HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SCOTUS opens door to a ne...

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:56 PM

SCOTUS opens door to a new Obamacare challenge

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/26/scotus-opens-doors-to-a-new-obamacare-challenge/

Itís hard to know at this point what would happen if these two provisions of the health care law were overturned. Health policy experts donít tend to consider the employer mandate as crucial to the health lawís success as the individual mandate. The vast majority of employers already provide insurance coverage, with no mandate at all.

If the mandate were to fall and employers were not to provide coverage, workers could potentially head to an insurance exchange and purchase coverage there, some with subsidies. Research suggests this coverage would end up costing employees more, but the option would still be there.

My thoughts: What if the Employer mandate falls, but the individual mandate remains in place? Might this actually open a path away from employer based health insurance and towards a system that is independent of employers and employment status? Might this even eventually force us to create an affordable health insurance plan that all could buy. You know, like Medicare?



8 replies, 950 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply SCOTUS opens door to a new Obamacare challenge (Original post)
Kber Nov 2012 OP
SoCalDem Nov 2012 #1
Lionessa Nov 2012 #2
glacierbay Nov 2012 #3
Kber Nov 2012 #4
glacierbay Nov 2012 #5
Lionessa Nov 2012 #7
bluestate10 Nov 2012 #6
Lionessa Nov 2012 #8

Response to Kber (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:07 PM

1. The ONLY way we EVER get to single-payer/universal healthcare is for employers to be OUT of it

completely.

As long as SOME (lucky?) people have employer-assisted health insurance, there can never be a truly single payer/universal plan.

The upper-middles will jealously guard their own , and will never truly back a fairer more comprehensive system until they also lose theirs.

The odd thing is that if people got the money their employers say they pay on their behalf (as pay raises), and everyone was in the same HUGE insurance pool, the cost WOULD go down..

As long as we have a raggedy patchwork, nothing gets better

Look at what we have now:

VA
Medicare
Medicaid
Charity
COBRA(have insurance in exchange for your unemployment check & borrowed money)
Diamond-studded coverage for some
NOTHING for some
Pay-premiums-get-little-or-nothing-plans for many (most?)
Get Sick and Die Plans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kber (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:12 PM

2. If the mandate is the only thing overturned, which I've been told

 

though I do question it, then it supposedly leads the way directly to single-payer options through taxes.

I think since we still have Obama in the WH and a Dem Senate, that is potentially pretty likely that a relatively positive thing can come from an overturned mandate, rather than if Repubs held the same making it more likely Obamacare as a whole would be scrapped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lionessa (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:16 PM

3. But you would still have to get it passed a Repug. controlled House

 

and I really don't see that happening, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:30 PM

4. That's a good point

I might see overturning the Employer mandate as a path to single payer and I'm all for decoupling employment from health care. However, I think there will be significant pain along the way.

Not sure how I feel about this in general, except for a strong desire to see employers out of the health insurance / health care business completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kber (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:34 PM

5. I fully agree with you

 

get the employers out of the health care business and hopefully take back the House in 2014 and then pass single payer.
Sounds good to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:05 PM

7. More so now than if Rmoney had won or Repubs had mantained

 

all their seats or gained more. The opposite occurred so I am ... oh dare I say it..... hopeful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kber (Original post)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 01:43 PM

6. This case covers a narrow aspect of the ACA.

The case by Liberty University challenges the contraceptive coverage portion of the law. The US catholic church has a similar challenge. If you remember the ruling last summer, the court threw out some challenges to parts of the ACA because the plaintiffs could not show that they had been harmed because the particular part of the law had not been applied. This case is somewhat unique in that it seems to weigh a demand by an employer that it not offer contraceptive coverage against the right of an employee to have that type of coverage in an insurance plan. The case could end up encompassing several amendments of the Constitution. Liberty and the catholic bishops may have to show that their failure to provide contraceptives coverage as part of a broader health care plan does not place undue financial and time stress on employees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestate10 (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:07 PM

8. Actually reading the article at Reuters,

 

(I haven't read this WP article yet, assuming it's similar)

the mandate is what is on the table, not the contraceptive aspect. I understand your inclination to look at it that way, as I did when I saw the headline at Reuters, but upon full reading, the issue they are contesting and have tried to contest in the past is the mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread