"Obamacare"

[Mrs. Gooch]

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/16/tom-the-dancing-bug-bible-sto.html

[8manpick]

http://boingboing.net/2014/07/16/tom-the-dancing-bug-bible-sto.html

Boing boing indeed

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Wow. Was not expecting this. Obamacare is in seriouser trouble.

Appellate Court Rules Subsidies Illegal

Let's see Obama try to fix this now with his "pen and phone."

[chuckjames]

Wow. Was not expecting this. Obamacare is in seriouser trouble.

Appellate Court Rules Subsidies Illegal

Let's see Obama try to fix this now with his "pen and phone."

Meh it will get overturned by the full court. The Supreme Court is anybody's guess tho.

[chuckjames]

The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is.

I don't see what's so confusing about the appellate system. We've got a lot of federal judges appointed by different presidents with significantly different views when it comes to statutory construction, interpreting and applying the Constitution, etc. The importance of the DC Circuit's ruling is that it now provides a clear split of opinion on the issue, virtually assuring that the SC will have to take it up, and I can guarantee you the SC will decide it on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote. We know how 7 Justices will rule - the question comes down to Roberts and Kennedy.

I still think Obamacare can only be killed politically, but there's a least a decent chance the SC will gut it.

[chuckjames]

The 4th Circuit Court just upheld the subsidies. More than anything this just proves how confusing our appellate system is.

I don't see what's so confusing about the appellate system. We've got a lot of federal judges appointed by different presidents with significantly different views when it comes to statutory construction, interpreting and applying the Constitution, etc. The importance of the DC Circuit's ruling is that it now provides a clear split of opinion on the issue, virtually assuring that the SC will have to take it up, and I can guarantee you the SC will decide it on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote. We know how 7 Justices will rule - the question comes down to Roberts and Kennedy.

I still think Obamacare can only be killed politically, but there's a least a decent chance the SC will gut it.

I guess it's always been weird to me that depending on what appellate district you're in a law can be different than in another district. I'm not a lawyer but I assume it's how it works. Oh well the Supreme. Court gets another whack at it. Which is disappointing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Wow. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect-agreed-with-gop-exchange-subsidies-can-only-flow-through-state-exchanges/

In short, plaintiffs in the recent Obamacare litigation have latched onto the argument that the law as worded clearly does not permit insurance subsidies except for policies purchased on state-run exchanges. This means that there would be no subsidies for the 34 states that refused to set up their own exchanges, resulting in a political firestorm and (most likely) the effective death of Obamacare.

The government argues that the particular provision was just a mistake (though even sloppy drafting is usually not a viable excuse for ignoring what the law says). The plaintiffs counter that this provision was not a mistake, but rather that Congress intended to limit the subsidies to state-run exchanges in order to pressure conservative states into establishing exchanges.

I would now say there's a better than 50% chance that the SC will rule in favor of the plaintiffs by a 5-4 vote.

[Mrs. Gooch]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/

Wait - they are suing to be "exempted" from having to receive a pamphlet when they walk in to see their friendly neighborhood abortionist? Doesn't sound too burdensome...

[star seed 7]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/28/3464769/satanists-hobby-lobby-abortion/

Wait - they are suing to be "exempted" from having to receive a pamphlet when they walk in to see their friendly neighborhood abortionist? Doesn't sound too burdensome...

Lol

[Rage Against the McKee]

The Satanic Temple is pretty great at everything they do, it seems.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Another round of cancellation notices going out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/insurers-poised-to-cancel-health-plans-that-dont-comply-with-affordable-care-act/2014/10/02/31525c74-49b3-11e4-891d-713f052086a0_story.html

I don't know about you, but I think it is an awesome idea for the federal government to mandate the amount of insurance everyone needs to have. And then, if you don't comply, the IRS collects a tax, err, "penalty." Meanwhile, the federal government doles out hundreds of billions of tax dollars to expand Medicaid and also subsidize the more expensive policies which basically amount to more expensive versions of Medicaid. Fewer and fewer doctors accept these policies, resulting in long drives and waiting times for care. And it's all "paid for" by a combination of debt and taxing and raising the premiums of the vast majority of people who already had health insurance and liked it just fine.

The Democrats took a problem and made it worse in every conceivable way.

[puniraptor]

how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?

Well, just for starters, I'd do a number of things to bring down the cost of insurance.
(1) Allow insurance to be purchased from any company, for any particular coverage, like most any other type of insurance.
(2) Impose aggressive tort reform, capping medical malpractice liability limits and barring/capping liability for anyone receiving free or government subsidized care.
(3) Expand tax-free HSAs to all Americans to encourage the use the HDHPs. If we encourage people to use health insurance like any other insurance (only for the serious stuff you really can't afford out of pocket), it removes the distortion from the market and brings down costs.

I don't profess to have all the answers - I just know that Obamacare made things a lot worse. That's pretty undeniable at this point. About the only thing Obamacare has "achieved" is reducing the number of uninsured, but those newly insured are just being added to Medicaid or Medicaid-esque exchanges (together with many people who had real insurance but got booted onto the exchanges), with limited access to healthcare, and all at great expense to everyone else.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

how would you have fixed the problem, Kay S. Youdub?

Personally, I would have not made the problem worse. For starters.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?

In places where  compensatory damages are capped, it is well documented it has helped. Anymore, it's virtually impossible to win a med mal claim, but that doesn't mean people still aren't trying and attorneys fees accruing.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don' think tort reform will lower healthcare costs in the slightest. The market has already shown a willingness to pay for current costs. What incentive do doctors have to lower prices?

And you've just perfectly described the problem. The buyers in the current "Market" are almost entirely government and private insurers - not individuals. This discourages competitive pricing and distorts market dynamics.

No other insurance works this way! If people started using car insurance to pay for routine maintenance, I guarantee you the price of an oil change would skyrocket.

That's why HCAs with HDHPs are such a wonderful thing. They ought to be expanded and encouraged. Instead, Obamacare works in the opposite direction, forcing people into bloated old-fashioned policies.

And yes, real tort reform would absolutely produce savings. The practice of "defensive medicine," particularly in ERs is absurd. We shouldn't be running every bad person who wanders into the ER with a battery of tests just to reduce liability - especially if said bad person isn't paying.

[star seed 7]

It's insane that you want to expand the health insurance industry

[wetwillie]

Wait, people think malpractice suits are the reason health insurance costs are skyrocketing?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm going to assume the last two posts are trolls, because the Pit

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's insane that you want to expand the health insurance industry

I'm not in favor of expanding health insurance. I want more competition among insurers and for people to use insurance less, not more.

Obamacare works in the opposite direction, expanding "private" insurance (but not really, after all the subsidies) to the point of collapse, while simultaneously expanding more direct government healthcare (Medicaid). It's a bridge to making our government one unified insurer (single payer), but as I've explained ad nauseum, that's not going to improve healthcare - it will make it worse.

[star seed 7]

Single payer is the only sensible option

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Single payer is the only sensible option

Complete with secret waiting lists and people who die waiting to see a nurse practitioner.