Judge Slaps Obamacare.

[Requia]

It's always been possible to get healthcare for pre existing conditions (at least, to the extent the new rules get that to you). Just more expensive, and it took more shopping around. Since the new rules don't forbid them from raising prices on people with pre existings, it will still be more expensive, but you won't have to spend as much time pouring over the contract to make sure you're really getting it.

Unless maybe you have some ultra cut rate employer provided insurance that didn't cover pre existings (employer insurance always did in my experience, but I may have just missed out on that) the only substansive change in terms of pre existing rules is that they have less ways to screw you on a technicality, and you can have a 2 month gap in coverage without triggering gap in coverage rules.

 

[Troublemane]

I am completely in favor of the courts knocking this law down, it will save us from having to watch the newly elected Republican House move to first repeal/replace, then before our very eyes, start saying "You know, this is pretty good! I like this part, and this part, and this part..."

The mandate of forcing people to buy something they dont want is perhaps the most atrocious abuse of power the government has ever attempted.

 

[Mister_T]

it will save us from having to watch the newly elected Republican House move to first repeal/replace

Republicans don't have enough votes to do either (at least not on their own). The President still has his veto and Democrats still have majoirty in the Senate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Republicans don't have enough votes to do either (at least not on their own). The President still has his veto and Democrats still have majoirty in the Senate.

Party pooper!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The mandate of forcing people to buy something they dont want is perhaps the most atrocious abuse of power the government has ever attempted.

Worse than Iraq or Vietnam?

 

[Revoltingest]

Worse than Iraq or Vietnam?

From a constitutional law standpoint, it's worse because it so greatly expands the power of the federal government.
The price paid for that is in the future & is probabilistic in nature. Wars are awful in a different way, ie, the cost,
death, destruction & disruption are immediate. To rank one as "worse" in general seems impossible & irrelevant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

From a constitutional law standpoint, it's worse because it so greatly expands the power of the federal government.
The price paid for that is in the future & is probabilistic in nature. Wars are awful in a different way, ie, the cost,
death, destruction & disruption are immediate. To rank one as "worse" in general seems impossible & irrelevant.

I'm sure that you will recall that as a part of the war in Iraq and homeland security, Cheney expanded the role of the federal government more than anyone else in history? Civil liberties since Bush have become a privlidge, not a right.

I'm not near as worried about Republican ******** about health care than I am about the right to privacy and giving up liberty in the name of national security.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

I fail to see any reason for premiums to go up as a result of this. Insurance companies aren't going to charge less money just because they have more customers, they'll charge the highest price they can without driving people to a competitor regardless of a mandate.

If anything this might make low end insurance plans a bit cheaper, since they'll still need to go after people with no insurance, and dropping prices a bit might get them more customers.

It's simply a numbers game. Without the mandate, fewer people who are healthy will buy insurance. This concentrates the pool with those who have preexisting conditions and need more expensive care. As a result, the insurers have to (or at least should) spend more per person, which drives up everyone's premiums.

By contrast, if everyone has to have insurance, then that will spread the load across the spectrum of the healthy and the sick. That means a lower average cost per person, which translates into lower premiums. Incidentally, the mandate is the one argument from the health insurance lobbies that I actually agree with.

Now that's the logical argument. The fear-based argument claims that the government is taking away our right to choose, when in fact, that's a serious distortion of the truth. Technically many of us have a choice over our health insurance, but not all of us, and most options available can suck. I'll give you a related example of this: Deregulation of the Texas energy grid. Obviously, that was a dream come true for conservatives, but what they failed to note was the aftereffects: Instead of being forced to buy electricity at a moderate rate, customers had to choose which insanely high rate to go with. In short, both scenarios are false choices.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's simply a numbers game. Without the mandate, fewer people who are healthy will buy insurance. This concentrates the pool with those who have preexisting conditions and need more expensive care. As a result, the insurers have to (or at least should) spend more per person, which drives up everyone's premiums.

This doesn't take into account the people who have their premium reduced to zero because they opt out.
The total of all premiums doesn't necessarily go up when ditching the mandated program.

By contrast, if everyone has to have insurance, then that will spread the load across the spectrum of the healthy and the sick. That means a lower average cost per person, which translates into lower premiums. Incidentally, the mandate is the one argument from the health insurance lobbies that I actually agree with.

A problem is that the total cost wouldn't necessarily be lower. The average cost per person is lower only
because people who wouldn't buy the insurance are now compelled to do so.

Addressing availability of health care is a fine goal, but I'd like to see much more effort in reducing the overall cost.

 

[Magic Man]

Incidentally, the mandate is the one argument from the health insurance lobbies that I actually agree with.

Yeah, it would be much nicer if they'd just accomplish the same thing by starting a single-payer system.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The average cost per person is lower only
because people who wouldn't buy the insurance are now compelled to do so.

Do we know how this law will be enforced?

I mean, if a person can't afford health insurance and this is designed to help them, it seems counter-intuitive to make their lives more difficult with fines.

 

[Magic Man]

Do we know how this law will be enforced?

I mean, if a person can't afford health insurance and this is designed to help them, it seems counter-intuitive to make their lives more difficult with fines.

Yeah, there are subsidies for people who can't afford it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, there are subsidies for people who can't afford it.

And as I recall, penalties if they don't buy it.
The IRS is to get involved in collections. (Oh, joy!)

 

[Magic Man]

And as I recall, penalties if they don't buy it.

Yes, that's what we were talking about. There are penalties for not buying insurance, and for those who can't afford it, instead of fining them, which would kind of defeat the purpose, there are subsidies to help them afford it.

 

[Engyo]

Yes, that's what we were talking about. There are penalties for not buying insurance, and for those who can't afford it, instead of fining them, which would kind of defeat the purpose, there are subsidies to help them afford it.

Yeah, but this way is so much more better!{/sarcasm}

 

[Requia]

Single payer wouldn't reduce the total cost, just put the country even farther into debt down the road. The core of the problem has always been that medicine gets more expensive faster than wages go up. If they do not address that problem then nothing else will help in the long term.

 

[Magic Man]

Here's an interesting explanation. I thought this part was especially interesting:

It might, however, be a worse world for Republicans. The individual mandate began life as a Republican idea. Its earliest appearances in legislation were in the Republican alternatives to the Clinton health-care bill, where it was co-sponsored by such GOP stalwarts as Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch and Charles E. Grassley. Later on, it was the centerpiece of then-Gov. Mitt Romney's health-reform plan in Massachusetts, and then it was included in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which many Republicans signed on to.

It was only when the individual mandate appeared in President Obama's legislation that it became so polarizing on the right. The political logic was clear enough: The individual mandate was the most unpopular piece of the bill (you might remember that Obama's 2008 campaign plan omitted it, and he frequently attacked Hillary Clinton for endorsing it in her proposal). But as a policy choice, it might prove disastrous.

The individual mandate was created by conservatives who realized that it was the only way to get universal coverage into the private market. Otherwise, insurers turn away the sick, public anger rises, and, eventually, you get some kind of government-run, single-payer system, much as they did in Europe, and much as we have with Medicare.

If Republicans succeed in taking it off the table, they may sign the death warrant for private insurers in America: Eventually, rising cost pressures will force more aggressive reforms than even Obama has proposed, and if conservative judges have made the private market unfixable by removing the most effective way to deal with adverse selection problems, the only alternative will be the very constitutional, but decidedly non-conservative, single-payer path.

 

[Troublemane]

I'm not near as worried about Republican ******** about health care than I am about the right to privacy and giving up liberty in the name of national security.

I hope you feel that way about the FDA power grab that is in the works, and the TSA groping. The Patriot Act was just the beginning.:yes:

 

[Troublemane]

Do we know how this law will be enforced?

I mean, if a person can't afford health insurance and this is designed to help them, it seems counter-intuitive to make their lives more difficult with fines.

You got it.

The bill will be enforced by the IRS. If you cannot afford insurance then you are supposed to be put into Medicaid, which many doctors and hospitals are just not taking anymore. If you choose not to do anything then you are fined.

But since insurers are not allowed to reject pre-existing conditions, and since you are only fined for not having insurance, what's to stop you from just paying the fine until you get sick? Then going out and getting insurance? well, aside from the fact that insurers would have firgured out how to get around the law and exclude you on some other basis....:sorry1:

 

[linwood]

If I recall correctly I said when this legislation passed that this issue with requiring people to purchase health insurance was going to run into constitutional trouble.

It is unconstitutional and without precedent.

I understand it was a compromise with the GOP who didn`t want a public option but any Democrat who didn`t see this coming is blind.

The Republicans keep setting the Dems up like little bowling pins so they can knock them right back down later.

Let this be yet ANOTHER lesson in the futility of compromising with the right wing.
I`m just wondering when this lesson is gonna take hold and if I`ll still be alive to witness it.