PDA

View Full Version : This election, health care, and the SCOTUS


Apocalypsenerd
11-02-2010, 7:23 PM
So much of tonights bloodbath is based on Healthcare. The R's are talking about repealing. Most of America is angry about Obamacare and want it gone.

My question is this: I heard that Obamacare does not have a severability clause. I believe this means that if the SCOTUS strikes down any part of the law, the whole thing goes.

This means that once again, a major political problem will have been solved by the courts, and not the electoral process.

Do I have this right?

dustoff31
11-02-2010, 7:32 PM
It may end up being settled in the courts. If for no other reason, the fact that the R's can't repeal it, at least not without substantial support from the other side. Even with their large gains in the congress, the R's won't have the votes to override a Presidential veto.

hawk1
11-02-2010, 7:36 PM
And my prediction is if/when they do kill it, then any increases that we all have had to pay, will not go away.
Mine went up over 100% compared to what I paid a year earlier.

HowardW56
11-02-2010, 7:43 PM
And my prediction is if/when they do kill it, then any increases that we all have had to pay, will not go away.
Mine went up over 100% compared to what I paid a year earlier.

Mine went up 44%, with a $2,000.00 deductible...

a1c
11-02-2010, 8:12 PM
And my prediction is if/when they do kill it, then any increases that we all have had to pay, will not go away.
Mine went up over 100% compared to what I paid a year earlier.

Exactly. Insurance companies will screw us any possible way they can. They cannot be trusted.

I for one am glad that with the reform I could finally get coverage should my wife lose her job.

socalphoto
11-02-2010, 8:13 PM
Just found out today mine is going up $185.20 PER MONTH at start of 2011. wtf!

Rossi357
11-02-2010, 8:14 PM
Another thread that's 6 degrees from the 2nd amendment.

Apocalypsenerd
11-02-2010, 9:58 PM
Another thread that's 6 degrees from the 2nd amendment.

Actually, it is not so far from the 2A.

President Clinton tried to frame gun ownership as health issue and was a proponent of the idea that guns could basically be regulated as a "disease". As soon as Obama took office, he commanded HHS to begin a study relating guns to health care costs. It is conceivable that through health regulation, he could seek to limit gun ownership.

If I remember right, Harry Reid took steps to prevent this. He included clauses in the Obamacare bill that prevented health care studies from being used against gun owners. This illustrates why it is good to have friends on both sides of the aisle.

My initial question about severability remains unanswered though. Does anyone know for sure if Obamacare has a severability clause or not, and if so, the effects it will have should the SCOTUS rule on behalf of states rights?

Code7inOaktown
11-02-2010, 10:46 PM
Exactly. Insurance companies will screw us any possible way they can. They cannot be trusted.

I for one am glad that with the reform I could finally get coverage should my wife lose her job.

You know, you have to wonder kind of a business health insurance is. You pay them money for years. Then when you finally need the service, they try like hell to find a way to not provide the service that you have paid them many years for.

wildhawker
11-02-2010, 11:00 PM
You know, you have to wonder kind of a business health insurance is. You pay them money for years. Then when you finally need the service, they try like hell to find a way to not provide the service that you have paid them many years for.

It's called claims management.

Reading contracts is a good thing.

RandyD
11-02-2010, 11:02 PM
So much of tonights bloodbath is based on Healthcare. The R's are talking about repealing. Most of America is angry about Obamacare and want it gone.

My question is this: I heard that Obamacare does not have a severability clause. I believe this means that if the SCOTUS strikes down any part of the law, the whole thing goes.

This means that once again, a major political problem will have been solved by the courts, and not the electoral process.

Do I have this right?

A severability clause is a standard term to include in a contract. I am not sure if they are used in legislation. As I recall, the court would strike down portions of the bill that are unconstitutional, and what remains could or could not be a viable piece of legislation.

RandyD
11-02-2010, 11:05 PM
As far as repealing the health care bill, I don't see how it can happen without a 2/3 majority. If legislation is passed by both the house and the senate to repeal the health care bill, a presidential veto would be expected, and it appears that there are insufficient votes to garner a 2/3 veto overide.

Serpentine
11-02-2010, 11:22 PM
It's called claims management.

Reading contracts is a good thing.

Agree.

If you buy insurance, don't just listen to the salesman or depend on the benefits explained in the brochure. Read the limitations and exclusions above all else.

The reason why your premiums are skyrocketing right now more than ever before are for a few reasons.

1. People are counting on Obamacare to become effective and are not buying new private policies. When no new policies are being sold, it creates an adverse situation where the "healthy" will take the risk of being uninsured, and those that are left in the risk pool are the one's that are utilizing the benefits. Insurance carriers need healthy new policy holders to sustain the pool, or else the costs to maintain hit the ceiling.

2. Economy and job loss = can't afford insurance. People have to eat and keep a roof over their heads foremost.

3. Steady flow of illegals. They are not denied health care. So the cost of their FREE treatments are shifted to the insureds.

Why will Obamacare never work? It's called "over-utilization" of benefits. You give something away for free, everyone from around the globe comes rushing in with all their ailments in tow.


I don't see the health care reform law being repealed, but rather contested and decided on by the courts.

.

pgg
11-03-2010, 6:06 AM
This means that once again, a major political problem will have been solved by the courts, and not the electoral process.

Is this a complaint (ie, "robed cleric" derp) or acknowledgement that the Constitution's checks and balances actually have teeth? I can't tell.


In any case, I can't agree with the claim that the courts aren't part of the electoral process. Appointed and confirmed judges don't get their jobs by scratching off lottery tickets or doing more tequila shooters than the other guy - people we elect name them. Elections have consequences ...

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 12:07 PM
And my prediction is if/when they do kill it, then any increases that we all have had to pay, will not go away.
Mine went up over 100% compared to what I paid a year earlier.

Welcome to the unintended consequences of laws written by politicians with no real life experience.

I would be surprised if your prediction is incorrect.

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 12:10 PM
Is this a complaint (ie, "robed cleric" derp) or acknowledgement that the Constitution's checks and balances actually have teeth? I can't tell.


In any case, I can't agree with the claim that the courts aren't part of the electoral process. Appointed and confirmed judges don't get their jobs by scratching off lottery tickets or doing more tequila shooters than the other guy - people we elect name them. Elections have consequences ...

True, and unfortunately the reason that the courts have become yet another arm of the legislative branch. Instead of deciding upon laws based upon the Constitution, etc., the courts are "activists".

Sure, the Constitution says "A", but "A" isn't "fair" in the current thought process, so I will say that the Constitution says "B". Judges who do this are in fact WRITING laws rather than actually interpreting them. The checks and balances of the legislative vs. judicial has been eroded.

Wherryj
11-03-2010, 12:18 PM
Exactly. Insurance companies will screw us any possible way they can. They cannot be trusted.

I for one am glad that with the reform I could finally get coverage should my wife lose her job.

The only problem is that "healthcare reform" wasn't what it was purported to be. All that it did was mandate coverage of those who previously couldn't afford it-and not ALL of those.

It has NO cost controls upon the insurance companies. In fact, it has a near guarantee that insurers will be ENCOURAGED to increase premiums. It is called the "Cadillac tax" provision.

Insurance companies have a real aspect of increasing costs. It costs more to provide high tech treatments. GE wants to be paid for their MRI scanners. Software companies want to be paid for the EHRs/data management programs. Genentech wants to be paid for the risk of producing "biologic" treatments-not to mention the cost of producing things like monoclonal antibodies which is a labor intensive job.

These treatments may cost more, but there is a reason that they are being used. Newer technologies are often superior to older ones. I know that the government has been hammering that "generics are better", but progress is made with time. We no longer drive a "model T" and physicians no longer use leeches for everything. There is a reason, and medical treatments are no different.

Costs WILL rise. There is no containment on cost to insurers. All that happened was MORE people are covered. As costs rise MORE people will hit the "Cadillac tax". This is a fixed number with no adjustement for inflation. As more people start paying this TAX to the government, is there a strong motivation for the government to change things? Have they adjusted the AMT since it was written more than 40 years ago?

Even worse, most companies have already done the math. It will cost less to drop employees than it will to pay the fine. They won't even have to worry about feeling guilty because their employees can purchase through the exchange at rates similar to employer sponsored plans.

The problem is that these employees lose their "muscle". Being a single employee/family at HP means that the HR department can exert influence for you for insurance abuses. If you are now just a single/family member of a group collective, who fights for you?

This is a poorly constructed bill that has not addressed even the smallest of unintended consequences.

NightOwl
11-03-2010, 12:20 PM
True, and unfortunately the reason that the courts have become yet another arm of the legislative branch. Instead of deciding upon laws based upon the Constitution, etc., the courts are "activists".

Sure, the Constitution says "A", but "A" isn't "fair" in the current thought process, so I will say that the Constitution says "B". Judges who do this are in fact WRITING laws rather than actually interpreting them. The checks and balances of the legislative vs. judicial has been eroded.

Eroded implies that it diminished over time naturally, rather than the strip mining that was done. It was most definately a deliberate action, with the easist example being the "wise latina" legislating from the SCOTUS bench.