Supreme Court Taking Up Obamacare Case

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Will be heard in the fall.  If the administration wins, all of Obamacare will be invalidated, including the pre-existing condition clause.  I really hope the SC does the right thing here so that people can't be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions.  If that's struck down, there's a strong chance my wife and I will have to make some extremely tough financial decisions due to her health.

And it's just another example of Trump saying one thing and doing another.  He's on record as supporting the clause for pre-existing conditions to be covered, but his administration is actively supporting those trying to take that away.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN20P25N

 

[Grumps 3,704]

45 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Will be heard in the fall.  If the administration wins, all of Obamacare will be invalidated, including the pre-existing condition clause.  I really hope the SC does the right thing here so that people can't be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions.  If that's struck down, there's a strong chance my wife and I will have to make some extremely tough financial decisions due to her health.

And it's just another example of Trump saying one thing and doing another.  He's on record as supporting the clause for pre-existing conditions to be covered, but his administration is actively supporting those trying to take that away.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN20P25N

 

I sure am sorry about your wife's health issues. I am in favor of our government helping as many people as possible. I think that our healthcare system is horribly broken. But, at least in theory, I don't see the pre-existing condition clause as a good answer. I don't see charging sick people more as discriminatory any more than charging someone more who eats twice as much as I do. In theory, you are forcing an insurance company to take a loss on some people knowing they will charge healthier people more to make up the difference. Instead of forcing insurance companies to take the really sick people, why not just give them government supplied healthcare, either through government supplied insurance or government supplied providers? Would it be okay to cap the profit an insurance company can "earn"?  Would it be okay to do the same for other industries?

It is great that the pre-existing condition clause helps people, but it doesn't make any sense to me from the government's standpoint. Either way, I feel sure that a single payer healthcare is coming, because neither the government nor the people are willing to fix the problems in healhcare.

[homersapien 11,453]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I sure am sorry about your wife's health issues. I am in favor of our government helping as many people as possible. I think that our healthcare system is horribly broken. But, at least in theory, I don't see the pre-existing condition clause as a good answer. I don't see charging sick people more as discriminatory any more than charging someone more who eats twice as much as I do. In theory, you are forcing an insurance company to take a loss on some people knowing they will charge healthier people more to make up the difference. Instead of forcing insurance companies to take the really sick people, why not just give them government supplied healthcare, either through government supplied insurance or government supplied providers? Would it be okay to cap the profit an insurance company can "earn"?  Would it be okay to do the same for other industries?

It is great that the pre-existing condition clause helps people, but it doesn't make any sense to me from the government's standpoint. Either way, I feel sure that a single payer healthcare is coming, because neither the government nor the people are willing to fix the problems in healhcare.

You have a very narrow, prejudicial view of what constitutes a "preexisting condition".

And the whole point of insurance is to cover the people who need it by charging everyone.  If we insist on approaching healthcare insurance from a profitability standpoint, then you are correct, a government sponsored single payer system is only the logical recourse.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

40 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I sure am sorry about your wife's health issues. I am in favor of our government helping as many people as possible. I think that our healthcare system is horribly broken. But, at least in theory, I don't see the pre-existing condition clause as a good answer. I don't see charging sick people more as discriminatory any more than charging someone more who eats twice as much as I do. In theory, you are forcing an insurance company to take a loss on some people knowing they will charge healthier people more to make up the difference. Instead of forcing insurance companies to take the really sick people, why not just give them government supplied healthcare, either through government supplied insurance or government supplied providers? Would it be okay to cap the profit an insurance company can "earn"?  Would it be okay to do the same for other industries?

It is great that the pre-existing condition clause helps people, but it doesn't make any sense to me from the government's standpoint. Either way, I feel sure that a single payer healthcare is coming, because neither the government nor the people are willing to fix the problems in healhcare.

I don't think you are actually thinking this through and how it actually affects people.  In our case right now, if that pre-existing condition clause didn't exist, we would have lost everything due to something my wife has zero control over.  She didn't ask to be born with her issues and it's not right to punish her financially due to them.  That's where your analogy about charging someone for eating twice as much fails.  How much food one consumes is a choice.  Genetic conditions aren't.

And it also should be noted that you are in the minority by a ton here.  About 75% of the voting public agrees with protections for pre-existing conditions.

Make no mistake, I'm not for an all out single payer system.  I think Buttigieg had it right with the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It, because I'd damn sure rather keep my private insurance.  But we cannot allow companies to deny coverage to people for things that the patient has no control over.  It's inherently immoral.

[bigbird 60,580]

30 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't think you are actually thinking this through and how it actually affects people.  In our case right now, if that pre-existing condition clause didn't exist, we would have lost everything due to something my wife has zero control over.  She didn't ask to be born with her issues and it's not right to punish her financially due to them.  That's where your analogy about charging someone for eating twice as much fails.  How much food one consumes is a choice.  Genetic conditions aren't.

And it also should be noted that you are in the minority by a ton here.  About 75% of the voting public agrees with protections for pre-existing conditions.

Make no mistake, I'm not for an all out single payer system.  I think Buttigieg had it right with the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It, because I'd damn sure rather keep my private insurance.  But we cannot allow companies to deny coverage to people for things that the patient has no control over.  It's inherently immoral.

I, 100%, know exactly how y'all feel and what y'all have to deal with. It sucks. Period.

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

You have a very narrow, prejudicial view of what constitutes a "preexisting condition".

And the whole point of insurance is to cover the people who need it by charging everyone.  If we insist on approaching healthcare insurance from a profitability standpoint, then you are correct, a government sponsored single payer system is only the logical recourse.

Or maybe I just didn't go into great detail to explain my view because I thought y'all would understand. I really wan't trying to be confrontational.

Don't you think the point of insurance varies depending on where you view it from? The point of insurance from the insurer's POV is to make money. The point of insurance from the insured's POV is to get the best possible care at the least possible cost and to avoid catastrophic medical bills. We HAVE to approach healthcare insurance from a profitability standpoint if for-profit entities are going to provide it, and I don't see how it is okay to force them to lose money on certain people.

And I still think that healthcare insurance is not the main problem. So WHY is that almost all that is talked about? The problem is healthcare COSTS.

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't think you are actually thinking this through and how it actually affects people.  In our case right now, if that pre-existing condition clause didn't exist, we would have lost everything due to something my wife has zero control over.  She didn't ask to be born with her issues and it's not right to punish her financially due to them.  That's where your analogy about charging someone for eating twice as much fails.  How much food one consumes is a choice.  Genetic conditions aren't.

And it also should be noted that you are in the minority by a ton here.  About 75% of the voting public agrees with protections for pre-existing conditions.

Make no mistake, I'm not for an all out single payer system.  I think Buttigieg had it right with the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It, because I'd damn sure rather keep my private insurance.  But we cannot allow companies to deny coverage to people for things that the patient has no control over.  It's inherently immoral.

I know that MANY Americans HAVE lost everything due to medical condition over which they have no control. I think it is HORRIBLE. I am all for trying to keep it from happening to anyone. I am not heartless and am not trying to sound heartless. I am trying to talk about what the government's role should be in healthcare. I don't think it is fair to say that the government is punishing your wife for her genetic condition.

I WANT the government to help people with expensive genetic conditions. But is forcing a private, for-profit company to help these people the proper way to do it? What about letting the insurance company charge an appropriate amount for insuring those with pre-existing conditions based on actuarial tables and then the government subsidizing that amount beyond what is reasonable? Doesn't this seem like a more honest approach? Does it not seem scary for the government to force private businesses to essentially give away money? Is it okay to force a Chevy dealership to sell a Suburban for the price of an economy care because the buyer has a lot of kids? My point is, why is it okay with health insurance and not when selling cars? What about life insurance? Should life insurance companies be forced to disregard the health of those they insure? Can you not see where this could lead?

Lastly, I apologize if discussing this seems insensitive. I am stuck at home today and have too much time on my hands.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I know that MANY Americans HAVE lost everything due to medical condition over which they have no control. I think it is HORRIBLE. I am all for trying to keep it from happening to anyone. I am not heartless and am not trying to sound heartless. I am trying to talk about what the government's role should be in healthcare. I don't think it is fair to say that the government is punishing your wife for her genetic condition.

I WANT the government to help people with expensive genetic conditions. But is forcing a private, for-profit company to help these people the proper way to do it? What about letting the insurance company charge an appropriate amount for insuring those with pre-existing conditions based on actuarial tables and then the government subsidizing that amount beyond what is reasonable? Doesn't this seem like a more honest approach? Does it not seem scary for the government to force private businesses to essentially give away money? Is it okay to force a Chevy dealership to sell a Suburban for the price of an economy care because the buyer has a lot of kids? My point is, why is it okay with health insurance and not when selling cars? What about life insurance? Should life insurance companies be forced to disregard the health of those they insure? Can you not see where this could lead?

Lastly, I apologize if discussing this seems insensitive. I am stuck at home today and have too much time on my hands.

Firstly, I don't think you're being insensitive. You've always been respectful and thoughtful and are one of my favorite posters here.  I just think that the reality of how it affects some of us is lost.  Myself and Bird are prime examples of people on this very board that the pre-existing conditions provision has saved financially and has given people we love better care.

As for your arguments, I believe your reasoning is based on a fallacy.  You're literally making a slippery slope argument, which as we taught at Auburn, is not something you can base a debate on.  Also, you keep equating healthcare, something we all need, to things that are optional like dining out or cars.  Life insurance is also on the optional spectrum.

But to your other points, the problem is defining the word "reasonable".  That's a wide interpretation that I don't believe people can come to agreement on.  I also don't think government should have to shoulder the bills for my wife.  That's my job.  However, let's not act like insurance companies are poor.  They still delay and deny basic things all of the time in the name of a dollar.  Trust me, I deal with this jackasses way too much.  And costs are largely skyrocketing because of insurance companies and for profit hospitals.  The equipment isn't necessarily getting more expensive.  It's what we are being charged for.  I would implore to check out a line item bill from a hospital sometime.  $100 for a piece of guaze?  Ridiculous.

People aren't asking for much with this.  They just want to know that they can't be denied coverage because of a genetic issue.  Insurance companies are still going to make large profits.  So will doctors and hospitals.  That hasn't changed since this law went into effect.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/3/2020 at 9:07 AM, Brad_ATX said:

Will be heard in the fall.  If the administration wins, all of Obamacare will be invalidated, including the pre-existing condition clause.  I really hope the SC does the right thing here so that people can't be discriminated against because of pre-existing conditions.  If that's struck down, there's a strong chance my wife and I will have to make some extremely tough financial decisions due to her health.

And it's just another example of Trump saying one thing and doing another.  He's on record as supporting the clause for pre-existing conditions to be covered, but his administration is actively supporting those trying to take that away.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN20P25N

 

Read these when you're bored. I know its a lot, but also understand how much this case means to you. Note, the case in which the third petition (third link) was filed has been consolidated by the Court with California v. Texas - the case in which the first two docs below were filed. Its dense but will assist in understanding the positions of the both sides. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-840/127410/20200103115956632_California v. Texas Petition for a Writ of Certiorari FINAL FOR FILING PDF A.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-840/130742/20200203143811006_19-840_19-841_Brief in Opposition.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1019/133114/20200214151006725_Petition.pdf

[AURex 2,032]

If SCOTUS axes Obamacare, that is not the only issue that will arise. It will be total chaos in the health care industry, and the U.S. extremely mediocre health care system will become a hot mess of skyrocketing costs. Anyone who thinks the "free market" will work out best for the public is sorely mistaken. I worked in health centers for 30 years.

The healthcare industry is not in business as a public service. It is a business designed to maximize revenues and minimize costs. The only thing keeping them from being even more egregiously greedy are the laws and regulations that force them to meet certain standards of care.

Their buddy in the industry is the insurance companies. They already squeeze every penny possible from people, using loopholes and fine print to avoid paying, and using the legal system to bankrupt those who are in greatest need for care. The only check on their greed are the few laws and regulations in place.

The reality is, if SCOTUS axes what remains of Obamacare, it will be chaos. The Republicans have nothing to replace it with. Costs for every single person will go up. Insurance rates will increase and so will the costs for medical care. Our healthcare in this country is worse than most of the other developed countries worldwide. It's going to get worse if Obamacare gets blowed up.

 

[homersapien 11,453]

22 hours ago, Grumps said:

Or maybe I just didn't go into great detail to explain my view because I thought y'all would understand. I really wan't trying to be confrontational.

Don't you think the point of insurance varies depending on where you view it from? The point of insurance from the insurer's POV is to make money. The point of insurance from the insured's POV is to get the best possible care at the least possible cost and to avoid catastrophic medical bills. We HAVE to approach healthcare insurance from a profitability standpoint if for-profit entities are going to provide it, and I don't see how it is okay to force them to lose money on certain people.

And I still think that healthcare insurance is not the main problem. So WHY is that almost all that is talked about? The problem is healthcare COSTS.

That was exactly my point.

We should separate healthcare from profit-oriented companies that inevitably restrict coverage to those who represent the least financial risk.

And there is nothing about those companies that reduce costs.  That should be obvious by now.  Countries with socialized healthcare systems spend far less per capita on healthcare costs while covering everyone.