The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

I wonder why

Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

the catch is that it gives them the ability to raise rates.

they are new services, you don't get them for free.

I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.



Exactly, it means more money

Roberts, Scalia, et al., are very cynically trying to come up w/the decision which will negatively affect Obama's reelection chances the most. It is as obvious as the sun in the sky.

Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Yeah, they'll keep these provisions but clearly the costs of them will factor into their pricing decisions.

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

And, aside from pregnancy, the 25 and under crowd don't often have particularly expensive ailments. Combine that with free preventative care, which means they're more likely to get something checked out early rather than wait until it gets bad, and there's good odds the positive PR will make this profitable.

It looks like a sensible move on United's part, a win-win decision. Let's see how they screw it up.

CPennypacker: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

I wonder why

They think the plan is too blah?

CPennypacker: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

I wonder why

When one political party is committed to waging a campaign of FUD to health care overhaul, this will happen. Go figure.

//Not to mention outright misinformation and lies.

Insurer promises

Everything after this phrase is meaningless.

derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.

Which companies were those, exactly?

Good for them. The parts they agreed to are all sensible things that, frankly, insurance companies should have been doing for years now.

CPennypacker: I wonder why

Because everybody wants everybody else to pay for their stuff, that's why.

The insurers like the added business it promises and people like the mandates regarding adult children and uncapped coverage, but nobody likes the individual mandate because that's where you start talking about somebody actually having to pay for this shiat.

It's just like California and their screwed up laws. Everybody wants a ton of benefits but nobody ever wants to be held responsible for paying for any of it.

I thought of something the other day. The principle argument against Obamacare is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished; that it is an unprecedented use of the commerce clause to create the very commerce to regulate.

But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care. For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?

/OK, how many sane, non-blonde bimbos?

PPACA (Obamacare) requires maternity coverage to be standard in all individual and family plans. United Healthcare does not offer this now, and will not offer it if the law is struck down. In Florida, if you want to have kids, you better hope you work for a large employer, or your husband does, or that you'll be poor and destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise you risk bankruptcy just to reproduce. If you and the hubs are both free-lancers who do pretty well for yourselves, or if you're a semi-successful freelancer and not intending to marry your babydaddy, you're SOL.

Obviously this stifles entrepreneurship, etc.

Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.

cameroncrazy1984: derpdeederp: Lost Thought 00: I doubt they will keep the '80% of premiums must go towards care' provision. Insurers really hated that part.

Well, except for the insurers that got exemptions from that. Competitive advantage ftw.

Which companies were those, exactly?

AARP for sure. Im guessing for non-profit status or just because the government loves the old people voting block, not really sure which other ones.

/Uncle is national director of AARP, get some insight sometimes.

Karac: I thought of something the other day. The principle argument against Obamacare is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished; that it is an unprecedented use of the commerce clause to create the very commerce to regulate.

But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care. For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?

/OK, how many sane, non-blonde bimbos?

The mandates in your examples are codified at the state level. The Federal government has given the state governments various incentives to have the mandates, and all states have them, but the mandate itself isn't written or enforced at the federal level. If you let your kid be a truant, city/county cops will get you and if convicted you will be in state prison. Now, this doesn't make a big difference to me, because state prison and federal prison both suck, but it does to the courts.

ComicBookGuy: Roberts, Scalia, et al., are very cynically trying to come up w/the decision which will negatively affect Obama's reelection chances the most. It is as obvious as the sun in the sky.

You mean like the Heller decision they gave in 2008 that handed Obama the election by placing gun bans forever off the table, thus taking the wind out of the NRA's anti-Obama sails?

Good for them! They don't have to have a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing them to something.
Maybe we all can choose do more without a massive expensive federal bureaucracy forcing us. Maybe if we weren't forced to pay for massive federal bureaucracies and they weren't weren't so farking inefficient and expensive we could afford to.

Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.

I wouldnt be opposed to paying a 10-15% income tax similar to social security/Medicaid for a single payer system.

Karac: is that the government, for the first time, is forcing people to engage in commercial activity or be punished

Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.

Doc Daneeka: Is it bad that part of me wants Obama's health care reform to be overturned so that we can move on to the inevitable plan B, i.e. expansion of Medicare leading ultimately to universal single-payer? Which should have been the goal from the outset.

Because honestly, the GOP hasn't thought things through. They haven't thought past repeal. But the fact is, if health care reform is overturned, the nation's healthcare system will still be broken and in need of major reform. If something can't go on, it won't - and eventually we will have universal health care. One way or another.

Do you really, really think that is what will happen? How many years have we gone without a comprehensive, simple solution? Do you really think the light bulb will magically go off, and our government will recognize the solution that's been staring them in the face forever?

No, we are going to muddle along while Congress dithers, health care costs contiue to spiral, the population ages and demands more for less, and things just go from bad to worse.

//Cynical today.

Karac: But any person over the age of say 60 (in short, anyone not already covered by medicare), has ALREADY been required by the government to purchase health care.

No they don't.

For decades the law has required parents to send their kids to school

That's at the state level. States have powers that the federal government doesn't have.

, and it has required children to be vaccinated in order to attend. How many people complain about those regulations that force people to purchase products from their private pediatrician?

Again, that's at the state level. The state could in theory require you to purchase a left-handed yo-yo under it's general police powers. The federal government *DOESN'T* have general police powers, however: It is limited to only those powers specifically granted by the Constitution.

In this case, Congress and the President used the Commerce Clause to justify the individual mandate, which says that Congress can regulate commerce in and among the states. However, there is literally *ZERO* precedent in over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions that says Congress has the power to regulate the absence of commerce. The problem is that if the court buys that argument, then there is nothing that Congress can't do, and it ceases to be a government of limited powers.

Why is this a big deal if states can do it? Because you've got a choice: If you didn't like it when Massachusetts voted it in, you could simply 'vote with your feet' and move to another state with little or no difficulty.

had unitedhealth in NY.

despite having the best plan possible with prescription coverage, nothing I ever needed was covered (antibiotics, advair, aciphex, etc)

unitedhealth only offered to cover generics (for advair no generic existed), but usually my copay for the generic was more than what the drugs cost.

scumbags.

Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.

derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old. Those are the people who didn't have coverage (because they didn't want it) that Obama was trying to force to pay for a service they didn't want.

Epoch_Zero: Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.

I don't have a Macbook and my brother is 63 and has never had car insurance.

Bullseyed: derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.

Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old. Those are the people who didn't have coverage (because they didn't want it) that Obama was trying to force to pay for a service they didn't want.

o rly? Friend of mine has rheumatoid arthritis and is 31. She had the condition throughout her 20s. The condition would have cost her buku bucks if she hadn't been covered when it was diagnosed. Look up the cost of Humera sometime. That's one of the lower-cost things she's on.

whyRpeoplesostupid: derpdeederp: Probably the parts where kids stay on their parents insurance until 26. Always nice to have more customers.

/Didnt read the article.



Exactly, it means more money

This was the only real change for me... my older son is 19 going on 20, and he really needed this for several reasons.

I don't have a problem with health care reform, I'm just not a fan of supposed government subsidization, that ultimately comes out of my pocket, anyway. The money shuffle gave proponents a speaking point about lower costs for everybody, while the big elephant in the room gets ignored - the money the government "chips in" comes from somewhere - mostly middle class pockets.

What I've always wanted to see is reform that reduces costs to consumers and insurance companies. $3000/night is ridiculous for a hospital room. MRI and CAT Scan equipment is expensive, but at the rates they charge, often working on 24 hour schedules (at least at our local hospital), they have long ago paid for that equipment. Tort reform can also help... malpractice should be about getting incompetent doctors out of their practices, not paying off people (though a proper settlement is fair).

In other words, let's bring some sanity back to health care.

You do realize what this means. This means the decision to overturn Obamacare is already a done deal between the SCOTUS and big business.

This announcement is just a preemptory strike against organized outrage against the decision when it is announced. Not everybody will have cake but some will have cake to eat. And most Americans feel as long as they get their slice, then screw the other guy.

Ned Stark: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.

and that part about insuring pre-ex conditions not likely to live through this...insuring sick people is bad for business.

dittybopper: Why is this a big deal if states can do it? Because you've got a choice: If you didn't like it when Massachusetts voted it in, you could simply 'vote with your feet' and move to another state with little or no difficulty.

So if I live in Massachusetts and don't like it that the state requires my kid to be vaccinated in order to attend the school it requires me to send them to, then I can just move us all to another state? Perhaps you could inform me of this state where these requirements are not enforced.

And Obamacare isn't regulating commerce that doesn't exist. Everyone purchases health care at one point or another. If nothing else, the odds of you interacting with a doctor when you're born or when you get close to dying approach 100%.

LesserEvil: I don't have a problem with health care reform, I'm just not a fan of supposed government subsidization, that ultimately comes out of my pocket, anyway. The money shuffle gave proponents a speaking point about lower costs for everybody, while the big elephant in the room gets ignored - the money the government "chips in" comes from somewhere - mostly middle class pockets.

The thing is that for people with pre-existing conditions (PREX), they will inevitably need money chipped from sources other than themselves and their family to help cover their costs no matter what. Health care is far beyond the reach of anybody not stinking rich to pay on their own; people whose annual costs are in the top 1% of all Americans average $120,000. What person in their right mind would sell somebody whose expected costs were in the six figures an insurance policy for less than that?

Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

The health care plan as it was is nothing like what Obama wanted and got stripped down to pretty much 99% match the health care plan the Republicans proposed in the 90s. It's a great example of how ineffective Obama has been to his supposed base. Always caving in to what the GOP wants for the sake of "compromise" then taking the blame for when it's shiat. He's a perfect president for the GOP to have in office.

Twigz221: Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

I used to think the same thing, now I don't mind the term as much. Kind of bounces off the tongue. Also,

"Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.

Alexrod, pornstar, M.D.

Twigz221: Anyone who uses the term Obamacare is a partisan hack. It's such a terrible term and is a great example of the poison that has infected modern US politics.

The health care plan as it was is nothing like what Obama wanted and got stripped down to pretty much 99% match the health care plan the Republicans proposed in the 90s. It's a great example of how ineffective Obama has been to his supposed base. Always caving in to what the GOP wants for the sake of "compromise" then taking the blame for when it's shiat. He's a perfect president for the GOP to have in office.

He was ineffective in stopping the Republicans from boycotting hearings on health care reform. Obama had to compromise unless you felt that allowing a boycott to stop all reform was a better alternative.

Obama has tried to do pretty much everything he said he would do and accomplished much of it while Congress did everything to stop him.

Why isn't Gitmo closed down and detainees tried in criminal courts instead of military tribunals? Ask Congress. They passed an amendment to a war funding bill that prevented closing down Gitmo, prevented transferring the detainees to US soil, prevented them from being tried in US criminal courts. Yeah, Obama was ineffective. Congress wasn't. And I can blame Congress because they pass laws in this country.

Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.

You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.

thurstonxhowell: Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.

You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.

I tell you what, I just love going to the dentist and having it cost hundreds of dollars.

LasersHurt: thurstonxhowell: Bullseyed: Because you'd have to be retarded to get insurance at a 22-29 year old.

You are so right, no 22-29 year olds have ever gotten seriously ill or injured and insurance companies LOVE to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It's just stupid to pay for insurance when you're not 100% sure that something will go wrong. That's why we call it insurance. We're insured because we know something will definitely go wrong.

I tell you what, I just love going to the dentist and having it cost hundreds of dollars.

My girlfriend is so stupid that she chooses to spend a modest amount on health insurance instead of forking out ~$450/month for medication. What an idiot!

You'll never guess what my sister did. She was diagnosed with a terrible illness in her late 20s while she was (stupidly) insured, and, get this, she continued to pay for health insurance instead of losing it and going bankrupt trying to keep up with her medical bills! Total moron!

Ned Stark: Mentat: The catch is that people and insurance companies like the individual parts of ObamaCare, they just don't like ObamaCare all together.

You know, except for the mandate.

The insurance companies actually like/love the mandate portion. They just don't like no pre existing coverage requirements. They would love to have the mandate, but no requirement that they cover pre existing conditions and that those must get their insurance from the government.

They just want to add a clause where they can come to your house and euthanize you if you get sick, that's all.

Tyee: Epoch_Zero: Not true. Everything from car insurance to Macbooks are required purchases.

I don't have a Macbook and my brother is 63 and has never had car insurance.

Yes, and when your brother is involved in an accident he will not only be liable for the cost of all damages, but will be fined or possibly jailed for not having car insurance. As for the Macbook, that applied to the students of the MA school. But, you were stating that this is the first time - which is incorrect.

I am technically correct; the best kind of correct.

GentDirkly: PPACA (Obamacare) requires maternity coverage to be standard in all individual and family plans. United Healthcare does not offer this now, and will not offer it if the law is struck down. In Florida, if you want to have kids, you better hope you work for a large employer, or your husband does, or that you'll be poor and destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid. Otherwise you risk bankruptcy just to reproduce. If you and the hubs are both free-lancers who do pretty well for yourselves, or if you're a semi-successful freelancer and not intending to marry your babydaddy, you're SOL.

Obviously this stifles entrepreneurship, etc.

I live in Florida. I had a kid. My insurer paid less than $5000 total. The bill from the hospital, for which I would have been responsible without insurance, was over $30000. Or labs that I get bilked over $100, and the insurer actually pays less than $5. Dafuq? If we outlawed that kind of shiat, I wouldn't NEED comprehensive health instance.

Dusk-You-n-Me: "Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.

I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.

slykens1: Dusk-You-n-Me: "Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Alexrod

He's right.

I don't understand Axelrod's complaint here. Obama and his supporters should be proud of the law they put in place and should want to be associated with it as much as possible.

The "complaint" is that it's never been done before, and doesn't NEED to be done. We know those programs by the names their creators gave them, not the people who passed them. It's like calling Windows GatesOS - it's silly.