(07-12-2019 11:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 06:15 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If all of Obamacare is thrown out as unconstitutional that means the government subsides people have been getting to make their monthly payments, which they may not even be aware they are getting, will go bye bye.

That means that when BCBSNC doesnt get the full $800 in September from Johnny Tarheel and/or the Feds for the Tarheel family's health insurance, the policy will be at risk of cancelation due to lack of payment of premium. It doesnt matter that up until then the Tarheel family's portion was only $100, they will now be liable for an extra $700 or else the policy can be terminated. That means little Suzie Tarheel wont get the surgery she needs to walk like a normal child.

If Obamacare is just ended in the middle of the year with no planning, people will not be able to afford the policies they have had all year. That is red meat to the liberals who have never met a crisis they couldnt exploit for political gain. Not too mention the fact states that expanded Medicaid will now be on the hook for a whole lot of money and will either have to cut funding to Jimmy Buckeyes school or throw Johnny Hawkeye off the expanded Medicaid role. More liberal red meat.

And this info was readily available and spelled out quite clearly in the Ky study if anyone took the time to read it. The Medicaid expansion was a fleeting crack pipe high that was designed to simply go away after a few years anyway.

If they didn’t read it? Wellll, tough schit?

In theory i agree with you.

In practice leaving half of the states scrambling to find a ton of money or kick people of Medicaid is terrible optics, plus its really not fair to the individual citizens who were simply following the law they were given.

Its 37 states, and they are already responsible for coming up with that money. Federal subsidies were reduced at the end of 2016. So Obamacare dying off wouldnt change any of that.

States don’t have to pay any percentage of the cost for the expansion until 2017, at which point the federal government will gradually transition to covering 90 percent of the cost through 2020

90% is quite a hole to fill for a state legislature

(07-12-2019 12:06 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:05 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 06:11 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If all of Obamacare is thrown out as unconstitutional that means the government subsides people have been getting to make their monthly payments, which they may not even be aware they are getting, will go bye bye.

That means that when BCBSNC doesnt get the full $800 in September from Johnny Tarheel and/or the Feds for the Tarheel family's health insurance, the policy will be at risk of cancelation due to lack of payment of premium. It doesnt matter that up until then the Tarheel family's portion was only $100, they will now be liable for an extra $700 or else the policy can be terminated. That means little Suzie Tarheel wont get the surgery she needs to walk like a normal child.

If Obamacare is just ended in the middle of the year with no planning, people will not be able to afford the policies they have had all year. That is red meat to the liberals who have never met a crisis they couldnt exploit for political gain. Not too mention the fact states that expanded Medicaid will now be on the hook for a whole lot of money and will either have to cut funding to Jimmy Buckeyes school or throw Johnny Hawkeye off the expanded Medicaid role. More liberal red meat.

There’s NO way someone can be getting the welfare “subsidy” and not know it. None.

It has to be shown to be eligible and claimed on taxes as “income”. It’s a schity deal and has simply ruined people.

When you sign up for Obamacare they ask for your income and then based on that tell you your premium.

What they dont tell you is how much the govt is paying on your behalf in the background.

Do you really think most people who signed up for Obamacare understand the true bill being paid v.their cost. I dont. Its like a copay. It costs me $20 to see my PCP si that is what i say when someone asks. However the true cost is closer to $100 if you look at my EOB

Any idea if the stated income is verified?

It balances out when you do your taxes.

So if for 2019 i project ill make 20k ill get a massive subsidy. But then if i report 50k i will have a massive tax bill

(07-12-2019 12:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 06:15 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If all of Obamacare is thrown out as unconstitutional that means the government subsides people have been getting to make their monthly payments, which they may not even be aware they are getting, will go bye bye.

That means that when BCBSNC doesnt get the full $800 in September from Johnny Tarheel and/or the Feds for the Tarheel family's health insurance, the policy will be at risk of cancelation due to lack of payment of premium. It doesnt matter that up until then the Tarheel family's portion was only $100, they will now be liable for an extra $700 or else the policy can be terminated. That means little Suzie Tarheel wont get the surgery she needs to walk like a normal child.

If Obamacare is just ended in the middle of the year with no planning, people will not be able to afford the policies they have had all year. That is red meat to the liberals who have never met a crisis they couldnt exploit for political gain. Not too mention the fact states that expanded Medicaid will now be on the hook for a whole lot of money and will either have to cut funding to Jimmy Buckeyes school or throw Johnny Hawkeye off the expanded Medicaid role. More liberal red meat.

And this info was readily available and spelled out quite clearly in the Ky study if anyone took the time to read it. The Medicaid expansion was a fleeting crack pipe high that was designed to simply go away after a few years anyway.

If they didn’t read it? Wellll, tough schit?

In theory i agree with you.

In practice leaving half of the states scrambling to find a ton of money or kick people of Medicaid is terrible optics, plus its really not fair to the individual citizens who were simply following the law they were given.

Getting rid of Obamacare with no legislative fix would lead to most people sympathizing with the liberal cause and would escalate Medicare for all....an absolutely terrible idea with devastating economic and healthcare delivery results.

Obamacare needs to go but it needs to happen orderly.
Chaos = liberal win

Not really. Basically, what happens is everyone will see how much this disaster actually costs. That will enlighten a lot of people and let them see how tough and punitive this bill was to the middle class.

If you have health insurance that costs you $20/month pre ruling and that same health insurance now costs you $600/month post ruling, who will the masses be mad at when they get the next months bill and cannot afford it??

I agree in theory that obamacare should be gone. But there are real world consequences for just throwing it out without care

(07-12-2019 12:26 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 01:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The way I understand it, the entire law would be struck down because the mandate is not a small inconsequential part of the 20,000 page bill--it is effectively the financial backbone of the bill. What the court is saying is that without the mandate, the bill is so financially irresponsible and unworkable---that it no longer represents anything remotely similar to what Congress voted on.

That's a bit like saying that the SCOTUS determining that lethal injection is cruel and unusual invalidates the death penalty. It just invalidates that method.
There is absolutely ZERO means by which the premiums paid by one person go directly to someone else. (caps for emphasis) REMEMBER THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT THESE PENALTIES ARE A TAX, NOT A PREMIUM... Which means all striking this down does is eliminate the tax. It does not strike down what Congress has agreed to spend money on.

Remember that we had to have specific legislation in order to put SS funds into a 'lock box'. No such lock box exists for these taxes.

and it can't be the financial backbone because the penalty for non-compliance is now zero... so the money already isn't there anyway.

The court does not decide on the fiscal responsibility of Congress or the 'wisdom' of a bill.

All they decide is whether or not Congress has the authority to do something.... in this case, to force someone into commerce.

They already decided that the mandate was a tax. The tax rate has been set by the current administration to zero. We already know that the tax didn't cover the mandate AND that the ACA is fiscally irresponsible. This may make it more so, but that isn't a matter for the courts. By setting it to zero, the mandate has been rendered moot... but you're essentially arguing that the courts can force congress to change a non-usurious tax rate. If that had been the case, Democrats would have sued in the courts to keep it from being set to zero.

If Congress set the tax rate to 1,000,000... I suspect the courts COULD find that so high as to be discriminatory... but that's a completely different issue.

(07-12-2019 03:05 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Everything solo has said in this thread is correct.

Only to the extent that he's made an incorrect assumption and then a logical inference from that false assumption.

If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump it's butt... that's 100% correct... but a frog doesn't have wings so it's a non-sequiter

But what do I know about politics, finance and healthcare... I just got one of my degrees in politics, spent 25 years on Wall Street and now I run Hospitals.

If Chief Justice Solomon had found the mandate unconstitutional at the beginning, the entire law would have been thrown out, sudsidies, mediciad expansion, and all. He said that the only reason the mandate was constitutional was because it was a tax. Mandate=Tax=Constitutional law

If the tax being set to $0 makes the mandate unconstitutional, which is what a district court judge has said, then by Chief Justice Solomon's logic the entire law must be thrown out.

I dont agree with the District Courts logic. The tax is still there and on the books it is just the amount of that tax is $0. The next president could raise the tax the same way Trump lowered it.

I am arguing against those who want all of Obamacare thrown out by a judge. The unintended consequences would be a godsend for liberals and hurt a lot of innocent people who were following the rules

Here is a good article on the situation as it stands now
http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-a...rict-court

Here is a great quote from the article
The Supreme Court specifically upheld the individual mandate as a tax. If ... the mandate doesn’t have a penalty, the attorneys general argue, then it’s no longer a tax — and thus unconstitutional.

I also want to correct myself. The mandate tax was lowered to $0 by Congress in the tax reform bill, not by executive order. Irregardless of that, the tax is still there on the books. It was not repealed, just lowered to $0 and can be raised at any time by future legislatures.

Ultimately, it comes down Chief Justice Solomon. If he wanted to throw out the law he would have when he had the chance. I dont think he would do it now on a cute technicality that i i believe is a major stretch

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 01:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 12:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By definition, anyone who currently has insurance doesn't have an 'uncoverable' pre-existing condition. All they need to do is keep their insurance up.

Year to year contract. What happens whenever the insurance company doesn't renew it after December 31?

(07-11-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's called personal responsibility.

Losing argument. Millennials (largest voting base in 2020) see boomers taking out 2.4x-7.8x more in benefits than what they paid into Medicare, while at the same time trying to sell "personal responsibility". Yikes.

That argument is a road map on how you give the democrats a super-majority in the Senate and a green light to implement whatever hellscape they want.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemariet...4919211761

You go look for something else.

Had to do it, I think, every year now for at least the last 7 years or so.

Had more than one just go *poof* policy no longer exists or, as was the case this last year the monthly’s would have been in the neighborhood of 2500 bucks or so. With crap coverage, high deductible and enormous out of pocket maxes.

Seems reasonable.

You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

It may, may, be the case where if you are currently insured you are eligible for that next policy automatically.

I'm generally agreeing with you. I HAVE had my coverage just ended, been left with the "choice" of one Co. to "choose" from, and had monthly premiums go up $1100 from Dec.31 to Jan1. Time to start looking again, exploring options.

I honestly can't recall the number of, and the names of all the Insurance Co.s we've been with since this debacle was forced down our throats.

(07-12-2019 04:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 01:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 12:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By definition, anyone who currently has insurance doesn't have an 'uncoverable' pre-existing condition. All they need to do is keep their insurance up.

Year to year contract. What happens whenever the insurance company doesn't renew it after December 31?

(07-11-2019 12:56 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's called personal responsibility.

Losing argument. Millennials (largest voting base in 2020) see boomers taking out 2.4x-7.8x more in benefits than what they paid into Medicare, while at the same time trying to sell "personal responsibility". Yikes.

That argument is a road map on how you give the democrats a super-majority in the Senate and a green light to implement whatever hellscape they want.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemariet...4919211761

You go look for something else.

Had to do it, I think, every year now for at least the last 7 years or so.

Had more than one just go *poof* policy no longer exists or, as was the case this last year the monthly’s would have been in the neighborhood of 2500 bucks or so. With crap coverage, high deductible and enormous out of pocket maxes.

Seems reasonable.

You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

It may, may, be the case where if you are currently insured you are eligible for that next policy automatically.

I'm generally agreeing with you. I HAVE had my coverage just ended, been left with the "choice" of one Co. to "choose" from, and had monthly premiums go up $1100 from Dec.31 to Jan1. Time to start looking again, exploring options.

I honestly can't recall the number of, and the names of all the Insurance Co.s we've been with since this debacle was forced down our throats.

You should consider yourself lucky. For 96 of the 100 counties in NC there is no choice. You take the BCBS plan you can afford

(07-12-2019 03:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 06:15 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-11-2019 05:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If all of Obamacare is thrown out as unconstitutional that means the government subsides people have been getting to make their monthly payments, which they may not even be aware they are getting, will go bye bye.

That means that when BCBSNC doesnt get the full $800 in September from Johnny Tarheel and/or the Feds for the Tarheel family's health insurance, the policy will be at risk of cancelation due to lack of payment of premium. It doesnt matter that up until then the Tarheel family's portion was only $100, they will now be liable for an extra $700 or else the policy can be terminated. That means little Suzie Tarheel wont get the surgery she needs to walk like a normal child.

If Obamacare is just ended in the middle of the year with no planning, people will not be able to afford the policies they have had all year. That is red meat to the liberals who have never met a crisis they couldnt exploit for political gain. Not too mention the fact states that expanded Medicaid will now be on the hook for a whole lot of money and will either have to cut funding to Jimmy Buckeyes school or throw Johnny Hawkeye off the expanded Medicaid role. More liberal red meat.

And this info was readily available and spelled out quite clearly in the Ky study if anyone took the time to read it. The Medicaid expansion was a fleeting crack pipe high that was designed to simply go away after a few years anyway.

If they didn’t read it? Wellll, tough schit?

In theory i agree with you.

In practice leaving half of the states scrambling to find a ton of money or kick people of Medicaid is terrible optics, plus its really not fair to the individual citizens who were simply following the law they were given.

Its 37 states, and they are already responsible for coming up with that money. Federal subsidies were reduced at the end of 2016. So Obamacare dying off wouldnt change any of that.

States don’t have to pay any percentage of the cost for the expansion until 2017, at which point the federal government will gradually transition to covering 90 percent of the cost through 2020

90% is quite a hole to fill for a state legislature

A) Its already 2019
B) States have already started to recognize that by accepting the medicaid expansion, their budgets are going to blow up in a few years
C) Medicaid expansion, and the amount of money states have to start making up for their share vs the federal government, is going to happen whether or not Obamacare stays or goes. Its a completely different entity. States which accepted expansion are going to have to start paying for a significantly larger part for their peeps medicaid coverage.

Whether or not Obamacare stays or goes has no impact on the states financial burden of covering medicaid which they accepted under the expansion. None.

(07-12-2019 07:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 03:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 11:09 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 06:15 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  And this info was readily available and spelled out quite clearly in the Ky study if anyone took the time to read it. The Medicaid expansion was a fleeting crack pipe high that was designed to simply go away after a few years anyway.

If they didn’t read it? Wellll, tough schit?

In theory i agree with you.

In practice leaving half of the states scrambling to find a ton of money or kick people of Medicaid is terrible optics, plus its really not fair to the individual citizens who were simply following the law they were given.

Its 37 states, and they are already responsible for coming up with that money. Federal subsidies were reduced at the end of 2016. So Obamacare dying off wouldnt change any of that.

States don’t have to pay any percentage of the cost for the expansion until 2017, at which point the federal government will gradually transition to covering 90 percent of the cost through 2020

90% is quite a hole to fill for a state legislature

A) Its already 2019
B) States have already started to recognize that by accepting the medicaid expansion, their budgets are going to blow up in a few years
C) Medicaid expansion, and the amount of money states have to start making up for their share vs the federal government, is going to happen whether or not Obamacare stays or goes. Its a completely different entity. States which accepted expansion are going to have to start paying for a significantly larger part for their peeps medicaid coverage.

Whether or not Obamacare stays or goes has no impact on the states financial burden of covering medicaid which they accepted under the expansion. None.

10% < 100%

States are prepping for 10% of the costs and i agree with you they will struggle

What would they do if they were responsible for 100% overnight after budgets have already been passed amd established

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

This isn't true Kronke.

Prior to the ACA if you had insurance and you lost your job or changed jobs, OR your company changed providers or the insurer stopped offering the product they previously offered and you kept up your COBRA and/or bought another policy, despite having pre-existing conditions, they were not excluded from your new policy. PECs have been waived for continuity of coverage for decades prior to the ACA. That was a major reason for COBRA.

If instead you let your insurance lapse and are uninsured for a while, then you have a problem. You have to keep up SOME insurance... it has NEVER had to be the same policy or with the same company. Can the price change? Sure, just as it did for the ACA.

(07-12-2019 03:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If Chief Justice Solomon had found the mandate unconstitutional at the beginning, the entire law would have been thrown out, sudsidies, mediciad expansion, and all. He said that the only reason the mandate was constitutional was because it was a tax. Mandate=Tax=Constitutional law

This is the leap I'm talking about. I don't believe he said the only reason the whole thing was constitutional was because it was a tax. He said the individual mandate didn't violate the commerce clause because it was a tax and congress has the power to tax. The individual mandate was absolutely critical to Obama's getting Congressmen to sign on to it.... so it was politically important, but not as legally so as you're describing

I note that Medicaid expansion was similarly vital to the ACA, but the court did NOT uphold a similar 'tax' on states that didn't do so (I don't believe the feds have the power to tax states). If they can get rid of that and the rest still stands, then so too this could.

Quote:If the tax being set to $0 makes the mandate unconstitutional, which is what a district court judge has said, then by Chief Justice Solomon's logic the entire law must be thrown out.

I dont agree with the District Courts logic. The tax is still there and on the books it is just the amount of that tax is $0. The next president could raise the tax the same way Trump lowered it.

I am arguing against those who want all of Obamacare thrown out by a judge. The unintended consequences would be a godsend for liberals and hurt a lot of innocent people who were following the rules

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe a court that found the individual mandate to be a 'tax' and Medicaid Exmapsion to be severable would agree with the Texas court, who made the rather twisted logical statement that the TAX penalty is separate and distinct from the individual mandate that directly triggers it, but the entire rest of the ACA to be inseverable and thus that the tax still existing but being zero (currently, and as you note, could be changed) renders the whole thing unconstitutional? .

The court further held that the tax penalty, section 5000A(b) of the ACA, is separate and distinct from the individual mandate, section 5000A(a). As such, the district court reasoned that the individual mandate standing alone continues to be an unconstitutional use of the Interstate Commerce Clause, as the Supreme Court held in 2012. The rest of the ACA was found to be inseverable and thus also unconstitutional.

(07-13-2019 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

This isn't true Kronke.

Prior to the ACA if you had insurance and you lost your job or changed jobs, OR your company changed providers or the insurer stopped offering the product they previously offered and you kept up your COBRA and/or bought another policy, despite having pre-existing conditions, they were not excluded from your new policy. PECs have been waived for continuity of coverage for decades prior to the ACA. That was a major reason for COBRA.

If instead you let your insurance lapse and are uninsured for a while, then you have a problem. You have to keep up SOME insurance... it has NEVER had to be the same policy or with the same company. Can the price change? Sure, just as it did for the ACA.

We're talking about the individual market, where no such protections existed. We're also trending more towards a gig economy of independent contractors, where less and less people will receive insurance through an employer.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the facts in attempt to dig yourself out of your original untruths. Unfortunately for you, I know better.

(07-13-2019 03:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  We're talking about the individual market, where no such protections existed. We're also trending more towards a gig economy of independent contractors, where less and less people receive insurance through an employer.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the facts in attempt to dig yourself out of your original untruths. Unfortunately for you, I know better.

What facts have I misrepresented?

If you're going to claim I'm intentionally doing something, kindly show me a link to something that supports your contention (not a recent opinion piece, but something from the period as I did with COBRA)... or at the very least, tell me what makes you an authority on the issue.

Hint... the individual market doesn't currently exist to any great degree... so it seems to be YOU whom is misrepresenting facts to support your original untruth. Unfortunately for you, I certainly know better.

and in the individual market (my personal experience in 2004-2008 when I was a consultant just before the ACA) if you were previously covered by a group plan (as everyone with insurance currently is and I was coming from a large employer to being self-employed) then you could buy policies that covered PECs

Perhaps what you mean is that the policies that didn't cover PECs were cheaper....

well no **** Sherlock. I never said you couldn't decide to buy a more limited policy. I said that if you were currently insured, you could buy a policy that waived PECs

CObra was much more expensive than a group policy as well.

You keep referring to rules about group coverage, when we're talking about obamacare and the individual market.

Do you not know the rules were different between the two markets? Do you think when people lost an individual policy, they were entitled to COBRA? How is group coverage and the rules that go along with it, in any way relevant to this conversation? Why do you keep conflating the two?

(07-13-2019 03:39 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Your argument is a strawman. You keep referring to rules about group coverage, when we're talking about obamacare and the individual market.

Do you not know the rules were different between the two markets? Do you think when people lost an individual policy, they were entitled to COBRA?

and now you deflect and only address a part of what I wrote...

1) I shared my personal experience in the individual market from 2004-2008. Next time I'll address every possible scenario so that you don't have to think.
2) this isn't pre-ACA and all of these 'gig' workers aren't currently covered by individual policies. They're covered by group policies which aren't tied to employers, but certainly are tied to very large groups of people to establish the premium... which wasn't the case pre-aca. Anyone not in a group policy in 2006 was individually rated. Today, everyone is in a group.

2006's rules may apply, but 2006's payer mix does not. I am unaware of ANYONE today who doesn't have a policy much more like a 2006 company group policy than a 2006 individual policy.

If the ACA were to be overturned, certainly many insurance companies will offer very cheap policies to healthy people that exclude PECs.... but also many will offer slightly more expensive policies to those with PECs... just as they did with COBRA and corporate group policies, which is why I mentioned it. Not all PECs are expensive to cover. CObra wasn't the point... It was the issues addressed by COBRA that were the point. These were people with group policies (like they have now) who suddenly did not have them.


Let me say that differently since you seem not to be catching it...

What is the difference to you between someone working for a big company in a group policy in 2006 who may leave their job and have to enter the individual market and someone working in a 'gig' economy in a group 'Bronze' plan in 2019 who may also be thrust into it?

Maybe if I understand what you see to be the differences, I'll understand why I'm not being clear to you

MOST of the people in this 'gig' market you're talking about are relatively young and healthy... so you clearly don't understand the concepts.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the facts I've misrepresented or where your specific knowledge comes from.

(07-13-2019 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

This isn't true Kronke.

Prior to the ACA if you had insurance and you lost your job or changed jobs, OR your company changed providers or the insurer stopped offering the product they previously offered and you kept up your COBRA and/or bought another policy, despite having pre-existing conditions, they were not excluded from your new policy. PECs have been waived for continuity of coverage for decades prior to the ACA. That was a major reason for COBRA.

If instead you let your insurance lapse and are uninsured for a while, then you have a problem. You have to keep up SOME insurance... it has NEVER had to be the same policy or with the same company. Can the price change? Sure, just as it did for the ACA.

(07-12-2019 03:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If Chief Justice Solomon had found the mandate unconstitutional at the beginning, the entire law would have been thrown out, sudsidies, mediciad expansion, and all. He said that the only reason the mandate was constitutional was because it was a tax. Mandate=Tax=Constitutional law

This is the leap I'm talking about. I don't believe he said the only reason the whole thing was constitutional was because it was a tax. He said the individual mandate didn't violate the commerce clause because it was a tax and congress has the power to tax. The individual mandate was absolutely critical to Obama's getting Congressmen to sign on to it.... so it was politically important, but not as legally so as you're describing

I note that Medicaid expansion was similarly vital to the ACA, but the court did NOT uphold a similar 'tax' on states that didn't do so (I don't believe the feds have the power to tax states). If they can get rid of that and the rest still stands, then so too this could.

Quote:If the tax being set to $0 makes the mandate unconstitutional, which is what a district court judge has said, then by Chief Justice Solomon's logic the entire law must be thrown out.

I dont agree with the District Courts logic. The tax is still there and on the books it is just the amount of that tax is $0. The next president could raise the tax the same way Trump lowered it.

I am arguing against those who want all of Obamacare thrown out by a judge. The unintended consequences would be a godsend for liberals and hurt a lot of innocent people who were following the rules

I understand what you are saying, but I don't believe a court that found the individual mandate to be a 'tax' and Medicaid Exmapsion to be severable would agree with the Texas court, who made the rather twisted logical statement that the TAX penalty is separate and distinct from the individual mandate that directly triggers it, but the entire rest of the ACA to be inseverable and thus that the tax still existing but being zero (currently, and as you note, could be changed) renders the whole thing unconstitutional? .

The court further held that the tax penalty, section 5000A(b) of the ACA, is separate and distinct from the individual mandate, section 5000A(a). As such, the district court reasoned that the individual mandate standing alone continues to be an unconstitutional use of the Interstate Commerce Clause, as the Supreme Court held in 2012. The rest of the ACA was found to be inseverable and thus also unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Solomon ruled the ACA and the mandate were inseverable back in the original ruling. Chief Justice Solomon also ruled in the original ruling that a mandate was unconstitutional but a tax on inactivity was constitutional. Thus per Chief Justice Solomon the mandate is a tax and therefore constitutional saving the ACA due to the inseverability between the two.

Now, per the logic of the plaintiff, since Congress has legislatively set that tax to $0, all you are left with is a mandate, which Chief Justice Solomon said was unconstitutional. Therefore following Chief Justice Solomon's precedent no tax=unconstitutional mandate+inseverability=ACA must be thrown out as well.

My thought process is what i have stated prior. The tax for non compliance was not repealed, only lowered to $0. Therefore tax at $0=still a legal tax on the books=constitutional=ACA survives again

However, as news reports have indicated, the 5th circuit of appeals showed signs of sympathy to the plaintiff and the District Court judge's decision, which declared the mandate and therefore the entire ACA unconstitutional. If they refuse to overturn District Court judge, this will go back to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice Solomon must decide if the plaintiff's logic, which mirrored his logic, is correct.

Chief Justice Solomon may likely have a 3rd chance to do what he should have done the first time. Only this time if he does the deed, it will throw a big market into chaos in the middle of a presidential election, and i believe have negative repercussions for the President's reelection chances.

Trump's best case scenario is he lose this in the SC and use the loss as a rallying cry to get the base to come out and vote so this issue can be addressed legislatively and the Supreme Court can get more conservative appointees to blunt the impact of Justices like Chief Justice Solomon

(07-13-2019 04:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 03:39 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Your argument is a strawman. You keep referring to rules about group coverage, when we're talking about obamacare and the individual market.

Do you not know the rules were different between the two markets? Do you think when people lost an individual policy, they were entitled to COBRA?

and now you deflect and only address a part of what I wrote...

1) I shared my personal experience in the individual market from 2004-2008. Next time I'll address every possible scenario so that you don't have to think.
2) this isn't pre-ACA and all of these 'gig' workers aren't currently covered by individual policies. They're covered by group policies which aren't tied to employers, but certainly are tied to very large groups of people to establish the premium... which wasn't the case pre-aca. Anyone not in a group policy in 2006 was individually rated. Today, everyone is in a group.

2006's rules may apply, but 2006's payer mix does not. I am unaware of ANYONE today who doesn't have a policy much more like a 2006 company group policy than a 2006 individual policy.

If the ACA were to be overturned, certainly many insurance companies will offer very cheap policies to healthy people that exclude PECs.... but also many will offer slightly more expensive policies to those with PECs... just as they did with COBRA and corporate group policies, which is why I mentioned it. Not all PECs are expensive to cover. CObra wasn't the point... It was the issues addressed by COBRA that were the point. These were people with group policies (like they have now) who suddenly did not have them.


Let me say that differently since you seem not to be catching it...

What is the difference to you between someone working for a big company in a group policy in 2006 who may leave their job and have to enter the individual market and someone working in a 'gig' economy in a group 'Bronze' plan in 2019 who may also be thrust into it?

Maybe if I understand what you see to be the differences, I'll understand why I'm not being clear to you

MOST of the people in this 'gig' market you're talking about are relatively young and healthy... so you clearly don't understand the concepts.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the facts I've misrepresented or where your specific knowledge comes from.

The difference, yet again, between the group and individual markets pre-obamacare, are the protections (entitled to those with or losing group coverage) and lack thereof (for people in the individual market).

If obamacare was scrapped, those that are independent contractors via ride-sharing, direct sales, e-commerce, social media, freelancing, etc. (and you don't have to put 'gig' in scare quotes, it's a well-established term) that have serious illnesses would not be able to acquire coverage. Or if they did, it would likely exclude coverage for their condition.

Also, the thought that "well, most young people are healthy" is just dumb, and yet another losing argument. If I'm a dem, I can argue that protections when it comes to acquiring health insurance shouldn't always be in flux and dependent on the day-to-day changes in your health, and I'd win moderates 80/20 over you.

(07-13-2019 03:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 03:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  We're talking about the individual market, where no such protections existed. We're also trending more towards a gig economy of independent contractors, where less and less people receive insurance through an employer.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the facts in attempt to dig yourself out of your original untruths. Unfortunately for you, I know better.

What facts have I misrepresented?

If you're going to claim I'm intentionally doing something, kindly show me a link to something that supports your contention (not a recent opinion piece, but something from the period as I did with COBRA)... or at the very least, tell me what makes you an authority on the issue.

Hint... the individual market doesn't currently exist to any great degree... so it seems to be YOU whom is misrepresenting facts to support your original untruth. Unfortunately for you, I certainly know better.

and in the individual market (my personal experience in 2004-2008 when I was a consultant just before the ACA) if you were previously covered by a group plan (as everyone with insurance currently is and I was coming from a large employer to being self-employed) then you could buy policies that covered PECs

Perhaps what you mean is that the policies that didn't cover PECs were cheaper....

well no **** Sherlock. I never said you couldn't decide to buy a more limited policy. I said that if you were currently insured, you could buy a policy that waived PECs

CObra was much more expensive than a group policy as well.

Cobra is the same as the group policy, just that the employer isn't paying any of the cost. Its 100% on the ex-employee.

(07-12-2019 06:51 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 04:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 02:28 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 01:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-12-2019 12:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Year to year contract. What happens whenever the insurance company doesn't renew it after December 31?


Losing argument. Millennials (largest voting base in 2020) see boomers taking out 2.4x-7.8x more in benefits than what they paid into Medicare, while at the same time trying to sell "personal responsibility". Yikes.

That argument is a road map on how you give the democrats a super-majority in the Senate and a green light to implement whatever hellscape they want.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gracemariet...4919211761

You go look for something else.

Had to do it, I think, every year now for at least the last 7 years or so.

Had more than one just go *poof* policy no longer exists or, as was the case this last year the monthly’s would have been in the neighborhood of 2500 bucks or so. With crap coverage, high deductible and enormous out of pocket maxes.

Seems reasonable.

You go look for something else with a pre-existing condition in a market where the protections for such things have been stripped. Hambone said all you have to do is just keep up your coverage, which isn't true. They are year to year contracts. How do you keep up something when it no longer exists?

It may, may, be the case where if you are currently insured you are eligible for that next policy automatically.

I'm generally agreeing with you. I HAVE had my coverage just ended, been left with the "choice" of one Co. to "choose" from, and had monthly premiums go up $1100 from Dec.31 to Jan1. Time to start looking again, exploring options.

I honestly can't recall the number of, and the names of all the Insurance Co.s we've been with since this debacle was forced down our throats.

You should consider yourself lucky. For 96 of the 100 counties in NC there is no choice. You take the BCBS plan you can afford

I was able to get away from the whole zerOcare thing altogether once the Va assembly passed a few inclusionary/exclusionary laws.

Prior to that there was 1 “choice” in many areas based on zip code. May have been that way for the entire state, never dug that deep into it, but we had one available Co here where we are.

No competition, that’s what gets you 2500 a month. For a policy few can afford to use...

Good. The entire thing needs to be scrapped. We do however need to use some common sense when doing it. Id think some phase out into a better system over a 4 or 5 year period would be appropriate. Id like to see the market for insurance expanded. If I want to purchase a policy that has a $20,000 deductible in order to keep my premiums low..I should be able to purchase that product. The government has no business dictating how much risk I can assume in my healthcare. There is no reason why a high deductible plan that covers basic office visits and prescription drugs could not be affordable. Im paying close to 700 per month now. For sure it would not cost that much if I was able to assume more risk.

(07-13-2019 04:23 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 04:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-13-2019 03:39 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Your argument is a strawman. You keep referring to rules about group coverage, when we're talking about obamacare and the individual market.

Do you not know the rules were different between the two markets? Do you think when people lost an individual policy, they were entitled to COBRA?

and now you deflect and only address a part of what I wrote...

1) I shared my personal experience in the individual market from 2004-2008. Next time I'll address every possible scenario so that you don't have to think.
2) this isn't pre-ACA and all of these 'gig' workers aren't currently covered by individual policies. They're covered by group policies which aren't tied to employers, but certainly are tied to very large groups of people to establish the premium... which wasn't the case pre-aca. Anyone not in a group policy in 2006 was individually rated. Today, everyone is in a group.

2006's rules may apply, but 2006's payer mix does not. I am unaware of ANYONE today who doesn't have a policy much more like a 2006 company group policy than a 2006 individual policy.

If the ACA were to be overturned, certainly many insurance companies will offer very cheap policies to healthy people that exclude PECs.... but also many will offer slightly more expensive policies to those with PECs... just as they did with COBRA and corporate group policies, which is why I mentioned it. Not all PECs are expensive to cover. CObra wasn't the point... It was the issues addressed by COBRA that were the point. These were people with group policies (like they have now) who suddenly did not have them.


Let me say that differently since you seem not to be catching it...

What is the difference to you between someone working for a big company in a group policy in 2006 who may leave their job and have to enter the individual market and someone working in a 'gig' economy in a group 'Bronze' plan in 2019 who may also be thrust into it?

Maybe if I understand what you see to be the differences, I'll understand why I'm not being clear to you

MOST of the people in this 'gig' market you're talking about are relatively young and healthy... so you clearly don't understand the concepts.
I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the facts I've misrepresented or where your specific knowledge comes from.

The difference, yet again, between the group and individual markets pre-obamacare, are the protections (entitled to those with or losing group coverage) and lack thereof (for people in the individual market).

If obamacare was scrapped, those that are independent contractors via ride-sharing, direct sales, e-commerce, social media, freelancing, etc. (and you don't have to put 'gig' in scare quotes, it's a well-established term) that have serious illnesses would not be able to acquire coverage. Or if they did, it would likely exclude coverage for their condition.

Also, the thought that "well, most young people are healthy" is just dumb, and yet another losing argument. If I'm a dem, I can argue that protections when it comes to acquiring health insurance shouldn't always be in flux and dependent on the day-to-day changes in your health, and I'd win moderates 80/20 over you.

You know you've screwed up when you do as you've done here and continue to decline to support your previous comments and instead start complaining about the use of quotes around 'gig'. Hint, they aren't 'scare' quotes (I don't even understand that reference)... it is merely a choice by me to quote your use of the word... so quotes are entirely appropriate.

Now, if you'd care to support your previous contentions that I don't know what I'm talking about, I'll be glad to hear you... but I demonstrably do. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

So let's look at the following:
The difference, yet again, between the group and individual markets pre-obamacare, are the protections (entitled to those with or losing group coverage) and lack thereof (for people in the individual market).

I'm really struggling with your lack of comprehension here. This isn't pre-Obamacare, it's 2019. The individual market that existed then does not exist now. (almost) EVERYONE is in a group policy with group coverage.

If obamacare was scrapped, those that are independent contractors via ride-sharing, direct sales, e-commerce, social media, freelancing, etc. that have serious illnesses would not be able to acquire coverage. Or if they did, it would likely exclude coverage for their condition.

That's your opinion... Given the large number of people you claim in this group, I think it's wrong, and you've demonstrated no expertise in the area to convince me otherwise. Insurers wouldn't ignore millions of people WHO ARE ALREADY CUSTOMERS simply because they don't work for a company... especially in that they currently already ARE in a group policy. The terms of that policy certainly would likely change... but that is the entire point of those who wish to scrap the ACA. They want healthy people to pay less and unhealthy people to pay more.

If this were 2007 and the individual market were in place, I would agree with you.... but why would insurers create the individual market and ignore the already existing group market rather than simply reprice the group market?

Finally as to this comment....0 Also, the thought that "well, most young people are healthy" is just dumb, and yet another losing argument. If I'm a dem, I can argue that protections when it comes to acquiring health insurance shouldn't always be in flux and dependent on the day-to-day changes in your health, and I'd win moderates 80/20 over you.

This is insane Kronke... FIRST you said 'this needs to be legislative, not judicial' which I have agreed with, and now you're arguing about a legislative solution?? We're talking about the immediate, non-legislative reaction to the judicial decision (which I don't think will happen, but I am playing along with you) and I'm merely responding to people who don't know what they're talking about giving poor opinions... and really does show a lack of knowledge on your part. If you want to argue about the legislative solution, that's fine.... but that's not what we've been doing... BY YOUR OWN TERMS.

What I said is statistically true. By and large, young people are healthier than older people so the cost to deliver them insurance is on average, meaningfully lower. As more of the people in the gig economy will skew towards this group as opposed to the 50+ group... this is precisely why I say that the cost of a group policy for the gig economy wouldn't necessarily be a whole lot higher. They're already subsidizing all of these other less healthy people.

Again, let me try and make it real simple for you....

If UMR Choice Plus currently has 5mm lives in it, and insurers value the cost of that care at $500mm per month, they are currently therefore setting the price of that care at $100 per life. If you individually rate all of those people, their blended price is still $500mm per month (plus extra admin costs). Your contention is that UMR would simply close this pool and go to individual policies. While certainly possible, it flies in the face of reality. It is entirely possible that thousands or even tens of thousands of these young and healthy people in the gig market without any PECs DO change policies to a cheaper policy that excludes these PECs which would make the average cost to deliver the remaining care higher... but it wouldn't require them creating individual policies, and it would still leave a large number of people with relatively benign PECs to subsidize the high utilizers of care.

Of course there should and will be both legislative and financial changes.... and if you want to have that discussion, that's fine...

but this is about the immediate response to a judicial decision to scrap Obamacare.
People still have valid and enforceable insurance contracts with insurers that will last until the end of the year in which the decision we're talking about happens (2019-2021 perhaps)... and government currently have budgets for subsidies.

So
A) I don't believe the SCOTUS will scrap the entire ACA even if they scrap the mandate
B) if I'm wrong and they do, the reaction isn't likely to ignore the [i]unrelated to employment group policy[/] market that already exists because of the ACA and go entirely to individual policies... certainly not immediately and
c) the legislative response that you find would be necessary and I agree... WOULD therefore happen.