• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

BenBurch

Gatekeeper of The Left
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
37,538
Location
The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
I expect we will be hearing this decision shortly, and thought it ought to have its own thread.

It may be that decision will be delayed until after the NYSE/NASDAQ close because this ruling could have MAJOR effect on trading stocks.
 
As proof I am totally over-worked, I didn't have the day of the week right. I'll return to this thread tomorrow AM when the decision really IS expected.

As my boss is on our group plan and his stroke has cost United Health Care about $2 million and counting, I fully expect to have no health coverage by Friday if they strike Obamacare down.

Unless someone can explain why they wouldn't drop us immediately if rescission and lifetime caps are made legal again? And then talk about a pre-existing condition, huh?
 
Get your decision straight from the horse's .... er ... from the Court's own web site at:
Supreme Court of the United States.

Look under "Recent Decisions" on the right side of the screen. Several opinions may be issued tomorrow, not just on health care. One case of note is discussed in this thread.

The name of the decision should be:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida
but it might be also listed as:
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
-- or --
Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services.

Opinions typically get issued starting at 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time. BE PATIENT. Lots of people will be trying to download the decision as soon as it is available. There often are delays, sometimes fifteen-minutes or so, between issuance of opinions. You may need to refresh your screen every few minutes.
 
As my boss is on our group plan and his stroke has cost United Health Care about $2 million and counting, I fully expect to have no health coverage by Friday if they strike Obamacare down.

Unless someone can explain why they wouldn't drop us immediately if rescission and lifetime caps are made legal again? And then talk about a pre-existing condition, huh?

Absolutely no reason.

I have an acquaintance whose 24-year-old daughter was diagnosed with cancer. She was on her insurance because of the HCRA. I don't know how the hell she will pay for the chemo after this is struck down.
 
SCOTUSblog lists the following cases as not having opinions yet:

U.S. v. Alvarez: Whether the Stolen Valor Act..., which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

First Am. Financial Corp. v. Edwards: Whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution.

H.H.S. v. Fla.: (1) Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision. (2) Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a).

Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius: Whether the Affordable Care Act must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’s limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.

Fla. v. H.H.S.: (1) Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply? (2) To what extent (if any) can the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act be severed from the remainder of the Act?
 
SCOTUSblog lists the following cases as not having opinions yet:

U.S. v. Alvarez: Whether the Stolen Valor Act..., which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

First Am. Financial Corp. v. Edwards: Whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution.

H.H.S. v. Fla.: (1) Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision. (2) Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a).

Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius: Whether the Affordable Care Act must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’s limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution.

Fla. v. H.H.S.: (1) Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply? (2) To what extent (if any) can the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act be severed from the remainder of the Act?

Thank you! You should post more often since so many of us lay-people sit around arguing about how the law works.
 
SCOTUSblog lists the following cases as not having opinions yet:

U.S. v. Alvarez: Whether the Stolen Valor Act..., which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

This is another interesting case. I hope some toe rags get what they deserve out of this one
 
Looking forward to my rates dropping if Obamacare gets repealed since they went up as a direct result of it passing.
 
Looking forward to my rates dropping if Obamacare gets repealed since they went up as a direct result of it passing.

Your evidence?

Isn't this simply post hoc ergo propter hoc? How do you know it wasn't the transit of Venus that caused your rates to increase?
 
IMHO the worst result would be a partial repeal where they throw out the individual mandate but leave the rest intact. Because then people will have no incentive to play by the rules and every incentive to game the system to their own advantage, waiting to buy health insurance until they are faced with a big medical bill. It's a recipe for skyrocketing premiums.
 
The current, politicized court will over turn this, and will do so as close to the election as they can manage.

No court that voted the way they did in Bush V. Gore can possible claim any kind of objectivism.
 
The SCOTUS has at worst four partisan hacks on any one particular side (who they are and how many for which side may vary according to your point of view... but I have a hard time describing any five or more that can all be counted on to vote together.

In a way, Kennedy has more influence over the SCOTUS than its chief justice.
 
:dl:



O rly? pls xplain.

Your evidence?

Isn't this simply post hoc ergo propter hoc? How do you know it wasn't the transit of Venus that caused your rates to increase?
Jeez guys, this has been covered before. There are things that insurers are now required to include in policies, even if you don't need or want them. You think those additional coverages are free? You're telling me that you don't even know this fact? Appearantly your infatuation with Obamacare as blinded you to the downsides. 3.4 - 9 % increase.
NA-BH825A_RATEH_NS_20100907211302.gif


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums
 
The current, politicized court will over turn this, and will do so as close to the election as they can manage.

No court that voted the way they did in Bush V. Gore can possible claim any kind of objectivism.

4 of the 9 current justices were not involved in that decision so any link between the the current case and Bush V. Gore is more than a little tenuous, in my opinion.

And by the way, it wouldn't have mattered had that court ruled in favor of Gore

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/u...d-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Both articles agree that even had the limited recounts that were stopped by the court been allowed to continue it would not have changed the outcome.
 
4 of the 9 current justices were not involved in that decision so any link between the the current case and Bush V. Gore is more than a little tenuous, in my opinion.

And by the way, it wouldn't have mattered had that court ruled in favor of Gore

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/u...d-florida-ballots-finds-justices-did-not.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

Both articles agree that even had the limited recounts that were stopped by the court been allowed to continue it would not have changed the outcome.

But it's important that we preempt the likely decision by hand waving it away due to politicization rather that a legitimate decision based on the merits of the case!
 
Jeez guys, this has been covered before. There are things that insurers are now required to include in policies, even if you don't need or want them. You think those additional coverages are free? You're telling me that you don't even know this fact? Appearantly your infatuation with Obamacare as blinded you to the downsides. 3.4 - 9 % increase.

You still haven't provided evidence that supports your claim.

"Attributed" by whom? That passive voice construction masks, I think, the fact that all you've provided is that insurance companies who raised their rates claim that Obamacare is somehow the cause.

ETA: One of the health insurance reform measures in the ACA is an effective limit on profits they can make off of premiums by tying premiums to benefits paid out. http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2...for-health-insurance-companies-in-your-state/
 
Last edited:
The current, politicized court will over turn this, and will do so as close to the election as they can manage.

No court that voted the way they did in Bush V. Gore can possible claim any kind of objectivism.

Point of note: this isn't the same SCOTUS as ruled in Bush v. Gore. There has been a lot of turnover since then.

I'll suspend judgement on the ruling until we actually have it in hand. No sense in lighting off fireworks or getting our knickers in a twist just yet.

ETA: Twiggett beat me to it :)
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom