• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

About that "World's Best Healthcare System" the U.S. is supposed to have...

Wow. What a day. Dueling legal decisions. Keep the office hopping today.

I think its pretty clear this was an oversight. If you read a lot about the discussions, etc during the debate, it was clear on intent IMHO.

I was really shocked to hear this today as most of the industry largely dismissed this and thought it had little chance. I still am pretty confident that this part of the law will be upheld but this sure does make it interesting.

Anyway you cut it, one more example of a horribly written law.
 
CHDeac said:
Wow. What a day. Dueling legal decisions. Keep the office hopping today.

I think its pretty clear this was an oversight. If you read a lot about the discussions, etc during the debate, it was clear on intent IMHO.

I was really shocked to hear this today as most of the industry largely dismissed this and thought it had little chance. I still am pretty confident that this part of the law will be upheld but this sure does make it interesting.

Anyway you cut it, one more example of a horribly written law.
Click to expand...

Yep this was a purely hack partisan decision.

Every person involved calls this a typo.

If the Supreme Colurt takes insurance from 5-10M Americans over a typo, Roberts will ensure his position as one of the most extreme and partisan CJ ever.
 
RJKarl said:
Yep this was a purely hack partisan decision.

Every person involved calls this a typo.

If the Supreme Colurt takes insurance from 5-10M Americans over a typo, Roberts will ensure his position as one of the most extreme and partisan CJ ever.
Click to expand...

As is the case every time they could potentially rule against whatever RJ wants.
 
I actually kind of agree with RJ on this (as well as CH). It seems that this has little chance at the SCOTUS level if extreme partisanship doesn't rule the day.
 
CHDeac said:
Wow. What a day. Dueling legal decisions. Keep the office hopping today.

I think its pretty clear this was an oversight. If you read a lot about the discussions, etc during the debate, it was clear on intent IMHO.

I was really shocked to hear this today as most of the industry largely dismissed this and thought it had little chance. I still am pretty confident that this part of the law will be upheld but this sure does make it interesting.

Anyway you cut it, one more example of a horribly written law.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Reassuring to be honest as I have about 35-40 employees that would be completely screwed if the subsidies were pulled. We took them off our our bcbsms plan to move them to the exchange and we can't get our group rate back again.
 
Wrangor said:
I think it was an intentional move in order to 'force' states that might be hesitant to set up exchanges to set them up. So it wasn't an oversight it seems strategic. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your political lean) this move has been countermoved and it seems as though unless the courts overstep their limits, this could be a major problem for Obamacare. I don't think this is something that Obama can presidentially override, although if he can I am sure he will. That may be what the pubs are baiting him to do anyway.
Click to expand...

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/dr-strangelove-and-halbig-decision

As I understand it, those on the right who are pushing the Halbig case argue that there's a doomsday machine built into Obamacare. (Adam Serwer at MSNBC also caught this doomsday machine analogy.) If states don't set up their health care exchanges then they don't receive subsidies for health care from the federal government. According to this theory, the liberals who designed health care reform did this knowing that if subsidies were pulled, the system would collapse for states that didn't set up their exchanges.

It's important to note that those on the right are not arguing that this is a typo in the bill, because that wouldn't necessarily be sufficient to overturn the subsidies. They are arguing that Congress intentionally put this language in there to compel, bribe, incentivize, and otherwise threaten states that didn't set up their own exchanges. In the rightwing argument, liberals were saying "we are making the citizens of your state purchase health care, and if you don't set up an exchange they won't get the subsidies necessary to make the system work, so you'd better set up an exchange."

The right's argument hinges on the idea that since there's no evidence that this isn't the intent, it must be the intent. As the two authors of the legal challenge put it, Obamacare "supporters’ approval of this text reveals that their intent was indeed to enact a bill that restricts tax credits to state-run Exchanges. At no point have defenders of the rule identified anything in the legislative history that contradicts" their reading.

Here's the thing, though: like Strangelove notes, a doomsday machine only works if you tell others about it. So, why weren't the people in the vast network associated with Obamacare telling everyone about this threatening doomsday device after the bill passed?
Click to expand...
 
Wrangor said:
Thanks. Reassuring to be honest as I have about 35-40 employees that would be completely screwed if the subsidies were pulled. We took them off our our bcbsms plan to move them to the exchange and we can't get our group rate back again.
Click to expand...

Ouch. That would suck. Im catching up on the internal shill briefings so if I see anything of note, I'll post. I got about 10 calls from brokers today saying "now what CHDeac"...

Even if this makes it to SCOTUS, I just don't see them overturning it.
 
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
- Pelosi

How's that working out?
 
I will be completely honest. At this point I do to want this to be what brings Obamacare down. I think it would get real messy for a lot if people who don't have the resources to deal with it.


I do find it very curious now that we are supposed to interpret intent into a law that was signed 5 years ago.

Couldn't we have just written the law correctly? At every turn this law is a mess. Part of being wise law makers is anticipating possible pitfall scenarios.
 
Yeah writing the law correctly would definitely fix a lot of things but this comes up all the time. Hell it comes up even in cases where nobody saw it coming at all (I.e. The statutory interpretation of "because of" in mixed motive employment cases).

At least were closer to the passage which theoretically should give more insight to the intent but I doubt it really helps.

This will be an interesting case.
 
Wrangor said:
I will be completely honest. At this point I do to want this to be what brings Obamacare down. I think it would get real messy for a lot if people who don't have the resources to deal with it.


I do find it very curious now that we are supposed to interpret intent into a law that was signed 5 years ago.

Couldn't we have just written the law correctly? At every turn this law is a mess. Part of being wise law makers is anticipating possible pitfall scenarios.
Click to expand...

It is very difficult to write a law giving free stuff to people who vote for the current regime (taking it from the people who don't vote for the current regime) while at the same time satisfying both crony capitalists and the welfare industry. Even if you write two thousand pages or so you have to lie and cheat so much and twist the meanings of so many words and phrases that even hordes of new grad staffers using computer boilerplate can't keep all of this straight. We are going to have to ram something else down the throats of the taxpayers in the middle of the night to preserve subsidies for your employees.
 
Here's a concise summary of the many problems pushing up US healthcare costs, the reasons why government-managed systems achieve similar outcomes at a drastically lower cost, and some of the reasons why the only way we're going to reduce healthcare costs here is through a greater government role in healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/

If we turn the question around and ask why healthcare costs so much less in other high-income countries, the answer nearly always points to a larger, stronger role for government. Governments usually eliminate much of the high administrative costs of insurance, obtain lower prices for inputs, and influence the mix of healthcare outputs by arranging for large supplies of primary-care physicians and hospital beds while keeping tight control on the number of specialist physicians and expensive technology. In the United States, the political system creates many “choke points” for diverse interest groups to block or modify government’s role in these areas.
Click to expand...

I'm sure a lot of you guys know more than this guy though so flame away.

VICTOR R. FUCHS is the Henry J. Kaiser Jr. Professor Emeritus in the Departments of Economics and Health Research and Policy at Stanford University.
Click to expand...
 
tjcmd said:
It is very difficult to write a law giving free stuff to people who vote for the current regime (taking it from the people who don't vote for the current regime) while at the same time satisfying both crony capitalists and the welfare industry. Even if you write two thousand pages or so you have to lie and cheat so much and twist the meanings of so many words and phrases that even hordes of new grad staffers using computer boilerplate can't keep all of this straight. We are going to have to ram something else down the throats of the taxpayers in the middle of the night to preserve subsidies for your employees.
Click to expand...

This would be a far more compelling story if this was actually what happened.
 
Deacon923 said:
Here's a concise summary of the many problems pushing up US healthcare costs, the reasons why government-managed systems achieve similar outcomes at a drastically lower cost, and some of the reasons why the only way we're going to reduce healthcare costs here is through a greater government role in healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/



I'm sure a lot of you guys know more than this guy though so flame away.
Click to expand...

We need to pick a side. We are straddling the fence right now and it is a pretty painful position.
 
Deacon923 said:
Here's a concise summary of the many problems pushing up US healthcare costs, the reasons why government-managed systems achieve similar outcomes at a drastically lower cost, and some of the reasons why the only way we're going to reduce healthcare costs here is through a greater government role in healthcare.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/
Click to expand...

And here is a summary of some reasons government health care based on force cannot be better in the long run than free people honestly and peacefully helping one another:

http://mises.org/daily/4434
 
Bottom line is that "free people" aren't going to help each other anywhere close to enough to support 300 million people in a health system.

That's fairy tale land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top