Will the SCOTUS ruling on the health car law have any effect?
 

Wow! The SCOTUS has spoken and it is a complex ruling. And for the second time this week, Chief Justice Roberts sides with the more liberal members of the court.

I personally think the mandate was not necessary and if it had been excluded much of the case against the law would have not happened. Instead of a mandate they should have just handled like the Medicare drug plan program where people could only opt in at one time of the year and if they put it off the price would go up each year.

Also, while it is not likely to change, the whole model for American health care being a part of your job benefits is a bad and outdated model. It dates back to an era when people held a job with the same company for many years, fewer people were self employed and unions had an extremely powerful pressense.

Whether or not that would have worked, it wasn't something that the Supreme Court could have done.

There are many ways the law could be better, but what we have is what was passed in the best circumstances we've had or are likely to have for a while. So while it would be nice to get rid of it and start over, that would be the same as getting rid of it and not starting over.

No and I agree and for the most part I have supported the law as a whole. My arm chair policy making is just what I would have liked to have seen. I hope this is a message to Congress to get over it and move on and where possible or necessary make changes to the existing law but give up on repealing it. But I'm not overly optimistic on that wish!

Great - it is OVER! Now that we have it. Lets move forward to improve it. Any suggestions?
1) Somehow we need to curtail/limit/control what the providers charge for products and service.
(This was not addressed)

2) Although "everyone" has access, the cost of that access in many cases basically makes healthcare "inaccessible."
How do we address that? Flat cost based on something ???

3) As long as insurance is "for profit" I think we as a country will have issues with cost.

4) I had four, but can't remember what the other one was. (is there a pill for that?)

Agreed - maybe that was my fourth :right:

I agree, but why would any insurance company continue to provide insurance if it is not going to be profitable?

In my utopia, they would not exist in the healthcare field. Life, disability, flood, auto ... they can still do all those and more.

I guess they can morph into processing paperwork or administering payments or whatever - dunno, dontcare.

*nods*

Gotcha. I totally agree.



Aside from anything else, the whole concept of insurance is that it's there if you need it, but with an assumption you probably won't. That's how the profit works. But with healthcare...everybody needs some healthcare at some point in their lives, and all the evidence points to the benefits of preventative care being a major factor in increasing health and reducing health costs.

Last time I mentioned the extremely high cost of medicine and medical supplies on this forum, it was pointed out to me that this is due to ME having to pay extra for mine in order to compensate for Joe Blow not having insurance/paying anything at all for his.

So, now, if everyone HAS to have insurance, the insurance companies should be able to, collectively, force down the cost of supplies and equpment (bandages, anesthesia, drugs, etc.). This will help insurance companies be profitable again.

That, and better, more comprehensive preventative care.

One can only Hope for that Change to take place.

On a side note, there is this to look forward to (depending upon your view)
Listen at the 1:30 mark...

why in the world would you believe anything he says, even this?

:thumbsup:

I'm... a little skeptical that we'll get lower rates because of the innate goodwill of the insurance companies. But! I do believe in this case it is possible, even likely. You outline a lot of the reasons why, but you leave out a couple key elements. Here's how it *could* work out.

Now with the question of the validity of the law behind us (yes, I know we'll be hearing about repeal efforts from now until doomsday... whatthefuckever), now that it's in place and vetted by the court, the insurance companies just scored thirty million new customers. And... tha's big. Lots of new premiums coming in, and of course, lots of new claims to be paid. But there isn't a cap on how much money the insurance companies can charge or make. There IS a cap on the ratio of how much the insurance companies can retain as profit -- 20% -- and the other 80% must be spent on patient care. So they can't just raise the rates with impunity as they seem to have done for years up until now.

Granted, 20% profit on ten kabillion dollars is better than 20% profit on one kabillion dollars. However the creation of the health care insurance exchanges will give the customer (you and me and our bosses, if we had bosses) a chance to compare publicly viewable apples to apples rates and services. Guess where the business will flow? Until now, there was a lot of grief about comparing plans, and frankly there was a minimum of competition at all. Now we'll have competition, easy and fair ways to compare service and price. The customers are "built in". This is the perfect storm for business.

And since staying healthy is clearly a high priority for the customers, those insurance companies that showcase such benefits will likely have an advantage over their competition. As you pointed out, preventative care is less expensive than other care. I think this will tend to bend the cost curve in a downward direction.

Hey. Don't laugh. It could happen!

I can hope he'll leave can't I?

yeah.

but they have radio and internet in Costa Rica too.

Interestingly, they also have a (dont know the phrase) average age of of death than we do, and with only a tenth of the spending .

You watched the video - Very good

You damn well keep him! We don't want him!

Love,

The Rest of the World.

Isn't he of the same group of people who don't want to hear Spanish spoken everywhere? Cuz if so, he'll hear little else in Costa Rica.

Or is that okay because Costa Rica isn't the US?

Hey! I have VA. health care. Will I be taxed or finded for not putting my money in the pot???

Do you have insurance?
Yes?
Then you don't have to pay the penalty for not having insurance.

Which pot do expenses come out of? If they put 100,000 brother-in-laws on the payroll, build dozens of palatial new office complexes, and pay top dollar to drug companies they are also on the board of, who puts the red dot on their forehead? :blunt:

Over the weekend I heard Republican TV pundits saying that small businesses could not afford Obamacare.
I did a quick Google search on tax credits and found this...

National Federation of Independent Businesses

2012 Health Insurance Reform Tax Credit Calculator for Small Business
Somehow, such a employee expense, or total business expense of ~$3,700
does not convince me that the business would fail.

Five days after the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare was handed down,
tv pundits are spending more time on Chief Justice Roberts' decision than any other aspect.
But, there were 4 other Justices that voted to support Obamacare.
Robert's 1 vote did not carry any more weight than the other four.

The subsummed "hot topic" is, why Roberts voted with the "liberals".
Some pundits are saying that Roberts voted in favor, just
to protect the "public's perception of the Supreme Court".
That is, to show that Bush v. Gore, and Citizens United were not political decisions.
If you believe that, wait while I look for a bill-of-sale for this neat bridge in New York.
Ummmm... To cast a vote to protect the PR of the Court.
...can you think of anything worse you could be said about a Justice ?
That's like the "tail wagging the dog" accusations of a President.

Why isn't it the question about Kennedy's vote with the Conservatives ?
...maybe he got his nose out of joint during Obama's comments
about the "Citizens United decision" during the State of Union address.

There's also pundits talking about Scalia's behavior before the decision,
but that's just normal for Scalia when his view does not prevail.
.

Because that was expected. Unexpected was Roberts decision. Includes speculation that Roberts changed his mind after the initial voting.

This has to be the ultimate chutzpah


NY Times
7/3/12

Supreme Court Memo
After Ruling, Roberts Makes a Getaway From the Scorn
I can only say that Yoo :censored: and :censored: all Americans, and still is :censored: :censored:, :censored: dilettante.

I bet Woo wishes he could extend his torture opinion to the Supreme Court. If he had known Roberts was wavering, Woo could have brought his own waterboard.

Woo is a legitimate exception to Godwin's Law. He's our own living embodiment of the head creep in all of those WWII spy movies who walks into a room where a guy is surrounded by thugs and says something like "make sure he cooperates" or "do what you must", then walks away. He never actually says "beat the living shit out of him". It always that civilized, polite circumlocution that allows a fig leaf of deniability and the illusion of a clear conscience - a verbal handwashing that Pilate would approve of.

Holy Jesus fuck.