SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

And frankly, I really do accept the argument the insurance industry made when challenged about rescission and post-claim underwriting (basically all tied to their ability to fuss over pre-existing conditions). They said the only way they could put an end to that heinous practice was to have comprehensive health insurance reform that included an individual mandate.

http://democrats.energycommerce.hou...mpanies-state-perspectives-and-legislative-so

(It seems that many of the documents that page links to are no longer there, but I promise that's exactly what the insurance company reps said in their testimony that was in response to a litany of horror stories and data showing they weren't just isolated incidents cherry picked by Michael Moore.)

 

[Roadtoad]

There are a number of analysts who are saying that Roberts is playing a longer game with this decision, that certain decisions over the recent past have played a role as well. Without public confidence, the Court cannot function, and Bush V. Gore among other cases have had an impact on their ability to function.

That the behavior of our nation's leaders have had this kind of effect on the third branch of government is disturbing, but not surprising. We've lacked genuine statesmen for some time, particularly since the passing of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. (And we damned well could use him around now.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Fine, they can buy from not-for profits and many can get medicare. The net effect will still be increased demand of private insurance companies, right? A.) Not everyone has medicare as an option, right? B.) There is a question as to whether or not, not-for profit companies will be able to service this increased need, right?

The point is increased pressure on the marketplace.

Definitely.

Just as there are a bajillion auto insurance companies offering state minimum coverage, I think we'll see health insurance companies competing for that new piece of market that will need to get minimum essential coverage.

One nice thing is, there will be a known product, "minimum essential coverage," that consumers in that market can meaningfully and easily compare. So people in that segment will be able to shop for their best price, and all the BS about why plan X costs a lot more can be ignored.

 

[RandFan]

Definitely.

Just as there are a bajillion auto insurance companies offering state minimum coverage, I think we'll see health insurance companies competing for that new piece of market that will need to get minimum essential coverage.

One nice thing is, there will be a known product, "minimum essential coverage," that consumers in that market can meaningfully and easily compare. So people in that segment will be able to shop for their best price, and all the BS about why plan X costs a lot more can be ignored.

Yes. And I should have pointed out that the market and market prices will eventually stabilize. Competition will result in an equilibrium. The competition for auto insurance here in California is extremely high.

 

[keale]

So I'm reading stories about how Republican governors are going to simply refuse to set up their state exchanges. But the law says that if they don't, the the Feds will have to come in and set them up, and in some cases, run them. So is that their new strategy? Simply fail to do what they law tells them to so they can run around screaming about the Feds taking over their exchanges?

Has the GOP fallen so low that all governance is about planning media freakouts?

Yep their so busy creating gridlock by blocking anything being done that they effectively end up doing nothing.

 

[pgwenthold]

Definitely.

Just as there are a bajillion auto insurance companies offering state minimum coverage, I think we'll see health insurance companies competing for that new piece of market that will need to get minimum essential coverage.

One nice thing is, there will be a known product, "minimum essential coverage," that consumers in that market can meaningfully and easily compare. So people in that segment will be able to shop for their best price, and all the BS about why plan X costs a lot more can be ignored.

Are you saying that the act will lower costs by increasing the competition, like by using free market forces?

Well, no wonder the republicans are opposed to it.

Oh, wait...

 

[Roadtoad]

Freeper is mad:

Oh, please. Tell me it's a joke. Tell me it's a joke...

 

[RandFan]

Yep their so busy creating gridlock by blocking anything being done that they effectively end up doing nothing.

I would agree with that.

 

[keale]

I would agree with that.

OT but is there any time in our history that one party was hellbent on solely stopping or blocking anything the opposition party does?

 

[Roadtoad]

OT but is there any time in our history that one party was hellbent on solely stopping or blocking anything the opposition party does?

The Johnson Administration: The Republicans tried to block all Civil Rights legislation.

 

[RandFan]

OT but is there any time in our history that one party was hellbent on solely stopping or blocking anything the opposition party does?

I believe so (see RT's post). I'm not sure if any where as transparent about it though. The chutzpa is breathtaking.

That said, I get why. I was a GOP partisan when Clinton kicked ass. He did it with compromise, triangulation and co-opting of GOP ideas. It wasn't a very fun time to be a Republican I can tell you. In fact it downright sucked. Never mind we got changes to welfare and a balanced budget. It wasn't the policies that really mattered. It was the home team losing with the home teams play book.

They were not going to let that ever happen again. No sir. Not to be hyperbolic but we need to understand that for many politicians it's not about "we the people". It's about them. And I include Democrats in that.

 

[keale]

I believe so (see RT's post). I'm not sure if any where as transparent about it though. The chutzpa is breathtaking.

That said, I get why. I was a GOP partisan when Clinton kicked ass. He did it with compromise, triangulation and co-opting of GOP ideas. It wasn't a very fun time to be a Republican I can tell you. In fact it downright sucked. Never mind we got changes to welfare and a balanced budget. It wasn't the policies that really mattered. It was the home team losing with the home teams play book.

They were not going to let that ever happen again. No sir. Not to be hyperbolic but we need to understand that for many politicians it's not about "we the people". It's about them. And I include Democrats in that.

Thanks guys

 

[IchabodPlain]

No. The claim was made that the result of the decision would put pressure on the market. A supporting premise was technically incorrect. But effectively correct, IMO.

That wasn't the claim. Read again:

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.

Do you see the word effectively or essentially in there? No? Now, I've already demonstrated that this is not the case - you simply changed the premise.

I was defending the argument, that argument is effectively correct in spite of your hyper technical point.

You made up the argument, because you haven't defended what Muldur actually claimed.

The argument stands that medicare and current not-for profit companies won't do much if anything to mitigate the pressure on the market.

Which argument? The one Mulder claimed or the one you made up afterwards?

I stand by that defense and don't care about your personal need to stroke your ego...

...says the guy who didn't read what he was responding to and then replied with gibberish about gold stars when he was shown to be incorrect. In the future, just say 'I thought that's what he meant, my bad' and move on to save yourself the embarrassment of inventing claims based on faulty reading comprehension.

 

[IchabodPlain]

The simple fact that if they do not they must pay a criminal penalty is all the proof you should need.

Unfortunately, it isn't. Can you point to the section of the legislation (or any source, really) which says that you must purchase insurance from private, for-profit, providers?

ETA: Also, it's been ruled a tax, not a penalty.

This bill is not "single-payer".

Two things:

1) Duh

2) So?

That it isn't single payer doesn't not dictate nor imply that it mandates you purchase health insurance from a private, for-profit, provider. Enroll in the military? Qualify for Medicare? Nonprofit insurer? Any of those options satisfy the requirement to carry insurance. Just because it doesnt include the option you want, does not mean that there are no options.

 

[RandFan]

That wasn't the claim. Read again:

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.

And as most cannot get medicare and not-for profits aren't exactly a going concern at the moment then I stand by what was meant. Technically, it was wrong. But I'm sure you will keep making the same trite point again and again as if anyone gives a ****.

 

[IchabodPlain]

And as most cannot get medicare and not-for profits aren't exactly a going concern at the moment then I stand by what was meant. Technically, it was wrong. But I'm sure you will keep making the same trite point again and again as if anyone gives a ****.

Yeah! **** what people say, its what I think they meant to say that matters (aren't asterisks soo hostile and persuasive)?

Eta: With respect to the bolded: Apology accepted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you saying that the act will lower costs by increasing the competition, like by using free market forces?

Well, no wonder the republicans are opposed to it.

Oh, wait...

Well, insurance exchanges rather than a public option were a mainstay of the Republican proposals.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The simple fact that if they do not they must pay a criminal penalty is all the proof you should need.

Where are you getting your information?

The tax penalty requires no criminal prosecution. (Similarly, if you pay your taxes too late, you may be assessed a tax penalty. It doesn't mean you are guilty of a crime.)

And again, you're simply wrong in your claim that the ACA requires people to buy insurance from for-profit companies. Let's not forget what claim you're defending.

The only way to construe your claim to make it true would mean that just because someone somewhere had to run out and buy Quicken to file his tax return on time means that the Tax Code requires people to buy Quicken. It wouldn't be very honest to say, especially in the context of a constitutional challenge to the law, that the Tax Code requires individuals to buy Quicken, would it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: Also, it's been ruled a tax, not a penalty.

Just a minor quibble: the ruling did not say it was not a penalty. In fact, the government cited case law arguing that something that is a penalty and has the intention of enforcing compliance to regulation can also be a tax (if it also has the intention of raising revenue), as in this case.

But it's certainly not a criminal penalty!

 

[RandFan]

Yeah! **** what people say, its what I think they meant to say that matters...

Exactly. Pedantry is largely pointless. There's nothing wrong with trying to ensure good communication but when the message is clear having a smarmy attitude and being condescending isn't very conducive to a discussion. I tire of that childish nonsense.

...(aren't asterisks soo hostile and persuasive)?

Asterisks are as effective as smug arrogance. Which is why I reserve them for those who are smugly arrogant.

Eta: With respect to the bolded: Apology accepted.

A.) No apology was given as none was deserved. B.) I conceded that it I was wrong some posts back and I have conceded that point at least 3 times. Like I said, I'm not interested in your ego. People who are only here to stroke their ego are boorish.