Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Predictions on Health Care Law?
What do you think the Court is going to do with it?
I think the decision on the mandate will be a predictable 5-4 striking it down, but I'm wondering whether they'll rule that the remainder of the law can stand.
I really don't care about the mandate. Even I think it violates the 10th Amendment, but I really, really, really want them to uphold the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions, particularly for children.
Re: Predictions on Health Care Law?
My layman's opinion is they'll rule they can't rule on it because none of the tax penalties will take affect until 2015.
And to pp, if they eliminate the mandate, prexisting condition coveragewill go as well. Economically, the latter cannot exist without the former.
But the court can't rule on economic matters, right? The mandate can be unconstitutional, but the preexisting conditions part can be constitutional.
But don't both fall under "interstate commerce" as the justification for regulating them?
Above Us Only Sky
That's not for the judiciary to decide though. I agree that the economic reality is that they can't afford to expand coverage if they aren't expanding clients, but there's no legal issue there, just a practical one and my hope is that what goes isn't the mandatory coverage, it's insurance companies altogether.
Also, didn't a key clause get left out of the law which would allow components to be pieced out - so if one part goes, the whole thing must go as well?
Yes, but the mandate really doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. Telling a person who lives in a state, that they have to purchase an insurance plan that they will use within their state... there's really no interstate commerce issue there.
However, the mandatory coverage aspects affect all sorts of interstate commerce. For one thing, most insurance companies operate in more than one state. Additionally, because most insurance is offered through employers (particularly as it concerns the ARA), it's a reality in today's world that insurance affects where people live, what jobs they get, whether they're willing to move for one job or another. Insurance companies are businesses operating between the states - that's interstate commerce (or so I would argue). People living in those states are not interstate commerce at least as it pertains to a mandate to purchase something from a private company.
I am fairly positive they will strike down the mandate, so sure that a part of me thinks they will uphold it - kind of the same way I was convinced this baby was a girl, so convinced that I figured I was wrong and so wasn't surprised when they said "boy." i realize my reasoning makes little sense ha. But basically I won't be surprised either way with the mandate portion.
I would be surprised if they strike down the entire law though.
It actually does.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/03/25/health_care_battle_focuses_on_mass_model/
This article points out the expense Massachusetts hospitals absorb each year from out of state uninsureds.
Above Us Only Sky
We should all care about the mandate. A lot. It's basically the crux of the bill and the mechanism that purports to keep expenses under control. The mandate makes everyone - even healthy people - carry insurance, thereby expanding the # of people paying into insurance. Without it, it's predicted that premiums will go sky high (well, sky high-er then they are now) to cover all those with pre-existing conditions that couldn't get coverage before.
That's going to be the primary argument advanced by proponents of the law, no doubt. The problem with the mandate is that there is literally no other federal law on the books that requires individuals to purchase something from a private company and there's no precedent for it in case law. I don't see that flying, especially not with people like Scalia and Alito setting the tone for the Conservative side of that court.
If the feds had tied the compliance to, say, Medicaid funding, they'd probably be okay. But just a bare-bones, "you, citizen, must buy..." I don't think they're going to get away with that, and I'm not sure I want them to. I certainly don't want to own stock in Halliburton, so I'm not sure how I allow the feds to compel ownership of insurance coverage.
"Yes, but the mandate really doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. Telling a person who lives in a state, that they have to purchase an insurance plan that they will use within their state... there's really no interstate commerce issue there."
You may have the expectation that you will use your health insurance exclusively in your state. However, that isn't always the case. A relative of mine suffered a massive stroke in WVa and was transported via helecopter to Pittsburgh. How is that not interstate commerce? What if you are injured/become ill while on vacation in another state? How many people cross state-lines to seek medical treatment at medical centers like St. Jude's or MD Anderson or one of the Shriner's burn centers?
Back to lurking...
I know what it is, and I know what it does. However, what it does NOT do, is comport with the 10th Amendment. It's also not a good precedent to have the feds instruction citizens in their purchase of products from private companies. If the feds want to set up a public option (which is what they should have done to begin with) and tie mandatory coverage to funding for the states, they could do that.
The ARA is really nothing more than long overdue consumer protection insurance reform. Except for the mandate, which, as written, is a hot mess. There were at least 3-4 other ways they could have done this that would have been more in the realm of actual health care reform AND would have been unconstitutional. And they didn't do it.
Ok, maybe I read your sentiment wrong then.
That's a good question.
Our company, for instance, operates in many states. We all just joined into one large group with an insurance company that provides insurance to many different states and has a large network. I live in NJ and if I go on vacation in FL and need care, I can select a dr in the FL network and it's covered the same as it would be if I were at home.
I do not care if they strike it down or if they keep it. I think they should strike it down, but it helps me if they keep it. I am more concerned about the provisions that pertain to basically consumer protections. I don't want those struck down along with the mandate.
That's some good insurance. My policy doesn't work like that. At all. I still don't see how that counts as interstate commerce. The government can't compel me to buy a car even though I will drive that car and fill it up at gas stations in other states. Hell, more to the point, the feds can't compel me to buy car INSURANCE even though I will drive that car in other states and potentially get in accidents in other states.
I suppose then congress could come back and stay "states no medicaid funding until you pass a mandate" That will be fun. Anyone want to take bets if LA is the last state just like they were willing to risk highway funding to keep the drinking age 18?
Above Us Only Sky
Yes, that part of the plan is very very nice. There are some high oop costs but overall it's not too bad.
Those are all good points. I guess my viewpoint comes from the fact that there are like 10 different states involved in our plan. Mine is not a very scientific or legally based argument, though.
This is what they should have done. I don't know why they didn't.
I'm actually thinking that they COULD if this is upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS.
40/112