SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[jj]

Well, I was wrong. We'll see how this turns out.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We'll see how this turns out.

What do you mean? Isn't this decision how it turned out?

 

[Bri]

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.

I don't have any problem with the insurance industry having more customers -- spreading the risk is how insurance is supposed to work.

The problem is currently a lack of competition, which is a separate problem. Hopefully the health insurance exchanges should increase competition.

If that doesn't work, Congress might be compelled to implement a public option, or even a single-payer system (as it probably should have been all along).

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you like hockey, they play it year-round here. Some of the best sales of hockey equipment are going on now.

So a friend of mine was told by his boss that he'd be promoted to head the new office in Canada.

"Canada!?" my friend exclaimed. "There's nobody there but hockey players and whores!"

"Watch it," said the boss. "My wife is Canadian!"

"Really? What team does she play for?"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem is currently a lack of competition, which is a separate problem. Hopefully the health insurance exchanges should increase competition.

Don't you think the insurance reforms themselves will help greatly? In particular, the part that requires them to pay out a certain percentage of the money they collect from premiums for actual healthcare services (effectively capping how much they spend on marketing and such, and how much is kept as profit).

Even the mandate itself should encourage competition for comparable plans ("federal minimum" sort of like the "state minimum" for auto insurance). Without that, insurance salesmen can always manage to make even a wide array of options virtually impossible to compare.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then I remembered why I didn't like the bill as formulated: it mandates that individuals buy private insurance from for-profit insurance companies, guaranteeing them a huge new captive market to extract premiums from.

That's simply not true. The law does not mandate that you buy insurance from for-profit companies.

In fact, nearly 1/4 of Americans will satisfy the minimum essential coverage requirement by getting government coverage (Medicaid, Medicare and VA). Most Americans already satisfy it with the insurance they already have (and thus will not be required to do anything different). Some people who couldn't previously afford insurance will get help in buying insurance, and some people who can afford it but don't currently have it will either have to buy insurance (not necessarily from a for-profit company) or pay the tax penalty.

There is absolutely nothing in the law that mandates you buy insurance from a for-profit company.

And I'm not sure the mandate is such a boon to the insurance industry anyway. It is coupled with banning the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting, forbids turning down high-risk people (pre-existing conditions), does away with lifetime benefit caps and unreasonable annual caps, and even effectively limits how much those companies can take as profits (and spend on marketing and such) by requiring that they pay out in claims a specified percentage of premiums collected. (As Obama notes, some people will be getting refund checks from their insurance companies in the near future!)

 

[Bri]

Don't you think the insurance reforms themselves will help greatly? In particular, the part that requires them to pay out a certain percentage of the money they collect from premiums for actual healthcare services (effectively capping how much they spend on marketing and such, and how much is kept as profit).

Yes. I was pointing out that even accepting the premise that this is a boon for the greedy insurance companies because they will keep the same premiums, there are other provisions to make it less likely (including the exchanges and the one you mentioned).

-Bri

 

[applecorped]

Oh, that wily Roberts. He let's Obama win the battle only to set him up to lose the war.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I did that on purpose so pgwenthold could see the code he couldn't be arsed to look up, you dingbat!

And the pun was lousy.

That's all right; the dog had lice too.

 

[Checkmite]

Let's get down to what's really important: What does the Supreme Court decision mean for your vagina?

 

[Twiggett]

That's simply not true. The law does not mandate that you buy insurance from for-profit companies.

In fact, nearly 1/4 of Americans will satisfy the minimum essential coverage requirement by getting government coverage (Medicaid, Medicare and VA). Most Americans already satisfy it with the insurance they already have (and thus will not be required to do anything different). Some people who couldn't previously afford insurance will get help in buying insurance, and some people who can afford it but don't currently have it will either have to buy insurance (not necessarily from a for-profit company) or pay the tax penalty.

There is absolutely nothing in the law that mandates you buy insurance from a for-profit company.

And I'm not sure the mandate is such a boon to the insurance industry anyway. It is coupled with banning the practice of rescission and post-claim underwriting, forbids turning down high-risk people (pre-existing conditions), does away with lifetime benefit caps and unreasonable annual caps, and even effectively limits how much those companies can take as profits (and spend on marketing and such) by requiring that they pay out in claims a specified percentage of premiums collected. (As Obama notes, some people will be getting refund checks from their insurance companies in the near future!)

Not saying you are wrong but where exactly would one, who is well above the income levels for any government assistance, purchase health insurance if not from a private company?

No sarcasm or the like intended, it is meant as an honest question.

 

[gupwalla]

Not saying you are wrong but where exactly would one, who is well above the income levels for any government assistance, purchase health insurance if not from a private company?

No sarcasm or the like intended, it is meant as an honest question.

Well, I just did a fast Google search for "non-profit health insurance" and there is no shortage of links and ads.

 

[CaptainManacles]

Don't you think the insurance reforms themselves will help greatly? In particular, the part that requires them to pay out a certain percentage of the money they collect from premiums for actual healthcare services (effectively capping how much they spend on marketing and such, and how much is kept as profit).

I think on the surface that seems like a boon, the way that it might seem advantageous to kill Bill Gates and divide up his money. We'd all get a few bucks and it's unlikely that he was going to have any more billion dollar ideas anytime soon. But what about the next guy who has a billion dollar idea, or just the general idea of respecting people's basic human rights?

Sure, for the insurance company, or any other company out there, we could see a benefit in voting away their profit margin, or lowering their profit margin, but aren't you kinda screwing over those people who invested in the company and built it up, completely arbitrarily? Why not do that to anyone, and then why is anyone ever going to invest in building up services that people need and use? And what about the general idea that people have basic freedoms and human rights, and if two people agree that an arrangement is fair, than that is their business. It's not like the insurance companies are personally holding medical care hostage, sitting on top a pile of anti-biotics and band-aids. They're just mitigating risk, for a cost, and you either think that cost is worth it, and you buy into it or not, well until now.

Some of that is confounded by requirements that your employer provide employees medical care, then you don't have any real say in your medical coverage, but I never understood why your employer should be involved in your medical decisions.

Limiting marketing falls into the same kind of category. Couldn't we benefit by limiting the money *all* companies spend on marketing? Why stop at marketing? Why not legislate any expense we see as wasteful and run all companies in the public trust? Then every corner drug store and grocery store will function like the DMV, and Utopia will finally have been achieved.

 

[Travis]

I don't think there would be much benefit in limiting *all* companies from marketing. Health insurance is a very special case because money spent on TV ads is less money spent on actual patients with life threatening conditions. If another industry was blowing all its money on advertising and not the people it was supposed to be helping resulting in them dying we'd probably see the same agitation for regulation.

 

[Roadtoad]

I'm still reading about it all. The major business in all of this doesn't start until 2014.

What has galled me is that there is so little information about what's actually IN the bill that can be relied on. (And if you think talk radio is a valid source, you ought to put that crack pipe aside.)

 

[R.Mackey]

I actually called the decision... including Roberts' vote. Didn't see Kennedy switching, though. That was close.

Despite my suspicion of the man, I think Roberts got it right. I'm perfectly comfortable calling the personal mandate a special tax -- seems appropriate, just like your social security taxes -- and it does feel like it would have been an extension of the Commerce clause.

What amuses me, however, is the Republican opposition to it. I mean, look at Republican tax policy. They're all about nailing those freeloaders who don't pay any taxes, right? I'll accept for now that it's a mere coincidence that those "freeloaders" happen to be the lower economic classes.

So why are they opposed to the idea of eliminating freeloaders taking a ride on the medical system? Prior to ACA, anyone can do it. Don't buy insurance. Don't fuss with approved MDs or approved medications -- just get hurt or sick and go to the emergency room. Let the suckers pay for you. That's a purely Democratic mindset, or so I've been told by various talking heads.

Romney had it right as Governor, when he referred to it as the "Personal Responsibility Principle." But I guess that was subsumed by a higher Republican axiom, namely "if he's for it, I'm against it." It really is that simple, isn't it?

 

[leftysergeant]

Now Mittens is stuck with a slightly different version of his own plan and no clear image of what he will do differently.

Sucks to have to look inventive in that situation.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm still reading about it all. The major business in all of this doesn't start until 2014.

What has galled me is that there is so little information about what's actually IN the bill that can be relied on. (And if you think talk radio is a valid source, you ought to put that crack pipe aside.)

Blame cable news. Throughout 2009 all they did was discuss how the ACA would affect Obama politically, and even now, with the SC case, it's all about how it will affect the political fortunes of Obama or Romney.

And yet an embarrassingly large percentage of Americans have no idea what is in the bill. When asked about specific provisions, they overwhelming approve, yet a majority hates "Obamacare". It should be a national shame.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I don't personally find the Medicare premise compelling as that is not an option for many if not most. As for the non-profits, I'm not sure they've reached critical mass so as to make a difference? I think you have a point, I'm just not sure how good it is at the moment.

Your response is nonsensical. Muldur's point, which you called 'a reasonable argument' is factually incorrect because there is no requirement to purchase health insurance from a private, for-profit, insurance company.

 

[Roadtoad]

Blame cable news. Throughout 2009 all they did was discuss how the ACA would affect Obama politically, and even now, with the SC case, it's all about how it will affect the political fortunes of Obama or Romney.

And yet an embarrassingly large percentage of Americans have no idea what is in the bill. When asked about specific provisions, they overwhelming approve, yet a majority hates "Obamacare". It should be a national shame.

Actually, I'd prefer to lay the blame at intellectual laziness among a lot of the electorate, as well. Seems to me if there were any interest in finding out about this, some in the media might have been more willing to provide.