Posted on 01/10/2014 7:02:57 PM PST by lowbridge
You remember the “risk corridor” provisions, right? If a new ObamaCare plan comes in under budget, the insurer pays the difference between the actual cost and projected cost to HHS. If it comes in over budget, HHS pays the difference to the insurance. It’s a way for insurers to spread risk among the industry with HHS as middleman. (The bit in the excerpt about the White House modifying the rules for its new “transitional policy” is a reference to this.) Problem is, there’s no cap on how much HHS might need to pay out if lots and lots of plans come in over budget — a plausible scenario given the whispers from Humana about what it’s seeing among the demographic mix of ObamaCare enrollees so far. If too many plans have lopsided numbers of sick enrollees who need expensive treatments and few healthy ones to supply the revenue needed to offset that expense, HHS could be on the hook for the shortfall via a de facto bailout — unless Congress repeals the risk corridor provisions, in which case the insurers will be stuck with the bill. How many of them will be able to cover it and how many will go belly up? Of the ones who stay in business, how many will have to charge exorbitant premiums next year to make up for their losses? And if premiums soar, some portion of their consumers are bound to cancel their plans, which means even less revenue for the insurers and the need for even higher premiums, etc. That’s the “death spiral,” and in theory that’s where single-payer comes in. If the insurance industry melts down because Congress cut its financial lifeline, what replaces it?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
the reconciliation is manual. no electronic feeds for these.
I have not read Robert’s decision.
I thought his main thrust was toward making the law constitutional by calling it tax law.
I thought the matter of severability was still an open question.
They wanted Ocare in the first place. They lobbied for it and now they have to live with it.
We tried to want people that this would lead to single payer and hence to the same ‘fabulous’ kind of health care they have in Great Britain
I would cancel my BCBS tomorrow and self-insure, if I could make sure I could access their negotiated rates for care. My insurance plan now includes a $1000 increase in the deductible and significantly higher co-payments.
I am on BCBS as a retired government employee. All of the employees paid the same premium be they 20 years old or 66. In effect I paid far more than I should when I was young as we were all in the same risk pool. When and if I lose my insurance because of Obamacare, I will get a real screwing over as I will then be put in a risk pool that is relevant to my present age of 65.
You are correct sir, and that has been the plan from day one.
____________________________________________________________
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to con-strue what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Con-gress’s power to tax.
As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered.
____________________________________________________________
By striking down the Medicaid expansion and upholding the remainder of the law, Roberts implicitly found the law to be severable, even though there is no written severability clause in the final written version of the ObamaCare law (Congress purposely removed that passage).
I am sure they entered in because they were threatened they would be destroyed. Well guess what, they are still going to be destroyed, er well, so are we except entering into this was not voluntary and will cost in money and actual lives.
Democrats need to be strung up, all of them.
How does a general strike unfold in the 21st century against an opponent such as the USG?
E.g., how does the internet fit in? How about the Joint Chiefs? How about nuclear weapons?
It will be like the Ukraine and the rich wheat farmers in the 1930s. The government will will demonize and then encircle the evil capitalists, denying the passage of food and water. The capitalists will slowly starve to death.
Thankyou for going to the trouble to present that information.
One more question in my mind,
I was not aware that the court can change the definition of words.
In other words, a contract either has the severable clause or it does not. And since the severable clause and whether it exists or not is a matter of law that applies to any and all contracts ever written in the US, how can the court ignore it in this case?
So from now on the severable clause is superfluous?
You know .... this is like choosing between the worse of two evils. Government is definitely evil and I’m not interested in single payer... but holy cow... the only business more corrupt than the insurance business is horse racing. :)
I read somewhere .... open heart surgery last year average cost was 110k. The only people who can afford to be without insurance are people with no money. OR people with a LOT LOT of money.
It’ll lead to Government Health Care no matter WHAT we do.
How much would it cost without insurance artificially inflating the prices? Adjusted to today’s dollars, the $85 my birth cost in 64 doesn’t come anywhere near the 7 to 10 grand it costs today.
My vet explains that the lack of pet insurance is why it doesn’t cost $10,000 to repair or amputate a damaged toe on my dog. She said most people wouldn’t pay the kind of premiums the insurance companies would charge and the result is minimal coverage in the industry and minimal influence over costs.
In this case, the insurer is making threats that if they don’t get what they want, we’ll get socialized medicine. Screw em. Fear of death is too high a price to pay. If it means dying when my time comes to prevent the enslavement of future generations, so be it.
I agree supply and demand and all that. Free country and we can charge whatever the market will bear. I get it. Doesn't mean its right. Doesn't mean that health care costs aren't based in large part out of greed.
At least that's my opinion. I have a friend (actually acquaintance) who retired from medical practice. Spent about 10 years building small hospitals... patient care facilities. Run them a couple of years and then sell them for millions of dollars of profit. I know him. Trust me.. its greed.
The reasoning is that the National Federation of Independent Business lacked standing to challenge the rest of the law, so the Court was not ruling on a challenge to the entire law. That's horse manure, of course, since they found part of what they were ruling on to be unconstitutional and the natural remedy in the absence of a severability clause is to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. Still, that was the position Roberts constructed, almost without reference to the rule of law (as Scalia pointed out in his brilliant dissent).
I miss the old days, when our government had legitimacy and was constrained by a Constitution that mattered.
My first thought was about Supreme Court changing the meaning of Right To Privacy and abortion. Courts can do whatever they want.
Couldn't agree more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.