Oh, shit. So I did. Mods, could somebody swap the quote tags in #216?
Sorry, Fear and John.
If you understand that cost go up because of the increased cost of medical services, why don’t you understand that costs will go up when insurance companies are required to insure more people? Costs will go up when insurance companies have to cover everyones more expensive treatments. Insurance companies can’t deny anyone coverage for anything. Costs will go up and up and up. Rates will go up and up and up.
Insurance companies know that Obamacare rules and regulations will greatly increase their payouts. Insurance companies are not going to eat these added costs - the consumers will pay more.
Obama and the Progressive Democrat Caucus in Congress hope that the SCOTUS will allow them to force everyone to pay the healthcare tax but Congress passed the bill claiming that it wasn’t a tax. Congress can’t force everyone to pay a fee for something they don’t use. Congress screwed up when they wrote and passed this bill.
Are you referring to State laws or internal company rules? Is there any reason that this 80% rule can’t be changed?
Is there any reason insurance companies can NOT raise their rates tomorrow based on what their expected outlay will be in 1 1/2 years? Is it because you feel that insurance companies have such great big hearts that they wouldn’t do that?
I’m getting into this thread a little late, but I think the political implications of the Court’s decision are being oversold. First of all, most folks are already decided on who they will vote for and this will not change that. Secondly, for those truly undecided, this decision is not going to change their opinion on the need and them method of health care reform and how it impacts their overall decision on whom to vote for.
This decision will provide ample fodder one or the other for pundits, talk show, columns of newspaper and internet message boards and will influence a marginal few voters, but it isn’t clear which way.
All of this may happen… IN 2014.
And 2012 and 2013 and 2015 and 2016 and 2017…
CONGRESS could have avoided at least one USSC decision by clearly stating that every taxpaying voter would only be requred to buy HC and that their law did not expand CONGRESS’s authority to forcing everyone to buy broccoli. (Broccoli was mmentioned by the SC justices during the hearing.)
What specific provision(s) of PPACA will cause health insurance costs to rise in 2012 and 2013?
I’m referring to federal law. The PPACA.
Sure, it’s because I feel that they have big hearts. :rolleyes:
Certainly they *could * raise their rates tomorrow based on their expected outlay in 2014, but if they don’t end up spending 80% of that on actual patient care in 2012 then they will have to send refund checks to their customers for the difference, so they have nothing to gain by doing it.
That assumes of course that SCOTUS doesn’t throw out the whole act, but it’s doubtful that that will happen.
Anybody want to give final predictions.
Although I seem to be in the minority, I’m still projecting that the entire law is going to be upheld. As I’ve detailed in this thread already, I just can’t see the Court making such a hugely partisan move as overturning the ACA would be.
I think they may throw out the mandate, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
Why do you assume that it’s partisan to overturn it? And not partisan to uphold it?
Where does this stuff come from?
(I think they’ll overturn the mandate.)
Supporters of the law (and I am one) are busy laying the groundwork for claiming that any decision they lose is “partisan” or “political” somehow. It’s silly.
The presumption is in favor of constitutionality. I’m predicting it gets upheld.
I just hope they don’t decide to delay it until after the break!
I’m generally a liberal Obama supporter and I think the mandate is all sorts of fucked up. I have trouble imagining it being upheld.
I think the main question is whether they will just throw the whole thing out or not. My guess is that they will throw out the mandate only, and say that any parts that depend on it are null, but the rest stands.
They won’t however, actually say which parts depend on the mandate, and will leave it up to congress to determine that. I’m hoping they will say something to the effect of the mandate would have to be repurposed as a regular income tax, but I doubt they will go that far.
If Lawrence O’Donnell is to be believed, the mandate is toothless anyway.
http://leanforward.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/26/12426700-lawrence-odonnell-the-individual-mandate-is-a-mirage?lite
This article I linked to earlier touches on why an ACA overturn would be a partisan move.
Basically, there are decades of USSC precedents that point to the ACA’s clear constitutionality. A 5-4 ruling, in which the liberal justices vote in favor of the mandate against the conservative justices who vote to invalidate it, would amount to overturning decades of past precedents, and that scenario would be a hugely, HUGELY partisan move that would call into question the very credibility of the Court.
I’ve said it before in this thread, but my prediction is that the law will be upheld along the lines of Bush v. Gore in a ruling that’ll simultaneously validate the mandate while preventing the decision from being used as a precedent in future cases.
Was the Court partisan and political when it overturned Bowers v Hardwick?
I think the ACA in general will be upheld and that the individual mandate will be upheld. I know only a little about constitutional law, and my opinion on the matter has been shaped very much by Bricker’s posts on the subject, which seem to show precedent fairly clearly in favor of the mandate. I like to believe that for all of their partisan leanings, the justices like to see themselves as impartial arbitrators of what the law is (it does depend on your definition of “is”, however), and they try to act accordingly. But then again, deep down inside I’m as partisan as any of the judges myself.
Also, in a rare double-whammy decision, the court finds polygamy constitutional.
I expect them to uphold it and Scalia to write a very entertaining, batshit crazy dissent.
What are the pros/cons of private vs. UHC anyway?
I suspect that UHC is the superior choice, but what do I know.