Obamacare / Health Care

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12811
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1326

Post by Whatever4 »

Fortinbras wrote: There are more advanced degrees in laws - LL.M. and I think an LL.D. - in such specialized fields as tax law but hardly any lawyer bothers with them.
Except future SCOTUS justice MikeDunford, of course.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10550
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1327

Post by Mikedunford »

Whatever4 wrote:
Fortinbras wrote: There are more advanced degrees in laws - LL.M. and I think an LL.D. - in such specialized fields as tax law but hardly any lawyer bothers with them.
Except future SCOTUS justice MikeDunford, of course.
I don't know of any US school that offers a LL.D. (except perhaps perhaps as the title of an honourary degree). There are a number of schools in the US that have started to offer PhD-level legal degrees. The alphabet soup for those are typically either SJD or JSD, depending on the school. (Virtually all universities outside the USA look for a PhD-level qualification for law faculty.)

My sense is that the LLM is becoming more common in the US than it used to be, but only for academics or in some narrow specialties (IP, tax, etc).
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1328

Post by Foggy »

OMFG. :o

Aetna drops out of the marketplace in North Carolina. That leaves just one company, Blue Cross, and they will also drop out soon. They can't insure the entire risk pool, because the healthy people still mostly haven't enrolled.

North Carolina will be the first state where Obamacare collapses, leaving 600,000 people with no health insurance. Hospitals will also suffer; they'll have no way to get reimbursed for providing critical care to indigents.

Until Hillz gets in to fix this, we're in deep, deep trouble.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 17-n631656
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35171
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1329

Post by realist »

Foggy wrote:OMFG. :o

Aetna drops out of the marketplace in North Carolina. That leaves just one company, Blue Cross, and they will also drop out soon. They can't insure the entire risk pool, because the healthy people still mostly haven't enrolled.

North Carolina will be the first state where Obamacare collapses, leaving 600,000 people with no health insurance. Hospitals will also suffer; they'll have no way to get reimbursed for providing critical care to indigents.

Until Hillz gets in to fix this, we're in deep, deep trouble.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 17-n631656
And so there's your proof that Obamacare is a failure and is doomed. And without the RWNJs in Congress having to do anything to repeal it.
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30412
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Ugly bag of mostly water

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1330

Post by Foggy »

AND it's proof that Obamacare was solely designed by the insurance companies so they could make billions of dollars. :confused:
For more information, read it again.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8314
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1331

Post by Slim Cognito »

Well, the ACA does have it's problems, not that they couldn't have been fixed. I said, back in 2012, if the republicans had addressed the problems with the ACA they could have run on "We made the ACA work!" So, yes, I'm afraid this could be the early drip that leads to a collapse.

Don't get me wrong. The ACA saved my husband's life. He's had a heart condition for years and, after being laid off, couldn't get insurance. Back then, I honestly believed he'd be gone by now, but, thanks to the ACA, we can now afford the medication and monitoring he needs. But that doesn't blind me to the problems other people are having, especially in states like Florida where the Medicare gap is leaving lots of people uninsured and it's hard to make them understand that's Scott's fault, not Obama's.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8576
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1332

Post by RoadScholar »

Isn't this a direct result of the House Repugnicans killing the risk pool funding provision? IIRC, the ACA designers predicted there would be a lag in healthy folks signing up, (hence the red ink we see now), so they provided a mechanism for the companies to be "bailed out" for a while until the penalties really kicked in and nudged folks to buy insurance? Which the House killed?
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6246
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1333

Post by June bug »

Definitely a Republican action to keep ACA from funding the "risk corridors" - which house I'm not sure. That's caused big losses, way too large yet to be covered by excess insurance profits as was the ultimate goal. Add to that not enough young, healthy people signing up, and it created something like a perfect storm.

However, well after that was known, Aetna was planning on expanding its presence in individual state markets when they were planning on absorbing Humana. So-called "synergistic" cost savings related to the merger was supposed to make that possible. Now that the feds have sued to stop the deal, Aetna not only can't expand, but has to dramatically cut the number of states it will serve.

Cynically, I can't help but wonder if this is just a bargaining tactic aimed at getting its merger through.

User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1334

Post by noblepa »

Foggy wrote:OMFG. :o

Aetna drops out of the marketplace in North Carolina. That leaves just one company, Blue Cross, and they will also drop out soon. They can't insure the entire risk pool, because the healthy people still mostly haven't enrolled.

This may change. For 2016, a married couple, filing jointly, with an AGI of $40k and no dependentts, will pay $1,390 as a penalty for having no coverage, up from $650 in 2015.

North Carolina will be the first state where Obamacare collapses, leaving 600,000 people with no health insurance. Hospitals will also suffer; they'll have no way to get reimbursed for providing critical care to indigents.

If the worst should happen, hospitals will go back to the system they used before the ACA. They will increase their charges to insured patients to cover the costs of treating uninsured ones.

Until Hillz gets in to fix this, we're in deep, deep trouble.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/busines ... 17-n631656
As others have pointed out, the Repubs refused to treat the ACA the same as any major law. Once a law is passed, it is virtually always revisited after a year or two, to tweak the flaws and make minor corrections. The only thing the repubs would vote on was a complete repeal. They did this, what, 45 times?

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1335

Post by BillTheCat »

This is why we WILL take back the Senate.

This is why we MUST work to take back the House.

THIS IS WHY WE MUST IMPLEMENT SINGLE PAYER.

Seriously, there ought to be a fucking law that makes it mandatory that if you do business as a health insurer in the US, YOU MUST PARTICIPATE IN THE HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES. No ifs, ands, buts or refusals. Don't like it? GTFO out of this country, assholes.

:madguy: :mad2: :cussing: :smokeears:
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 5491
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1336

Post by DejaMoo »

Foggy wrote:OMFG. :o

Aetna drops out of the marketplace in North Carolina. That leaves just one company, Blue Cross, and they will also drop out soon. They can't insure the entire risk pool, because the healthy people still mostly haven't enrolled.
Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger
Aetna officials said the pullout was necessary because of Obamacare’s problems ― specifically, deep losses the insurer was incurring in the law’s health insurance exchanges.

But the move also was directly related to a Department of Justice decision to block the insurer’s potentially lucrative merger with Humana, according to a letter from Aetna’s CEO obtained by The Huffington Post.
f the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint .... nstead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states .… t is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely and plan for additional business efficiencies should our deal ultimately be blocked. By contrast, if the deal proceeds without the diverted time and energy associated with litigation, we would explore how to devote a portion of the additional synergies ... to supporting even more public exchange coverage over the next few years.


To Obamacare critics, Aetna’s retreat is proof the law is failing. To supporters, it shows the company was using its participation in Obama’s signature domestic policy initiative as a bargaining chip in order to secure approval of a controversial business deal.
I've heard this bull before.

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1337

Post by kate520 »

"And to still other people, it is proof of the RepuGalicians' bad faith in their every endeavor for the last 8 years that involves helping citizens not corporations. And to even more, proof that insurance companies suck."
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 25811
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1338

Post by RTH10260 »

U.S. Supreme Court takes up insurers' $12 billion Obamacare dispute
Nate Raymond

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the federal government must pay insurers $12 billion under an Obamacare program aimed at encouraging them to cover previously uninsured people after the healthcare law was enacted in 2010.

The justices will hear an appeal by a group of insurers of a lower court ruling that Congress had suspended the government’s obligation to make the payments. The insurers have argued that the ruling would allow the government to pull a “bait-and-switch” and withhold money they were promised.

Insurers including Moda Health Plan Inc have said the government was supposed to help them recover from early losses they suffered after the passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare, under Democratic former President Barack Obama.

Payments would have come through the law’s so-called risk corridor program that aimed to mitigate insurers’ risks from 2014 to 2016 when they sold coverage to previously uninsured people who bought insurance on exchanges established under the Obamacare law.

Under the program, insurers that paid out significantly less in claims on policies sold through Affordable Care Act exchanges than they took in from premiums paid some of their gains to the government. Insurers that paid out more were entitled to compensation from the government for part of their losses.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN1TP1Q7

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 25811
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Obamacare / Health Care

#1339

Post by RTH10260 »

crossposting
Obamacare Insurance Mandate Is Struck Down by Federal Appeals Court
But the judges sent the case back to determine if other parts of the federal health care law can stand without the mandate.

By Abby Goodnough
Dec. 18, 2019 Updated 8:05 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down a central provision of the Affordable Care Act, ruling that the requirement that people have health insurance was unconstitutional.

But the appeals panel did not invalidate the rest of the law, instead sending the case back to a federal district judge in Texas to “conduct a more searching inquiry” into which of the law’s many parts could survive without the mandate.

The 2-1 decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, left the fate of the nearly decade-old health law in limbo even as access to health care has become a central issue in the presidential race. Republicans, for whom a decision to throw out the law heading into the presidential election year could have been a political nightmare, seemed relieved, while Democrats issued a flurry of statements emphasizing that the law was still in grave danger.

The ruling was issued almost exactly a year after Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth struck down the entire law, saying the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the Affordable Care Act because it was “the keystone” of the law, essential to its regulation of the health insurance market. With Judge O’Connor now facing an time-consuming assignment from the appellate court, the case is unlikely to be resolved before next year’s presidential election.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/18/heal ... ndate.html

Post Reply

Return to “General Politics”