Jump to content

🤢 OBAMACARE


OldSchool

Recommended Posts

Not a problem. Have been trying to research this area. 

A couple of weeks ago, I got into it with one of the ex-insurance salesmen on this site. Seemed he didn't like the idea of insurance companies having to give back your money if you don't use it over the year. I mean, those poor poor insurance companies that only make 3-6% annually, plus have billions in the bank in case of those catastrophic accidents. I know that those companies have that money locked in a big vault just sitting there, not in some "interest" bearing bank account. Because insurance companies wouldn't try to keep all the money and deny you coverage. 

Maybe the insurance people would like to take that money, keep it, but place a real percentage into our Health Savings Accounts. I mean, teachers for example with a family on the cheapest TRS provided health insurance have to pay $1415 before employer contribution. Depending upon your district, you get some taken off. My district gives us $325, my wife's district only $225. That means, just for health insurance we will pay--$13,080 for the year, just  for Health Insurance, no dental, no vision, no car, no home, just for health insurance. Then on top of that when you go to the doctor, you have a "co-pay", $30-$60 bucks each visit. Then you have to pay up to $13,500 out of pocket. And they say they are NOT crooks. Maybe a law should be introduced to have 50-75% of your premiums placed into a Health Savings Account if you do not reach your "out of pocket" amount. Add that to Pricing, and I would bet that insurance companies will learn to cut administrative costs, deductibles and insurance would come down a whole lot. 

I would bet that some will attack this also, but that is okay. I would say they need to provide a plan or idea, but the first thing will be "TORT" reform, because that will lower all the costs. SMFH. (just for barry)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tort reform has not shown to have any influence on premium rates in Texas, and we have had it a long time. Become almost a cliche as a solution for keeping down costs, as malpractice is like TWO percent of costs to the companies. Insurance companies are going to raise rates, any time they can do so, and the regulation is terrible and not for the consumer in Texas. Tort reform did pay off for one group- doctors, who now pay lower premiums on their malpractice insurance. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

A federal appeals court upheld a lower court’s ruling that a key aspect of the ObamaCare law is unconstitutional -- setting up another likely Supreme Court showdown in a presidential election year.

The 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote concluded the original law’s key funding mechanism known as the individual mandate — requiring most Americans to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty — was properly eliminated by Congress and therefore the entire law could not be enforced.

The appeals panel sent the issue back to the lower court to decide whether other aspects of the Affordable Care Act must fall.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed with Texas-based U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor’s finding that the insurance requirement was rendered unconstitutional when, in 2017, Congress eliminated a tax penalty on people without insurance.

“The individual mandate is unconstitutional because it can no longer be read as a tax, and there is no other constitutional provision that justifies this exercise of congressional power,” the ruling said. “On the severability question, we remand to the district court to provide additional analysis of the provisions of the ACA as they currently exist.”

Other parts of the law may survive, but the appeals court deferred to the lower court to decide the severability question —whether the entire law must be struck down or what parts of the law could still exist. It comes as the administration is working with Congress for a replacement health care reform law.

Texas and 18 other Republican-led states filed the suit, which was defended by Democrats and the House of Representatives. Texas argued that due to the unlawfulness of the individual mandate, the entire ACA must be scrapped.

"It may still be that none of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, even after this inquiry is concluded," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod said in her majority opinion. "It may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some is not.”

Dissenting Judge Carolyn Dineen King said her colleagues were prolonging “uncertainty over the future of the healthcare sector.” King said she would have found the mandate constitutional, although unenforceable, and left the rest of the law alone.

“In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, despite serious constitutional issues with the federal government forcing Americans to purchase a product from a private company. Until an ultimate decision is made by the Supreme Court or Congress decides otherwise, the Affordable Care Act will remain the law of the land,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a statement after the ruling. "Congress should work to ensure that no matter the ultimate outcome, Americans who have pre-existing conditions are protected from losing their insurance or facing discrimination. This is something that has broad, bipartisan support."

Appeals court strikes down ObamaCare rule, setting up Supreme Court showdown: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-obamacare-law-setting-up-supreme-court-showdown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...