Reply With Quote
the requirement to accept sickos would have to go, in practice, because the insurance vampires were going to use the revenues from 40M+ mandated clients to cover the sickos.
Is it legal to still force insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions?
This defies all logic...Healthy people won't need to buy insurance because they can always go out and get it after they get sick.
It will totally destroy the insurance market and drive prices right through the roof for the few that still play by the rules and buy insurance.
the requirement to accept sickos would have to go, in practice, because the insurance vampires were going to use the revenues from 40M+ mandated clients to cover the sickos.
Great can of worms the Supreme Court could open up, huh? It's what Obama gets for swinging so far right and pushing the ty 1990s Republican plan.
Yeah, without the mandate the whole thing collapses.
Fix health care after Supreme Court ruling
If the Supreme Court strikes down President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law, 77 percent of Americans want the president and Congress to work on new legislation overhauling the system
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1ySVOS0YM
U.S. health insurers to pay $1.1 billion in rebates: HHS
U.S. health insurance companies are due to pay out $1.1 billion in rebates to employers and individuals this summer, under a new industry regulation imposed by President Barack Obama's health care law, the administration said on Thursday.
But whether the rebates actually reach those recipients depends on if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in a ruling expected by the end of next week, experts said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...=Google+Reader
Supreme Court Health Care Decision Could Boost Seniors' Drug Costs
The spectre of senior citizens choosing between food and prescription drugs has been used by politicians so many times, it's become a cliché.
The law provided $250 rebate checks to Medicare beneficiaries who reached the doughnut hole in 2010, introduced discounts last year and phases out the coverage gap altogether by 2020. Enrollees get 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs and 14 percent discounts on generic drugs during the doughnut hole in 2012. From March 2010 through April 2012, 5.1 million people on Medicare saved $3.2 billion on their prescription drugs due to these changes, according to the Obama administration.
These enhanced prescription drug coverage for Medicare enrollees would disappear if the Supreme Court overturns the health care reform law on cons utional grounds. A ruling is expected next week.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1613911.html
What Americans Learned From the Media About the Health Care Debate
When it was a major story, however, most of the coverage focused on the politics of the bill rather than the substance of the legislation. And the language and framing of the issue favored by the bill’s Republican critics was far more prevalent in the news coverage than
the language and framing favored by Democrats supporting the bill,
opponents of the reform won the so-called “messaging war” in the coverage. Terms that were closely associated with opposition arguments, such as “government run,” were far more present in media reports than terms associated with arguments supporting the bill, such as “pre-existing conditions.”
http://www.journalism.org/commentary...th_care_debate
============
Money buys the MSM, etc.
Right-wing playing poilitics and protecting the entrenched corps rather than try to solve America's disastrously dysfunctional health care fiasco.
The Sociopathic Conscience of Repugs
GOP Senate Candidate Says Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Health Insurance To Cancer Patients
Of particular interest to the candidate is a mandate that requires an employer to pay for certain services they may be morally opposed to — such as birth control — which Mourdock said he opposes.
Mourdock’s example was an employer who decided to cover everything but cancer.
“Does that employer have the right to do it? I would say yes they do if they want to keep their health care costs down but it also means it’s less likely you’re going to want to work here. If that employer wants to get the best employees coming in the door he’s going to offer the best insurance possible.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...urance-cancer/
If you're sick, you, not hired by Repugs.
lol drawing generalizations from hypotheticals.
:facepalm
lol thinkprogress
lol thinkprogress, of course, crops the interview. Here's the next couple of paragraphs:
So is there anything to like about Obamacare?
Mourdock concedes that he has heard support from people on the pre-existing condition coverage that the bill allows. Further, he said, health insurance companies are also embracing a provision in the law which allows parents to keep their children on their plans until they reach age 26.
“Those types of reforms are good ones that we need to continue to build on,” he said.
ing hacks.
No other group of Americans faces higher stakes in the impending Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act than those with pre-existing conditions. The law, once its major provisions take effect, would prohibit insurance companies from turning people away or charging them more because they are sick. In exchange, most Americans would be required to have insurance, broadening the base of paying customers with an infusion of healthy people. Those who did not buy insurance would be subject to financial penalties.
The Government Accountability Office estimates that 36 million to 122 million adults under 65 have a pre-existing condition. As many as 17 million do not have insurance. Many try to buy coverage on the individual market, but in most states that is either impossible or too costly.
Experts are divided on what the ruling will bring for this group of Americans. If the mandate that everyone buy coverage is struck down, the Obama administration and the insurance industry say that the protections for people with pre-existing conditions should be, too. If the ailing pile in without the larger pool of healthy people, premiums would skyrocket, insurers say.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/he...er=rss&emc=rss
fukcking stalker GFY
Naturally those insurers want those healthy age bracket kids to buy insurance.
ing hack getting slapped. GFY.
Lots of big business money to be lost on overturn, therefor, SCOTUS won't do it.
LOL.... Shazbot, did you actually read the linked pole?
licked pole?
I leave that to you barracks bunnies.
Most Americans know they are getting raped, RAPED, by the docs, hospital, insurance companies, BigPharma, and want it stopped. But they have no say in the matter. They exist just to be sucked dry.
That's right. be a good Huff~n~Puff post lemming.
go lick a pole
Hmmmmm......
I guess I need to ask my girl if she has any Polish in her.
Health insurers foresee rising premiums if court nixes 'individual mandate'
In principle, millions of Americans who could not otherwise afford insurance would be covered, while the influx of healthy purchasers of insurance would help pay the costs. Any day now, in a ruling by the US Supreme Court, this central bargain in Mr. Obama's Affordable Care Act could unravel.
It's not hard to see why the health insurance industry doesn't like that idea. The Supreme Court could rule that the "individual mandate" in the law is uncons utional, thus removing a big expected stream of revenue, while leaving in place the law's guaranteed-access provisions, which impose big costs on insurers.
But outside experts say the negative consequences also would ripple beyond the insurance business to affect the pocketbooks of millions of Americans, who would face a rising price for their health insurance.
"We have the worst possible outcome" in this scenario, says J.D. Kleinke, a health-policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Ins ute. Yet this outcome appears quite probable, he says, because the Supreme Court is tasked with considering questions of law and the Cons ution, not what would be optimal for America's health-care system.
"They're thinking about it legally.... They've got pressure not to be activist," says Mr. Kleinke. He predicts that "their tendency is going to be to do as little as possible but still do what they believe is legally correct. You do the math on that, you end up with: They take away the mandate, they leave the rest."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...=Google+Reader
"do as little as possible but still do what they believe is legally correct."
LEGAL??
The extremist, activist right-wing pro-corp/anti-citizen REPUG SCOTUS fake judges overturned 100 years of stare decisis to rule for the 1% in C-U.
aka "we jest callin dem balls n strikes"
crofl
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
