You all remember the days when the Affordable Care Act was challenged in SCOTUS, and Chief Justice Roberts argued that the penalty was a tax, and therefore constitutional, right?
Well since then, Republicans, unable to repeal Obamacare outright, made the penalty zero. So now that the penalty is zero, Republicans are now arguing it’s no longer a tax, and therefore the individual mandate is an unconstitutional mandate, and the law should be repealed entirely.
The ACA supporters will argue that the mandate is severable, meaning SCOTUS could remove the mandate clause and leave the rest of the law in tact. But Republicans are like, “That’s how the fucking law was paid for. So you can’t fucking sever it.”
So basically SCOTUS is being asked to re-review this case in light of this new change.
With regards to severing the law, Congress reduced the tax to zero, but didn’t repeal the law. If they had the power to do one, they had the power to do the other. So the argument is then made that it must be severable, because if congress wanted the law to be repealed, they’d have repealed it, not reduced the tax to zero.
But the argument to that, is that congress didn’t have the votes or support for a full repeal, but by removing the tax, they’re hoping SCOTUS will nullify it, effectively trying to make SCOTUS the “bad guy” in all this shit.
At one point, Justice Kavanaugh asked:
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Are you aware of any other examples in the U.S. Code at least where Congress has enacted a true mandate, not something hortatory, but a true mandate with no penalties?
Essentially questioning the validity of such a law knowing there’s no other instance where congress forces you to buy something. Social Security is forced retirement income, but you don’t go out and buy it, government just takes it as a tax.
The reason this is Texas v. California, is because Texas challenged the law, and California and other states are defending it.
In a 7:2 decision, where Alito and Gorsuch dissented, SCOTUS ruled in favor of California. Texas may not sue California over this bullshit. Texas hasn’t shown in any way how they were harmed by California and company, and therefore they have no grounds to be suing here.
So, we all remember this monstrosity, the Affordable Care Act, also known colloquially as Obamacare, right?
Well, one of the piece of shit parts of this piece of shit law, was a Risk Corridor provision they added to insure the previously uninsurable. Listen to this bullshit. Are you ready?
They told insurance companies to insure these people, and they would reimburse them if they incurred losses. And they would get the money to reimburse them from companies who were making higher profits and not incurring such losses.
This was a scheme brought about because the government wanted all people insured, but the insurance companies rightly argued that these people who were previously deemed uninsurable have no data for us insuring them previously, for us to figure out a fair rate that covers them.
So the government basically told them, “do your best” on figuring out a rate, and if you lose money, we’ll reimburse you.
The plan was to give them three years to figure out a proper rate during this period, then the risk corridors would go away.
Here’s the rub. These idiots literally thought somehow that insurance companies would make as many profits to cover the losses from insuring people with pre-existing conditions, and other life-long medical needs. Because apparently, not one of these 538 assholes ever took a fucking math class.
Anyway, the insurance companies did what they were told, but then as usual, Congress was full of shit, and denied paying such claims, because “Surprise!” they didn’t recoup enough profits from other insurance companies to cover all these crazy high claims.
So now Maine Community Health Options (MCHO) is suing the Fed for what they’re owed, or the repeal of this stupid fucking law. May a god I don’t believe in be with them.
SCOTUS’ job is determine if the law passes constitutional muster since the government isn’t fulfilling their obligation, but yet expect these insurance companies to comply nonetheless, basically putting them in an untenable position.
At one point, Justice Roberts seemed to clearly grasp the idea that the government’s argument was a load of shit.
John G. Roberts, Jr.
I vaguely recall the government arguing on several occasions that unenacted bills are entitled to some weight in the interpretation process, but you don’t question that these insurance companies would not have participated in the risk corridor program but for the government’s promise to pay?
Edwin S. Kneedler
I — I don’t — well, it’s not about participating in the risk corridor program.
The question is they participated in the — in the marketplaces that were set up, the exchanges, and they had a number of business incentives.
This was a vast new market for customers, many of whom, 90 percent of whom would get tax subsidies.
John G. Roberts, Jr.
— customers who otherwise were largely uninsurable.
Edwin S. Kneedler
But they — but it was a mark —
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Well, that’s no great business opportunity for them.
Edwin S. Kneedler
Oh — oh, no, it — it is, because Congress provided tax credits to subsidize the — the — the persons who — who purchased insurance on the exchanges.
John G. Roberts, Jr.
No, it’s a good business opportunity for them because the government promised to pay.
If you’re wondering what the state’s argument in all this is, as near as I can tell, they’re saying that the duty to pay was contingent on a “subject to appropriations” clause. Meaning that in the law, it basically argues they’ll pay if any future congress of the time agrees to appropriate the funds.
So get this straight.
Government MANDATED private insurance companies do something on a promise to pay them later. But then congress said, “well, we’ll pay if we agree to, anyway.”
What the fuck is that?
Even Elena Kagan, who is often deemed a more left-leaning justice seemed to think it was ridiculous.
Mr. Kneedler—are insurers obligated to pay in if they have excess profits?
Edwin S. Kneedler
Yes, it is a user fee.
So this is one where the “shall pay in” is obligatory but the “shall pay out” on the part of the government is not obligatory?
Edwin S. Kneedler
The pay in is not subject to an appropriations question.
It is an obligation.
And that part of the arrangement, the reciprocity in the program still exists, the payments in and payments out, which is how I think most —
I mean, you pay in, that’s obligatory.
We commit ourselves to paying out.
It turns out if we feel like it. What — what kind of — what kind of a statute is that?
In an 8-1 decision, SCOTUS agreed with Maine Community Health Options. The government has to pay these insurance carriers the money they fucking owe them. And by government, it means you and I, the taxpayer, in case you weren’t aware.
Alito, the only dissenter argued that the majority’s opinion “infers a private right of action”, but that wasn’t in the law created by congress. I believe he may be on crack.
Much like oil, natural gas, and other industries with products we simply can’t often forego, insurance companies operate on a pretty thin profit-margin; on average about 3%. We know this because most are publicly held entities, and must report their earnings. While this seems to be too thin of a margin to be true, it is in large part due to these industries not being subjected to the whims of the market as much as others. They don’t need to build up money in the good times to survive the bad—their business is fairly constant.
For instance, jewelry sales, an industry with profit margins that are significantly higher, often tank in a bad economy—that diamond necklace can wait when times are tough. But, you still need gas and insurance no matter what the economic conditions are.
With that being said, if insurance companies could achieve higher profit margins, they owe it to their shareholders to do so. So why don’t they? The problem is that “pesky free-market capitalism.” If one company raises their rates and another doesn’t, the former better be offering something the latter doesn’t or while their profit margins may rise, their actual profits will sink like a mobster with cement shoes.
So now let’s look at the Affordable Care Act (ACA), because a coworker asked me if I was for or against the law.
First let me point out that I can’t say that I’m completely against the law, it’s 9,625 %$#@ pages, depending on how you count it! I don’t know one hundredth of what is in it. There could be 20 pages worth of things that literally say something to the effect of, “…and The Logical Libertarian blog is to receive a $100,000 monthly stipend” for all I know. In which case, my opinion has just evolved in light of new evidence.
But when I consider that the U.S. Constitution is only six pages long, and it’s a damn-effective framework for a whole country to operate from, I’m pretty comfortable in saying the ACA is probably the quintessential Rube Goldberg of legislation—massively overcomplicated.
However, as people complain about this law for various reasons, one thing that is often overlooked is the intent behind it.
Most of the people behind the ACA take issue with private health insurance companies. While it’s hard to paint a doctor as an uncaring jerk, it’s quite acceptable among the ignorant to attack those evil insurance companies; just watch Bob Beckel on FNC‘s The Five on any given day. The left have conditioned generations of people to forget that insurance companies are simply composed of people with equal unalienable rights as the rest of us, who offer you their money to buy a risk you cannot afford to take yourself. They are not a diabolical monolith hell-bent on draining your blood and back account in one fell swoop.
But here’s where the people behind this bill and their atrocious math come in. The ACA was aimed squarely at health insurance costs, not healthcare costs. Since insurance companies are operating on a 3% profit-margin, that means that for every $100 you spend on health insurance, $97 goes to the doctor, medical staff, and insurance company operating costs (something that will have increased, not decreased, to comply with new regulations), $3 goes to the health insurance company’s bank account.
Now lets imagine that this bill completely eradicated every single dollar of health insurance profit, your $100 health insurance bill would now be $97. I don’t know about you, but if I’m trying to reign in burgeoning costs of a bill that’s divided up 97:3, I think I’d focus my efforts on lowering the $97 portion before worrying about the $3 one.
So why didn’t they? I believe there are two issues at play.
Many lawmakers are lawyers by trade, including the president. Legal reforms such as limiting frivolous lawsuits, loser-pays legislation, or my proposal to indemnify people from punitive damages for immediate acceptance of liability (proposed in a previous post here) would severely reduce the income of the ambulance-chaser sub-species of legal counsel.
But if we consider the idea that a group of lawyers in Washington are going to pass reforms that would negatively affect the livelihoods of some of their former schoolmates, chances simply aren’t that good. There’s always going to be a sense of loyalty to their fellow law school alum, and sadly it seems to have overridden their oath of office and loyalty to their constituents. These proposed reforms are about justice for those who are being abused by a litigant using the court system as a method of intimidation and ill-gotten gains. There is no rational explanation to oppose them if justice is your goal.
If lowering health care costs isn’t important, just the health insurance costs, they could have opened up insurance markets to increase competition across state lines, dropped coverage requirements, etc., but they didn’t do this either. Capitalism has only been effective for hundreds of years, I’d link to think it has proven itself.
But this bill was passed by people who largely want socialized health care; something they know the populace isn’t willing to accept. They call it “single-payer” because they know “socialism” carries quite the stigma, but I refuse to allow them to rename poison to get me to swallow it.
These lawmakers are offended private health insurance companies even exist because they believe a right to life, and a right to health care are synonymous, and therefore a duty of government. I appreciate the altruism behind it, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.
The problem is that health care isn’t just a thing that exists in the world like food, air, and water that people can consume as needed. It is a service provided by someone who has spent large sums of money and eons of time on education in the field. One person does not, nor ever will have the right to the time and effort of another in a free country.
So if that’s true, and we agree doctors deserve to get paid, why am I against government paying them as a collective then? As cold as it may sound, if I was not physically responsible for you being in a wheelchair, I should not be financially responsible for your wheelchair.
If you want help—ask for it. If I can afford and desire to, I will—it’s called charity, and it’s abundant here. What shouldn’t happen is me being pilfered at the point of government’s gun.
Now that the website is failing, rates are going up, and people are losing their plans that Obama promised they wouldn’t, I think it’s fairly clear that mistakes were made and lies were told. The only way Obama wasn’t lying about being able to keep your plan is if he honestly didn’t know what was in the bill either. The new higher coverage-requirements literally guaranteed this would happen by law.
But maybe they were crazy like a fox all along. Because these policy drops and rate increases, while induced in their entirety by big government, will assuredly be blamed on the evil insurance companies, and then used to promote a healthcare system former Mother Russia would be proud of.
So as we complain about the failed website, the assaults on liberty, the tort reform that didn’t happen, the deregulation promoting competition that were left on the cutting-room floor, and the host of other issues with this law, lets not forget that even if it had been 100% effective, it would still have only lowered costs by a measly 3%, because there was nothing to address health care costs, only health insurance costs; proving once again that math, logic, & reason and big government liberalism are still perfect strangers.
log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action