The Supreme Court majority surprised many on Thursday by affirming the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, with twists that give states like Maine an even more important role in shaping implementation.

Let’s start with the major news. The nonprofit group Families USA estimates that, by 2019, more than half a million Maine households will be better off by an average of $1,685 a year because of the key reforms:

  1. Insurance policyholders benefit from rules to prevent insurance companies from avoiding or dumping people who are sick, to require free preventive-care checkups and to allow young adults to stay on parental health plans.
  2. Eighty percent of insurance premiums must now be spent on actual health care, not CEO salaries or bureaucracy, or else companies must give refunds. This summer, more than 10,000 Maine families are getting rebates averaging $463 apiece.
  3. More than 200,000 Maine senior citizens are already benefiting from improvements in Medicare, including more generous prescription drug coverage and free health checkups for all seniors. By 2020, the “donut hole” in Medicare drug coverage will be entirely closed.
  4. Almost 100,000 Maine families with low or modest incomes who do not now have health coverage will get new coverage through MaineCare or by using generous tax credits to purchase private health plans of their choice.
  5. So far, 139 community health centers in Maine have gotten grants totaling more than $18.7 millions to serve patients in underserved or remote areas.
  6. Maine has received $6.8 million in federal grants so far to plan for new “health insurance exchanges” to let businesses and people easily comparison-shop for health coverage and use tax credits to reduce the price.

Maine, like all other states, now faces important challenges. The state health exchange must be set up, and Maine voters and lawmakers need to decide whether to accept 100 percent federal funding for an expansion of MaineCare to cover more disabled, poor and elderly people. The Supreme Court said that states are free to decide whether to accept the new federal money — and states cannot lose prior funding if they refuse.

In some states, Republicans want to decline the federal money for ideological reasons. But those states that decline will watch Medicaid money go instead to other states, such as Massachusetts, and they will force their own hospitals, doctors, nonprofits and communities to absorb more costs for helping the poor and disabled.

The Supreme Court majority also upheld the individual mandate. But so what? That means a lot less than we might imagine after all the public brouhaha. Once reform goes into full effect, about two Americans out of every 100 will still not have health insurance through work, Medicaid or Medicare, or by using new tax credits to buy insurance. This tiny sliver will be subject to a small tax fine, so uninsured people cannot just go to the emergency room and shift the cost onto the rest of us. Opponents of reform are trying to make voters believe that most people will be subject to higher taxes for Obamacare. That is simply not true. In Maine, the vast majority of people will never have to think about the mandate — and will save thousands a year through reform.

Political battles will go on for a while. Republicans promise to repeal Affordable Care if Mitt Romney becomes president and they run all of Congress in 2013. But repeal is impossible unless opponents gain 60 seats in the U.S. Senate — not likely in our lifetimes. Opponents can delay funding and mess up implementation for a while, but they cannot make the law go away.

Affordable Care’s very popular features will not remain hidden for long. Sixty to 80 percent of all Americans — including a majority of Republican voters — favor the new rules for insurance companies, the tax credits and subsidies to make insurance affordable for all, and the state-level exchanges to allow comparison shopping. As the months and years pass, people will rely on the benefits of reform, and doctors and hospitals will carry through experiments in quality care and cost control encouraged by the new law. U.S. health care will be better for everyone — and we will look back and wonder what all the fuss all about.

Theda Skocpol is a professor at Harvard University, member of the National Academy of Sciences and former president of the American Political Science Association. She is the co-author with Lawrence Jacobs of Health Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know. She has a home in Maine and is national director of the Scholars Strategy Network, which has a regional group in Maine and brings together scholars across the country to address public challenges and their policy implications.

Join the Conversation

22 Comments

  1. Come on, Theda, as a political science authority, you should know better! Since SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is a tax, it will only need 51 Senators to overturn it in what is known as reconciliation, not the filibuster-proof magical 60 you state. Jeeesh.

    1. Not so. The Supreme Court ruled that the penalty for the mandate is akin to a tax and therefore it is constitutional under the Article I taxing powers of the national government. The Court didn’t say Obamacare “is a tax.”

      What’s the difference?The mandate and associated penalty are very small parts of Obamacare (and, in fact, many believe the system would work fine without it.) Therefore reconciliation cannot be used to repeal the entire law. 

      1.  Actuality  Scalia CHANGED the wording to TAX! If he had not based on the ruling the bill would have had to have been struck down.

        1. Scalia supported overturning the Affordable Care Act. You’re thinking of Chief Justice Roberts, but he did not say that the Affordable Care Act is a tax. He said the mandate penalty (which will hit 1-2% of Americans and is now 1% under Romneycare) is constitutionally acceptable under the Article I taxing power of the federal government.

          The Affordable Care Act has many different provisions that have nothing to do with taxes, like the many regulations on health insurance companies and funding to start nonprofit health insurance cooperatives.

          On myths about the mandate, see http://pollways.bangordailynews.com/2012/06/29/maine-politics/mandate-myths/

  2. So in order for a CEO and executives to make more money they have to charge more in premiums to spend more on healthcare so they can make the same amount of money per year?

    1.  They have to charge MASSIVELY higher for that and to make up for all those who may buy insurance AFTER They are sick. This is akin to forcing a auto insurance company to sell insurance to a person AFTER they cause a wreck.

      1. Are you fine with the concept of insurance company CEOs earning more in one day ($60,000, in one case) than most people earn in a year?

        Obamacare is an excellent first step, and now we have a choice:

        1) advocate against improvements such as being able to get coverage despite pre-existing conditions, and removal of the lifetime cap on payments for health treatment

        2) advocate for single payer insurance, and dismantling the for-profit insurers.

        It all depends on whether you value CEO profits over your own and others’ health.

        1.  so in your world noone has a right to make it big.we all have to be the same,well move to china and you can be.this is america and we are about making it big anyone can make it big if you work hard,but in your world noone can.its about making profit in this country not having to take care of the lazy bums who want a hand out.

          1. Do you understand that the CEO’s sixty thousand dollar per DAY salary comes from people’s insurance premiums? Are you truly rooting for him to “make it big” at your expense?

          2. The amount CEO’s make don’t add up to a drop in the bucket compared to all the money that passes in and out of an insurance company. making a lot of money is not a crime and is fine with me providing the individual has a vision for the company that makes it successful and the product or service it provides. Why didn’t people have such a hard time with Steve Job’s salary. Or Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth? True they aren’t in healthcare but they both got filthy rich of of the public. Most of Steve Job’s products were made in China to even further enhance corporate earnings. The only difference between Job’s, Zuckerberg, and the perceived fat cat CEO’s of this country is Job’s and Zuckerberg were liberal’s, and the perceived fat cat CEO’s of the country are perceived as being conservative.

          3. Thank you for answering my question. It is clear that you don’t mind having your own health insurance premiums diverted to pay a CEO’s astonishingly inflated salary, because 1) you approve of him becoming “filthy rich” at your expense and 2) he is probably a conservative.

            In my view, the “success” of his product or service (health insurance) can be defined as whether or not people who pay insurance premiums to his company get appropriate access to necessary healthcare. In a different view (perhaps yours) the CEO’s success is measured by how happy the shareholders are.

            I’m glad you’re able to take vicarious pleasure from knowing the shareholders and CEO are enjoying your money.

          4. You’re the one who stated that they are perceived as conservative.

            I used “him” in a generic sense rather than repeat him/her and he/she. Thanks for the link pointing out that many insurance execs are female, though.

            You have not responded to my pointing out that the health insurance company CEO’s wealth is drawn from your own pocket–money which should be going toward your health care. So I assume you’re fine with that.

            “While over 50 million Americans cannot afford health insurance, UnitedHealth Group pays CEO Dr. William McGuire a $124 million annual salary… Money “earned” by NOT spending it on patients.”

             [http://tinyurl.com/87brrsz]

             

          5. So if we strip Mr. McGuires 124 million dollar salary from him and suppose for a moment he works for free, how will this concept allow 50 million more americans afford healthcare? You honestly think the 124 million salary will have any measurable impact on health insurance rates? Even if it did,  and say the healthcare industry managed to reduce costs and get healthcare premiums down by 50 percent, do you really think that would have a measurable effect on how many people come on the health insurance rolls? I bet it will have minimal or no effect at all.  

          6. You’re using what’s called a “straw man” tactic–setting up a potition you wrongly claim to be mine, then attacking it. You’re pretending I advocated to force a CEO to work for free and that I claimed that would result in 50 million Americans being able to afford healthcare.

            Here are the points I keep making:

            Many of the for-profit health insurance CEOs have astonishing salaries.

            The money for their salaries comes from diverting part of the premiums that Americans pay for health care, right into their wallets.

            You appear to be happy with this. Many Americans are not. Under the ACA, insurance companies must use at least 80 percent of your premium for health services and improving care. They don’t get to skim as much away from your health care and into their pockets.

            “Over 20 percent of consumers who purchase coverage in the individual market today are in plans that spend more than 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  An additional 25 percent of consumers in this market are in plans that spend between 25 and 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  And in some extreme cases, insurance plans spend more than 50 percent of every premium dollar on administrative costs.” [http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/11/medical-loss-ratio.html]

            It’s interesting that you are so intensely concerned about the health insurance CEOs’ financial well-being, yet not at all concerned about their flair for skimming away your premiums.

  3. An excellent, factual, and thoughtful article. Unfortunately, a lot of people are already planning to fight against their own best interests.

    You see, the Republican media have used the word “socialist.” That’s a secret signal for their followers to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes, and stop thinking altogether, so they can all rally against a law that HELPS America.

    1.  well my taxes are going up,and I already have insurance,this is for dead beats who don’t know how to save and pay their way.they go around drinking their money up or spend it on drugs and can’t seem to pay a bill if their life depended on it.now we are that much closer to becoming a welfare country altogether.the law does not help america.

      1. Since you already have insurance, you won’t be paying the “tax” penalty.

        The deadbeats you speak of who don’t bother to pay for insurance, though they could afford it, will now have to pay that “tax” penalty, which reduces the amount of money that taxpayers like you and me have to spend on their healthcare.

        Meanwhile, if you lose your job (and with it your insurance, perhaps), and you have ever used your insurance for any medical condition, when you start applying for a new policy they won’t be able to turn you down flat on the basis of a “pre-existing condition.”

        And if you wind up (God forbid) with a serious illness that costs a fortune to treat, you won’t find you’ve maxed out your policy–which would have cause you to go bankrupt. Obamacare protects you against that.

        If you have a young adult son or daughter who is trying desperately to find work but simply can’t, or they found a job that doesn’t provide insurance, you can keep them on your policy a while longer.

        1.  yes I will it states our medicare tax is going up as little as 1 % so we know it wont be the low one.people can’t afford it because they don’t know how to managed their money and spend more then they earn.

  4. Like United Healthcare is going to sacrifice their profits to comply with Obamacare. The legal department is busy developing plans to hurdle this regulatory obstruction to profitability. They have been there before, succeeded and will again. These companies in healthcare are constantly in litigation they are sued and sue and battle in courts all the time. We lose.  

  5. “Maine has received $6.8 million in federal grants so far to plan for new ‘health insurance exchanges…’” I’d love to see a good accounting of this money.

  6. Even a Harvard academic should spend a weekend in a Maine Hospital’s E.R. to see how poorly extending health insurance to 200% of poverty level under MaineCare has worked.

    We aren’t healthier; the cost of health care has skyrocketed; and the same deadbeats aren’t meeting their co-pays and scamming the system any way they can.

    On the other hand, the system has radically rearranged itself around expanded hospitals with their satellites and regional group practices who now offer service 7 days a week and have in-house labs and clinics. Specialized clinics seem to be everywhere and those serving seniors like Cardiology are filled and expanding. The cost of this kind of specialized care is skyrocketing; not falling; nor are people any healthier…just better cared for; there’s a difference.

    This academic doesn’t have a clue what the real health care system is like; and should spend a weekend ‘behind the lines’ in a Maine Hospital E.R….and learn the real way.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *