BREAKING: Parts of healthcare law ruled unconstitutional

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If you guys think liberals are going to be too upset with individual mandate provision being struck down, you are simply forgetting that it was a Republican idea. Liberals believe that government should pay for health care, not require individuals to buy private insurance. If USSC takes away the individual mandate, that would be a big step towards the single payer universal coverage that we liberals really want. Individual mandate is needed for private insurer model to be sustainable long term, so taking it off the table will almost guarantee we will eventually have single payer coverage.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
The reason most people do not have health insurance is because of costs not because they don't want it.

Decent health insurance that keeps you out of the poorhouse in case of major illness or injury costs several hundred per month and can run into the thousands depending on how many people are covered.

By forcing people to buy health insurance they will inevitably seek out the cheapest plans to comply with the law and still be able to pay the rest of their bills, and take a guess who will end up paying the bill when these poor saps find out how little their inexpensive insurance covers.

But when it comes to health insurance you definitely get what you pay for.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1982297,00.html

Monday, Apr. 26, 2010
Cheap Health Care Plans: Let the Buyer Beware

By Kate Pickert

Paul Gaznick tried his best to give his son Justin what he needed to live a happy and healthy life. A single parent, Gaznick, 57, runs a small welding and fabrication business in Methuen, Mass., that was hit hard by the sagging economy. As early as 2007, his contracts had slowed to a trickle and often didn't pay enough to cover his expenses. Health-insurance premiums were part of his crushing overhead. Gaznick's policy, covering only him and his teenage son, cost about $750 a month.
He was already shopping around for cheaper insurance when he received a fax promising some relief. For $289 per month, the fax said, he could buy "low cost quality health care for the individual and entire family." The advertisement, for a company named National Alliance, touted the offer as "top rated insurance."
"I said, Well, $300 is better than $700," says Gaznick. Soon after Gaznick signed up, Justin was badly burned in an accident and ended up in the emergency room. As massive hospital and pediatrician bills began arriving in the mailbox, Gaznick realized he had bought not cheaper insurance but rather membership in a Sam's Club — like medical-discount program. He was responsible for all his medical bills; the money he'd been paying to National Alliance each month was simply the fee to access a list of doctors and hospitals that had supposedly agreed to give cardholders discounts.
"I've always paid my own way," says Gaznick, who had to work out a payment plan with the hospital, which eventually forgave most of the tab for treating his son. "I was grateful, but I didn't want it to come down like that. I wanted the insurance company to pay the bills."
He isn't the only health care consumer who is feeling duped. Many others have been seduced by infomercials or out-of-the-blue e-mails or faxes whose slickly worded descriptions may make people think they are getting comprehensive coverage on the cheap. The two most commonly misunderstood products are medical-discount plans — like the one Gaznick signed up for — and limited-medical-benefits plans, which technically are insurance but have relatively low set reimbursement amounts and strict limits on what kinds of care are covered.
Trying to rein in these types of health plans is like playing regulatory whack-a-mole. File a lawsuit or institute new consumer protections targeting one product in one state, and several slightly different variants are likely to pop up to fill the void. And consumer advocates are worried that many more people will sign up for these health plans because of confusion surrounding the new federal health reform law, which will eventually require all citizens to obtain insurance. But that aspect of the law, which will also set a minimum standard for insurers — whose plans must include free preventive care, substantial reimbursement for most treatments and no annual or lifetime caps on coverage — won't take effect until 2014. In the meantime, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued a scam alert, warning consumers that companies may market plans based on false claims about the new law, such as there being a limited enrollment period for federal health care.
Massachusetts has been dealing with a deluge of misleading and fraudulent insurance offers since a law enacted in 2006 mandated that nearly every resident get health insurance or pay a fine. The state set minimum standards for policies that can be used to fulfill its universal-insurance requirement, but these rules don't preclude companies from selling other types of products. The problem lies in how they are presented to desperate Americans looking to reduce their medical-cost burden.
"Whenever you're entering into a new system, there's always an opportunity for confusion among customers," says Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley, who sued National Alliance and three of its executives last year for deceptive marketing practices. (The company, which no longer has a working phone number, did not respond to the suit. The three executives have denied any wrongdoing.) Minnesota filed a similar lawsuit against two other discount medical plans, and California is considering increasing licensing requirements for these products.




Medical-discount plans promise deep savings on doctor and hospital visits to subscribers who pay hefty enrollment and monthly fees. In reality, however, these discounts are often minuscule or far smaller than what an uninsured patient could negotiate independently. In 2005, the Federal Trade Commission issued a consumer alert for medical-discount plans, stating that "many take consumers' money and offer very little in return." Still, these plans continue to proliferate.
Who is signing up for them? "People looking for bargain-basement health insurance who don't know what they're buying," says Jenny Libster, a senior research associate at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health-policy organization. Medical-discount plans can, in theory, be beneficial for someone who has no ongoing expensive health conditions or who can afford to pay cash for most care. But marketers of these plans are aggressively pursuing a much wider swath of consumers. "They are targeting low-income people and people with pre-existing health conditions," Libster says.
Limited-medical-benefit plans are going after a similarly vulnerable slice of society. These plans provide often scant coverage in exchange for monthly premiums that are lower than those for traditional insurance but typically still quite high. For example, Cinergy Health charged families $479 per month for its Preferred 1000 plan, which covered $100 for one emergency-room visit per year per person and $1,000 per day of hospitalization for up to 30 days. (The average cost of an ER visit is more than $500; a single day in the hospital can easily cost more than $5,000.) Coverage for doctor visits was pretty decent — up to $70 per visit for up to five visits per year, a key selling point. But even if a family of four maxed out this particular benefit, it would have received only $1,400 in payouts after paying nearly $6,000 a year in premiums.
The five-year-old company, which provided limited-benefit plans as well as medical-discount plans, at one point ran an infomercial promising customers "significant health coverage for a reasonable price." But what counts as "significant" coverage? Most consumers expect their health plans to protect them from mountains of debt if, say, they suffer extensive injuries in an accident or develop a chronic disease. Cinergy's products didn't offer much help in either scenario.
"No matter how clear your member material is and how well you educate your members, they're still expecting more out of it than they may ultimately get," says Steve Trattner, president and chief marketing officer of Cinergy. "The expectations far exceed what a discount medical plan truly can offer when it comes to the traditional medical and hospital services."
State regulators, deluged with complaints about Cinergy, have responded. New York banned the company's television ads last year, and Florida, where Cinergy is based, has accused the company of deceptive marketing. (Cinergy disputes the charge and has requested a hearing on the matter.) In February, the Better Business Bureau revoked Cinergy's membership.
Cinergy has stopped selling limited-benefit plans to new customers, but this type of product is not going away anytime soon. In fact, bigger players are getting into the market. Traditional insurance companies such as Cigna and Aetna are offering limited-benefit plans to small businesses, retailers and young adults. These plans are geared toward common medical issues such as colds, flu and broken bones but are clearly labeled as not providing comprehensive or catastrophic coverage.
Minor, everyday costs, however, are often not nearly as high as the cost of a limited-medical-benefit plan. Judy Spurlock, a disgruntled Cinergy customer in Batavia, Ohio, sat back recently and wondered, "How beneficial would it be for us to just take the money [for premiums] and put it in a bank account?"
 

JockoJohnson

Golden Member
May 20, 2009
1,417
60
91
If you guys think liberals are going to be too upset with individual mandate provision being struck down, you are simply forgetting that it was a Republican idea. Liberals believe that government should pay for health care, not require individuals to buy private insurance. If USSC takes away the individual mandate, that would be a big step towards the single payer universal coverage that we liberals really want. Individual mandate is needed for private insurer model to be sustainable long term, so taking it off the table will almost guarantee we will eventually have single payer coverage.

If the USSC strikes down the individual mandate portion, wouldn't they then have to strike down the entire law (bill)? From what I understand, Congress did not detach certain parts such as this from the whole law. So if one part is found invalid, the whole process would need to be started all over again. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just making an observation.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
If the USSC strikes down the individual mandate portion, wouldn't they then have to strike down the entire law (bill)? From what I understand, Congress did not detach certain parts such as this from the whole law. So if one part is found invalid, the whole process would need to be started all over again. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just making an observation.

Correct.

Normally, bills have language attached that says that if any part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the bill still stands. With the healthcare bill though, since what was passed was a working draft, not a final bill, it was missing this language. Hence if any part of the bill is unconstitutional, the entire bill is essentially voided.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,650
2,930
136
lol




I also heard he started the potato famine in Ireland all those years ago...

No, no, no, he imported potatoes into Ireland so that he could cause the Irish food supply to be dependent upon them and then later cause the famine.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
If the USSC strikes down the individual mandate portion, wouldn't they then have to strike down the entire law (bill)? From what I understand, Congress did not detach certain parts such as this from the whole law. So if one part is found invalid, the whole process would need to be started all over again. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just making an observation.

Read the judge's opinion. He severed just the individual mandate provision (and provisions that reference it ) and struck it down, leaving the rest of the law in place.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Finally some common sense.

How could requiring every man and woman in the country to buy a commercial product from a private company for the condition of living in this country be constitutional ?

Don't own a car and the required insurance?? Guess you are still living in the basement.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Correct.

Normally, bills have language attached that says that if any part of the bill is ruled unconstitutional, the rest of the bill still stands. With the healthcare bill though, since what was passed was a working draft, not a final bill, it was missing this language. Hence if any part of the bill is unconstitutional, the entire bill is essentially voided.

I'm starting to think that might have been the plan in the first place.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I'm starting to think that might have been the plan in the first place.

Or the conspiracy theory that just makes WAY too much sense. If the end goal is to destroy the insurance companies and force single payer UHC, and remember that IS the goal, Obama and many dems have said exactly that over and over and over again.

Then what's the best way to do that? Require they pay out much more than they take in like covering 26 year old children, no lifetime maximum, force them to pay for "free" treatments, eliminate pre-existing condition requirements, require by rule of law no capital growth by forcing a ratio of payout to premiums, etc. But use the line of reasoning "oh, insurance companies you can do this because we'll mandate everybody purchase insurance from you."

Knowing full well that the individual mandate requirement would get overturned and yet all the huge payout increases remain thus no insurance company could stay profitable or non-profit.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,641
132
106
This is one the major problems I and many had with the bill. I can't see how it is constitutional to force a person to buy insurance. And their comparison of this to car insurance doesn't fly because I only have to buy car insurance if I want to drive.


So would you be ok for a hospital not to treat you if you don't have health insurance?
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Or the conspiracy theory that just makes WAY too much sense. If the end goal is to destroy the insurance companies and force single payer UHC, and remember that IS the goal, Obama and many dems have said exactly that over and over and over again.

Then what's the best way to do that? Require they pay out much more than they take in like covering 26 year old children, no lifetime maximum, force them to pay for "free" treatments, eliminate pre-existing condition requirements, require by rule of law no capital growth by forcing a ratio of payout to premiums, etc. But use the line of reasoning "oh, insurance companies you can do this because we'll mandate everybody purchase insurance from you."

Knowing full well that the individual mandate requirement would get overturned and yet all the huge payout increases remain thus no insurance company could stay profitable or non-profit.

Find me a single time (let alone over and over) when President Obama said his goal was to destroy insurance companies and I'll print out this post and eat it.

If I'm following you properly, this is what you believe. That Democrats took a Republican idea (individual mandate) that insurance companies supported and incorporated it into the health bill. Then, the conservative leaning Supreme Court will strike down that Republican and insurance company supported idea (mandate) but keep the rest of the law in place. This will in effect "destroy" those private health insurance companies because they will then need to pay out lots of money they no longer have. Since this was an idea and bill they supported in the first place, both the GOP and health insurance companies basically destroyed themselves. So your conspiracy is that Democrats manipulated both Republicans and the health insurance industry by giving them what they wanted in order for Democrats to get what they want, which is single payer.

I'm starting to wonder if you are a contortionist for a living. The logic you utilize to justify some of your beliefs certainly seems pretzel shaped. Or really it's pretty straightforward "Democrat Bad, Conservative Good." And you will do anything to uphold that belief.
 
Last edited:

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Don't own a car and the required insurance?? Guess you are still living in the basement.

You are a moron and so are Holder and Sebelius who tried to trot out the car insurance BS again. You can't use car insurance as it's risk based, voluntary(meaning you don't have to buy it if you don't want to drive), AND it is state based - not Fed based. So if by trotting out car insurance you'd like to see Health INSURANCE become more like car INSURANCE - I'll agree 100%. I however don't think you, holder, or sebilius are talking about that.

... stupid libs...
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Yep, but it's good to have a Republican judge and "conservative" cheering section on our side. :)

Lulz, my conspiracy theory was taken right from progressive blogs and why they are cheering this as a good thing and how it was part of the plan all along.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Lulz, my conspiracy theory was taken right from progressive blogs and why they are cheering this as a good thing and how it was part of the plan all along.

Removing the individual mandate is the key to making it happen.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
If the USSC strikes down the individual mandate portion, wouldn't they then have to strike down the entire law (bill)? From what I understand, Congress did not detach certain parts such as this from the whole law. So if one part is found invalid, the whole process would need to be started all over again. Please correct me if I am wrong. Just making an observation.

Despite what RedChief said, you both are dead wrong. You both confused contract law with statutory construction. A portion of a statute can be held invaild without impairing the rest. In fact it is quite rare (I can't recall a single instance offhand) where an entire complex act was ever declared completely unconsitutional.

In this specific case and in this specific case the trial judge held unconstitutional ONLY the individual mandate.

More significantly if what I have heard about his financial involvement with anti-health care reform entities is true-owning a portion of entities paid by one of the litigators in this suit-this judge should have reclused himself from this case from the beginning. I wouldn't bet the house on this decision standing.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Remember, it was the insurance companies who were complaining that the individual mandate fine was too low and people would just wait till they get sick to get insurance using the pre-existing condition exclusion ban. Well, if the ruling stands, that fine is going to be zero. :)
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Remember, it was the insurance companies who were complaining that the individual mandate fine was too low and people would just wait till they get sick to get insurance using the pre-existing condition exclusion ban. Well, if the ruling stands, that fine is going to be zero. :)

To my understanding, if the ruling stands the entire bill will be scrapped. If congress can come up with something better, yay.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,156
55,707
136
To my understanding, if the ruling stands the entire bill will be scrapped. If congress can come up with something better, yay.

This is not correct, if this ruling stands the bill would go into effect, just sans mandate.

Since this ruling is unlikely to stand, it's not really something to worry about.