ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[sactoking]

Hmmm, I thought that they could be rate banded for pre-existing conditions too, capped at 300%. I must be mistaken.

Terminology confusion:

A rate band refers to some non-health related characteristic, such as age. A rate band for an insurer might be "Nonsmokers aged 26-35". Within that rate band individuals and groups can be rated by health and preexisting conditions, but the most expensive person in the band cannot be more than 300% more than the least expensive person (a 4:1 ratio of premium).

 

[IndyColtsFan]

LOL like the costs were ever going to stop skyrocketing under either a R or D administration.

Agreed, and that's the problem. Both will continually punt it down the line for "the next administration" to "solve." Most of us who have argued against ACA have done so from the perspective of lack of cost containment. I'm not saying Republicans offered anything substantive, as they didn't; however, I felt ACA was passed for the sake of passing SOMETHING and that's wrong IMO.

This is a STEP in the right direction. If the SC upholds a 'pushed through' mandate then I guess again, OUR opinions will matter but in the end... not really. The system works. Had it gone the other way and all or some struck down, does the system stop working? Only if you opinion is not shared by the majority of the SC I guess... This is starting to have less to do with the Democrats and Obama every day. As well it should.

I don't disagree with many points of the law. I do disagree with the mandate. I'm still a little unclear on the decision regarding the mandate. It seems that it was "kind of, sort of" upheld but with restrictions on the "fines." At any rate, regardless of what happened today, I have no confidence that Congress will refine the current legislation.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Terminology confusion:

A rate band refers to some non-health related characteristic, such as age. A rate band for an insurer might be "Nonsmokers aged 26-35". Within that rate band individuals and groups can be rated by health and preexisting conditions, but the most expensive person in the band cannot be more than 300% more than the least expensive person (a 4:1 ratio of premium).

Oops -- thanks for the clarification.

 

[shadow9d9]

The biggest is that if your employer is already giving you great healthcare for little cost, both you and your employer will be punished for it. This proves Obamacare does not want you to have great healthcare for little cost. This should be removed.

Another is the minimum insurance level required if you give insurance at all. McDonalds offered major medical insurance to its employees, but this law makes it illegal, so they dropped insurance altogether. Obviously the poor having nothing is far superior than having something, according to Obamacare.


There is more, but those two are pretty large reasons to not eat the turd.

They are giving you great healthcare for HUGE costs... the costs are just hidden by having it separate and hidden from your salary.

No pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits, staying on parents' insurance until 26. All tons more important.

 

[lopri]

It would seem to me that pregnancy prevents someone from fulfilling their military duties. Requiring people to meet their commitments is not "injustice".

So forcing women to go through abortion via false choices is an OK thing now, eh?

This is what you said earlier.

You are thinking small. Mandating abortions for poor women would seem to be perfectly constitutional now, so long as the punishment is a "tax".

 

[fskimospy]

The obamacare ruling today means nothing. It was simply to rule if it met requirements to be considered a tax (as it was illegal as a commerce). The legality of that tax is yet to be decided, and will be ruled in 2014. It is still very possible that it would be illegal as a tax (and a tax cannot be implemented until its ruled legal).


Just another overhyped ruling on the the subject matter. Obamacare is still at risk to be shot down at anytime as much now and in the future as it has been until it is deemed and ruled LEGAL.

This is simply wrong. It was just ruled legal as a tax today. End of story.

 

[Gunslinger08]

So for those of us who haven't been following this very closely, how will this affect a typical DINK married couple? I'm assuming that premiums will go up to cover the new mandatory coverage/services and that employers will pass these increases on to employees. I see that there are going to be federal limits on premium increases as well. So if we put together mandatory (increased) coverage and limits on premium increases, how are insurance companies going to handle that? That seems like the only options they have are to:
1. Drastically cut coverage in non-mandatory areas.
2. Limit the available providers considerably to only those doctors who are willing to accept lower payments.
3. Cut overhead at the insurance company as much as possible (good) or eventually go out of business.

 

[shadow9d9]

Agreed, and that's the problem. Both will continually punt it down the line for "the next administration" to "solve." Most of us who have argued against ACA have done so from the perspective of lack of cost containment. I'm not saying Republicans offered anything substantive, as they didn't; however, I felt ACA was passed for the sake of passing SOMETHING and that's wrong IMO.



I don't disagree with many points of the law. I do disagree with the mandate. I'm still a little unclear on the decision regarding the mandate. It seems that it was "kind of, sort of" upheld but with restrictions on the "fines." At any rate, regardless of what happened today, I have no confidence that Congress will refine the current legislation.

Costs will not go down unless profit is removed from the equation.. meaning insurance is removed and we are all put under single payer. That won't happen with people voting against their own interests.

For now we have no lifetime limits, no pre-existing conditions, a larger health pool with more young and healthy people on insurance, and people staying longer on their parents' plan, along with bigger high risk pools, etc.

 

[mshan]

Oh come on people....
You know affordable expanded """MEDICARE""" and or """GOVERNMENT OPTION CREATION""" will be next on the agenda.
And YES... even from the republican side.
Watch republicans flip flop on this issue, so the poor and fixed income can now have healthcare.
People WILL NOT get to the point where they would pay a TAX instead of a more affordable healthcare policy from expanded MEDICARE or THE PUBLIC OPTION.

Don't judge today on tomorrow.
The rules will not be the same.

That CNBC interview with Zeke Emmanual said we, i. e. those that actually have and pay for health insurance, are already paying about $1000 for each family without insurance, and that ACA reduces that to $500.

Bending the curve on health care costs is what is at core of not bankrupting this country and also we individuals eventually getting lower inflation adjusted premiums and better bang for the buck on what we pay.

Single Payor may ultimately be goal, but that is apparently what other developed countries use, they spend less, and get better results.

You may not agree with that idealogically, but that type of blind idealogy or partisanship will bankrupt the country while you try and maintain idealogical purity.

 

[sactoking]

I don't disagree with many points of the law. I do disagree with the mandate. I'm still a little unclear on the decision regarding the mandate. It seems that it was "kind of, sort of" upheld but with restrictions on the "fines." At any rate, regardless of what happened today, I have no confidence that Congress will refine the current legislation.

The mandate was thrown out under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause but upheld under the taxation provision. In effect, it survives as a tax (which means the D's who supported the ACA just raised taxes on everyone).

If you don't buy insurance you don't get the insurance tax "break". Unlike other tax breaks, this one seems to have its own enforcement provisions which prohibit any real enforcement outside of withholding any tax refund you may be owed (or at least deducting the tax owed from the refund). In other words, it appears to be a law without any teeth. If you don't have insurance and don't pay the tax you're technically a lawbreaker but you can't be penalized at ll.

 

[cybrsage]

I think that has been settled.

That is how things should be done. Both sides compromised on the issues. We need more of that.

 

[Farang]

That is then, and this is now.

Alot can change in 2 years before they rule any such tax to be legal. today was only acknowledging that (a) yes, it could be considered a tax, and (b) it might be able to be upheld as a tax, and (c) It is definetely illegal as a commerece.

the legality and requirements have a LONG way to go, and nothing confirms if it will ever be considred legal or illegal as a tax of current.

At current rate, Obama will *likely* not be president come the vote in a few months. What happens once he's out and has minimal influence over it being ruled legal as a tax is yet to be determined. Lets face fact, he's pretty well disliked at this point, even by most of his own political party... Of course thats speculation... but thats also the likely outcome.

Incorrect. It was ruled legal as a tax. The argument that we'd have to wait until 2014 under the Anti-Injunction Act was dismissed by a majority

This is "end of story" as far as the Court is concerned.

 

[jhu]

If it wasn't for that liberal justice John Roberts. Wait a minute...

 

[nehalem256]

So forcing women to go through abortion via false choices is an OK thing now, eh?

This is what you said earlier.

Its not a false choice. Joining the military is a choice. One obvious and reasonable expectation of joining the military is you will keep yourself in a physical condition that will allow you to perform your duties. Getting pregnant is obviously in conflict with this.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The mandate was thrown out under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause but upheld under the taxation provision. In effect, it survives as a tax (which means the D's who supported the ACA just raised taxes on everyone).

If you don't buy insurance you don't get the insurance tax "break". Unlike other tax breaks, this one seems to have its own enforcement provisions which prohibit any real enforcement outside of withholding any tax refund you may be owed (or at least deducting the tax owed from the refund). In other words, it appears to be a law without any teeth. If you don't have insurance and don't pay the tax you're technically a lawbreaker but you can't be penalized at ll.

Great summary. Thanks.

 

[glenn1]

... proving that Republicans are no better than Democrats.

You just don't get it; they will be better, if you define that as taking this precedent and even further magnifying it. You can't expect that the GOP will just let you have your way this once and then go back to playing by the old rules. This tool can and will be used to impose republican policy preferences, probably to a breathtaking extent. We have seen this time and time again - refuse to confirm an otherwise qualified judge (Bork), then the GOP will turn the confirmation process into a death cage match for every appointment. Try to fillibuster Miguel Estrada, republicans will block all of Obama's nominations. Et cetera, in every instance democrats try a new tactic, the republicans take the same tactic up 10 notches and fire it right back the next time.

 

[ichy]

Single Payor may ultimately be goal, but that is apparently what other developed countries use, they spend less, and get better results.

Plenty of other developed countries do NOT use single payer.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not a false choice. Joining the military is a choice. One obvious and reasonable expectation of joining the military is you will keep yourself in a physical condition that will allow you to perform your duties. Getting pregnant is obviously in conflict with this.

This is not true, as determined by the military itself.

Why does everything come back to how much you hate women?

 

[cybrsage]

As opposed to Obama???

I just wish I thought Obama ever had the intent to honor his promises.

Yes.

 

[Genx87]

As with any decision give it a few days to fetter out the pro's and cons. I am seeing a glaring con coming from the majority decision for people looking to expand federal powers. They smacked congress's ability to force mandates via the commerce clause. Finally a limit on the abuse of the commerce clause?

And this made election material for Mittens. Democrats will be forced to support a tax hike on middle americans or run from it.

 

[shira]

so what does this mean for the non polotically inclined Joe Average?

One thing that it means is as follows - personal story:

I had elbow surgery about 15 years ago and take a statin drug for high cholesterol (my diet and lifestyle are exemplary, but my cholesterol won't go below about 250 without statins). Under pre-ACA rules, those two facts make it impossible for me to obtain private insurance at any price (I know; I've tried). Financially, I could easily retire now (I'm a 1-percenter) EXCEPT that I would not be able to get health insurance. So I am forced to work until I'm 65 (when I'll be eligible for Medicare) for a company that offers a group health insurance policy. Even being "wealthy" I cannot afford the possibility of a catastrophic illness. But under ACA, starting in 2014 I'll be able to retire.

There are many stories out there like mine. For example, people who would like to go into business for themselves, but they can't get private health insurance, so they're forced to work for someone else.

The current health care system in the U.S. is a scandal. Anyone who thinks ACA is worse simply doesn't know what they're talking about. The more people find out what ACA really accomplishes, the more people will appreciate its benefits.

When conservatives can describe practicable, substantive changes to the American health care system that do a better job than ACA, I'll start listening to them. But all the right does right now is say "Repeal ACA! Repeal ACA!"

It's time for the right to start offering solutions. Unfortunately for them, they don't have any.

 

[fskimospy]

Plenty of other developed countries do NOT use single payer.

Almost all other developed countries use, at a minimum, a government sponsored catastrophic insurance plan. While this does not preclude other insurance, most of them have at least what people here would generally consider 'single payer' of a sort.

 

[jstern01]

Plenty of other developed countries do NOT use single payer.

of the OECD (which is pretty well recognized as the developed countries). Only US, Turkey and Mexico do not use a single payer system and Mexico is moving to it.

"Among the OECD's 30 members -- which include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom -- there are only three lacking universal health coverage. The other two happen to be Mexico and Turkey, which have the excuse of being poorer than the rest (and until the onset of the world economic crisis, Mexico was on the way to providing healthcare to all of its citizens). The third, of course, is us."

 

[Farang]

The mandate was thrown out under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause but upheld under the taxation provision. In effect, it survives as a tax (which means the D's who supported the ACA just raised taxes on everyone).

If you don't buy insurance you don't get the insurance tax "break". Unlike other tax breaks, this one seems to have its own enforcement provisions which prohibit any real enforcement outside of withholding any tax refund you may be owed (or at least deducting the tax owed from the refund). In other words, it appears to be a law without any teeth. If you don't have insurance and don't pay the tax you're technically a lawbreaker but you can't be penalized at ll.

My understanding is that it is a tax increase of 1%, as well as a deduction for that tax increase (gained through buying insurance).

So if you don't buy insurance, you must pay the tax or face the penalties of not paying your taxes. That's where the teeth are.

It is not my understanding that you can not buy insurance, and not pay the tax, without recourse from the government.

The court also ruled that you are not a lawbreaker for not buying insurance. You are just not entitled to the deduction and must pay the 1% tax hike. Its like if you don't have a mortgage and don't get that deduction

 

[boomerang]

Exactly. For the past 10+ years or so, I have been subsidising everyone else's medical expenses. No more free-riders.

No hable.