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

[Stormieweather]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

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.

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!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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?

[Lamplighter]

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

Does your business qualify for the healthcare law's new
small business tax credit on health insurance?
If so, how big is your credit?
Instructions: Fill in variables for rows A, B, C, & D and click "update."
B cannot be larger than A.

Somehow, such a employee expense, or total business expense of ~$3,700
does not convince me that the business would fail.

[Lamplighter]

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.
.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Why isn't it the question about Kennedy's vote with the Conservatives ?

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

[Lamplighter]

This has to be the ultimate chutzpah


NY Times
7/3/12

Supreme Court Memo
After Ruling, Roberts Makes a Getaway From the Scorn

<snip>By Saturday, John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer, was suggesting
in The Wall Street Journal that there had been a catastrophic vetting failure in 2005
when the administration was considering Chief Justice Roberts’s nomination.

“If a Republican is elected president,” said Professor Yoo,
who teaches law at the University of California, Berkeley,
“he will have to be more careful than the last.”
<snip>

I can only say that Yoo and all Americans, and still is , dilettante.