Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
OldSchool

🤢 OBAMACARE

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

It didn't go over my head, probably in one ear and out the other, because it is the same thing that insurance people say every time someone wants to change what insurance companies do. I even asked in my first statement, "Why aren't we more concerned with controlling costs, instead of allowing the government to take over the industry. What you did, sir, was attack the second statement I made, where I actually gave a plan to try and do something about the cost of insurance. I came up with a plan, but what you have done is attack it, but have offered no solution outside of "tort" reform. Thinking that prices will drop when people can't sue as much. I would say that is like a democrat isn't a liberal these days. SMFH. 

Please Mr. Insurance man, give us a plan that will help the average American with insurance and costs without the government taking it over. Because like I said before, if there isn't some reform, then the government is going to control it and we will paying taxes out the rear end, because people in the insurance business were more greedy than reform minded where they could continue to grow. So let that go in one ear and out the other. 

 

 

One more time for the s l o w minded ... healthcare insurance companies don't control the rising cost of medical services, medical supplies, hospital costs and drug prices ... why do you blame the rising costs on insurance companies?  You blame them because you pay your rising premiums and expect the insurance companies to absorb the rising costs and operate at a loss without raising your premiums ... that's insane ... name any other companies in America that operate that way, there aren't any unless they are subsidized  .... to make it even more difficult for the insurance companies to stay afloat. now everyone demands and it's pretty much accepted that all preexisting conditions be covered, at that point it's really not even "insurance" any more  ... 

I did give you a solution ... the problem HAS to be address with the rising costs of healthcare itself ... it has to be done through free market solutions that make it competitive to bring down cost ... it's not going to happen through expecting insurance companies to operate at a loss and by bankrupting them ... use some common sense ... smh

Edited by KirtFalcon
yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DannyZuco said:

So what I see is that you must be in insurance. I understand that those who are in insurance love the idea of higher premiums. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/p60-264.html

It is amazing the profit these companies are making, yet you seem to back them up to the hilt. Most insurance companies always seem to deny your first claim, then they have a problem paying what they are suppose to pay. 

As an educator, my insurance is terrible, not only does my family shell out over $1000 dollars for health insurances, we then have to pay every time we go to the doctor a freaking "co-pay" then it only pays 80% of the money up to a certain amount. And that money for an average family means they have to borrow money to get to that point. While I am NOT a strong believer in government take over of stuff, I do believe that insurance companies need to be regulated a lot more, especially for costs. And government can control tort reform also, but that would mean that our wonderful congress did something, and why would they do anything considering they are paid millions by the health insurance industry to stay away. If changes don't come soon, and help the average American, then you can expect all insurance companies to be gone when the government takes the over. So you insurance people had better come up with reforms to help the average American, or lose your jobs all together. Because that is what is headed our way. 

If you are a Texas teacher I agree, your insurance is terrible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BoHogg said:

If you are a Texas teacher I agree, your insurance is terrible. 

And according to Bernie tonight the insurance companies are making 100's of billions in profit every year, but others on here don't have any idea on how to fix it. As long as they continue to make money from it. 

 

1 hour ago, KirtFalcon said:

One more time for the s l o w minded ... healthcare insurance companies don't control the rising cost of medical services, medical supplies, hospital costs and drug prices ... why do you blame the rising costs on insurance companies?  You blame them because you pay your rising premiums and expect the insurance companies to absorb the rising costs and operate at a loss without raising your premiums ... that's insane ... name any other companies in America that operate that way, there aren't any unless they are subsidized  .... to make it even more difficult for the insurance companies to stay afloat. now everyone demands and it's pretty much accepted that all preexisting conditions be covered, at that point it's really not even "insurance" any more  ... 

I did give you a solution ... the problem HAS to be address with the rising costs of healthcare itself ... it has to be done through free market solutions that make it competitive to bring down cost ... it's not going to happen through expecting insurance companies to operate at a loss and by bankrupting them ... use some common sense ... smh

Any other company that raises their prices, I have a choice on whether or not to purchase the item, I don't have choices in health insurance when they are monopolized. They can all be different companies, but like a cities gas prices, they all go up together and all go down together. They all call each other and work together to make sure that everyone is doing the same thing. PS, it is sure hard to stay afloat when it seems that insurance companies are making 100s of billions in profit according to Bernie Sanders. Wow, like Exxon, it must be hard to stay afloat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

And according to Bernie tonight the insurance companies are making 100's of billions in profit every year, but others on here don't have any idea on how to fix it. As long as they continue to make money from it. 

 

Any other company that raises their prices, I have a choice on whether or not to purchase the item, I don't have choices in health insurance when they are monopolized. They can all be different companies, but like a cities gas prices, they all go up together and all go down together. They all call each other and work together to make sure that everyone is doing the same thing. PS, it is sure hard to stay afloat when it seems that insurance companies are making 100s of billions in profit according to Bernie Sanders. Wow, like Exxon, it must be hard to stay afloat. 

There is your first problem, you are listening to liberal nutjobs like Bernie Sanders ... What does AOC tell you? ... lol ...Every huge business sector in America takes in 100s of billions of dollars.  That's not the correct way to look at it. The healthcare insurance companies profit margins pale in comparison to big oil, big cars, big technology, etc.  Look it up, it's not even close ... Do you have any idea what Exxon's profit margin is compared to the healthcare insurance companies?  I have seen it and it isn't even close, yet nobody is screaming at Exxon, or Apple, or Amazon for the 100s of billions they take in every year ... smh again ...

This should give you some perspective .....

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

Edited by KirtFalcon
yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a corporation that could be about life or death for people, and whose pricing can prevent people from having health insurance coverage, should be compared to O and G and computer tech CEOs? Ridiculous comparison, in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

So, a corporation that could be about life or death for people, and whose pricing can prevent people from having health insurance coverage, should be compared to O and G and computer tech CEOs? Ridiculous comparison, in my opinion. 

Their pricing is driven by the rising costs charged by doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies .... why don't you blame them?  Do you think insurance companies just sit around their board rooms and say " how much can we charge today"?   If you do, and apparently you do, you are one stupid individual ... Why is this so hard to understand? .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 7:05 PM, DannyZuco said:

It didn't go over my head, probably in one ear and out the other, because it is the same thing that insurance people say every time someone wants to change what insurance companies do. I even asked in my first statement, "Why aren't we more concerned with controlling costs, instead of allowing the government to take over the industry. What you did, sir, was attack the second statement I made, where I actually gave a plan to try and do something about the cost of insurance. I came up with a plan, but what you have done is attack it, but have offered no solution outside of "tort" reform. Thinking that prices will drop when people can't sue as much. I would say that is like a democrat isn't a liberal these days. SMFH. 

Please Mr. Insurance man, give us a plan that will help the average American with insurance and costs without the government taking it over. Because like I said before, if there isn't some reform, then the government is going to control it and we will paying taxes out the rear end, because people in the insurance business were more greedy than reform minded where they could continue to grow. So let that go in one ear and out the other. 

 

 

You said you wanted honest discussion but when he gave you his opinion you get all upset saying he is attacking. I thought he had some great points and because he knows the industry he might have a little more passionate clarity about it than say someone who doesn't know the industry. I read no attacks into his post and was actually glad to hear from someone that knows the inside of the industry and an honest different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Golfingnut said:

You said you wanted honest discussion but when he gave you his opinion you get all upset saying he is attacking. I thought he had some great points and because he knows the industry he might have a little more passionate clarity about it than say someone who doesn't know the industry. I read no attacks into his post and was actually glad to hear from someone that knows the inside of the industry and an honest different opinion.

You don't pick up on Kirt's insulting and derogatory tone to EVERYONE, you aren't reading closely enough, because he comes across as a know-it-all, full of himself and his 'insider knowledge'. He is clearly a fervent defender of the indefensible, the insurance industry, and he is not interested in hearing that they might be at fault and called out for their gouging the consumer. Did you read Eagle's news article detailing the HUGE pay out to the BCBS CEO? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BarryLaverty said:

You don't pick up on Kirt's insulting and derogatory tone to EVERYONE, you aren't reading closely enough, because he comes across as a know-it-all, full of himself and his 'insider knowledge'. He is clearly a fervent defender of the indefensible, the insurance industry, and he is not interested in hearing that they might be at fault and called out for their gouging the consumer. Did you read Eagle's news article detailing the HUGE pay out to the BCBS CEO? 

I've read it all.

That being said, he asked for a discussion and then proceeded to attack Kirk.

Look, the problem with social media is we can only read words on a page. What you or I think we read into someone's comments is not fact. We can't twist motive. It's bad enough that words are twisted to fit agendas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't listen to anything I have said, please consider this ... 

There was a very telling point about healthcare costs at the democrat debate the other night.  One of the dem candidates, can't remember his name but he was one of the only half way sane ones on stage, said he had spoken with a friend of his, who was a hospital administrator, a while back and asked him something like, "If your hospital had been reimbursed for all claims last year at the Medicare rate, what would that do to you?" .... His answer was "We would have to shut down" .... 

When a typical medical claim for hospital services or doctors services is processed there is a huge difference, no an astronomical difference in how that claim is processed ... A claim that is paid through say BCBS of Tx might pay $1,000.00 to a doctor or hospital .... that same claim paid by  Medicare might only pay $150.00 ..... that's not an extreme case, THAT'S TYPICAL ..... that's why his friend told him it would basically bankrupt his hospital .... I have heard at least half of the hospitals in America might be forced to close under a government run Medicare for All single payer system .... 

How many top doctors would get our of healthcare altogether if the were forced to be reimbursed for their services at the Medicare rate?  That's one reason a lot of doctors don't accept Medicare now.  Medicare for All would also stifle research and development due to cost restraints ... 

The point I am trying to make is that's easy to just blame healthcare insurance companies, when in fact there is a lot of blame to go around ... the solutions are not simple ... I can tell you if you think things are bad now .... wait till you see Medicare for All .... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Golfingnut said:

You said you wanted honest discussion but when he gave you his opinion you get all upset saying he is attacking. I thought he had some great points and because he knows the industry he might have a little more passionate clarity about it than say someone who doesn't know the industry. I read no attacks into his post and was actually glad to hear from someone that knows the inside of the industry and an honest different opinion.

His tone, like Barry said was "Looking down" on those of us he thinks does NOT know the industry. Kirk believes in the insurance industry, I do to, but at the same time realize they are taking advantage of people, especially using the government. He talks about lowering costs, but comes up with no plan and then explains it is all about lowering costs, when in the very first statement I made, I wondered why we didn't work on lowering costs. But low and behold, he talked down to me and any other reader that doesn't believe the same as him. I know costs need to be lowered, but I provided an idea, what idea has he brought forth, the same thing every other GOP candidate in the past 10 years has brought forth, "Tort Reform". Tort reform isn't going lower costs, only regulation of the industry is going to lower costs. 

I in NO means want the US government running an insurance program, because I can see the wonderful work that they do on all the other programs they run. The US government is NOT fit to run a lemonade stand let alone an insurance program, but while I enjoy profits, the costs of health insurance is going to do away with private insurance, because they won't try and reform a system where they take and take, and refuse to give back. Either the money we waste when it is not used, or by lowering costs. Neither of what they are doing. But as long as the media is pushing the Bernie Sanders facts about insurance, you can bet that people are listening to that 30 seconds a lot more than going on line and reading about facts, private insurance is headed the way of the DooDoo bird, and we will all have to live with the government controlling our lives a little bit more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, KirtFalcon said:

If you don't listen to anything I have said, please consider this ... 

There was a very telling point about healthcare costs at the democrat debate the other night.  One of the dem candidates, can't remember his name but he was one of the only half way sane ones on stage, said he had spoken with a friend of his, who was a hospital administrator, a while back and asked him something like, "If your hospital had been reimbursed for all claims last year at the Medicare rate, what would that do to you?" .... His answer was "We would have to shut down" .... 

When a typical medical claim for hospital services or doctors services is processed there is a huge difference, no an astronomical difference in how that claim is processed ... A claim that is paid through say BCBS of Tx might pay $1,000.00 to a doctor or hospital .... that same claim paid by  Medicare might only pay $150.00 ..... that's not an extreme case, THAT'S TYPICAL ..... that's why his friend told him it would basically bankrupt his hospital .... I have heard at least half of the hospitals in America might be forced to close under a government run Medicare for All single payer system .... 

How many top doctors would get our of healthcare altogether if the were forced to be reimbursed for their services at the Medicare rate?  That's one reason a lot of doctors don't accept Medicare now.  Medicare for All would also stifle research and development due to cost restraints ... 

The point I am trying to make is that's easy to just blame healthcare insurance companies, when in fact there is a lot of blame to go around ... the solutions are not simple ... I can tell you if you think things are bad now .... wait till you see Medicare for All .... 

That would be the guy from Maryland, John Delaney. But he still wants government universal health care options. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

That would be the guy from Maryland, John Delaney. But he still wants government universal health care options. 

They don't know what they want, or better yet, what they can get by with. .... eliminating private insurance for the tens of millions of people that want to keep it is a sure loser for the dims and they know it ... the socialist hard liners want a complete government takeover of healthcare even though deep down the know it will never work without tax rates near 70% combined with a necessity to ration services .... there is no way around the facts ... the socialists are in complete denial of the facts ... and here's the kicker .... get ready ... here it comes ....

 

 

 

 

Believe it or not, Creepy / Sleepy Joe "Bite Me" Biden .... is saying, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan ... if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" ...

Who in the Wide World of Sports is going to fall for that :poop: again? ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, DannyZuco said:

His tone, like Barry said was "Looking down" on those of us he thinks does NOT know the industry. Kirk believes in the insurance industry, I do to, but at the same time realize they are taking advantage of people, especially using the government. He talks about lowering costs, but comes up with no plan and then explains it is all about lowering costs, when in the very first statement I made, I wondered why we didn't work on lowering costs. But low and behold, he talked down to me and any other reader that doesn't believe the same as him. I know costs need to be lowered, but I provided an idea, what idea has he brought forth, the same thing every other GOP candidate in the past 10 years has brought forth, "Tort Reform". Tort reform isn't going lower costs, only regulation of the industry is going to lower costs. 

I in NO means want the US government running an insurance program, because I can see the wonderful work that they do on all the other programs they run. The US government is NOT fit to run a lemonade stand let alone an insurance program, but while I enjoy profits, the costs of health insurance is going to do away with private insurance, because they won't try and reform a system where they take and take, and refuse to give back. Either the money we waste when it is not used, or by lowering costs. Neither of what they are doing. But as long as the media is pushing the Bernie Sanders facts about insurance, you can bet that people are listening to that 30 seconds a lot more than going on line and reading about facts, private insurance is headed the way of the DooDoo bird, and we will all have to live with the government controlling our lives a little bit more. 

You might want to look up "tone". As I said before, it's twisting things when you attach tone or motive to a post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts? 

Fund the HSA deductible, as Indiana and Whole Foods do, and put real prices on everything

Quote

As the Democratic presidential candidates argue about “Medicare for All” versus a “public option,” two simple policy changes could slash U.S. health-care costs by 75% while increasing access and improving the quality of care.

These policies have been proven to work by ingenious companies like Whole Foods and innovative governments like the state of Indiana and Singapore. If they were rolled out nationally, the United States would save $2.4 trillion per year across individuals, businesses, and the government.

The first policy—price tags—is a necessary prerequisite for competition and efficiency. Under our current system, it’s nearly impossible for people with health insurance to find out in advance what anything covered by their insurance will end up costing. Patients have no way to comparison shop for procedures covered by insurance, and providers are under little pressure to lower costs.

By contrast, there is intense competition among the providers of medical services like LASIK eye surgery that aren’t covered by health insurance. For those procedures, providers must compete for market share and profits by figuring out ways to improve efficiency and lower prices. They must also advertise to get customers in the door, and must ensure high quality to generate customer loyalty and benefit from word of mouth.

That’s why the price of LASIK eye surgery, as just one example, has fallen so dramatically even as quality has soared. Adjusted for inflation, LASIK cost nearly $4,000 per eye when it made its debut in the 1990s. These days, the average price is around $2,000 per eye and you can get it done for as little as $1,000 on sale.

By contrast, ask yourself what a colonoscopy or knee replacement will cost you. There’s no way to tell.

Price tags also insure that everybody pays the same amount. We currently have a health-care system in which providers charge patients wildly different prices depending on their insurance. That injustice will end if we insist on legally mandated price tags and require that every patient be charged the same price.

As a side benefit, we will also see massively lower administrative costs. They are currently extremely high because once a doctor submits a bill to an insurance company, the insurance company works hard to deny or discount the claim. Thus begins a hideously costly and drawn-out negotiation that eventually yields the dollar amount that the doctor will get reimbursed. If you have price tags for every procedure and require that every patient be charged the same price, all of that bickering and chicanery goes away. As does the need for gargantuan bureaucracies to process claims.
 

What happened in Indiana

The second policy—deductible security—pairs an insurance policy that has an annual deductible with a health savings account (HSA) that the policy’s sponsor funds each year with an amount equal to the annual deductible.

The policy’s sponsor can be either a private employer like Whole Foods (now part of Amazon. AMZN, +0.25% ), which has been doing this since 2002, or a government entity like the state of Indiana, which has been offering deductible security to its employees since 2007.

While Indiana offers its workers a variety of health-care plans, the vast majority opt for the deductible security plan, under which the state covers the premium and then gifts $2,850 into each employee’s HSA every year.

Since that amount is equal to the annual deductible, participants have money to pay for out-of-pocket expenses. But the annual gifts do more than ensure that participants are financially secure; they give people skin in the game. Participants spend prudently because they know that any unspent HSA balances are theirs to keep. The result? Massively lower health-care spending without any decrement to health outcomes.

We know this because Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels ordered a study that tracked health-care spending and outcomes for state employees during the 2007-to-2009 period when deductible security was first offered. Employees choosing this plan were, for example, 67% less likely to go to high-cost emergency rooms (rather than low-cost urgent care centers.) They also spent $18 less per prescription because they were vastly more likely to opt for generic equivalents rather than brand-name medicines.

Those behavioral changes resulted in 35% lower health-care spending than when the same employees were enrolled in traditional health insurance. Even better, the study found that employees enrolled in the deductible security plan were going in for mammograms, annual check ups, and other forms or preventive medicine at the same rate as when they were enrolled in traditional insurance. Thus, these cost savings are real and not due to people delaying necessary care in order to hoard their HSA balances.

By contrast, the single-payer “Medicare for All” proposal that is being pushed by Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris would create a health-care system in which consumers never have skin in the game and in which prices are hidden for every procedure.

That lack of skin in the game will generate an expenditure explosion. We know this because when Oregon randomized 10,000 previously uninsured people into single-payer health insurance starting in 2008, the recipients’ annual health-care spending jumped 36% without any statistically significant improvements in health outcomes.
 

Look at Singapore

By contrast, if we were to require price tags in addition to deductible security, the combined savings would amount to about 75% of what we are paying now for health care.

We know this to be true because while price tags and deductible security were invented in the United States, only one country has had the good sense to roll them out nationwide. By doing so, Singapore is able to deliver universal coverage and the best health outcomes in the world while spending 77% less per capita than the United States and about 60% less per capita than the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and other advanced industrial economies.

Providers post prices in Singapore, and people have plenty of money in their HSA balances to cover out-of-pocket expenses. As in the United States, regulators set coverage standards for private insurance companies, which then accept premiums and pay for costs in excess of the annual deductible. The government also directly pays for health care for the indigent.

The result is a system in which government spending constitutes about half of all health-care spending, as is the case in the United States. But because prices are so much lower, the Singapore government spends only about 2.4% of GDP on health care. By contrast, government health-care spending in the United States runs at 8% of GDP.

With Singapore’s citizenry empowered by deductible security and price tags, competition has worked its magic, forcing providers to constantly figure out ways to lower costs and improve quality. The result is not only 77% less spending than the United States but also, as Bloomberg Businessweek reports, one of the healthiest populations in the world.

If we are going to be serious about squashing health-care costs and improving the quality of care, we need to foster intense competition among health-care providers to win business from consumers who are informed, empowered and protected from financial surprises. Price tags and deductible security are the only polices that accomplish all of these goals.

I hope that politicians on both sides of the aisle will get behind these proven solutions. Washington should not be a place where good ideas go to die.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Initially, it sounds good.  The ‘skin in the game’ concept is a real proven factor.  And I may have missed it in all the lingo, but what happens to the person who has to spend a week in a hospital.  Even with cheaper rates, that cost would buy a nice home somewhere, certainly far outside the $2,850.   Did I miss something?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hagar said:

Initially, it sounds good.  The ‘skin in the game’ concept is a real proven factor.  And I may have missed it in all the lingo, but what happens to the person who has to spend a week in a hospital.  Even with cheaper rates, that cost would buy a nice home somewhere, certainly far outside the $2,850.   Did I miss something?  

The second policy—deductible security—pairs an insurance policy that has an annual deductible with a health savings account (HSA) that the policy’s sponsor funds each year with an amount equal to the annual deductible.

I would think that it is still an insurance policy, but the companies/state are placing the deductibles in HSA, You still might have the 80/20 split for your stays up to a certain dollar amount. With major problems and surgeries, your deductible would come out of HSA and then you go to your regular settings. I mean $2850 as a deductible would be nice, considering that our teacher "out of pocket" are $7900 for individual and $15,800 for family. So that $2850 would be just a drop in the bucket. What teacher has $7900 dollars lying around? 

I also like the pricing section of this article. I think that all medical procedures should have a price tag prior to you having to ask for them. And then you have to ask for the cash price or the insurance price. Guess which one is higher? 

 

https://www.trsactivecareaetna.com/files/4615/5741/5573/TRSAC-0102_Plan_Year_Comparison_Final_ADA.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m serious... put a solid price tag on everything and medical expenses would be cheaper and easier to predict.  The “insurance is ripping us off” argument would be measurable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...