whether employers can be forced to provide insurance and whether they have to cover contraceptives will go back in front of the court; so rules the SCOTUS.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    The Liberty University case also is unique in that it was the only one where the appeals court decided it couldn’t even make a ruling, given that the provisions it was supposed to rule on hadn’t come into effect. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act precluded any rulings about the mandate’s constitutionality before the mandate actually took effect and individuals began paying penalties.

     

    The Supreme Court sided against that viewpoint. In its decision, the justices said that it was within the court’s power to rule on the health law now. That leaves Liberty wanting some answers on the provisions it challenged in court. The Obama administration also agreed that these issues should go back to the Fourth Circuit. Other courts are already hearing new challenges to the health care law, too.

     

    Liberty University doesn’t want to challenge the individual mandate; we already know what the Supreme Court thinks about that. But it does want are answers on two other provisions that it challenged: the mandate that employers provide insurance coverage and the requirement that contraceptives be covered. ”Petitioners’ remaining claims should be subject to adjudication by the lower courts,” Liberty University’s lawyers wrote in a July 2012 petition for re-hearing.

     

    The ever-helpful Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog, who has covered the Supreme Court for decades now, observes that this is a pretty rare move:

     

    Ordinarily, the Court simply denies rehearing pleas with routine orders. The other side in such a situation is not even allowed to react to the rehearing petition unless the Court explicitly asks it to do so. The Court held onto the Liberty rehearing plea over the summer — a period during which it routinely denied a host of other rehearing petitions, without comment. The Justices took up the Liberty plea at their September 24 Conference, resulting in Monday’s order asking the Obama Administration to file a response — within thirty days – with advice on what the Court should do with the Liberty case. While not signaling what the ultimate disposition might be, that was a sufficient break from the normal practice that it carried at least potential significance.

    It’s hard to know at this point what would happen if these two provisions of the health care law were overturned. Health policy experts don’t tend to consider the employer mandate as crucial to the health law’s success as the individual mandate. The vast majority of employers already provide insurance coverage, with no mandate at all.  but if ACA results in unsustainable cost this could trigger a drop of coverage for millions of people.

    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.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/26/scotus-opens-doors-to-a-new-obamacare-challenge/?print=1

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    bump

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    How will eliminating the mandate for employers to provide HC to employees affect it in your opinion?

    How will eliminating the employer pays for contraceptives mandate affect it?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "How will eliminating the mandate for employers to provide HC to employees affect it in your opinion?"

    How do you think?

    The less employers providing HC, the more people who have to try to buy through the exchanges. If they can't, they're stuck with the individual rate not a group bargained rate, and are thereby screwed. 

    "How will eliminating the employer pays for contraceptives mandate affect it?"

    The employer will pay for Viagra but not for birth control sometimes necessary for hormonal control.

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok but, if an employer is faced with one of two decisions because he cant stay in business and cover every employees HC so, he either cuts employees or stops providing healthcare; I think having a job with no HC is better than no job and no HC.

    I doubt many if any isurance policies (company provided or other) pay for sex enhancing drugs or ED drugs.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    How many businesses closed in Mass. because of Romneycare?

    And how isour unemployement doing compared to the national average? 

    Doh.

    [/QUOTE]


    So, whats good for Mass is automatically good for all other 49 states? geez yall really are federalist!

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, whats good for Mass is automatically good for all other 49 states? geez yall really are federalist!

    [/QUOTE]

    It's worth noting that many states/metro areas would love to have the overall quality of care and high levels of innovation that exist in greater Boston.  That measure of quality hasn't budged in the least since romneycare was signed into law and, if anything, has spread out further into the burbs.

    There is NO panacea in health care, however some basics - like getting paid - do indeed need to be smoothed out across the states.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    So, whats good for Mass is automatically good for all other 49 states? geez yall really are federalist!

    [/QUOTE]

    dupe

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    So, whats good for Mass is automatically good for all other 49 states?

    Always with the attempts at reframing and rewording.

    No, the point was simply that your doom and gloom predictions do not seem to have any tangible basis.

    [/QUOTE]

    Other than the CBO stating that costs will rise. That along with real concerns with longer waits doctor visits and less quality caresince with every other govt ru program the people and their money suffer!

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    What the CBO said was that overall healthcare costs will rise LESS under Obamacare than the status quo.
    Heh.

    [/QUOTE]


    If, that is what you think will happen then you are a lost cause.

    good day!

     

Share