Cobb opinions on health care law follow party lines
by Kim Isaza and Marcus E Howard
June 29, 2012 09:10 AM | 3974 views | 31 31 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print
MDJ Staff/Laura Moon
MDJ Staff/Laura Moon
slideshow

MARIETTA — Cobb citizens reacted swiftly Thursday to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to uphold the provision of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 that requires most people to buy health insurance, or pay a tax.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority but was accompanied by the court’s more liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

Conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito were in the minority.

Around Cobb, ruling reaction tended to fall along partisan lines. Conservatives like Attorney General Sam Olens, state Rep. Sharon Cooper, tea partier J.D. Van Brink and Libertarian David Chastain were furious, while more liberal-leaning leaders like Cobb Democrats chair Melissa Pike and state Rep. David Wilkerson were celebrating.

David Bottoms, the senior vice president of Marietta-based benefits consultants The Bottoms Group, read the entire legislation after it was approved by Congress and signed into law in 2010. The bottom line of Thursday’s landmark decision is that health care costs are going to continue to rise for everyone, he said.

The ruling, and the law itself, clearly helps people with pre-existing conditions, many of whom find insurance prohibitively expensive — if they can find it at all.

“There weren’t any options for them to get coverage. This definitely helps them,” Bottoms said. “Conversely, now that those people are in the market, average rates will go up for everybody, to offset the new risk.”

The law and its penalties could result in some smaller employers dropping insurance benefits for employees, leaving those people to buy their own individual policies.

As of Jan. 1, 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees will have to offer coverage or pay fines of $2,000 per employee per year. Health-coverage costs are tax deductible, but the fines are not, Bottoms said.

“When you consider what the average employer is contributing for coverage and contrast that with not offering coverage and paying the fine, you’ll have a lot of people do the math,” Bottoms said. “But employers who aggressively attract good employees will still be compelled to offer it as a benefit. Right now, there’s no legal requirement for employers to offer coverage, but many do.”

Bottoms also said insurers are helped by the ruling.

“Their worst-case scenario was if the mandate were struck down but they were still required to insure anyone, although I suspect they would have been just as happy if the whole thing went away, just because of the regulation that comes with it,” he said.

Still, Bottoms said the end result could make health insurers a thing of the past.

“I think 20 years from now, this bill will have gradually killed the insurance carriers. At that point, we’ll probably have universal government-provided coverage, which some people will love and some people will hate,” he said. “But there’s no question it will be expensive.”

Olens spent Thursday with likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney — who Olens said raked in more than $2 million in online campaign donations on Thursday, after the decision was announced. Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would begin dismantling “Obamacare.”

Olens, who joined the legal challenge after taking office in 2011 and was in the courtroom for some of the oral arguments, also said he was stunned by the court’s decision.

“No one would have expected” Chief Justice Roberts to go with the tax clause on the individual mandate, Olens said, especially since even the White House had insisted that the penalty to be paid by Americans who didn’t buy insurance specifically is not a tax. Roberts ruled it is.

“The president is destroying the health care Americans have and replacing it with an inferior product,” Olens said. “Find me someone who would prefer to have Medicaid than Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Aetna. We used to complain that insurers were regulating care, but now it’s government bureaucrats regulating it.

“We can do better. We know there needs to be change, but we’re on a fiscal cliff,” he said.

The court’s ruling on expanding Medicaid — essentially, the court found that the federal government cannot yank all of a state’s Medicaid money if the state refuses to expand the coverage to more low-income people — is a win, Olens said.

“Unfortunately, that’s winning the battle but not the war,” he said.

Melissa Pike, chair of the Cobb Democratic Committee, sees the ruling differently.

“This is a victory for Americans, not just for Democrats,” she said of the ruling. “There are so many people whose lives literally depend on this ruling.”

State Rep. David Wilkerson, a south Cobb Democrat, does not believe expanding Medicaid coverage will bankrupt the state or the country. The federal government would pay for the expansion for a few years, under the law.

“I don’t think Georgia can afford to have 2 million people without health coverage,” he said. “It’s free money to the state of Georgia.”

As for overall costs of the law, he said: “If you believe the Congressional Budget Office when they say it will cost $1 trillion, you have to also believe them when they say it will reduce deficits.”

WellStar Health System CEO Reynold Jennings said he thinks Thursday’s decision means only large care providers will survive. WellStar has been buying up many doctors’ practices and putting those doctors on its payroll in recent years will continue that, he said.

As for implementation of the law, “the devil is in the details as to what we’ll be required to do when all 1,500 mandates are identified,” he said, adding that “anxious” was an apt way to describe his feelings.

In fiscal year 2011, the Marietta-based system received $380 million in Medicare revenue, and $124 million in Medicaid revenue, he said. Those programs pay about 80 percent of the actual cost to provide care.

In addition, WellStar provided $200 million worth of unreimbursed care in fiscal 2011.

“In the recession, many people are taking higher-deductible policies and can’t pay their bill at the time the service is rendered,” he said. “Twenty percent of people with insurance need a payment plan for their portion of the bill. We see that as a rising problem, even as other people get insurance.”

Like many, he pointed out that the law does not solve all of the nation’s healthcare problems.

“This law does nothing to change the way Medicare in its entirety is financed and handled,” Jennings said. “Over 100,000 people every month in the United States go onto Medicare. That financial deficit all by itself far overshadows the 20 million young people who generally use less health care but are now getting coverage.”

Jennings said doctors are wondering how they’ll stay open by providing Medicare and Medicaid care at a financial loss, coupled with smaller payments by insurers.

“Doctors are businesspeople and they have expenses,” he said. “They have to figure out a way to make a living.”

That is exactly what bothers state Rep. Sharon Cooper, a registered nurse who represents a portion of east Cobb.

“We are desperately short of physicians,” she said. “People don’t think about a physician’s office being a business, but they lose money on Medicaid. Then they lose money on Medicare. They pay their staff, they pay rent, they pay utilities. If they don’t have enough paying patients, they shut their doors.”

The most distressing impact of the health care law, she said, is that it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.

“Whoever controls your health care controls your very life,” she said. “You can fight an insurance company, but let me tell you, you can’t fight the federal government and win.”

She is relieved the Obama administration lost on the Medicare expansion.

“Long-term, it’s not possible for us to expand Medicaid for that many people without a major tax increase,” she said. “We’re working on limited budgets just like families are.

“In a perfect world, everybody would be covered by insurance and have good health care. But this is not a perfect world,” Cooper said. “The state and the federal government only have so much money, and we’re fixing to bankrupt our nation.”

Dennis Kiley, chief executive of Emory-Adventist at Smyrna hospital, had a different take on the ruling.

The 88-bed hospital on South Cobb Drive is affiliated with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and is operated by Adventist Health System as a joint venture with Emory Healthcare.

“We are pleased that the court has upheld the health care reform act and specifically the individual mandate,” Kiley said in a statement. “Without that provision, we believe that the other provisions such as elimination of pre-existing condition would become financially difficult to implement. We also believe that the uninsured problem would have continued to grow which would have put greater and greater pressure on hospitals to continue to subsidize care.

“We recognize that the health reform bill is not perfect, but it does much to lower the number of uninsured and to increase access to care,” he said. His hospital treated more than 25,000 patients in its emergency room last year.

David Chastain, secretary of the Cobb Libertarian Party, doesn’t like the law because it goes against the marketplace.

“We had a system that wasn’t working well, but it was kind of working,” he said. “Now it’s going to be even more restrictive and limited, and drive prices up.

“It boils down to this: are we a country that believes in individual liberty, or are we a country that believes in collectivism?” he said. “We have now become a collectivism country.”

J.D. Van Brink, chairman of the board of the Georgia Tea Party, said the passion of his members against government encroachment in individual lives is “at a new level” amid the decision.

“This is systematic of a lot of things the government is doing, and it’s not just the federal government or the executive branch of the federal government,” Van Brink said. “Governments in general are not following the Constitution.”

Katy Misel, 25, a Kennesaw State University graduate student, said she doesn’t like the overall law, though the provision that allows young people to stay on a parent’s insurance until age 26 is reasonable. But she is too independent to do that, she said.

“I certainly don’t think the government has the right to say you have to have health insurance,” Misel said.

 

Comments
(31)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
O'BamaRobertsCare
|
July 01, 2012
Why are the stupid reactionaries not mad at Roberts. He's the one who said the law will stand. When one of their's do something they don't like, they try and pretend it didn't happen. The idiots. And, oh, yeah, pay no attention to Wilkerson; he's an idiot too.
Lib in Cobb
|
July 01, 2012
On Meet The Press today, Mich McConnell was asked three times by Cris Wallace of Fox, "What is the Republican alternative to insuring 30 million people who are currently uninsured"? Twice McConnell danced and the tird time McConnell said,"That's not the issue".

This man wants to repeal ACA but he has no clue what to do in its place. Perfect, just perfect. There should be no wonder why the Republicnas have such a lousy reputation. The Senate Minority leader has no clue, the GOP nominee has no clue, but the GOP wants to repeal the ACA, but they have no clue or "that's not the issue".
I85 North
|
June 30, 2012
I have only one thing to say (sign me up).

Andy Griffin (Sheriff Andy Taylor) said that we

were going to like it.

Every one knows that Opie would like.
Pam J
|
June 29, 2012
Think about this - you have some kind of disease or other kind of prolonged problem. You change jobs and they have a different insurance carrier. All of a sudden you aren't covered for this pre-existing condition. Trust me, that can be financially debillitating. But we all know that Republicans are the most vocal about what they like and don't like. And they don't like ANYTHING that the Democrats put out there.
Say What?
|
June 29, 2012
Gary Burley,

The insurance on the truck would cover my medical cost... or I would pay out of pocket because I have a job and take pride in myself and not relying on the gov to take care of me.
Say What?
|
June 29, 2012
@ Gary Burley

"It's only a tax increase if you refuse to buy your insurance by 2014.

You've got two years notice - get on with it"

It's a penalty for not having health insurance. So it is no longer my choice to not have it? I either have to go and pay out of pocket for a health care plan or have a penalty (tax) for not? And where does my penalty (tax) money go to? I assume it goes to those on gov assistance? They dont have a job so they cant pay the penalty (tax) for having no health insurance so they get another handout paid for by me to have free health care.
Gary Burley
|
June 29, 2012
Say What? - if you don't buy insurance, get hit by a truck, survive, get treated, survive, then walk out the hospital without paying and I have to pick up the bill - your choice - or deregation of responsibility then falls directly on me.

THat's not fair no matter how much you slice it.
Any Different?
|
June 29, 2012
How is the Affordable Healthcare Act (commonly called Obamacare) any different to Medicare? Medicare is federal government healthcare and Medicare is required from age 65 on if you are not working with an employer who supplies healthcare insurance. You also pay something for Medicare.

Everyone also pays for the uninsured when they go to a public hospital ER and when the uninsured or poor go to a government clinic. So having many more people pay something into the pot and having health care before it becomes an ER emergency is better. Your health is no different to taking care of your house. Analogy-Fix the small leak before it becomes a big leak and damages the whole room. Also doctor office visits cost much less than the ER visit.

So the federal government is already in the healthcare insurance business. Why is the Affordable Healthcare Act any different ot Medicare?
el paso
|
June 29, 2012
Obama's Health Care plan is better than what we had before. It requires insurer's to spend 80% of premiums on actual patient care, which is why the insurance companies oppose the law. Over time the law will be cheaper than our current system and 30 million more Americans will have insurance and 26,000 Americans will not die each year because they cannot afford treatment. If the Republicans really want to lower health costs, they could right now propose legislation for us to be allowed to buy drugs from Canada and allow Medicare to bargain on drug prices - both are certainly free market ideas.
Love It!
|
June 29, 2012
For the record, I am a Cobb County Republican and I ADORE the new insurance laws. It is about time is all I can say. P.S. I bet all the same fuss was made about starting Social Security, which a lot of you old coots live on now.
KS Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
@ Love it ... I retired at 55 (and I'm now 58) I do not live off Social Security, I live off my own money. I worked hard, planned for my life , made good decisions and can now enjoy my life with out any government help. Now thanks to our Supreme Court and Mr. Obama, I'm afraid the generation to following me will have a hard time retiring at 70 much less at 55. They will be forced to work to support themselves as well as supporting those leeches who do nothing except sit with their hands out crying for more and more. The middle class and America as we know it will soon be extinct if we continue down this path of self reliance on government. This is how socialism works, government control on everyone and everything.
Pam J
|
June 29, 2012
K S Cobb, your children will not be able to retire at 55 because they will have to fund their own retirement. Are you living on retirement from your job or on a 401(K) or IRA? Companies do not have pension plans anymore. They have plans where you have to put your money in. And the stock market dictates whether you keep your money. I would worry more about my children if they got some kind of disease or malady and they had to change jobs and insurance companies, and that insurance company would not pay for a pre-existing condition. We need to stop looking at this plan as something that is forced on us and start looking at it as a good thing overall.
KS Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
Tex G is right except for one thing, it will take more than 20 years to undo the damage that has been done to this country. Those under 40 will be the ones who will suffer the most. Our founding fathers would be shocked and disgusted to see what has become of our republic!
Lib in Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
@BUT: There is a requirement by states to purchase car insurance. Please explain how the ACA is different.
FROM TEXAS
|
June 29, 2012
It’s called states rights the 10th amendment but you went to public school and have been brain washed to think the Fed’s need to do everything for you. Just remember when more people are riding in the cart than can pull it you then have California.
Do I have to buy
|
June 29, 2012
auto insurance if I don't own a car?

Lib in Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
As per an article from AP. The state with the lowest % of medically uninsured people is MA. Why? The Romney healthcare act, which while governor he impleneted. Now he wants to repeal ACA which used the MA plan as a blueprint. Is he going to repeal his own MA plan also?
Tex G
|
June 29, 2012
June 28 2012, the day American took in in the shorts.

This is it folks. It will take 20 years to turn back the damage this commie has done to our country.

We are just beyond screwed.
Kennesaw Resident
|
June 30, 2012
And another ten to undo the damage the Republican commie did before by passing Medicare Part D. Repeal that with Obamacare please!
mk-new world order
|
June 29, 2012
Big government / global economy will kill America!

Romney . too, is part of the 'plan', just different stripes!

Ron Paul is the only answer!
TheModernPatriot
|
June 29, 2012
Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling, the federal government now can require you to buy a consumer item, or else suffer a tax penalty. Next up, if you don't drive a vehicle with a certain gas millage, they now have the ability to tax you.
I hope so.
|
June 29, 2012
I can't wait for gas guzzlers to get off the road. They're making it hot and compromising our national security.
Lib in Cobb
|
June 29, 2012
I will say to Katy Misel, the KSU student, the government does require everyone to have automobile insurance.
BUT...
|
June 29, 2012
Yes, you are required by STATE governments to have automobile insurance. The Federal Government does not require you to have it.

That is completely different than what the health care law is doing.

tired of it
|
June 29, 2012
ONLY if you drive a vehicle on public roads you are to have car insurance. You are not required to have a car that is your CHOICE
Gary Burley
|
June 29, 2012
Katy better get some damn insurance because I'm darned if I'm going to pay for her when she gets ill.
JDTBQ
|
June 29, 2012
And, because you can purchase insurance across state lines for your car, your jewelery, your home, even your pets, insurance carriers are in competition for your business, and policies are much more affordable.

Health insurers are restricted by the Federal government from this, so you're pretty much stuck with taking the insurance that your employer (hopefully) offers, with skyrocketing premiums.

But then again, the practice of offering health insurance through your employer was in response to the Federal government's restriction on wage increases. So, Big Brother created a crisis, and now, Big Brother is the solution. Can't wait.
WIlkerson ridiculous
|
June 29, 2012
Wilkerson stated it is FREE money from the government. Where does the government get that money Wilkerson? Oh yes, the 48% of us who pay taxes! Nothing is free in the US. 48% of us who do pay taxes are watching our hard earned take home pay shrink due to the 52% of the Americans and millions of illegals who don't pay crap. I am tired of having to carry those irresponsible people who do not do their part to support the US. I do agree that insurance carriers should not be able to turn people down for pre-existing conditions. I do agree something needs to be done. I don't agree that this should fall on my shoulders. Those who love this plan are the usual freeloaders. Our country will go bankrupt. VOTE OBAMA OUT!
Ole Man
|
June 29, 2012
You are so correct about Wilkerson. he is like most Democrats that think Washington has the money, but do not realize the money is taken from hard working people to give handouts to those to damn lazy to get off their backsides and go to work.
FROM TEXAS
|
June 29, 2012
Well I guess we can blame this on George Bush, Roberts said he would call ball or strike didn’t know the empire stopped the game rewrote the law, hope Roberts has a food taster this is biggest tax increase in history. Big companies don’t like being mugged at the tax office so a lot of good medical plans will go away, I’m sure sitting in a government health care and wellness center would be too bad it couldn’t be that inefficient could it. Obama is defiantly the major Taxer and Thief they will monitor your food habits and guide you in the right direction; you get your new card and a chip in your arm than you can go Nation Wide probably meet all NATO standards as well.
Gary Burley
|
June 29, 2012
It's only a tax increase if you refuse to buy your insurance by 2014.

You've got two years notice - get on with it
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides