Posted in Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Medical Costs, News From Washington, DC & Related Shenanigans, Policy Issues, Risk Adjustment, Risk Corridors, Rule of Law, Uncategorized

Justices grapple with multibillion-dollar ObamaCare case | TheHill

Several of the arguments in this case have credence on their face for different reasons.

There is the idea of an agreement or contract: “I do this, if you do that.” One should not break a contract carelessly.

Or, the “fairness” argument where one side seems to want to change the rules after the game started; that doesn’t seem right.

And, then there’s the constitutional rule of law argument: Congress holds the power of the purse when it comes to public monies. Enough said.

Bottom line…and in a different case, Qliance found this out the hard way…when you get in bed with the gov’t, expect to get screwed!

Forum for Healthcare Freedom

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/473895-justices-grapple-with-multibillion-dollar-obamacare-case

Posted in Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Federal Exchanges, Health Insurance, Insurance subsidies, Medical Costs, Policy Issues, Rule of Law, State-Run Insurance Exchanges, Subsidies, U.S. Constitution

King vs Burwell: Even Wrong-Headed Decisions Can Have an Upside | Robert Nelson, MD | LinkedIn

The Supreme Court’s ruling in King vs Burwell has some parallels to PPACA in general and the subsequent ruling 5D3_0034on the individual mandate “penalty vs tax” issue in 2012, in the way in which it may influence policy decisions downstream.  In the case of the 2012 ruling, Judge Roberts really provided us with two legal choices: obtain the kind of coverage the government deems appropriate OR pay penalty (I mean tax).  

The K v B ruling, albeit another judicially illogical head-scratcher from Chief Justice Roberts, does not create any political emergencies or policy conundrums which could lead to the adoption of hasty “remedies”; remedies that would even be harder to undo when they miss their mark.  For this small positive, those of us that favor Insurance market-friendly public policy alternatives to PPACA can be grateful.  

via King vs Burwell: Even Wrong-Headed Decisions Can Have an Upside | Robert Nelson, MD | LinkedIn.

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Federal Exchanges, Health Insurance, Insurance subsidies, State-Run Insurance Exchanges, Subsidies

SCOTUS Rulings: a twitter poll would be quicker and just as meaningful | Robert Nelson, MD | LinkedIn

5D3_0034
Robert Nelson, MD

As noted by Justice Antonin Scalia in a scathing dissent, the Court rules that the term “established by the State,” which appears seven times in the statute, can also mean “not established by the State.”

For those of us opposed to the economic catastrophe that is PPACA, this ruling may be a blessing in disguise.  More tomorrow on the intended and unintended consequences of the SCOTUS ruling.

But for starters, here is something to think about. We now know (per Gruber and many others) the portion of the law that ties subsidies to formation of State Exchange was intentional and DEFINITELY NOT an oversight as Judge Roberts as other apologists for PPACA would have us believe – leaving him “no choice” but to intervene in order to prevent chaos…. as if there was no other financial option besides the subsidies as prescribed and ineptly administered by the ObamaCare mandate.

via SCOTUS Rulings: a twitter poll would be quicker and just as meaningful | Robert Nelson, MD | LinkedIn.

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Economic Issues, Federal Exchanges, Free Society, Health Insurance, Individual Mandate, Medical Costs, Policy Issues, Rule of Law, State-Run Insurance Exchanges, Subsidies, U.S. Constitution

Supreme Court Resigns Duties, Tortures English Language to Save Obamacare – Hit & Run : Reason.com

Certainly, reasonable people can disagree about whether Obamacare is, on balance, a good law, and improves upon the dreadful state of the U.S. healthcare regime. But it’s vexing to see so many liberals cheering the utter death of the Court’s ability to rebuke lawmakers when they put forth nonsensical laws. Roberts’ decision gives a lot more power to Congress, obligating the Court to ignore the plain text of laws “if at all possible.”

Well, anything is possible. Is the preservation of limited government so universally unimportant—and the protection of Obamacare so paramount—that it was worth the utter subjugation of the Court (hereafter known as the Legislative Subcommittee on Wording Tweaks) to the will of Congress?

via Supreme Court Resigns Duties, Tortures English Language to Save Obamacare – Hit & Run : Reason.com.