I'm thinking it looks like the whole thing may get tossed, if even Kennedy doesn't think he can split it up.
So it was an odd day in court today. Scalia stated that having to read the entire healthcare bill personally would be a violation of the 8th amendment(cruel and unusual punishment). Conservative justices pondered what parts of the bill to retain if the mandate was struck down, while liberal justices argued that the court should only rule on constitutionality.
Based on the questions from the justices, it will be 5-4 in favor of overturning the mandate, but I would not recommend betting everything you own on that. Intrade has it at a 60 % chance of overturning the mandate.
At least there are limits on the monopoly with HC reform. 80% of premiums will be required to got to health care PROVIDERS leaving 20% for those that do nothing but cut checks. It's not perfect but it's better than them pocketing 35% or more profit for just being middlemen.
Looks that way, but I'll wait. OBTW, thanks for the link to the SCOTUS, I went there off and on all day.
That would be my bet, but like I said, it is not uncommon for guesses made on questions asked by the judges to be highly misleading. June is not far away, we will know then.
Hard to have saved enough money at 18, 20, or even 30 to cover the cost of some diseases/conditions and accidents are impossible to predict. It's no different for auto insurance. In my state you have the option to carry a $50k bond instead of liability insurance.
That's not a limit. If they want more money, why couldn't they just raise premiums so that their 20% cut covers their expenses and salary goals?
Sounds like a way to encourage continued overconsumption of medical care. For every 80 cents patients spend on themselves, the company gets 20.
How much of that is tied to the malpractice insurance all the doctors involved have to pay?
Not very much. Better than half the states have enacted tort reform which many conservatives hold out as the key to cost containment. Problem is, tort reform hasn't lowered medical costs in those states one bit. What it did was keep some messed up patients from obtaining a full recovery while making the insurance companies and doctors a little richer.
After all of this blathering on, one thing is looking clearer by the minute.
Ding, dong, this witch is dead. The mandate is being stricken, and the Court doesn't seem interested in parsing through 2,700 pages to salvage any part of it, other than Ginsburg.
Start over.
Tort reform cannot undo the massive amount of problems we have. To have pronounced it as some silver bullet to solve all problems is incorrect. It's one step in many that have to take place to make a dent in the fubar insurance process which, if Obamacare is allowed to stay intact, will get even worse... which is almost unimaginable.
Tort reform cannot undo the massive amount of problems we have. To have pronounced it as some silver bullet to solve all problems is incorrect. It's one step in many that have to take place to make a dent in the fubar insurance process which, if Obamacare is allowed to stay intact, will get even worse... which is almost unimaginable.
As Republican Rep. Dave Camp correctly pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that limiting malpractice liability would "reduce the federal deficit by more than $50 billion." More precisely, that’s $54 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. But CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted the savings would "reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009)."
Don't dance on the coffin just yet.
The Obama administration might want to ask for a court-appointed attorney or try to bring Johnny Cochran back from the grave, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is as overmatched in Supreme Court oral arguments as Tim Tebow was against the Patriots in the NFL this past season.
Verrilli took hard hits from all angles on health care debate day two. Obamacare was compared to burial insurance and broccoli by the Supreme Court. Justices snapped increduously at his answers like a defensive lineman with Tebow's long throwing motion in his sights.
From explaining how a market with participants who don’t know when they will need health care is different from the food market, to how requiring insurance isn't a purchase mandate, it just wasn’t the solicitor general's day. Verrilli never stood a chance.
If the whole thing get's tossed out, what happens?
This close to an election and with Republicans dominating part of congress, there's not going to be another attempt at any time soon. How long do we have to wait? Another 18 years, the current system will not survive another 18 years.
What is scary beyond imagination is that the entire bill will be decided by one man.
The framers intended the Supreme Court to be an unbiased third party, yet we have one justice who basically wrote the damn thing, another who considers our constitution inferior to that of South Africa, that will be voting on this.
The bill is illegal, plain and simple. Liberals can hate the Constitution to its core, but it was written solely to protect our liberties from the exact likes of you.
Our second Civil War will be fought over these very issues in short order, I'm sad to say.
Don't forget that pre-existing conditions will also be reinstated without the mandate
So insurance companies can continue paying big bucks to the people who's sole job is denying coverage to sick people. Aren't you glad so much of your premiums go to those important people?
If the whole thing get's tossed out, what happens?
This close to an election and with Republicans dominating part of congress, there's not going to be another attempt at any time soon. How long do we have to wait? Another 18 years, the current system will not survive another 18 years.
I work for an insurance company and one of my first jobs with them was as a claim examiner and I am an associate of life and health claims , so have had multiple tests I had to take.
Insurance companies do not have banks of employees whose job it is to deny coverage. When a prospective insured lies on the application to make themsevles appear more healthy then they really are and those lies, if known, would have caused the insurance company to not offer insurance, the contract is viewed as never having been issued. This is plain contract law and is not unique to insurance companies.
The state's departments of insurance (DOI) will help a harmed insured and the courts are an option. And yes, the courts have found against insurance companies when they were in the wrong and the DOI is a strong proponent for insureds.
I will absolutely acknowledge that some insurance companies have acted wrongly and those companies, once caught, face huge penalties that cost them huge sums of money in both fines and restrictions they have to face. Trust me, insurance companies bend over backwards to ensure they are in compliance with the DOI and they are audited quite often to ensure they are following applicable rules and laws.
“Pre-Existing Conditions” Affect Millions of Americans
A large proportion of Americans have health conditions that insurance companies can qualify as “pre-existing conditions.”
A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease – which affects one in three adults1 – or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.2
But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.3
Unattainable Health Coverage
Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.
In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.
A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5 – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6
In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7
It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8
Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease – such as bronchitis or pneumonia – excluded from coverage.9Losing Coverage When You Need It Most
Thousands of Americans also lose health insurance each year through a practice called rescission.
When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states’ individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed – even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.10
A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11 – $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.
At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions.12 Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick people’s health coverage.
That's because it's already been covered. Declining to ride the merry-go-round one more time is hardly being "non-responsive." You just need a new argument.
That's not a limit. If they want more money, why couldn't they just raise premiums so that their 20% cut covers their expenses and salary goals?
Sounds like a way to encourage continued overconsumption of medical care. For every 80 cents patients spend on themselves, the company gets 20. It's virtually a cost-plus arrangement.
I know you either think it was or that this works as a diversion. I don't much care either way. But whatever you want to call what you did, it wasn't convincing or particularly on point.
It's fine to say you want to move on, or just quit replying.
I'm confused...
So you would rather they pocket more of your premiums?
That's 20% is LESS than the 28 to 35% that insurers get now and all rate increases will be evaluated using that criteria. If they spent less than 20% on HC then NO rate increase.
Finally some honesty.
I would rather retain the right to let them pocket $0.00, by deciding not to buy their overpriced product at all
What prevents them from raising rates such that 20% of revenue equals whatever they want/need to operate?
American's want some sort of affordable healthcare, so I do believe the WH, Senate and Congress will find another route. This should have been done to start with, IMO.
If #441 wasn't enough for you then 443-444 should have been.You didn't answer my question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?