.
Feedback

LI Pols React to Health Care Ruling

Party leaders throughout Nassau and the state react to Supreme Court decision Thursday on Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court ruling on national health care reform Thursday reaffirmed the ambitious direction President Obama and fellow Democrats took when he signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010.

The Court's 5-4 decision let the mandate requiring all Americans purchase health insurance stand. But the debate is far from over, as Republicans vow to fight on. Party leaders throughout Nassau, Long Island and statewide weighed in: 

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York: “I am pleased the Supreme Court reaffirmed the hard fought progress that was made to ensure that no one can be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition, young adults will be covered, prescription drug costs for seniors will be reduced, preventive care including life-saving mammograms will be accessible and that insurance companies can’t cancel their coverage when you get sick. It is time to get beyond scoring political points and get back to finding common core values and passing legislation that will help grow our economy and get more people back to work.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo: "Thanks to the leadership of President Obama and his administration, particularly Secretary Sebelius, the Affordable Care Act will provide access to health care to millions of Americans nationwide and more than one million New Yorkers, and I am pleased the Supreme Court upheld this law. We will continue to move forward with implementing the health exchange that will lower coverage costs for New York's businesses and help ensure that uninsured New Yorkers have access to health care. We look forward to continuing to work together with the Obama administration to ensure accessible, quality care for all New Yorkers."

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli: "The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act is a victory for New Yorkers and all Americans. The law has significant fiscal implications for our state, providing more than $1 billion annually in new Medicaid assistance and delivering affordable health coverage for New Yorkers. While we have not yet solved the challenge of balancing health care access and cost, today's decision moves us one step closer to reforming our nation's costly health care system."

Jay S. Jacobs, state and Nassau Democratic Party Chairman: "Millions of Americans have already benefitted from Obamacare. Millions more will begin to benefit when the entire program takes effect in 2014. Today, the United States Supreme Court took a major step forward in affirming an important piece of legislation that affects everyone in this country. Led by Chief Justice Roberts, it also took a major step forward in validating the Court's historic place in the American system of government as the fair arbiter of our political process."

Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-Roslyn Heights: "Republicans were expecting to high five each other today. But fortunately, the highest court in the land ko’d that plan, and quashed their ridiculous claims that providing quality, affordable healthcare to all Americans was unconstitutional. The court’s ruling is a huge win for the American people and a resounding victory for President Obama. This decision finally ends the practice of insurance companies making health care decisions for Americans, and puts consumers in control of their coverage."

Rep. Peter King, R-Seaford: “I oppose today’s ruling, which upheld a sweeping government takeover of our health care sector. I believe the strongest response is to repeal Obamacare and implement incremental reforms, such as ensuring coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing portability of insurance from one job to another and allowing small businesses to band together to buy insurance. Most importantly, we must work towards reducing insurance premiums and co-pays—which this law does not do. I will continue to fight to repeal this law and to enact measures that empower patients while simultaneously reducing costs.”

Rep. Steve Israel, D-Dix Hills: “Today’s ruling isn’t a political victory for Democrats, it’s a victory for America’s middle class and seniors, and now House Republicans need to drop their partisan obstruction and move on.  Insurance companies are not back in control of a patient’s care. Insurance companies can’t again deny coverage to people with asthma, cancer or heart disease, or block women from getting cancer screenings. Republicans have wasted the last 18 months on a misguided, partisan crusade to put insurance companies back in charge of health care, instead of getting the economy back on track and strengthening the middle class.”

Challenger Stephen Labate, R-Deer Park: "The American people were clearly misled by President Obama and Congressman Steve Israel by insisting the individual mandate was not a tax. The Supreme Court saw through this and upheld the individual mandate for what it really was a tax. Elections have consequences and today we witnessed the disastrous outcome of electing officials who are willing to be so blatantly untruthful to the American people."

Sen. Kemp Hannon, R-Garden City: “The Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act represents both challenges and opportunities for New York State. Since the Governor has already issued an executive order for creating a statewide health-insurance exchange program, we now must continue forward with implementing an exchange which will lower costs for New York’s businesses. We must ensure the exchange is established without  harming job creators or small business owners. The issue of health insurance should be a people issue, not a partisan one."

Legis. Judy Jacobs, D-Woodbury: "I have always been a supporter of the Obama healthcare initiative. In a country as great as ours it is unconscionable that poor people could go without health care. I am happy to see that the majority of those on the Supreme Court found a way to get together on an issue that is so vital and important to our country."

Editor’s Note: Patch will update as more statements come in throughout the day.

John Rennhack June 30, 2012 at 04:51 am
This is a handy "boogie-man" for insurance companies to raise rates and increase profits.
John Rennhack June 30, 2012 at 04:54 am
The first thing one Tea-publican congressional freshman asked during orientation after the 2010 elections was "When does my health insurance kick in?"
The oh-so-outraged members of congress will never touch their own benefits. Ask Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest to give up their access to the best doctors and hospitals in the country.
John Rennhack June 30, 2012 at 04:59 am
Bill, you are clearly getting your news from Fox. There are no "thousands of elderly" dying. I would expect to be going to funerals for family every month then but I'm not.
My relatives have no problem with access to healthcare. I'm waiting 2 months for a check-up at the dentist here in the US. My friend here in the US was "fit in" for an oncologist in late august... 'cause that can wait, right?
ADNK June 30, 2012 at 02:26 pm
My my my.. All these "confusing" facts. None of this will make sense to those who get all their info from FOX.. Thank you for putting the real info out there.
ADNK June 30, 2012 at 02:28 pm
You're right. Fear of Norquist infects both parties.
ADNK June 30, 2012 at 02:29 pm
Umm.. The "Death Panels" we have to deal with every day are the insurance companies. I guess rationing *for profit* is no problem.
the j c July 1, 2012 at 03:02 am
lets have Romneycare instead........
the j c July 1, 2012 at 03:03 am
wow a crystal ball reader, do u got the mega numbers for us ?
Happy Daze July 1, 2012 at 03:09 am
Well at least we knew Bush's grades. Obama keeps his hidden. Maybe he was a D student.
Happy Daze July 1, 2012 at 03:09 am
The Federal Govt has the power to tax....when it PROVIDES YOU SOMETHING IN RETURN. The Fed prvides medicaid and taxes us for it. OK
So now I ask you....WHAT DOES THE FEDERAL GOVT PROVIDE US WITH UNDER THE NEW TAXES LEVIED BY OBAMACARE????
Kevin July 1, 2012 at 08:21 am
Do you really believe that the uninsured in this country are "mostly" illegal aliens? There are only about 11 million undocumented workers, and 50 million uninsured (plus tens of millions more who are underinsured). I suggest you put your elementary school math to work.
Kevin July 1, 2012 at 08:30 am
Jesse, Justice Roberts only ruled the mandate fee a tax, not the entire ACA. The mandate penalty will only affect about 1-3 million people and the top fee is only about $700 (most people would pay much less). So at its highest the fee/tax would generate under $3 Billion. That's not the largest tax increase ever - or even in the top 100.
I know Republicans have been on TV the last 3 days spreading this distortion of the facts, but there's no need to drink the Kool-Aide. I repeat, the ACA was not ruled a tax - just the mandate penalty fee.
Kevin July 1, 2012 at 08:49 am
First off, the ACA was never supposed to lower costs - it was designed to slow the rising costs of health insurance and health care - which it will do. Republicans have misrepresented the issue to say Obama/Dems promised it would lower costs; they did not. Secondly, the insurance companies have universally said that any premium increases over the last two years had little if anything to do with the ACA - they have issued press releases stating as such. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-and-rising-health-insurance-premiums/2012/04/01/gIQAJFGZpS_blog.html)
What the ACA does do is set a Medical Loss Ratio (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/obamacare-to-yield-13-billion-in-rebates-for-consumers.php and http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html), create state insurance exchanges that will improve the market, and expand the market so insurers can offer a better product at a lower cost than without the bill. The reality is, your health insurance would be going up either way - with the bill or without it. The bill is designed to lower the rate of premium increases, and it will do that when fully implemented.
Kevin July 1, 2012 at 09:12 am
Seems to me that if states can mandate helmet laws and auto insurance, the federal government should be able to do it too. I personally don't buy the "states' rights" argument. I know that a lot of you constitutional scholars on this string will go bonkers about that, but I trust the federal government a lot more than I trust the individual states.
Kevin July 1, 2012 at 09:20 am
It's just amazing to me how many "facts" were stated in this string that are factually incorrect. I applaud you all for getting involved in the debate, but you are mostly just spewing myths, urban legends, Republican misrepresentations, and outright lies that you heard someplace and are regurgitating. And each time it gets passed along, the distortion gets a little bigger. It's all just one big game of Telephone.
Long Island Patriot July 1, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Those of you here who claim our health care costs will not be affected by Obamacare are completely wrong. In the latest survey by the Kaiser Family foundation http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf , the average insurance premium for family coverage increased 9% since Obamacare was enacted. Starting Jan 1, 2013 Obamacare increased the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5% to 10% of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Parents of special needs children will be hurt because they will only be allowed to contribute $2500 (currently unlimited) to flexible spending accounts to pay for special needs education. Tax deductions for employer provided prescription drug coverage for retirees are eliminated which increases the risk that this benefit will be dropped by employers. Heath savings accounts (HSA), flexible spending accounts, etc. can no longer be used to purchase over the counter medicines. Should you have a financial emergency and need an early withdrawal from an HAS, the penalty has increased from 10% to 20%. Small businesses (subchapter S Corp) are slapped with a surtax which significantly increases their capital gains, investment income and other investment income rates. There are many other taxes imposed by Obamacare beyond the mandate tax, but the ones listed above will significantly hurt the middle class.
Long Island Patriot July 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm
The Obamacare ruling prevents the federal government from forcing states to expand their Medicaid programs. Where does that leave the people who were to be covered in this pool in states that don’t implement this requirement? Will the federal government be responsible for providing them insurance? If so, how will this be paid for? Will a new federal entitlement program be required to insure them? I think it is safe to conclude that additional tax hikes are on the horizon.
Senior citizens will be hurt the most by this law. Obamacare cuts $575 billion from Medicare to pay for the laws new entitlements. These cuts come at a time when 30% more people will enter the program. Many of the cuts come in the form of reduced reimbursements to medical providers. According to a national survey conducted by Jackson Healthcare, the 4th largest health care staffing company in the US, 26% of primary care doctors are not accepting new Medicare patients because of the cuts which are part of Obamacare http://jacksonhealthcare.com/media-room/surveys/physician-practice-trends-survey-2012.aspx.Addi Additionally, the elderly will be hit with a tax increase since they now must exceed 10% of their AGI instead of the current rate of 7.5%. Seniors will be further impacted by the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) decisions which will decide whether you can receive treatment based on cost benefit analysis to determine if your life worth saving.
Long Island Patriot July 1, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Bottom line, there is no such thing as a free lunch. All the platitudes in the world praising the utopian goals of universal coverage do not negate the fact that this is a massive tax increase the likes of which we have never seen in this country. Given the SCOTUS decision which gives the government unlimited taxing authority the sky’s the limit on how much we will ultimately pay for healthcare for all.
Nassau Taxpayer July 1, 2012 at 01:12 pm
The average premium rise for the decade BEFORE the AHCA was DOUBLE any recent, self-interested, dire predictions due to AHCA.
So please give credit where due -- for AHCA and its prospective SAVINGS! If you have health insurance, either via an employer or privately purchased you aren't affected by the Affordable Healthcare Act. If you haven't been able to get health insurance or have been bounced by an insurer, you will be able to get insurance following passage of the Affordable Healthcare Act. if you CHOOSE NOT TO INSURE YOURSELF, you will pay a tax to recover the amounts that all of us (including the rest of those above who are responsible adults) effectively pay to cover the uninsured. TURN OFF THE FAUX NEWS.
Nassau Taxpayer July 1, 2012 at 01:15 pm
Bush's prescription drug plan was a much larger, verifiable and completely unfunded mandate and giveaway to the pharma industry.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2006/01/drug_addled.html
linda smith July 1, 2012 at 02:29 pm
Obama -- Tax and Spend. It's a Tax. He's been documented stating it's not a tax yet Justice Roberts was specific -- he discussed it -- he demonstrated it -- he stated -- it's a TAX.
linda smith July 1, 2012 at 02:36 pm
Yes, just what we need for the country, a President who will not release his grades and who hangs out with terrorists. Real pillar of the community.
linda smith July 1, 2012 at 02:37 pm
Ugh -- left wing liberal.
Nassau Taxpayer July 1, 2012 at 02:38 pm
Koch spox
linda smith July 1, 2012 at 02:39 pm
Agree. In addition, this ruling leaves us wide open for a tax on ANYTHING. We can now be forced to purchase fruits if the government deems so. This lends to massive fraud and corruption by industry.
lookyloo July 1, 2012 at 03:48 pm
Ummm, John. That is exactly what I said. The Court MADE it a tax because otherwise it was not Constitutional. It was the Obama administration who insisted it was not a tax. What do you think I don't understand?
lookyloo July 1, 2012 at 03:59 pm
Kevin, the issue isn't which government you trust more, but what powers were given to the Feds and states via the constitution. Congress has 17 enumerated powers, all the rest belong to the the States. Period.
kevin July 17, 2012 at 02:30 pm
that's whacked !
Kevin July 17, 2012 at 03:17 pm
@ kevin - you said it all
DeeBee July 21, 2012 at 09:18 pm
get real Chris, they'll continue to go to the ER, medical care can't be refused, we "legals" are the only ones that will PAY a penalty.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mineola Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Geoffrey Walter (Editor) June 14, 2013 at 10:03 am
I do not know what you mean by a "senior building." Please be more specific. If you areRead More talking about the Winston-Churchill project and not a senior assisted living facility, we have a small update here: http://mineola.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/flood-mitigation-apartment-projects-moving-forward
SLJ May 29, 2013 at 08:40 pm
Funny how neither comment addressed John's point. A good one BTW...
JOHN HERLING May 30, 2013 at 04:26 pm
Vincent - I don't care what the cost per child is. The actual costs are for teacher andRead More administrator salaries, benefits, pensions etc. Patti - many of the parents and children are living in apartments and houses, some legally and some not, but definitely not in houses that they own. SLJ - Thank you!
Vincent June 3, 2013 at 07:31 am
Ms. Purdy: This is also a act that Mr. Herling should be refering to. An article in the WillistonRead More Times dated Friday May 24, 2013 states: "The Herricks Board of Education is hopeful that a bill drafted by state Sen. Jack Martins(R-Min) to financially penalize landlords who create illegal apartments will stop the practice in the Hericks school district. The bill in it's current form would empower the school district or a municipality in a school district to bring legal action against a landlord who creates an "unapproved conversion" of a single family or two family house to recoup the expense of educating children in those living situations in district shools." And if you don't think the same is happening in the Mineola School District I don't know what to say other than it's your tax money.