Supreme Court health care arguments under way

Harshaw said:

"Legislates from the bench." :lamo

Click to expand...

Yeah, funny how it's only "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" when it's conservative laws that are overturned, isn't it? :2rofll:

Neomalthusian said:

*sigh








If insurance companies all scam their customers, how do they still have customers? If the choice is be scammed or don't be scammed, people are going to choose to be scammed?

Perhaps the point is that it isn't in fact standard protocol for insurance companies to breach their contracts with their customers, that is a rare exception that's being way overblown by folks like you and iguanaman.

Click to expand...

Silly, they don't scam healthy customers which are the vast majority, they take their premiums with a smile. But you have NO idea whether your insurance would cover you or not if you got a REALLY expensive illness. Some states even allow domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. You would be amazed how far they will go to save a million bucks or so. There were 20,000 "insured" in the the last 5 years who were dropped when they got sick so this is not "overblown" in my opinion. Obamacare ends this practice for good, if you have paid up insurance policy, no company can drop your coverage for any reason except fraud. Do you think it is OK for insures to take your money for years and then when they are needed, scramble to find "excuses" not to pay up? Do you think it's OK for insurers to reward employees for denying coverage after someone gets sick?

AdamT said:

Well, let's get some facts straight. First, the law requires them to spend 85% of premiums on medical care -- not 80%. Second, most insurers are already pretty close to that numbers, so it wouldn't be a huge change. Third, they're all for-profit companies, right? Why don't they just raise their rates and make more money? Don't they want to make more money?

Click to expand...

I realize it wasn't your claim that insurance companies in general are hogging 30% or more of their revenue, but others here have claimed it. What's the point in mandating this level of payout, if we have this thing called market competition?

Something has prevented normal competitive forces from controlling health insurance costs, and I think a big part of it is the rising costs of the thing that's being insured, which is health CARE. The cost of the actual services, our increased need for them over time as we become less healthy, and our general expectation that once we spend over a certain amount of money, the collective should pay for everything else. Whether companies collude or not, both the care and the insurance costs are rising. The system needs more direct consumer choice and price discipline, not less.

buck said:

It is not a fancy word for dropping someone when they get sick. It is a fancy word used in contract law, meaning to do away with the contract (not just insurance), and bring it to a point where no contract ever existed - making each party as whole as possible - typically due to misrepresentation by one party to the contract, but there could be other causes. You may actually want to read how it works before trying to talk about it as if you have any clue what it is.

Click to expand...

So it doesn't mean dropping you when you get sick? Funny because that's what it meant when it happened to 20,000 insured Americans in the last 5 years.

AdamT said:

Yeah, funny how it's only "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" when it's conservative laws that are overturned, isn't it? :2rofll:

Click to expand...

When I say anything of the kind, then you'll have a point.

Meanwhile, you'll have to explain how striking down the mandate as being beyond the powers delegated by the Constitution is "legislating." What new law are they making?

Neomalthusian said:

I realize it wasn't your claim that insurance companies in general are hogging 30% or more of their revenue, but others here have claimed it. What's the point in mandating this level of payout, if we have this thing called market competition?

Something has prevented normal competitive forces from controlling health insurance costs, and I think a big part of it is the rising costs of the thing that's being insured, which is health CARE. The cost of the actual services, our increased need for them over time as we become less healthy, and our general expectation that once we spend over a certain amount of money, the collective should pay for everything else. Whether companies collude or not, both the care and the insurance costs are rising. The system needs more direct consumer choice and price discipline, not less.

Click to expand...

On the first point, the companies have determined what is for them an acceptable net profit. That figure would be capped under AHCA. Could they get around it by raising premiums and paying out more for the same care? I think it would be pretty complicated and hard to disguise. Suddenly your insurance company, out of the goodness of its heart, decides to start paying more for the same procedure or medication? I think there would be enough of them not willing to risk that class action/criminal prosecution to prevent it from happening. In any case, the law is actually good for the insurance companies, which why most of them support it. They will lose a point or two of profit, but they'll make up for that in volume, i.e. 30 million new customers.

But I absolutely agree that our health care system is anything but a free market. There has to be transparency for a market to be truly free, and our system is about as opaque as you can imagine. Most Americans don't know how much they're paying for insurance, let alone what the care they receive costs. Even if they did know what the costs were, there's little incentive to price shop. And even if there was incentive to price shop, most folks don't know enough about medicine or the health care system to do so rationally. Basically the whole thing is a scam run on consumers and the government by insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. And all the money those groups can bring to bear prevents anything from changing. It was a non-minor miracle that AHCA got through. Imperfect as it is, it would be a shame to see it vetoed by the Supreme Court.

Neomalthusian said:

*sigh

If insurance companies all scam their customers, how do they still have customers? If the choice is be scammed or don't be scammed, people are going to choose to be scammed?

Perhaps the point is that it isn't in fact standard protocol for insurance companies to breach their contracts with their customers, that is a rare exception that's being way overblown by folks like you and iguanaman.

Click to expand...

Your question is meaningless because you only provided one viable option. The posts I referenced were sufficient to show that your other option was not a viable option.

I said nothing at all about breach of contract and this is the first time you've mentioned it. As buck has repeatedly stated, and I concur with him on that point, insurance companies do have a state-level government watchdog. That doesn't mean fishy things don't happen on a regular basis or that it's easy to contest what you think is an unfair action or decision by an insurance company.

Harshaw said:

When I say anything of the kind, then you'll have a point.

Meanwhile, you'll have to explain how striking down the mandate as being beyond the powers delegated by the Constitution is "legislating." What new law are they making?

Click to expand...

One can legislate by repealing existing legislation, which is exactly what they would be doing. Judicial activism.

AdamT said:

One can legislate by repealing existing legislation, which is exactly what they would be doing. Judicial activism.

Click to expand...

So any time a court strikes down a law, it's "judicial activism"?

buck said:

It is not a fancy word for dropping someone when they get sick. It is a fancy word used in contract law, meaning to do away with the contract (not just insurance), and bring it to a point where no contract ever existed - making each party as whole as possible - typically due to misrepresentation by one party to the contract, but there could be other causes.

Click to expand...

Does that mean if no coverage has been used, as in the insurance company didn't pay out any money, then the person gets all their premiums refunded?

Harshaw said:

So any time a court strikes down a law, it's "judicial activism"?

Click to expand...

No, as I said, it's only judicial activism when the Court strikes down a law favored by conservatives. When it's a law favored by Democrats it's obviously the Court preserving the Constitution.

AdamT said:

No, as I said, it's only judicial activism when the Court strikes down a law favored by conservatives. When it's a law favored by Democrats it's obviously the Court preserving the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Answer the question. Is it "judicial activism" every time a court strikes down a law?

Harshaw said:

Answer the question. Is it "judicial activism" every time a court strikes down a law?

Click to expand...

I already answered the question. Do you have a reading disability? :lol:

My point is that conservatives use the term "judicial activism" to mean that a court is substituting its judgment for that of the legislature for political reasons. Hypocritically, they NEVER use the term when a law they oppose is overturned -- as if it only happens to conservative legislation.

AdamT said:

I already answered the question. Do you have a reading disability? :lol:

My point is that conservatives use the term "judicial activism" to mean that a court is substituting its judgment for that of the legislature for political reasons. Hypocritically, they NEVER use the term when a law they oppose is overturned -- as if it only happens to conservative legislation.

Click to expand...

Yet YOU used it. Are you saying that you were using it as a joke, and thus I was right to laugh at you?

Harshaw said:

Yet YOU used it. Are you saying that you were using it as a joke, and thus I was right to laugh at you?

Click to expand...

I'm saying I used it is a joke aimed at conservatives, so if you were capable of laughing at yourself you should be laughing at yourself (for a multitude of reaons).

Boo Radley said:

Have comprehension issues? Nothing to be ashamed of. But I can help. Ask questions if you're confused.

Click to expand...

You'd be the last person anyone should rely on for accurate information.

"Judicial Activism" is not striking down a law in order to maintain the limitations on Government set by the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when justices choose to "update" the Constitution to something more in line with their preferences. Classically, this has involved using ever-expanding readings of the 14th Amendment to Judicially Amend the rest of the document, but is not restricted to that. In addition, the theory of Judicial Supremacy falls under the heading of Judicial Activism, and is it's most dangerous component.

kamikaze483 said:

I agree that Americans want more affordable healthcare. However, and I think (believe it or not) that the government should have a role in the solution. The problem is not Healthcare Reform. It is generally uncontested that some reform is needed. I think that it is this particular bill that is bad- an "overfixing" of the problem. Matter of fact, I don't believe that reform of the healthcare system was the legislative intent. I believe the intent was to stifle (overpower) capitalism- and that is where it will fail, I think.

The limit of the government's involvement is to create a solution where none exists in the private marketplace. No solution currently exists for people with particular pre-existing conditions. They can not get insurance. (And this is not the insurance companies' fault, and in many cases, it isn't the patient's fault either.) This is the only area in which the government's intervention is appropriate. Because medicare already covers people who are certified as disabled, regardless of their age, it could simply be suggested that the government could pass a law making it a "disability" to have pre-existing conditions preventing coverage elsewhere. In addition to rolling back other laws and reforming tort rules, this would just about fix it.

Everything else should be left to the marketplace. With tort reform and less government interventions, costs will come down on their own.

Click to expand...

.,.

Couldn't agree more. But you know govt isn't gonna give up. The idea has been planted and now voters think this is a done deal and they deserve HC. And that means the taxpayer will foot the bill. I don't think the Supremes will dump the whole law, I can hope, and what is left will have to be dealt with by the govt.

What do you think will happen and left over?

iguanaman said:

If the court overturns the mandate, the deal to end pre-existing conditions is over. If everyone is not required to buy insurance, the staus quo continues and in the next 5 years 20,000 more Americans will have their policies "recsended", the insurers fancy word for dropping you when you get sick AND you will still get to pay 20% of your premium to cover the young people who don't think they need insurance. Let's all cheer those Justices on!

Click to expand...

I stint know why you think the "you have to cover these people" is some kind of contact.

Neomalthusian said:

Why couldn't this thing called market competition be the thing that puts downward pressure on their 30%+ overhead?

IOW, if the overhead and executive salaries are so wasteful and unnecessary, which is what liberal folks tell us, then why hasn't competition taken care of it?

Click to expand...

Because of the current share holder culture which gives more power to the CEO who, a lot of the times, hand picks his board of directors.

The problem with the current system (with our without Congresscare) is that people can be still turned away for much needed medical care because Rhett can't afford it or go bankrupt for going through with the procedure. As much as conservatives harp on individual responsibility and "not my problem" and market fairness you would think they would be appalled by the entire situation

AdamT said:

Do you have a reading disability? :lol:

Click to expand...

AdamT said:

you should be laughing at yourself (for a multitude of reaons).

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

For such a contentious issue this thread has remained relatively civil and within the rules. Baiting comments like the above need to end, now, or one way tickets out of this thread will quickly be given

SCOTUSBlog has some great summaries up. SCOTUSblog, health care, and a few things you might have missed : SCOTUSblog

I especially recommend all of Lyle's Analysis and Amy's Plain English articles linked at the above link. You will know more after reading them about the arguments after you read them.

AdamT said:

Yeah, funny how it's only "legislating from the bench" and "judicial activism" when it's conservative laws that are overturned, isn't it? :2rofll:

Click to expand...

Another dart thrown, another miss of the target. First and most recent example was the new london, ct eminent domain case. They were wrong, and that was conservative judges that made the decision. One of the big 'things' among Jefferson and a few others, was giving everyone the ability to own land. And in that case they decided the government can take from one to give to another in order to increase the governments tax income. WRONG.

AdamT said:

They don't have to break the law to drop you. They just have to wait until your next renewal date, when they can tell you to go pound sand. Of course you can then just go to another insurance company ... oops! Now you have a preexisting condition!

Click to expand...

That would be against the law. Insurance companies can not drop an insured because they are sick. Material misrepresentation (within the first 2 years of the contract) or the client not paying premiums are the only reasons they can cancel policies. I realize democrats told you they cuold, but they lied to you.

However, even if you were correct, which you aren't, then toughen that up so they can't just drop you for no legal reason. I wouldn't have much problem with that. I doubt any republican would.

iguanaman said:

Silly, they don't scam healthy customers which are the vast majority, they take their premiums with a smile. But you have NO idea whether your insurance would cover you or not if you got a REALLY expensive illness. Some states even allow domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. You would be amazed how far they will go to save a million bucks or so. There were 20,000 "insured" in the the last 5 years who were dropped when they got sick so this is not "overblown" in my opinion. Obamacare ends this practice for good, if you have paid up insurance policy, no company can drop your coverage for any reason except fraud. Do you think it is OK for insures to take your money for years and then when they are needed, scramble to find "excuses" not to pay up? Do you think it's OK for insurers to reward employees for denying coverage after someone gets sick?

Click to expand...

Didn't take my advice to research contestability, I see. The contestability period of a contract is only 2 years. Additionally, you may also want to do research on how the pre-ex exlusion works, since you obviously have no idea how that one works either. BTW, I will agree that insurance companies should not reward employees for the number of claims they deny. The one company I am aware of that did that, was fined huge amounts of money and had such onerous restrictions placed on them, that those costs were even higher.

iguanaman said:

So it doesn't mean dropping you when you get sick? Funny because that's what it meant when it happened to 20,000 insured Americans in the last 5 years.

Click to expand...

Yes, when a contract, any contract, is entered into based on false statements made by one party, the contract is invalid. Sorry that you don't like contract law, but it's there for a reason. Both parties to a contract deserve the protections provided by the law.