SCOTUS hears arguments for/against Healthcare bill

[DeltaBetaBaby]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Here's a good overview of the whole shebang, for whomever was asking upthread.

[DrPhil]

After reading stuff on MSN:


1. Everything has pros and cons but what are some people REALLY mad about?


2. Why are people attention whoring and pretending they will move to Canada? Canada has health care that is publicly funded. They have a tax system that emphasizes the redistribution of wealth. Gun control is strict, same-sex marriage is legal, and there is no capital punishment. These are things that most right-wingers, conservatives, and staunch conservatives (who comprise the majority of the people so outraged over the Supreme Court decision) would be opposed to. These are things that are rooted in a similar foundation as this Health Law.

ETA: I just read IUHoosiergirl88's post and that is what I am saying.

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Some parts are in effect. Parents can insure their children up to age 26, insurance has to cover pre-existing conditions, and cannot charge more for premiums due to prior health history. Those are all part of that law.

As of today, only children under 19 cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Adults will have that in 2014. Currently though those same children can be charged at a much much higher cost than healthy children. That will also change in 2014.

The individual mandate starts in 2014. Open enrollment will begin in about 16 months on 10/01/2013. Coverage will begin 01/01/2014.

The only thing carriers will be able to rate on is age, geographic location, and tobacco use.

The CMS summary of the law is around 600 pages and can be found online. It's worth a read.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

As of today, only children under 19 cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions. Adults will have that in 2014. Currently though those same children can be charged at a much much higher cost than healthy children. That will also change in 2014.

The individual mandate starts in 2014. Open enrollment will begin in about 16 months on 10/01/2013. Coverage will begin 01/01/2014.

The only thing carriers will be able to rate on is age, geographic location, and tobacco use.

The CMS summary of the law is around 600 pages and can be found online. It's worth a read.

You're right. I forget that those other two don't technically go into effect until 2014 because Michigan has a law that the insurer I work for can't deny for pre-existing and can't charge at a higher rate that is already in effect. My employer is very thankful that PPACA will level the playing field so we aren't the only one bound to those rules. It puts quite a strain on the company when they are the only insurer in the whole state is bound that way.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

What I would ideally like to see is a universal healthcare system that ensures a basic, free, level of coverage for all Americans, administered through a combination of private and public entities. For those who want a faster or fancier policy, they can purchase it, or have their employer provide it as part of a compensation package.

Amen and amen! And as you note, universal healthcare does not have to mean single-payer.

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

So now I/you can be taxed for something we do not do or do not consume. I.E. - buy health insurance.

Well, if one is willing to sign a binding agreement that as long as he don't have health insurance he will pay-up front for all health care services -- including regular check-ups and preventive services that can cut down on the likelihood of more expensive services -- and that he will never ever expect services that would result in a cost to the health care system that he personally won't cover, then I have no problem waiving the penalty/tax/whatever-anyone-wants-to-call-it. Otherwise, he's part of the problem that's straining the healthcare system, and in turn the economy, to the limits. And otherwise, he is being taxed for something he will use: healthcare services.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Yes! I loved this part of Roberts' majority opinion: "[Justices] possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

This is classic jurisprudence; the role of the courts in a case like this is not to pass on the wisdom of laws, much less the popularity of laws, but on the constitutionality of laws.


Meanwhile, I'm still shaking my head at the outrage of many on the Republican side, given that many of the aspects of Obamacare they're decrying as evil started out as Republican proposals.

[SoCalGirl]

These rules apply to individual and family coverage, not employer coverage. Employer group coverage does not have medical review today. Groups do get charged at a higher RAF (rate adjustment factor) if their population has a higher rate of utilization though.

[AGDee]

Which is why it will make sense for small businesses with a higher RAF to ditch the coverage and give their employees vouchers to use to purchase the plan of their choice through the health exchanges. Win-win!

[SoCalGirl]

The voucher requirement was pulled from the original law though before it ever even got to the Supreme Court. Also, groups have generally better coverage options than what's available on the individual and family market. The SHOP Exchanges will give small employers even more choices to offer their employees in 2014.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

The voucher requirement was pulled from the original law though before it ever even got to the Supreme Court. Also, groups have generally better coverage options than what's available on the individual and family market. The SHOP Exchanges will give small employers even more choices to offer their employees in 2014.

As a requirement, yes. But small businesses could still offer that to their employees. My hope is that eventually all employers will do that and we will get our own insurance with our own options just like we do with auto-insurance. What I really hate about our current system is that we are stuck with the options offered us by our employer who chooses plans based on cost, not based on employee preferences.

I know the exchange in Michigan is going to have a lot more available on the individual and family market than what is currently available. And the resources being poured into improving customer service and quality are incredible, since there will be more competition. This has really kicked insurance companies out of complacency.

[Kevin]

I thought Scalia's justification of his position in this case vs. Gonzales v. Raich was pretty indefensible.

We can regulate marijuana with the commerce clause because there's no other way to regulate marijuana, but we can't with healthcare because there are other ways to regulate healthcare.

Kind of inventive, but totally made up.

[IUHoosiergirl88]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I thought Scalia's justification of his position in this case vs. Gonzales v. Raich was pretty indefensible.

We can regulate marijuana with the commerce clause because there's no other way to regulate marijuana, but we can't with healthcare because there are other ways to regulate healthcare.

Kind of inventive, but totally made up.

As Steven Colbert said, "Justice Antonin Scalia revealed that the whole time, he's just been four raccoons in a black garbage bag"

(on a side note, if you haven't seen Steven Colbert ripping Richard Mourdock of IN and announcing his alternate decisions...you should)

[Kevin]

I think/hope the Democrats are saving their money for September/October/November. In terms of fundraising, Obama is at a huge disadvantage with the PACs.