Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[Talint]

Also, Rick Scott says Florida will not participate in PPACA

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-bu...mply-obamacare

If Rick Scott hates it, it must be good!

[guartz]

A decent family major medical ppo plan is about 7,200 - 10,000+ a year..

heh, I don't mean to be an asshole here, but, I could potentially save a lot of money just paying the penalty and adding good insurance if I get really sick.

In the mean time, a typical limited medical plan would cost me around 1,000 a year and should cover doctors visits and preventative care...


tl;dr Would I fuck the government to save 5-6k a year?
















yes.

[Xno Kappa]

LOL at all these dumbasses claiming they moving to Canada.

Are we getting to a new level of stupid or is it just the previous level of stupid now has internet access?

[hey]

So this bill doesn't really affect me unless it lowers my premiums.

It will.

[Salodin]

So any estimate on when it'll lower the premiums of people on employer plans?

If it even does. I can see many employers keeping the same employee contribution, but paying less themselves, at least for a few years until aca starts kicking in.

[RKenshin]

A decent family major medical ppo plan is about 7,200 - 10,000+ a year..

heh, I don't mean to be an asshole here, but, I could potentially save a lot of money just paying the penalty and adding good insurance if I get really sick.

In the mean time, a typical limited medical plan would cost me around 1,000 a year and should cover doctors visits and preventative care...


tl;dr Would I fuck the government to save 5-6k a year?
.
.
.
yess.

I'm pretty sure that the gamble would also include a chance that if someone in your family is in an accident, has to go to the doctor's office/emergency room, or wants/requires a prescription... you're paying for the entire thing out of your own pocket.

Sure, you could get insurance if a chronic condition comes along that you need long-term treatment for, but you're not going to be able to enroll/dis-enroll insurance plans at the drop of a hat multiple times a year anytime someone gets sick. Nor are you going to be able to sign up on the way to the emergency room.

IIRC, there are also limits for how frequently you can reapply for health insurance, and in some cases (maybe all?) a waiting period for it to activate.

I know that is the case for most group plans. If you leave the plan and/or don't sign up you can't re-enroll until the annual election period (once a year, lasts about a month?), unless you qualify for a special election period (often from losing job or something).

[Jonny]

A decent family major medical ppo plan is about 7,200 - 10,000+ a year

Wow really? My plan ( now its just me not a family ) is 1900 a year and has covered everything so far, I broke my hand 4 months ago I didn't pay one cent.

[archibaldcrane]

$1900 a year with no deductible? I... don't believe you.

[guartz]

$1900 a year with no deductible? I... don't believe you.

could be... if he is under 18 or in college

[guartz]

I'm pretty sure that the gamble would also include a chance that if someone in your family is in an accident, has to go to the doctor's office/emergency room, or wants/requires a prescription... you're paying for the entire thing out of your own pocket.

Sure, you could get insurance if a chronic condition comes along that you need long-term treatment for, but you're not going to be able to enroll/dis-enroll insurance plans at the drop of a hat multiple times a year anytime someone gets sick. Nor are you going to be able to sign up on the way to the emergency room.

IIRC, there are also limits for how frequently you can reapply for health insurance, and in some cases (maybe all?) a waiting period for it to activate.

I know that is the case for most group plans. If you leave the plan and/or don't sign up you can't re-enroll until the annual election period (once a year, lasts about a month?), unless you qualify for a special election period (often from losing job or something).

I'm sure a limited medical plan coverage would last long enough to get a real insurance if something serious were to happen. I don't know, what do indemnity plans cover now a days? 25k max? Meh, it's good enough to last a day or two... and to answer your question, individual plans don't have enrollment periods, that's just for group insurance.

[ringthree]

I read an interesting article about the Roberts' opinion. Originally, it appeared that Roberts wanted to cleanly remove the mandate without striking down the entire law, but could not find any interest from the 4 other conservative judges. This means that Kennedy turned pretty radically conservative on this issue (it could be expected from the other three). In the end that means that Roberts actually probably acted in the most non-activist way possible, preserving in his opinion that the commerce clause shouldn't be further expanded, but trying to maintain the intent of the legislature. This is a very non-activist position.

In the end it looks like the conservatives on the court forced Roberts hand, and made him vote for upholding the entire law. Shooting themselves in the foot.

I would not take this as a signal that Roberts has become more moderate, just that he has an interpretation of congressional intent that is actually pretty non-activist. I just hope that this doesn't have a Fly-Paper Effect.

[Acturus]

It does already apply to hospitals and is independent of ACA. It extends to independent providers in 2015. I tried to state that in that first post but it was terse. I had just finished a 12 hour shift, sorry :/. We lost $500,000 in medical payments from CMS last fiscal year. Projected 1.5 million this year. Were one of the top 6% of hospitals in quality in the nation too.

Probably. My system's flagship hospital is fairly large. Thankfully, my world is Managed Care, so I stay out of the Medicare stuff for the most part.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I read an interesting article about the Roberts' opinion. Originally, it appeared that Roberts wanted to cleanly remove the mandate without striking down the entire law, but could not find any interest from the 4 other conservative judges. This means that Kennedy turned pretty radically conservative on this issue (it could be expected from the other three). In the end that means that Roberts actually probably acted in the most non-activist way possible, preserving in his opinion that the commerce clause shouldn't be further expanded, but trying to maintain the intent of the legislature. This is a very non-activist position.

In the end it looks like the conservatives on the court forced Roberts hand, and made him vote for upholding the entire law. Shooting themselves in the foot.

I would not take this as a signal that Roberts has become more moderate, just that he has an interpretation of congressional intent that is actually pretty non-activist. I just hope that this doesn't have a Fly-Paper Effect.

Are you serious on the congressional intent? Everyone denied it was a tax lol.

And anyone remember Obama's speech as a Senator on Robert's confirmation? "I'm afraid he'll rule in favor of big business and that's a bad thing blah blah." Well he just ruled in favor of an entire industry.

[Tyche]

Are you serious on the congressional intent? Everyone denied it was a tax lol.

And anyone remember Obama's speech as a Senator on Robert's confirmation? "I'm afraid he'll rule in favor of big business and that's a bad thing blah blah." Well he just ruled in favor of an entire industry.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...-reform/54086/

Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold President Obama's health care reform law, CBS News reported, "according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations."

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."
According to CBS' sources, the conservative judges even refused to join Roberts on sections of the law with which they all agreed.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate. 
Ultimately, Roberts tried to persuade Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. 

CBS News noted that even Roberts' opinion seemed phrased to appeal to Kennedy and get his vote, as it echoed some of the language Kennedy used during oral arguments. 

During the arguments in March, Kennedy told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli:

"Here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases - and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way."
Roberts wrote in the section of his opinion analyzing the Commerce Clause:

"Accepting the government's theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the federal government."
But Roberts did not focus solely on Kennedy. He tried to get the other conservative judges on board with him, at least on the parts of his opinion with which they agreed. 

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce," Roberts wrote in his opinion. "Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act."
We hope that New York Mayor Bloomberg doesn't bust out this "people...often fail to do things that would be good for them" truism in defense of his soda ban. As for semi-intellectual courtroom drama: bring it on. 

Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at [email protected]. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
Hannah Miet

Sources
Roberts Switched Views to Uphold Health Care Law, Jan Crawford, CBS News

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

What's your point relating to what I said?

[Ragnus]

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a law that only allowed certified moderates to be Justices. Is there any chance at all that these four guys will face any punishment for this? It has to be conspiring at the least.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a law that only allowed certified moderates to be Justices. Is there any chance at all that these four guys will face any punishment for this? It has to be conspiring at the least.

What are you bitching about? There's nothing criminal or impeachment worthy in that story.

Abortion would have been struck down but for what is described in that story.

[ringthree]

Are you serious on the congressional intent? Everyone denied it was a tax lol.

And anyone remember Obama's speech as a Senator on Robert's confirmation? "I'm afraid he'll rule in favor of big business and that's a bad thing blah blah." Well he just ruled in favor of an entire industry.

I don't think you understand the concept of congressional intent. It is the notion that the court adjudicates on the notions that the congress is the branch that makes laws, and as such the court is just there to determine if the statute can be construed as constitutional, and makes no judgement based on the quality of the law. (I feel compelled to say that this isn't really the definition of congressional intent, but the differences are so small as to make it not worth the effort, if you need more specifics ask a lawyer.)

It is completely and utterly irrelevant whether it was called a tax, a mandate, a fee. Those are all just labels that don't really matter in the determination of the constitutionality of the statute. The court only decided that under the power to collection taxes, the legislation passed constitutional muster. The court decision did not make the legislation a "tax", it changed absolutely nothing in how the law is implemented. If you thought it was a tax before, then you will still think it is a tax. If you didn't think it was a tax before, then it isn't a tax now.

This is a confusion that many people, even commentators, have had about the decision.

And just to be clear, the argument that the fines under the legislation could be implemented under congress's power to collection taxes were made during the oral arguments before the court.

The labels are all politics, nothing more.

[Acevalefor]

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a law that only allowed certified moderates to be Justices. Is there any chance at all that these four guys will face any punishment for this? It has to be conspiring at the least.

Not sure I follow. Care to explain why their actions might have been illegal?

[ringthree]

Stuff like this makes me wish there was a law that only allowed certified moderates to be Justices. Is there any chance at all that these four guys will face any punishment for this? It has to be conspiring at the least.

I am not sure you understand how the Supreme Court functions... it may be helpful to spend a little wiki time on this one.