D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare

[.Shane.]

I won the whiskey bet with myself.

Congrats on winning your self-bet!

If I'm reading the decision excerpts ride, it looks like the basic idea was they agreed that the "spirit of the law" needed to be followed as the intent was obvious.

Is that a fair assessment? If so, is this typical? I often think that courts go too much by the strict letter, rather than the spirit of the law.

Thanks!

 

[dgfred]

North Carolina is pretty far off my range, thanks.

How about a Vegas or Cali branch that Co-ops in North Carolina?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And anybody wanting good, affordable insurance coverage.

National healthcare and single payer win on both of those metrics. It appears impossible only in America.

It actually only appears impossible to people who make their living selling insurance. The rest of us pretty much figure if it works everywhere else it would work here too.

Haha... I see your target. I don't think I said anything about people selling insurance for a living. Insurance Companies.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. Where exactly is it working?

In pretty much every industrialized country but this one. National healthcare/single payer provides good, affordable coverage...but it is understandable that someone who sells insurance (who would need to find something else to do) is opposed. In the event you can always come on out to California and I'll introduce you to the pool business.

Meanwhile, back at the insurance companies, what exactly do you think happens to all the premiums they collect? They sure as heck don't just stuff all the money in mattresses and wait for claims. They are given the opportunity to invest billions of dollars of other people's money and keep the profits for themselves. So, yeah, if this one company you keep talking about can't manage to make their company profitable shame on them for being stupid, but it's hardly Obama's fault.

 

[JollyRoger]

Congrats on winning your self-bet!

If I'm reading the decision excerpts ride, it looks like the basic idea was they agreed that the "spirit of the law" needed to be followed as the intent was obvious.

Is that a fair assessment? If so, is this typical? I often think that courts go too much by the strict letter, rather than the spirit of the law.

Thanks!

Statutory interpretation is a tricky business. Scalia wrote a book about it and often a more liberal Supreme Court Justice will quote from the book to support their position when Scalia is on the other side. I haven't read the opinion yet, so I do not know if Roberts was bold enough to do so. From what I have read, Roberts basically used a spirit of the law reasoning. There are certainly statutory interpretation tools to help you get from somewhat troublesome text to the spirit of the law.

For an example where the spirit of the law trumps a technical reading of the text (and why this is sometimes a tricky business):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188683

 

[Formaldehyde]

It actually only appears impossible to people who make their living selling insurance. The rest of us pretty much figure if it works everywhere else it would work here too.

If that were only true. Republican politicians and those who own them have convinced an incredibly large segment of the country that what works everywhere else far cheaper and better couldn't possibly work here. Of course, most of them are Republicans...

Better (%) Worse (%) About the Same (%) Don’t Know/Refused (%)

Overall 45 39 4 12

Republicans 17 70 4 9
Democrats 70 16 2 12
Independents 43 38 5 14

Young Adults (Under 35) 55 30 4 11
Seniors (65+) 30 57 2 11

Insured 44 41 3 11
Uninsured 57 19 8 17

They have their health insurance, and much of the time it is paid for by someone else. Why should they care about the rest of the people who can't afford it?

 

[dgfred]

In pretty much every industrialized country but this one. National healthcare/single payer provides good, affordable coverage...but it is understandable that someone who sells insurance (who would need to find something else to do) is opposed. In the event you can always come on out to California and I'll introduce you to the pool business.

Meanwhile, back at the insurance companies, what exactly do you think happens to all the premiums they collect? They sure as heck don't just stuff all the money in mattresses and wait for claims. They are given the opportunity to invest billions of dollars of other people's money and keep the profits for themselves. So, yeah, if this one company you keep talking about can't manage to make their company profitable shame on them for being stupid, but it's hardly Obama's fault.

I don't see anybody rushing to those nations to get health care or surgery... in fact, the opposite USED to be true.

BTW... health insurance is only a small part of my agency. No pool work for me.

So, in your example someone (Company) that has made a lot of money in the past SHOULD have saved/invested it to prepare for a rotten system NOW.

This 'one' company I have mentioned... they also have much more business than just individual health insurance. So they will not need pool work either. Haha.

The problem is the individual health part... a crappy, no-good, no-profit enterprise NOW that the insurance company can not even keep it's other sections in business because of the losses in the health section they will be forced to pay out.

If it was auto insurance it would be like charging the same insurance premium for your old Geo Metro and a new Jaguar. Disregarding the fact of the shape of the car or the real value. No auto insurance company could survive in that kind of climate. Regardless of what they had made in the past.

 

[JollyRoger]

Health insurance stocks are soaring on this news. Sounds like the company in question needs a business consultant.

 

[dgfred]

Health Insurance Company stocks? Are you and T available?

Could you provide some examples?

 

[JollyRoger]

Other winners: Outside of hospitals, the stocks of insurers also rallied. Health insurers Humana (HUM) and UnitedHealth (UNH) were both up more than 2% each, and Aetna (AET) rose 1.5%. Investors welcomed the news that the individual insurance market will remain intact.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/investing/obamacare-ruling-health-stocks/index.html

 

[dgfred]

Haha... Health Care providers (IE Hospitals, etc)

A 1% or 2% for a company mentioned (Humana).

Also consider they will receive gov't money to subsidize their losses (they end up not losing so much) which comes from taxpayers.

Do you consider charging the same premium for auto insurance for a new Mercedes and an old Ford Pinto the same theory?

That would be ok too... if the gov't would give the auto companies money to reinburse them for the lost premium from paying out so much to fix the Mercedes when they only collected enough to fix the old Ford.

It is the exact same.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why are you saying old and new? Premiums consider age. Do you consider one life more valuable than another? Am I a Mercedes and are you a Pinto? Who picks up the tab for emergency room visits by the uninsured who don't pay?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Stocks of health care providers and insurance companies are popping Thursday morning following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld a key part of the Affordable Care Act.

It isn't about "money they made in the past," it is the business model they use to make money.

You give me your money now, and later when you need it because your health hits a snag I'll give it back. There is some risk for me, in that "later" could come along sooner than I expect...but as long as I have a huge client pool those probabilities balance out.

So let's say I offer this service based on a model where I give back EVERY CENT of the money people are letting me hold. That hardly seems like it will be a good business for me, does it? BUT...I'm holding a huge stack of other people's money I can do stuff with. And as the saying goes, it takes money to make money so this big pile of money is going to allow me to MAKE MONEY.

If an insurance company can't make enough off of the huge stacks of money they are holding to be profitable, tough luck for them. As JR says, they clearly need a business consultant.

 

[JollyRoger]

If Trump can go bankrupt running a casino, I guess anything is possible.

 

[Formaldehyde]

USA #1!

[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/]U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries[/URL]

For this year’s survey on overall health care, The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. dead last .

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.

Facts are such pesky things.

 

[dgfred]

Why are you saying old and new? Premiums consider age. Do you consider one life more valuable than another? Am I a Mercedes and are you a Pinto? Who picks up the tab for emergency room visits by the uninsured who don't pay?

OK, same age car 1999 Buick and 1999 Jag. Sorry.

You (Company) take in same amount of premium for insurance on each car.
Both wreck and you (Company) have to pay out 2,000 to fix buick and 20,000 to fix Jag. If the gov't doesn't reinburse you (Company) for the difference for the Jag you will not survive for long.

The same people (taxpayers) that have to pay for uninsureds that don't pay in emergency rooms end up paying to reinburse the insurance company in this plan too.

 

[dgfred]

USA #1!

[URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/]U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries[/URL]



Facts are such pesky things.

What? The Commonwealth Fund did a survey and found that Great Britain's was the best. You don't say. Yes, facts are tricky/pesky sometimes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

OK, same age car 1999 Buick and 1999 Jag. Sorry.

You (Company) take in same amount of premium for insurance on each car.
Both wreck and you (Company) have to pay out 2,000 to fix buick and 20,000 to fix Jag. If the gov't doesn't reinburse you (Company) for the difference for the Jag you will not survive for long.

The same people (taxpayers) that have to pay for uninsureds that don't pay in emergency rooms end up paying to reinburse the insurance company in this plan too.

Let's go WAAAAAY out on a limb and just accept this whole comment at face value.

So the result is that the taxpayers are on the hook for pre-emptive care, which is way cheaper than the emergency care they were on the hook for, and the patients receive pre-emptive care rather than having to wait until they are critical cases that can go to the emergency room.

And you are suggesting this is a problem for...someone?

 

[dgfred]

Sorry... I don't understand your question.

 

[.Shane.]

Statutory interpretation is a tricky busy. Scalia wrote a book about it and often a more liberal Supreme Court Justice will quote from the book to support their position when Scalia is on the other side. I haven't read the opinion yet, so I do not know if Roberts was bold enough to do so. From what I have read, Roberts basically used a spirit of the law reasoning. There are certainly statutory interpretation tools to help you get from somewhat troublesome text to the spirit of the law.

For an example where the spirit of the law trumps a technical reading of the text (and what this is sometimes a tricky business):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=188683

Great, thanks for the thoughtful reply!

 

[Formaldehyde]

What? The Commonwealth Fund did a survey and found that Great Britain's was the best. You don't say. Yes, facts are tricky/pesky sometimes.

So your position is that a private US foundation which has existed since 1918, has a current endowment of over $700 million, does not even typically accept donations, and whose purpose is to "promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable", is intentionally lying to make conservatives look bad?

That Forbes Magazine is also behind this sinister plot?