SCOTUS Ruling: a set back for Obama Care

[TGHusker]

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other privately held companies that those companies cannot be forced to pay for abortion/contraceptive type services via their health care plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

 

Will lawsuits like this eventually lead to the effectual overturn of the ACA? Does this open the door for a complete re-write of the law under a Repub Congress/President?

[LukeinNE]

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other privately held companies that those companies cannot be forced to pay for abortion/contraceptive type services via their health care plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

 

Will lawsuits like this eventually lead to the effectual overturn of the ACA? Does this open the door for a complete re-write of the law under a Repub Congress/President?

 

1. No.

 

2. That was already on the table, though I think conservatives will be disappointed when large swaths of the law are retained.

[TGHusker]

 

Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and other privately held companies that those companies cannot be forced to pay for abortion/contraceptive type services via their health care plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hobby-lobby-wins-contraceptive-ruling-supreme-court/story?id=24364311

 

Will lawsuits like this eventually lead to the effectual overturn of the ACA? Does this open the door for a complete re-write of the law under a Repub Congress/President?

 

1. No.

 

2. That was already on the table, though I think conservatives will be disappointed when large swaths of the law are retained.

 

I do think any re-write will retain large portions of the bill. By the time the repubs do anything on it (crickets) the law will be so entrenched it will be difficult to go back to a purely market driven plan.

[LukeinNE]

I do think any re-write will retain large portions of the bill. By the time the repubs do anything on it (crickets) the law will be so entrenched it will be difficult to go back to a purely market driven plan.

 

 

 

From a purely tactical perspective "entrenchment" (i.e. lower income folks getting deeply discounted coverage, people with pre-conditions getting covered) is what makes full repeal impossible. These popular aspects are impossible to remove. The law has plenty of weaknesses politically (mandates, price discrimination against men, the young, and healthy), but a lot of that is tied together. E.G. John Smith, 25, now has to pay 50% more for his health insurance, but that extra premium goes to subsidize cancer patient Jane Brown's coverage, and so on. I like to think of it as a big Jenga game with red (bad) and green (good) pieces. Republicans will have to figure out which red pieces can be removed without bringing the whole thing down. Considering the risks involved, I'm betting they'll err on the side of caution.

[knapplc]

Universal healthcare isn't going away. Now that people have a taste for it, removing someone's coverage isn't going to win whichever party swings the axe any friends. For all the GOP's bluster about repealing Obamacare, they'll live to regret it if they do, in fact, get it repealed or neutered. The mantra "repeal and replace" is a farce, and the instant they don't have a replacement ready to implement, they can start kissing votes goodbye.

 

Of course, that's not to say Obamacare is a great thing. The biggest blunder with Obamacare is that it keeps the onus on employers to provide health insurance. The sooner we get employers out of the loop and move to a single-payer system the better - for the insured and for employers.

[carlfense]

And now we have religious corporations. The Christ would be so proud.

[LukeinNE]

Of course, that's not to say Obamacare is a great thing. The biggest blunder with Obamacare is that it keeps the onus on employers to provide health insurance. The sooner we get employers out of the loop and move to a single-payer system the better - for the insured and for employers.

 

Coming from a more conservative perspective, I think perhaps a good final solution would involve something like:

 

-A tax-funded basic plan that covers basic preventative things, but has a fairly high deductible, say $5,000 individually, $10,000 for a family

-Supplementary private insurance for those that want it. Subsidies available for poor people.

-Tax-free health savings accounts that don't expire at year's end. Allow people to park as much as....idk 150% of their annual deductible and co-pays in there.

-Heathcare delivery centers remain in private hands.

 

The Medicare system could be used as the platform. Get rid of Medicaid and the VA. Unnecessary bureaucracy that do terrible jobs anyway.

[carlfense]

(and no. These lawsuits won't end the ACA. It's here to stay folks. Suggestions as to how to improve it are welcome.)

[TGHusker]

Universal healthcare isn't going away. Now that people have a taste for it, removing someone's coverage isn't going to win whichever party swings the axe any friends. For all the GOP's bluster about repealing Obamacare, they'll live to regret it if they do, in fact, get it repealed or neutered. The mantra "repeal and replace" is a farce, and the instant they don't have a replacement ready to implement, they can start kissing votes goodbye.

 

Of course, that's not to say Obamacare is a great thing. The biggest blunder with Obamacare is that it keeps the onus on employers to provide health insurance. The sooner we get employers out of the loop and move to a single-payer system the better - for the insured and for employers.

Knapp, how do you see a single payer system work - will it just be a gov't program - taxes in & payments to providers out - will it involve direct gov't payments to insurance companies?? Does it mean that individuals select only the coverage they want with the insurance company they want but govt mandated that you have basic coverage (kind of like Home Owners or Car insurance - the gov't mandates that we have liability insurance for our cars and the banks require homeowner insurance. - but we pick the insurance company and any extra coverages). What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

[knapplc]

 

Universal healthcare isn't going away. Now that people have a taste for it, removing someone's coverage isn't going to win whichever party swings the axe any friends. For all the GOP's bluster about repealing Obamacare, they'll live to regret it if they do, in fact, get it repealed or neutered. The mantra "repeal and replace" is a farce, and the instant they don't have a replacement ready to implement, they can start kissing votes goodbye.

 

Of course, that's not to say Obamacare is a great thing. The biggest blunder with Obamacare is that it keeps the onus on employers to provide health insurance. The sooner we get employers out of the loop and move to a single-payer system the better - for the insured and for employers.

Knapp, how do you see a single payer system work - will it just be a gov't program - taxes in & payments to providers out - will it involve direct gov't payments to insurance companies?? Does it mean that individuals select only the coverage they want with the insurance company they want but govt mandated that you have basic coverage (kind of like Home Owners or Car insurance - the gov't mandates that we have liability insurance for our cars and the banks require homeowner insurance. - but we pick the insurance company and any extra coverages). What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

I haven't the faintest idea what these idiots would enact. My guess? The worst combination of the above, with a dash of disfunctionality thrown in to spice things up.

[carlfense]

Pretty much a perfect microcosm of the ACA debate:

It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.

http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them

[Junior]

Pretty much a perfect microcosm of the ACA debate:

It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.

http://www.reddirtreport.com/prairie-opinions/hobby-lobby-provided-emergency-contraceptives-they-opposed-them

 

 

And better yet:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

 

Remarkably, the contraceptive devices and products that so offend the religious beliefs of this family are manufactured by the very companies in which Hobby Lobby holds a substantial stake via their employee 401(k) plan.

[tschu]

What do you think single-payer would look like in a practical sense?

 

 

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

[LukeinNE]

Look at essentially any other first-world country that exists in the world today, and there's your answer.

 

There is a lot of variety in other health care systems, ranging from being government-owned top to bottom (Britain's NHS), to Switzerland or Germany with their public/private hybrid insurance systems and largely private health care providers.

The US is completely idiotic when it comes to healthcare, and most of our country seems to either not care or actively wants to keep it that way. Maybe that's because our educational system sucks as well?

 

The knock on our education system is uncalled for, the vast majority of it stands up just fine to the rest of the world. As for our health care system, it's a mess, but it actually works pretty well for most people and people tend to oppose change to things they like.

[tschu]

A health care system shouldn't work well for "most people"

 

It should work well for ALL PEOPLE. Obamacare is a step, but it isn't the answer.

 

And the reason that most people liked the existing system was because they were on the good side of it. That doesn't mean that we leave the 20% of people who couldn't get or couldn't afford coverage out to the wolves. But hey, 80% of people liked it!