# waiting \[for Supreme Court decision on health care law\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510 "2012-06-18T13:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/181 "2012-06-26T01:09:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What’s ignorant? There are tons of polls out there showing how much everyone just lurves the prohibition on denying insurance for pre-existing conditions. But none of those polls ask how much they are willing to pay for it. I love free shit, too. Don’t you? Only the ignorant would blame Obama when insurance companies raise prices now, before any of the major changes occur. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/182 "2012-06-26T01:43:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What’s ignorant? There are tons of polls out there showing how much everyone just lurves the prohibition on denying insurance for pre-existing conditions. But none of those polls ask how much they are willing to pay for it. I love free shit, too. Don’t you? I’m willing to pay a little more for others when it means I won’t ever have to be excluded for a pre-existing condition myself (which I’ve gone through). That’s the idea behind insurance - we all pay a little, and we all get protection from disaster if it happens. No big deal. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/183 "2012-06-26T02:24:11Z")
Wait, _could_ they raise prices now in anticipation of future increases in costs? I thought that one of the provisions that was in effect already was that they had to spend a certain percentage of their income on actually providing coverage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/184 "2012-06-26T02:27:06Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Only the ignorant would blame Obama when insurance companies raise prices now, before any of the major changes occur. Nope. If I were an insurance executive, I’d raise rates like a mofo before the feds created new rules about what I could and couldn’t do. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/185 "2012-06-26T02:28:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. If I were an insurance executive, I’d raise rates like a mofo before the feds created new rules about what I could and couldn’t do. I’m sure you would. But only the ignorant would blame Obama for that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/186 "2012-06-26T05:16:45Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’m sure you would. But only the ignorant would blame Obama for that. He introduced the legislation that increased the burden on insurance companies and his mechanism for paying for it turned out be unconstitutional. The buck stops with him. Only the ignorant wouldn’t recognize that. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/187 "2012-06-26T06:16:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He introduced the legislation that increased the burden on insurance companies and his mechanism for paying for it turned out be unconstitutional. The buck stops with him. Only the ignorant wouldn’t recognize that. The Republicans in 1993 did agree that was kosher then, it was part of the GOP plan to counter the Clinton health reform plan. > **[Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009,...](https://kffhealthnews.org/022310-bill-comparison/)** > > By Maggie MertensKFF Health News Staff WriterFeb. 24, 2010 The proposal President Barack Obama unveiled on Monday is based largely on the bill passed by the Democratic Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care... The point here is that this was what we got from a congress that had even democrats in the pockets of the medical and insurance industry, what I see is that if this way to pay for it is declared unconstitutional, then it will be the beginning of the end of the big medical and insurance companies as this was IMHO the last chance they had to be a part of the reform, and not something to go by the wayside when a public option or a single payer plan paid with taxes is seen then as the way to go. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/188 "2012-06-26T10:17:57Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > He introduced the legislation that increased the burden on insurance companies and his mechanism for paying for it turned out be unconstitutional. The buck stops with him. Only the ignorant wouldn’t recognize that. You are fighting a head wind on this one, John. People will believe insurance companies are just jacking up rates to line their pockets, because the common belief is,\* that’s what insurance companies do.\* Like Democrats raising taxes and Republicans sucking up to corporations, there are truisms that people just believe, and don’t try to confuse them with long-winded explanations. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/189 "2012-06-26T10:37:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The Republicans in 1993 did agree that was kosher then, it was part of the GOP plan to counter the Clinton health reform plan. > > [Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - KFF Health News](http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx) > > The point here is that this was what we got from a congress that had even democrats in the pockets of the medical and insurance industry, what I see is that if this way to pay for it is declared unconstitutional, then it will be the beginning of the end of the big medical and insurance companies as this was IMHO the last chance they had to be a part of the reform, and not something to go by the wayside when a public option or a single payer plan paid with taxes is seen then as the way to go. I’ve been saying this for a while. The individual mandate was the last way to ensure nearly universal coverage while still keeping health care grounded in private insurance. Taking it away will effectively guarantee that an even more left-wing approach - single-payer or a public option - will rise up to take its place. Seriously, the US is going to inevitably get universal health care _eventually,_ and in the event of an ACA-takedown single-payer or a public option will be the ONLY viable ways to get there. The Pubbies haven’t really thought this through. Though granted, if the USSC takes the partisan step of overturning the ACA health care reform won’t be addressed at the federal level for another 20-30 years, so the GOP will have won in that sense. In the long term, though, they’ll have shot themselves in the foot. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/190 "2012-06-26T13:18:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The Republicans in 1993 did agree that was kosher then, it was part of the GOP plan to counter the Clinton health reform plan. And the Dems would have rejected it at that time - I believe some did. And they might have even sued then, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter who supports it politically - if it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional. Or not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/191 "2012-06-26T13:30:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But that doesn’t mean the insurance companies can’t start jacking up the rates in anticipation. Then we’ll see just how popular those elements of the legislation are when people have to actually pay for them. It would be pretty hard for them to jack up rates now in _anticipation_ of things that won’t count in the actuarial tables for two years. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/192 "2012-06-26T13:55:36Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > You are fighting a head wind on this one, John. People will believe insurance companies are just jacking up rates to line their pockets, because the common belief is,\* that’s what insurance companies do.\* Like Democrats raising taxes and Republicans sucking up to corporations, there are truisms that people just believe, and don’t try to confuse them with long-winded explanations. There’s no long winded explanation needed. Regulations increase, rates go up. That’s a sound bite. Sound bites work. But maybe people won’t hear about it since there isn’t a news station or any radio talk show hosts to pound this issue into the ground. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/193 "2012-06-26T13:57:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It would be pretty hard for them to jack up rates now in _anticipation_ of things that won’t count in the actuarial tables for two years. No it isn’t. Currently, healthcare insurance companies determine their rates based on expected future payouts plus operating expenses, overhead, salaries, taxes, etc. Insurance companies can begin raising rates now in anticipation of expected payouts in the future. A company that waits until higher payouts are actually being made before they increase their rates will go into the red if not go bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/194 "2012-06-26T14:03:35Z")
Insurance companies determine their rates based on expected payouts _within policy periods_. Actuarial practice manuals require that policies be based on factors related to the cost of providing coverage. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/195 "2012-06-26T15:08:28Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > And the Dems would have rejected it at that time - I believe some did. And they might have even sued then, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. > > It doesn’t matter who supports it politically - if it’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional. Or not. Hey, I don’t mind much that the current way to pay for it goes down, except that I’m not looking forward for the coming health care cost bubble burst. The point here is that I can see that all this was a delaying tactic to do the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/196 "2012-06-26T15:34:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Insurance companies determine their rates based on expected payouts _within policy periods_. Actuarial practice manuals require that policies be based on factors related to the cost of providing coverage. Who writes the “Actuarial practice manuals”? The individual States? The Federal government? The insurance company? Rahm Imanual’s brother? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/197 "2012-06-26T15:40:37Z")
The insurance industry, to reflect the requirements of (mostly state) applicable law. Even if you don’t want to believe me, use a little common sense: who is going to pay insurance rates which are based on things that cannot occur while the policy is in effect? ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/198 "2012-06-26T15:42:58Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > No way they are political ads. They’re poorly-made videos intended for his website. With audio recorded on Edison wax cylinders (according to Colbert). ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/199 "2012-06-26T18:04:13Z")
[Granted, this is an opinion article, but it illustrates my POV again.](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77806.html) _Some observers, such as Akhil Reed Amar, a leading legal scholar who has devoted his career to a close read of the Constitution, have said that their life’s work would be called into question if the court strikes down the law. Commenting to Ezra Klein at The Washington Post about the impending ruling, Amar said **“if they decide it by 5-4, then yes, it’s disheartening to me, because my life was a fraud.” It shows, he said that the law doesn’t really matter. “What mattered,” Amar said, “was politics, money, party and party loyalty.”** _ ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/200 "2012-06-26T18:07:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The insurance industry, to reflect the requirements of (mostly state) applicable law. Even if you don’t want to believe me, use a little common sense: who is going to pay insurance rates which are based on things that cannot occur while the policy is in effect? I didn’t know that it was possible to buy a lifetime healthcare policy that never changes it’s rates. There are policys being renewed every day. Rates go up, coverage increases, rates go up again, coverage goes down, rates go up again, the federal government requires that everyone be covered for everything and insurance companies will no longer be needed. Everything is covered and the taxpayers will pay for it. If you want extra services, private room, clean bone saw, extra-strength pain killers, you can buy additional coverage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=11)