not cover operating expenses. The malpractice liability is often greater than the reimbursement that I get from medicaid. I have no interest in exposing myself to greater liability without being compensated properly. This is going to force doctors out of medicine. If Uncle Sam wants to cover more people's health insurance costs, do not subsidize the mandate by forcing doctors to accept inadequate reimbursements.

    June 28, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
  7. Babz

    My husband lost his job and we have Cobra for the present.If he does not find a job and Cobra runs out what will our health care insurance options be.? We are also approaching retirement age- what will happen when he turns 62? Thanks for your help.

    June 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  8. Patrick DeFromage

    I find it humorous that, in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed, the Democrats' rallying point was that the Individual Mandate (the part where those without healthcare are forced to pay a penalty to the I.R.S. of about 2.5% of their income) was not a tax.  Yet, here the Supreme Court has decided that, seeing as the Act is unconstitutional by the Commerce Clause, classifying the Individual Mandate as a tax is reason enough to declare the act constitutional.  If you ask me, the Democrats in Congress have betrayed their constuitents by lying to us all about how this wasn't a tax.  Oh yes, and also, stocks all appear to have fallen today.  Take the Dow, for instance.  It fell over 122 points today.  After all, why should American businesses that are struggling during this economic recession be forced to dole out healthcare to their employees? Also, what kinds of effects will this have on American business in the near future?  Clearly, investors everywhere are asking these questions.  This was one of the worst times for this Act to have been passed.  Needless to say, many Americans still feel that this Act is not only a terrible and unfair one, but it is unconstitutonal as well.  This is the last thing small businesses need during this economic recession.  One estimate states that as many as 1 million American jobs could be lost because of this Act, and the government will spend an estimated $1 trillion over the next ten years because of it.  This is just another expensive government failure.  

    June 28, 2012 at 12:17 pm |