Countdown to the 5-4 decision announcement

[garbon]

Yes! Victory for America!

Yes, victory for America. We're one step closer to leaving barbarism behind and joining the enlightened European model when it comes to healthcare.

Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget.  They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.

And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.

[Grey Fox]

Man, you americans are weird, sometime.

[merithyn]

Yeah, but not everybody gets tax returns.

My understanding on how this will work is that having insurance will be considered a tax break. So, on your tax returns, you'll include whether you have health insurance, and if so, an amount will be taken off your taxable income. If not, it stays on. So, it becomes an aspect of your tax return whether you get a return or not.

If that's not how it's set up, it sure oughta be that way. 

[stjaba]

SCOTUS blog disagrees

Lyle:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

Can you think of any other social welfare laws, enacted or proposed, that requires all US citizens to purchase privately provided goods or services? Me neither.

Just because a case is politically important does not necessarily it will be legally important. Bush v. Gore is the most famous example of this. Like Bush v. Gore, this case(at least the commerce clause aspect of it) is fairly unique.

[ulmont]

SCOTUS blog disagrees

Lyle:
The rejection of the Commerce Clause and Nec. and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

I'm not convinced.  Social welfare can in general be done through the Spending Clause, rather than Commerce.

[katmai]

Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.

The dissent of the other blogger was not yet written when I posted that.

Don't make me send garbon after you, he'll cut your face.

[merithyn]

Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget.  They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.

And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.

Better lesser treatments than none. Better access to a GP at all rather than visits to ERs.

You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all. However, for the millions of people with no medical coverage whatsoever and no possibility of getting it due to pre-existing conditions, this is an amazing win.

[Valmy]

Oh yes. I particularly liked when we ran interview in Britain when we came across individuals suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis but they couldn't go on biologics as their GP has "used up" his budget.  They were told that as soon as someone went off it, then they'd be able to.

And the general lack of knowledge patients seemed to have about medications meaning that they'd be kept on less effective treatments because 1) they didn't know about them and b) their physicians didn't think they were cost effective.

Heh.  You do not have to look hard to find shitloads of horror stories coming out of our system as well.

But even if this thing goes forward it is not like we are going to get their system and even if we did Britain still has a private sector that will take your insurance.  It is not like you HAVE to use the NHS right?

[derspiess]

You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all.

Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?

[garbon]

Better lesser treatments than none. Better access to a GP at all rather than visits to ERs.

You're viewing this from the perspective of an insured individual who has private insurance. Nothing will change for you in regards to your medical care for some time, if it does at all. However, for the millions of people with no medical coverage whatsoever and no possibility of getting it due to pre-existing conditions, this is an amazing win.

Except that you said one step closer which implies that you'd like us to continue morphing into a Euro-style healthcare system.

I completely agree that this is a win for America and a win for all of those without insurance (especially because the mandate was kept intact - would have been terrible if that was the only part thrown out!). That doesn't mean though that I'd like to see the sort of further change you hinted at.

Oh and no, their lesser medications in the cases I was discussing were almost the equivalent of doing nothing. They were in constant pain (though no big surprise there with RA) and their disease was rapidly progressing.

[Valmy]

Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?

Heh well to be fair it was monstrously expensive, with constantly skyrocketing costs, anyway.  This whole thing strikes me as debating furiously over the arrangement of deck chairs on the titanic.

[garbon]

Tim we all can agree you are a fucking idiot, that isn't the opinion of the blog but one of the bloggers, which by the way others disagree with.

The dissent of the other blogger was not yet written when I posted that.

Don't make me send garbon after you, he'll cut your face.

What incentive do I have to fight your battes?

[Faeelin]

Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/images/HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg

[Valmy]

Is this like a Marbury moment for Roberts?  Did he concede this one case to his opponents to win the legal precedent he needed?  I am just a layman so forgive the perhaps clumsy legal analogy.

[merithyn]

Oh, so you mean it's not going to get more expensive-- like it already has?

I saw on the news this morning that insurance costs have risen 9% since 2011. Only 1-2% could be blamed on the Healthcare Reform Bill. I work directly with insuring the uninsurable through the Federal Program set up to help them. Their premium costs are significantly more than average; no one is getting a free ride with this program, I assure you. And most importantly, one of the biggest changes will be that it will be federally mandated that at least 70% of all premiums go directly toward healthcare costs. Those are significant changes that will help defray any additional costs to insurance. Yes, costs will go up, but my best guess is that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to raise premiums, but it won't be NECESSARY for them to do so.

Except that you said one step closer which implies that you'd like us to continue morphing into a Euro-style healthcare system.

I completely agree that this is a win for America and a win for all of those without insurance (especially because the mandate was kept intact - would have been terrible if that was the only part thrown out!). That doesn't mean though that I'd like to see the sort of further change you hinted at.

Oh and no, their lesser medications in the cases I was discussing were almost the equivalent of doing nothing. They were in constant pain (though no big surprise there with RA) and their disease was rapidly progressing.

Oh, no, I meant that there is still a chance at Congress could find a way to get rid of it. I don't expect much to really change beyond where things are now for quite a long while.