A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Forbes ^ | 1/16/12 | R Ungar  -  Tuesday, January 17, 2012 8:26:26 AM · by Recovering_Democrat · 4 replies

A SCOTUS Ordered End To Health Insurance Mandates Means Big Trouble For GOP Presidential Candidate

Image via Wikipedia

Despite the bravado exhibited by the GOP presidential candidates—each angling to outdo the other when promising to enter the White House with guns ablazin’ for the Affordable Care Act—their rhetoric is fraught with some very real dangers to their party—not to mention the nation—when it comes to actually pulling the trigger.

While it may be de rigueur for conservatives to proclaim their hatred of Obamacare in its entirety, there is no getting around the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans very much like certain elements of the law – parts that Republicans would find themselves struggling to save should the Supreme Court strike down insurance mandates and the GOP succeed in taking control of both the legislative and executive branches of government.

Certainly, I acknowledge that a large number of Americans suffer from anxiety attacks when it comes to the costs of expanding Medicaid and the imposition of taxes on benefit-packed Cadillac insurance policies, just as I understand that many are highly allergic to the very mention of government telling us that we must buy a health insurance policy.

But I also know that when it comes to keeping our kids on our health insurance policies until they are 26 or finally being permitted to purchase health insurance on a community rated, guaranteed issue basis even if we suffer a pre-existing health problem, people feel very differently. Americans like these parts of Obamacare—and we aren’t going to be happy if we are required to give these benefits back.

Indeed, agreement on this topic is coming from some very surprising and unlikely places, beginning with the mega-conservative American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) health care policy expert —and devout Obamacare opponent—Joseph Antos.

I can’t see a Republican getting rid of guaranteed issue,” Antos said, referring to the provision that requires insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their medical history. “Certainly no Republican is going to change the provision that says children under 26 can sign on to their parents’ plans.” Via Politico

Joe’s statement provides me with the very rare opportunity to agree with an opinion emanating from the AEI —because he is absolutely right.

Americans are most assuredly not going to happily accept the idea of a GOP dominated government snatching away the availability of health insurance at a community rated price and a return to denying coverage to those who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. Yet, that is precisely what must happen should the Supreme Court strike down the individual mandate requirements of the ACA.

You simply cannot require an insurance company to sell policies to people with pre-existing conditions if there is no mandate requiring millions of healthy Americans to buy in as, to do so, would completely destabilize the insurance pools. As a rule of thumb, a functioning insurance model requires 80 percent of the pool to be healthy to support the cost of the 20 percent who get sick. Thus, requiring an insurer to sell policies to people more likely to get sick, without the requirement that healthy people participate, will necessarily cause the insurance pools to fail, leaving health insurance companies to flee the business even faster than their inevitable exit due to their business model no longer being viable.

While the public has been slow to grasp the inescapable connection between the private insurance mandates and making coverage available to all, including those who have had illness in their past, the inability or unwillingness to grasp this truth does not diminish the reality that you simply cannot have one without the other —unless you are prepared to replace our current model with a universal, single-payer health care system.

Like it or not, those are the choices —and the only choices.

Thus, while Republican candidates may bask in the political opportunity presented by the vilification of Obamacare as they wave their pom-poms in support of SCOTUS’ opportunity to rid the land of this blight, should the Supreme Court answer their prayers, a Republican president with a Republican controlled legislative branch wll instantly find himself in some very hot water with the people who sent them to Washington to destroy Obamacare.

Oh…the irony.

So here is a thought — if you are one of the many Americans who favors the idea of guaranteed issue at fair prices yet despise the government’s requiring you to buy the insurance coverage that is necessary to make it all possible, consider asking your friendly, local GOP presidential candidate how he can support the death of the insurance mandates and still deliver on giving Americans those parts of Obamacare that they like.

I know I’ll be anxiously awaiting the answer – and so should you as you are likely to discover that you should be much more careful with what you wish for.

Supreme Court Allows New Plaintiffs in Health Care Law Challenge

Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:39:08 PM · by maddog55 · 2 replies

Fox News ^ | January 17, 2012 | Shannon Bream

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the addition of two new business owners to a suit challenging the health care law that was in question because one of the original business owners attached to the case has gone bankrupt. Supporters of President Obama’s health care law argued that her bankruptcy made Mary Brown ineligible to continue on as a plaintiff, suggesting the entire case could fall apart because of a lack of standing. Other business owners were attached to the case, but the Justice Department would not stipulate that they met the standards for establishing standing in this case.

h/t to MJ