Obamacare, Healthcare, etc.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

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.

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.

I understand congressional intent, and it wasn't that it was a tax. How do we know? B/c they said so! The govt. didn't even raise the tax issue until the SCOTUS, and I believe the SCOTUS had to appoint someone to argue the point b/c the govt. didn't intend to. This was nothing more than Robert's trying to figure out a way to make it constitutional.

[hey]

This was nothing more than Robert's trying to figure out a way to make it constitutional.

Isn't that his job?

[ringthree]

I understand congressional intent, and it wasn't that it was a tax. How do we know? B/c they said so! The govt. didn't even raise the tax issue until the SCOTUS, and I believe the SCOTUS had to appoint someone to argue the point b/c the govt. didn't intend to. This was nothing more than Robert's trying to figure out a way to make it constitutional.

In a legal sense, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The court just decides if the legislature has the power to enact a law, they do not care about the labels of such a law.

During the oral arguments, the taxation power argument was made, Justice Roberts believed that was enough to empower the legislature to enact this law.

The Supreme Court would be absolutely schizophrenic if they made decision based solely on the labels used by the legislative branch.

(As I edited my post above before you quoted it, I used congressional intent slightly incorrectly. If that is causing the confusion, then I apologize. Roberts wasn't necessarily looking at the discussions in the legislative branch to determine if it was a tax or not. I only meant that he was trying to preserve (conserve?) the actions of the legislature by limiting the Supreme Courts action on the issue. If you look at it that way, the Roberts decision was non-activist and relatively conservative. Overturning the entire piece of legislation, in his eyes, probably would have been very activist.)

[Dimmauk]

Wait, why are insurance agents losing jobs again? Aren't they in the same boat as health care professionals? Lots of people will need insurance soon.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

(As I edited my post above before you quoted it, I used congressional intent slightly incorrectly. If that is causing the confusion, then I apologize. Roberts wasn't necessarily looking at the discussions in the legislative branch to determine if it was a tax or not. I only meant that he was trying to preserve (conserve?) the actions of the legislature by limiting the Supreme Courts action on the issue. If you look at it that way, the Roberts decision was non-activist and relatively conservative. Overturning the entire piece of legislation, in his eyes, probably would have been very activist.)

This makes sense to me, and the language in the opinion indicates that your 3rd and 4th sentences is exactly what he did.

[Salodin]

Wait, why are insurance agents losing jobs again? Aren't they in the same boat as health care professionals? Lots of people will need insurance soon.

I think in the short term cause insurance companies can't spend as much on overhead as they used to, they'll lose jobs cause ceos want as much money as they can get before they move into something else. In the long term though, they should all be better off.

[ringthree]

Isn't that his job?

Actually, you are very correct on this. In his confirmation hearings, and several times after, Roberts has specifically said that he believes that unless there is a compelling Constitutional reason to overturn a piece of legislation, then it is his duty to test all of the ways it could be found to be Constitutional. This is a rather conservative view and is one of the reasons that Bush nominated him. It is also the reason he upheld the law, because he likely believes the conservative end of the court was being activist.

In the end, the conservative politicians that pushed for Roberts got exactly what they asked for out of him. I think it is because they fundamentally believed that they didn't want judicial activism, but that is exactly what they wanted. They want conservative legislating from the bench. They for some reason thought activism was only something liberal judges engaged in.

[ringthree]

This makes sense to me, and the language in the opinion indicates that your 3rd and 4th sentences is exactly what he did.

Sorry about the confusion. I am glad I got my point across. I probably should have said legislative integrity or something along those lines.

(Also, I should note that I am using conservative in two different places with two different meanings. In a political sense, I mean conservative to be synonymous with Republicans and that side of the political spectrum. In a judicial sense, I mean conservative to hold to it's original meaning; to preserve the status quo.)

[kuronosan]

Anderson Cooper is gay.

[Olo401]

I understand congressional intent, and it wasn't that it was a tax. How do we know? B/c they said so! The govt. didn't even raise the tax issue until the SCOTUS, and I believe the SCOTUS had to appoint someone to argue the point b/c the govt. didn't intend to. This was nothing more than Robert's trying to figure out a way to make it constitutional.

Just like he did with the Citizens United decision. Sounds to me like the problem here isn't congressional intent but rather your disagreement with Roberts' style of judicial review.

[Plow]

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.

At the start of this year, the new MLR standard (80% of your premiums must go to actual medical expenses) began. By August 1st, they have to pay you back the difference if they haven't met that standard. If they have met that standard, you're probably already benefiting and didn't even know.

[Salodin]

At the start of this year, the new MLR standard (80% of your premiums must go to actual medical expenses) began. By August 1st, they have to pay you back the difference if they haven't met that standard. If they have met that standard, you're probably already benefiting and didn't even know.

My work benefits have gone up in price since the year before. I haven't received word about increased coverage or lower price yet...so what do?

[Restrat]

I believe (but I might be wrong) that your employer could be the beneficiary of the rebates depending on how your work policy is set up. So it is very likely they could just pocket it to reduce their own costs in providing insurance.

[archibaldcrane]

My individual plan has gone up 6 separate times in the past 4 years. Remember, Obamacare does not mean that health insurance costs do not go up ever again. They will, the hope is that this rate will be slowed. Beware of assholes complaining of every premium increase on Obamacare - premiums were flying sky high when Obama was still the most junior representative of Illinois.

[Tyche]

Roberts made the remarks during an appearance on a panel at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania, The Hill reported. He was asked if he planned to go to Disney World now that the Court was no longer in session and said he planned to teach a class in Malta, an island nation in the Mediterranean, south of Italy.

“Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,” he joked to the 300 or so judges and attorneys in the audience, The Hill reported.

When the teaparty attacks. Thought that was a funny quote.

[Salodin]

I believe (but I might be wrong) that your employer could be the beneficiary of the rebates depending on how your work policy is set up. So it is very likely they could just pocket it to reduce their own costs in providing insurance.

This is most likely what's going on. Boo-urns.

[Plow]

Delawareans owed a rebate will see their value reflected in one of the following ways:

· a rebate check in the mail;

· a lump-sum reimbursement to the same account that is used to pay the premium if by credit card or debit card;

· a reduction in their future premiums; and

· their employer providing one of the above, or applying the rebate in a manner that benefits its employees.

Insurance companies that do not meet the 80/20 standard will send their policyholders a rebate for the difference no later than August 1, 2012. Consumers will also receive a notice from their insurance company informing them of the 80/20 rule, whether their company met the standard, and, if not, how much of a difference between what the insurer did or did not spend on medical care and quality improvement will be returned to them.

For the first time, all of this information will be publicly posted on HealthCare.gov this summer, allowing consumers to learn what value they’re getting for their premium dollars in their health plan.

Says delaware specifically because it's a radio station in Delaware, but it's nationwide, just the easiest link I could find.

So, no, that's not what's happening. And, if you don't know what is happening with your premiums and what your insurance provider is doing in relation to the MLR, you can go find out at healthcare.gov.

http://www.wgmd.com/?p=60955

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

My individual plan has gone up 6 separate times in the past 4 years. Remember, Obamacare does not mean that health insurance costs do not go up ever again. They will, the hope is that this rate will be slowed. Beware of assholes complaining of every premium increase on Obamacare - premiums were flying sky high when Obama was still the most junior representative of Illinois.

Hmm, this seems disingenuous, that or re-defining expectations. I could have sworn liberals constantly said "Obamacare will bend the cost curve down" or something to that effect, including posters on this board.

[kuronosan]

My work benefits have gone up in price since the year before. I haven't received word about increased coverage or lower price yet...so what do?

You know, it's funny. Our job recently sent out an email saying our premiums were going down. Now I know why.

[ringthree]

Hmm, this seems disingenuous, that or re-defining expectations. I could have sworn liberals constantly said "Obamacare will bend the cost curve down" or something to that effect, including posters on this board.

Why wouldn't that be the case? Think of the graph for costs.



It would be uninformed to think that anything could actually fully reduce the cost of health care. This is just attempting to slow the rate of increase.