iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Arthur Delaney
GET UPDATES FROM Arthur:

Supreme Court's Health Care Views Worry Obamacare Beneficiaries

Posted: 03/29/2012 3:31 pm Updated: 03/29/2012 3:48 pm

Alan Sorkowitz of Tucson, Ariz., had been planning a road trip to see family this summer, but now that it seems the Supreme Court might strike down the health care reform law, his travel plans are in doubt.

"If, all of a sudden, we may be faced with health premiums that are God knows what," Sorkowitz said, "it throws all of our budgeting, all of our plans into limbo."

Sorkowitz and his wife, Michele Rappaport, both 59, enrolled last year in a new government program for the uninsured called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). The Affordable Care Act created the program in 2010. It's open to any U.S. citizen with a medical condition who has been uninsured for at least six months. The program has not performed well, enrolling fewer people and costing more money than expected.

The Obama administration has described PCIP as just a "bridge" to 2014, when the health care law bans the insurance industry's discrimination against adults with pre-existing conditions. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law, the PCIP may be a bridge to nowhere.

"It's a lot to try to plan your life when this health care thing is just a great big question mark," Sorkowitz said.

Officials with the Arizona PCIP did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, declined to comment on what might happen to the PCIP's 50,000 enrollees if the Supreme Court rules unfavorably on the health care law. The Obama administration has insisted that it has no backup plan.

During oral arguments this week, enough of the nine justices expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of the law -- particularly its requirement that every American purchase insurance or pay a penalty -- that many observers think the court might strike down part or all of the law in the coming months.

Such an outcome would be especially disappointing to Sorkowitz and Rappaport, who went through a harrowing ordeal just to qualify for the new program. In 2010, the retired couple saw their monthly health insurance premiums jump from $1,700 to nearly $2,500. Worried they'd have no money to pay for things like food and shelter, at the beginning of 2011 they dropped their policies and spent six months uninsured so they could qualify for the PCIP. During that time, they limited their hiking, biking and dancing so as to reduce the risk of costly injuries.

The plan worked. Sorkowitz and Rappaport enrolled last year, and their respective monthly premiums are $450 and $334. The program caps out-of-pocket costs and has lower deductibles than anything available to them as individual consumers.

"It's been great," Sorkowitz said. "All of my doctors have been participating. They're included in the network, and it's just given us tremendous peace of mind."

To make sure their plan was feasible, the couple consulted with their congressional representative -- at the time, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). Her staffers assured them that the $5 billion program, which was modeled on high-risk insurance pools already operating in 35 states, was not controversial since Republicans had supported it. In fact, expanding high-risk pools was a central part of Republicans' alternative plan for health care reform.

But past Republican support for the PCIP isn't much comfort to Sorkowitz and Rappaport now. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told Bloomberg News that Republicans would be happy to repeal Obamacare without replacing it. McConnell mentioned the possibility of rewriting medical malpractice laws and allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines, but he didn't say anything about high-risk pools.

Sorkowitz said he is hoping the Supreme Court's swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, will recognize that the insurance market is different from other markets and that Congress didn't overstep its authority with the Affordable Care Act. He said he was heartened by Kennedy's comment Tuesday that people who don't buy health insurance affect "the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries."

"Everybody needs to see a doctor at some point or another," Sorkowitz said. "Insurance is something you take out hoping you're not going to have to use it. You hope your house won't burn down, your car won't be in an accident. You hope you won't get sick, but you will. You're not protecting against a potentiality; you're trying to protect against a certainty."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,215
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
murphthesurf3 06:56 PM on 03/29/2012
IF THE HEALTH CARE LAW IS STRUCK DOWN….”MY SON WILL DIE”
THE GOP IS CORRECT….
WE ARE FACING THE POSSIBILITY OF A DEATH PANEL….
IT IS CALLED THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.


A mom reflects on how a death panel could end up killing her son

Spoke with a friend this morning. Her son has a respiratory illness which requires  Read More...
12:20 AM on 04/02/2012
oh well......that's life
sixbluntsdeep
Government is people too, my friend.
04:53 PM on 04/07/2012
That may have been life a hundred years ago. This may be life in third world countries in 2012. This does not have to be life for the wealthiest nation on earth.

This is the problem with people with outlooks such as your own. No motivation to make things better, simply content with what is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
december30
09:48 AM on 03/31/2012
Every American should be worried about the Court's views. Get a grip America and STOP your madness.
12:21 AM on 04/02/2012
it is unconstitutional ......life goes on
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hoover52
I love all of nature's furchildren
07:38 PM on 03/30/2012
I believe this whole matter is going to boil down to however the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. l've read some comments saying that the Constitution doesn't need interpretation. I disagree with those comments. The Constitution lays a framework. It is a very short and very broad document. It REQUIRES interpretation. Therefore, I post this link for those interested.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_intr.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jablonskimary
03:04 PM on 03/30/2012
You people DO understand that the Supreme Court is not ruling on the POLICY of this bill, right? Sometimes the ignorance of people on the workings of their own government really scares me.
02:02 PM on 03/30/2012
In California, the PCIP has not performed well because it is not publicized or marketed. Health insurance agents don't talk about it because there is very little money to be made. The PCIP is up against the marketing of Aetna, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, etc. The pricing is competitive but no one knows about.
photo
gaydood
♥ Always Wins !!!
04:17 PM on 03/30/2012
i put it in my bio line about a year ago:)
12:23 AM on 04/02/2012
oh well
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SansCulottes08
12:37 PM on 03/30/2012
The Sorkowitz/Rapaports would be much better off with single payer healthcare for all than they are under the needlessly complex illogical compromise called Obamacare.

If the right wing SCOTUS justices strike down Obamacare, they will (unintentionally) do more to advance the cause of single payer healthcare than anyone else has done thus far, or could possibly ever do.

The right wing SCOTUS (in)justices of 1857 thought they were saving the institution of slavery with their Dred Scott decision. Look where that got them.

Go ahead Roberts. Make our Day.

Go ahead, Alito. Make our Second Obama term.

Go ahead, Thomas. Make our Democratic House of Representatives.

Go ahead, Scalia. Make our filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority.

Go ahead, Kennedy. Make our Millennium.
12:16 PM on 03/30/2012
Don't worry the conservatives will send you a bowl of failed dogma to ease your suffering!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UncleMike
Conservatism Always Fails
11:54 AM on 03/30/2012
The Tea Party doesn't yet have the President it wants, or even the Presidential candidate it wants. But it has the Supreme Court it wants.

And that means it will NEVER have the President it wants, and in January it will no longer have the House of Representatives it wants.

http://www.comunitee.com/comunitee/showComuniteeBarArticle/3573971/17536/2
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turtlenewz
02:30 AM on 03/31/2012
Obama 2012 Save the Supreme Court
11:47 AM on 03/30/2012
If this court strikes down the mandate I sure hope a state challenges the 50 state auto insurance mandate. The CON's like saying the difference is one does not have to own or drive a car so if you choose too you should have insurance. If it is not a federal law to have auto insurance why do ALL 50 states have it and why would a Montana state trooper ask to see my insurance when I am driving a California licensed auto ? I don't give a rats arse if its a fed or state law its still a MANDATE and windfall for the insurance companies. Come on one state challenge the state law I want too see how this neo nazi CON court defends it and not the healthcare mandate .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hoover52
I love all of nature's furchildren
03:59 PM on 03/30/2012
That's ok.Without it, if you cause an accident and someone is severely injured, you can have your pants sued right off your butt. I guess you're okay with that.
11:14 AM on 03/30/2012
I wonder what the court would look like if McCain had won?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Turtlenewz
02:31 AM on 03/31/2012
Better make sure Romney is Not Re-elected . save the Supreme Court Obama 2012
photo
SantaMonican
Visit the carousel, in the Hippodrome, on the pier
10:57 AM on 03/30/2012
This is what happens when republicans appoint Supreme Court Justices.
Never let the GOP anywhere near the White House ever again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcapitalsim
RYAN
11:12 AM on 03/30/2012
yeah,they stand up for our rights.....and I know you dems cant stand that.
photo
SantaMonican
Visit the carousel, in the Hippodrome, on the pier
11:17 AM on 03/30/2012
corporate rights- they say corporations are people-money speech- worst court ever.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UncleMike
Conservatism Always Fails
11:37 AM on 03/30/2012
They only stand up for the power and privilege of rich people, and you damn well know it.
zanzy
your micro bio is empty, just like our democracy.
10:51 AM on 03/30/2012
If this bill is struck dowm, then medicare for all will be more powerful.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcapitalsim
RYAN
10:55 AM on 03/30/2012
we cant afford it.
zanzy
your micro bio is empty, just like our democracy.
10:58 AM on 03/30/2012
Medicare for all is the program we can afford, we cut out the middle men, the 4-profits skimming off the top. This is why health care is so expensive and we cannot cover everyone.
zanzy
your micro bio is empty, just like our democracy.
11:15 AM on 03/30/2012
why are you building a car garage with a car elevator?
photo
gaydood
♥ Always Wins !!!
04:19 PM on 03/30/2012
but would need new legistation,it would be cool
zanzy
your micro bio is empty, just like our democracy.
10:44 AM on 03/30/2012
Can someone explain to be (factual) why the conservatie supreme court justices do not like this bill, since it gives the private health insurance comapnies all the american people money and the get to be in the health care insurance business?

I get why progressives and socialist and evidence-based public health experts do not like this bill, but the conservative justices, i don't understand. What future/event are they afraid of and private market of health insurance with most americans as customers? This seems like a wet dream to them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rcapitalsim
RYAN
11:12 AM on 03/30/2012
because the government can NOT make you purchase a private product or service.
12:23 PM on 03/30/2012
I thank them for proving the point that compromising with conservatives is a waste of time. Now we can move on to the better option of single payer and that is constitutional! As Churchill said America always does the right thing in the end but only after exhausting all other options! Well they have been exhausted!
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
12:51 PM on 03/30/2012
The government has and does frequently. Your talking point is meaningless.
11:51 AM on 03/30/2012
The reason they don't like the bill is because it was proposed by Barack Obama and it would benefit the middle class and that is the only reason. My husband will not be able to get his Avastin injections, will probably go blind, and I have a family who has no problem with that. Thank you conservative party. You know why they don't care? Because they want gastric bypass operations. Tell them to go on a diet!!!!
10:44 AM on 03/30/2012
What is ironic to me is that the mandate is at the heart of the court's 'concerns'. But this mandate was actually designed to be a 'free market' solution to the health care problem, rather than taxing citizens to pay for a social benefit (i.e. Medicare, Social Security). So once again, Obama tried to compromise on the idea, to make it suit the more right leaning crew; and that portion is what could cause the biggest problem. I guess next time they should try not compromising like the GOP does when they have control, and just jam a tax payed for social benefit through congress. GOPers can fight bicker all they like 70% approval for the bill, it will happen. At this point you're just buying time, and making money off of sick people. I expect nothing less from the GOP.
zanzy
your micro bio is empty, just like our democracy.
10:49 AM on 03/30/2012
Yes, I just do not understand why the conservative justice are against it. IF you cannot do the increase the risk pool vias the mandate, what left is medicare for all?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
UncleMike
Conservatism Always Fails
11:37 AM on 03/30/2012
Moral of the story: A conservatives's idea of "compromise" is, "You give me 98 percent of what I want, and then you can go to hell." No more compromising with these fascists.
CactusTom
My New Novel
10:44 AM on 03/30/2012
Just as the Dred Scott decision in the 1800's was a bridge to nowhere for the American dream, because conservative justices of that day saw the Constitution as a dead, inflexible document, once against because of conservative, dead head judges America faces a possible second bridge to nowhere this time over healthcare. It would be appear that this set of conservatives judges has reduced their Constitutional intellect to discussing broccoli.

Moreover, the notion of strict constructional judges is bogus. The founding fathers deliberately designed the Constitution as a general guide whose interpretation would be adjustable to changing times. Indeed, the Constitution is not a dead, inflexible document set in stone. It was meant to live through the wisdom of the justices over time, and thus judges who lack the wisdom to do good are by their very character unconstitutional, and therefore unfit to serve on the highest court of the land.