What I hope the Supreme Court does to health care.

[Jarod]

It looks like we might get a rulling from the Supreme Court today, or some time next week.

I hope they strike the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law alone. (I doubt they will, I suspect they will strike the mandate, then tinker with the law saying some cannot survive without the mandate).

Then I hope there would be serious public pressure to correct the law the way I argued it should have been in the first place, with a PUBLIC OPTION.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law completly, (unlikely in my opinion) then we will have new legislation and a new health care bill because only 19% of the populace want things to go back to the way they were.

I personally do not want to lose my heath care!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It looks like we might get a rulling from the Supreme Court today, or some time next week.

Seeing how their current session is over at the end of June or early July (if they haven't finished their case work on time), that is a safe bet

I hope they strike the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law alone. (I doubt they will, I suspect they will strike the mandate, then tinker with the law saying some cannot survive without the mandate).

Then I hope there would be serious public pressure to correct the law the way I argued it should have been in the first place, with a PUBLIC OPTION.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law completly, (unlikely in my opinion) then we will have new legislation and a new health care bill because only 19% of the populace want things to go back to the way they were.

I personally do not want to lose my heath care!

Personally I hope they strike the entire monstrosity. Then we can pressure Congress to actually do something about the escalating costs rather than give us 2000 pages of how to change who pays the exorbitant bills.

 

[Jarod]

Seeing how their current session is over at the end of June or early July (if they haven't finished their case work on time), that is a safe bet



Personally I hope they strike the entire monstrosity. Then we can pressure Congress to actually do something about the escalating costs rather than give us 2000 pages of how to change who pays the exorbitant bills.

What ideas do you have to do something about the escalating costs? Ask the Insurance companies pretty please?

 

[Jarod]

Anyone with predictions? We could get the rulling as early as 10 am...

 

[anatta]

It looks like we might get a rulling from the Supreme Court today, or some time next week.

I hope they strike the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law alone. (I doubt they will, I suspect they will strike the mandate, then tinker with the law saying some cannot survive without the mandate).

Then I hope there would be serious public pressure to correct the law the way I argued it should have been in the first place, with a PUBLIC OPTION.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law completly, (unlikely in my opinion) then we will have new legislation and a new health care bill because only 19% of the populace want things to go back to the way they were.

I personally do not want to lose my heath care!

pretty much with you on that, PO would provide 'competition' to insurance groups, and help contain costs.

The mandate MUST GO - it's offensive, and hyper-extends tjh Commecre Clause to infinity.
( literally what's next? can the gov't force you to engage in buying broccoli? as the famous argument goes).

I'm not sure about how much is severable, maybe parts, but the mandate is interwoven.

So. Let's pass a decent taxation based law ( using enumerated powers of taxation) limit the Interstae Commerce clause to "regulating economic activity" rather then co-ercing such.
We come out with a law with Constitutional muster; a PO, or some cost control / it's better in the long run, rather then this hyper-extended garbage, with no cost controls.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What ideas do you have to do something about the escalating costs? Ask the Insurance companies pretty please?

For the retards: None of these on their own will reduce it. So no cherry picking one and pretending that it is the sum of what I have stated.

The easiest for most individuals... eat healthier, exercise... go on individual plans with high deductibles.... start an HSA
For most families... eat healthier, exercise... go on high deductible family plans... start an HSA

For those with chronic problems or debilitating diseases etc... that cannot qualify for individual plans... those are the ones that we need to help

To do that...

1) Cap Malpractice claims, especially the portion that can be collected by a lawyer
2) Doctors in turn put an end to defensive medicine practices
3) Investigate the necessity for prescribing drugs in the quantities we do. Because it seems like this is the answer to everything (purely anecdotal on my part)
4) Analyze the FDA process... is it too slow to act with approval? (need doctors opinions on this... especially researchers)
5) If number one is done above, then doctors need to lower their charges accordingly
6) If number two is done above, then hospitals charges will be lower
7) If 5 & 6 occur, then individual, family, corporate plan premiums should all come down.

There is a lot that we each can do. But if you are 400 pounds because you don't exercise and don't eat healthy... then you should be paying for your choice... other people should not.

 

[Phantasmal]

Seeing how their current session is over at the end of June or early July (if they haven't finished their case work on time), that is a safe bet



Personally I hope they strike the entire monstrosity. Then we can pressure Congress to actually do something about the escalating costs rather than give us 2000 pages of how to change who pays the exorbitant bills.

If they scratch the whole thing, people with pre-existing conditions will suffer. I agree with the premise of Congress actually dealing with healthcare's escalating costs.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If they scratch the whole thing, people with pre-existing conditions will suffer. I agree with the premise of Congress actually dealing with healthcare's escalating costs.

I understand that. But if they don't strike it down, we all will suffer. There is no way this monstrosity is sustainable on a fiscal basis. Each year it has been out we find that it is going to cost us more. Each year we find out that some of the supposed 'savings' are not legit.

 

[Jarod]

For the retards: None of these on their own will reduce it. So no cherry picking one and pretending that it is the sum of what I have stated.

The easiest for most individuals... eat healthier, exercise... go on individual plans with high deductibles.... start an HSA
For most families... eat healthier, exercise... go on high deductible family plans... start an HSA

For those with chronic problems or debilitating diseases etc... that cannot qualify for individual plans... those are the ones that we need to help

To do that...

1) Cap Malpractice claims, especially the portion that can be collected by a lawyer
2) Doctors in turn put an end to defensive medicine practices
3) Investigate the necessity for prescribing drugs in the quantities we do. Because it seems like this is the answer to everything (purely anecdotal on my part)
4) Analyze the FDA process... is it too slow to act with approval? (need doctors opinions on this... especially researchers)
5) If number one is done above, then doctors need to lower their charges accordingly
6) If number two is done above, then hospitals charges will be lower
7) If 5 & 6 occur, then individual, family, corporate plan premiums should all come down.

There is a lot that we each can do. But if you are 400 pounds because you don't exercise and don't eat healthy... then you should be paying for your choice... other people should not.

I consider this a pollyanna approach. If you cap malpractice claims, do you really belive that the insurance companies are going to pass that savings along to the doctors? They are not charging based on the amount of payout they have to make, they are charging based on what the market will allow. Doctors in tern will not put an end to defensive medicine, its not based in any rational understanding of the law in the first place. How will limiting what you are allowed to pay your attorney going to help? I agree drugs are way overperscribed, but investigating that will not help! THe FDA process is slow, but approving drugs faster will only result in more drugs being overperscribed.

 

[Jarod]

Candy,

What do you belive is the likelyhood that the S. Ct. will strike down the entire law?

 

[Jarod]

Looks like we will have to wait until next week.

 

[anatta]

Last Friday was the deadline for justices to hand in dissents. Then whoever is writing the majority opinion - the betting is on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. - has the option of responding to any criticism of the ruling in his own opinion.
The decisions are printed inside the ornate 1935 Corinthian-style building, and handed out to reporters as the justice who authored the opinion announces the decision from the bench soon after 10 a.m. By tradition the senior justice goes last, so health care is likely to be the last decision announced on the day it comes down.
Only a few times in modern history have the results leaked ahead of time, once reputedly from a comment by a justice to a reporter, another time from a talkative printer.
The court is not meeting Friday, so if the health-care decision does not come Thursday, the next opportunity would be Monday.
Next week the tension will intensify. If the health-care decision is not announced before the 28th, that day is likely to be wild: It would be the first time reporters and the public would go to court knowing they would witness what could be one of the most significantconstitutional rulings of the century.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/20/4576843/supreme-court-may-reveal-health.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Jarod]

Looks like they are done for today... Monday is the next chance. I seriously doubt they will wait until Thursday.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Seeing how their current session is over at the end of June or early July (if they haven't finished their case work on time), that is a safe bet



Personally I hope they strike the entire monstrosity. Then we can pressure Congress to actually do something about the escalating costs rather than give us 2000 pages of how to change who pays the exorbitant bills.

Yes, that has really worked over the past couple of decades, do you really think that the healthcare lobby will allow that to happen now?

 

[NOVA]

It looks like we might get a rulling from the Supreme Court today, or some time next week.

I hope they strike the mandate while leaving the remainder of the law alone. (I doubt they will, I suspect they will strike the mandate, then tinker with the law saying some cannot survive without the mandate).

Then I hope there would be serious public pressure to correct the law the way I argued it should have been in the first place, with a PUBLIC OPTION.

If the Supreme Court strikes the law completly, (unlikely in my opinion) then we will have new legislation and a new health care bill because only 19% of the populace want things to go back to the way they were.

I personally do not want to lose my heath care!

You make enough money to pay for your own, you cheap fuck....and yet you want to taxpayers to cover you....typical Democrat....gimme, gimme, gimme,

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I consider this a pollyanna approach. If you cap malpractice claims, do you really belive that the insurance companies are going to pass that savings along to the doctors? They are not charging based on the amount of payout they have to make, they are charging based on what the market will allow. Doctors in tern will not put an end to defensive medicine, its not based in any rational understanding of the law in the first place. How will limiting what you are allowed to pay your attorney going to help? I agree drugs are way overperscribed, but investigating that will not help! THe FDA process is slow, but approving drugs faster will only result in more drugs being overperscribed.

1) Jarod... the insurance sector is relatively competitive. Doctors are not going to pay the astronomical malpractice costs if the malpractice claims are going down. Insurance companies are competitive. They will not necessarily drop it all the way in one fell swoop... but they will work it down until it hits the normal 6-8% profit margin range. It is consistent within the industry... and it is why insurance companies tend to have such stable profit margins.

2) There is nothing polyanna about my statement Jarod. Do you even know what that term means? It would not be easy to get any of the them put in place, let alone all of them. You asked what needed to be done. That is what needs to be done (or at least a large part) to reduce costs. It is by no means an all encompassing list as I am sure others will have other ideas as to how to reduce costs.

3) Defensive medicine is done largely as a CYA measure. Their justification is malpractice. ie... if they miss something because they didn't run 'test x' results in their getting sued. You are naive if you think they do it for shits and giggles.

4) Limiting the payout to a lawyer will provide more to the person who was actually damaged. Trial lawyers are some of the most over paid shills in any industry. They are leaches on society.

5) How would investigating the use of prescription meds not be helpful Jarod? If you find they are over prescribing, do you think the public will let that just pass? Or do you think there will be a correction? Any correction would subsequently reduce demand on a relative basis.

 

[Jarod]

You make enough money to pay for your own, you cheap fuck....and yet you want to taxpayers to cover you....typical Democrat....gimme, gimme, gimme,

No, I currently pay for my own, in no way would the tax payers be paying for mine, I was inelegable for health care insurance until I was able to join the Pre-Existing Condidtion Insurance Program. You are so dumb you dont even realize that this bill does not require the government to pay for people like me's health insurance.

 

[Phantasmal]

1) Jarod... the insurance sector is relatively competitive. Doctors are not going to pay the astronomical malpractice costs if the malpractice claims are going down. Insurance companies are competitive. They will not necessarily drop it all the way in one fell swoop... but they will work it down until it hits the normal 6-8% profit margin range. It is consistent within the industry... and it is why insurance companies tend to have such stable profit margins.

2) There is nothing polyanna about my statement Jarod. Do you even know what that term means? It would not be easy to get any of the them put in place, let alone all of them. You asked what needed to be done. That is what needs to be done (or at least a large part) to reduce costs. It is by no means an all encompassing list as I am sure others will have other ideas as to how to reduce costs.

3) Defensive medicine is done largely as a CYA measure. Their justification is malpractice. ie... if they miss something because they didn't run 'test x' results in their getting sued. You are naive if you think they do it for shits and giggles.

4) Limiting the payout to a lawyer will provide more to the person who was actually damaged. Trial lawyers are some of the most over paid shills in any industry. They are leaches on society.

5) How would investigating the use of prescription meds not be helpful Jarod? If you find they are over prescribing, do you think the public will let that just pass? Or do you think there will be a correction? Any correction would subsequently reduce demand on a relative basis.

#1 made me laugh out loud.

 

[Jarod]

1) Jarod... the insurance sector is relatively competitive. Doctors are not going to pay the astronomical malpractice costs if the malpractice claims are going down. Insurance companies are competitive. They will not necessarily drop it all the way in one fell swoop... but they will work it down until it hits the normal 6-8% profit margin range. It is consistent within the industry... and it is why insurance companies tend to have such stable profit margins.

2) There is nothing polyanna about my statement Jarod. Do you even know what that term means? It would not be easy to get any of the them put in place, let alone all of them. You asked what needed to be done. That is what needs to be done (or at least a large part) to reduce costs. It is by no means an all encompassing list as I am sure others will have other ideas as to how to reduce costs.

3) Defensive medicine is done largely as a CYA measure. Their justification is malpractice. ie... if they miss something because they didn't run 'test x' results in their getting sued. You are naive if you think they do it for shits and giggles.

4) Limiting the payout to a lawyer will provide more to the person who was actually damaged. Trial lawyers are some of the most over paid shills in any industry. They are leaches on society.

5) How would investigating the use of prescription meds not be helpful Jarod? If you find they are over prescribing, do you think the public will let that just pass? Or do you think there will be a correction? Any correction would subsequently reduce demand on a relative basis.

I disagree with most of what you say here, you seriously lack a real understanding of how economics work in an industry such as insurance, its not comparable to the mom and pop grocery store economics.

Jury awards have nothing to do with what the attorney is paid. The jury is not told anything about what the attorney is paid and it is not one of the factors that goes into calculating verdicts. Are you suggesting that the government has a right to tell you how much you are allowed to pay for legal services?

 

[Jarod]

Supercandy belives that if Romney asks nicely, the insurance companies will agree to lower rates.