I was sent this article by someone I was arguing with on Twitter (at least for a while--after perusing her feed, I decided I didn't want to waste any more of my valuable time on her), trying to convince me that the recent, hysterically-reported spate of insurance company cancellations is evidence of some Kenyan Muslim conspiracy. Or something.
 
This paragraph in the article struck me right away.
 
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules.
 
(snip)
 
Health insurance experts say new prices will vary and much depends on where a person lives, their age and the type of policy they decide to buy.  Some, including young people and those with skimpy or high-deductible plans, may see an increase. Others, including those with health problems or who buy coverage with higher deductibles than they have now, may see lower premiums.
 
Which would be the case with any insurance--it's called a "risk pool." Younger, healthier people do end up subsidizing older, sicker people. (Also, the important words here are "skimpy" and "high deductible." In other words, crappy insurance to start with, that usually won't pay just when you really need it.) That's how insurance works--just like the yearly premiums you pay on your car, home or renter's insurance, if you don't file any claims that year, subsidizes the people who do file claims.
 
I know everybody (egged on by Fox News) is up in arms over this right now. But if overall most people come out with a better deal (and who we're really talking about here are the 14 million Americans, roughly 5% of the population, who purchase individual policies)...what, pray tell, are you bitching about?



 
I thought for sure I'd have five (or more) Asshats of the Day after the Supreme Court ruling came down, with the possibility of creating an entirely new category to fit--maybe AssClownCanoe, or some such.

Instead, to my surprise and delight (and I'm sure to the President's immense relief; I can just imagine he and his advisors grappling how to wrestle with this issue during his reelection campaign if Obamacare was struck down) the ACA was largely upheld.

Still, I can't shake the feeling we got this win by the skin of John Roberts' chinny chin chin. Apparently the four dissenters--Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy--were prepared not only to strike the individual mandate but get rid of the law lock, stock, and barrel. According to the wonderful Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow's blog:

And yet, as of this morning, four justices -- Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas -- insisted on doing exactly that. The four dissenters demanded that the Supreme Court effectively throw out the entirety of the law -- the mandate, the consumer protections, the tax cuts, the subsidies, the benefits.

To reach this conclusion, these four not only had to reject a century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they also had ignore the Necessary and Proper clause, and Congress' taxation power. I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way.


In other words, this time around (too bad he didn't think this way when it came to Citizens United) Roberts wasn't quite willing to let the barbarians storm the gate. 

There's also a few thoughts that the dissent was originally the majority opinion, later edited to reflect Justice Roberts' last-minute change of heart. 

Whatever. However it shakes out, I'll take it. But the whole thing serves as a dire warning to any remaining undecided voters. What would just one more justice in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Thomas (appointed by President Romney) have done  to this legislation, nevermind Roe v. Wade or any other important constitutional question? 

That notion should give any thinking person the shivers. 

I thought for sure I'd have five (or more) Asshats of the Day after the Supreme Court ruling came down, with the possibility of creating an entirely new category to fit--maybe AssClownCanoe, or some such.

Instead, to my surprise and delight (and I'm sure to the President's immense relief; I can just imagine he and his advisors grappling how to wrestle with this issue during his reelection campaign if Obamacare was struck down) the ACA was largely upheld.

Still, I can't shake the feeling we got this win by the skin of John Roberts' chinny chin chin. Apparently the four dissenters--Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy--were prepared not only to strike the individual mandate but get rid of the law lock, stock, and barrel. According to the wonderful Steve Benen on Rachel Maddow's blog:

And yet, as of this morning, four justices -- Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas -- insisted on doing exactly that. The four dissenters demanded that the Supreme Court effectively throw out the entirety of the law -- the mandate, the consumer protections, the tax cuts, the subsidies, the benefits.

To reach this conclusion, these four not only had to reject a century of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, they also had ignore the Necessary and Proper clause, and Congress' taxation power. I can't read Chief Justice John Roberts' mind, but it wouldn't surprise me if the extremism of the four dissenters effectively forced him to break ranks -- had Kennedy been willing to strike down the mandate while leaving the rest of the law intact, this may well have been a 5-4 ruling the other way.


In other words, this time around (too bad he didn't think this way when it came to Citizens United) Roberts wasn't quite willing to let the barbarians storm the gate. 

There's also a few thoughts that the dissent was originally the majority opinion, later edited to reflect Justice Roberts' last-minute change of heart. 

Whatever. However it shakes out, I'll take it. But the whole thing serves as a dire warning to any remaining undecided voters. What would just one more justice in the mold of Scalia, Alito and Thomas (appointed by President Romney) have done  to this legislation, nevermind Roe v. Wade or any other important constitutional question? 

That notion should give any thinking person the shivers. 

November 2020

M T W T F S S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 29
30      

Words To Live By

There is no frigate like a book to take us lands away. ~Emily Dickinson

Being a writer is a very peculiar sort of a job: it’s always you versus a blank sheet of paper (or a blank screen) and quite often the blank piece of paper wins. ~Neil Gaiman

Of course I am not worried about intimidating men. The type of man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the type of man I have no interest in. ~Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

The road to hell is paved with adverbs. ~Stephen King

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. ~Mark Twain

I feel free and strong. If I were not a reader of books I could not feel this way. ~Walter Tevis

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one. ~George R.R. Martin

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Page generated Jun. 16th, 2025 02:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios