Payments To Insurers Under Affordable Care Act Are Illegal

[untermensche]

If corporations had to live without government largess there would be none.

Capitalism is not a system that can function without massive government support.

Find one example where it has.

 

[SimpleDon]

If corporations had to live without government largess there would be none.

Capitalism is not a system that can function without massive government support.

Find one example where it has.

Of course capitalism can't exist without government support. Society can't exist without a government. Anarchy has a bad reputation for a reason. It can only work if there are changes in basic human nature.

 

[untermensche]

If corporations had to live without government largess there would be none.

Capitalism is not a system that can function without massive government support.

Find one example where it has.

Of course capitalism can't exist without government support. Society can't exist without a government. Anarchy has a bad reputation for a reason. It can only work if there are changes in basic human nature.

Anarchism is not anarchy.

Anarchism is about creating order. It is about a democratic order, not an oligarchy, which is just a form of dictatorship.

 

[Rhea]

yup, looks like it's time for universal health care.

huh?

The President illegally spends billions and...it's time for universal healthcare?

That's quite the non-sequitur.

What it's time for is Elizabeth Warren hauling him before congress and demanding his resignation.

Oh not at all. I'll lay it out, you follow along:

We had Private Heath Insurance. It sucked, many people died horribly. None of _us_ would have had access to it.
We added Medicare in 1965. Now (poor) old people didn't died horribly from things we are perfectly capable of treating. Life expectancy shot up!
We also added Medicaid because the question arose during Medicare's design, won't this cause a discussion about young (very) poor people dying unnecessarily and also becoming a burden on society from untreated illness and disease?
Some people still suffered, were harmed in their productivity and died unnecessarily.
People proposed universal Health care. A bunch of people roared that it was their own fault if they couldn't pay to stay healthy!
We decided that we were wholly uncomfortable with the idea of watching people die, and their children suffer because they couldn't afford to stay healthy.
In 1986 we passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and labor Act because we realized we were fucking monsters to let a pregnant lady die in childbirth for no reason, or a man with a severed finger just bleed to death for want of 15 stitches.
But we discovered this was costing us all a lot. Because our system set up the most expensive place to provide care: emergency rooms in emergency situations.
Already by this time most major insurance companies knew that preventive medicine saved a shit-ton of money, and offered many preventives and fitness incentives for free.
We try again on UHC. It gets shot down again.
So Obama tries to at least save some lives and some real money by getting that maintenance and preventive care to more people - the ones that _want_ it at least! ACA is imperfect and everyone who has escaped the grip of hyperbole realizes it's just a step on the way to something better.

Now we find that the opponents are saying, "look this plan has some flaws!"
Well we all know all the previous iterations were worse, and most of us predicted that a better system was known, we were just waiting for you to realize that private health insurance for basic care is expensive and inhumane.

So now that folks want to stop ACA from working, we can FINALLY give UHC it's ready run. It's efficient, it's humane, it's reliable.

Woot!

 

[Elixir]

Of course capitalism can't exist without government support. Society can't exist without a government. Anarchy has a bad reputation for a reason. It can only work if there are changes in basic human nature.

Anarchism is not anarchy.

Anarchism is about creating order. It is about a democratic order, not an oligarchy, which is just a form of dictatorship.

So, pie-in-the-sky, then?
I was an anarchist once... and will be again, as soon as somebody articulates an anarchist setup that can actually be attained. The anarchists I know today can't do that, and only say "you can;'t refer to an anarchist system because anarchism is LACK of system by definition". I can't get through to them that "lack of system" IS a system. Anything that applies to a population at large is a system.

 

[untermensche]

Anarchism is not anarchy.

Anarchism is about creating order. It is about a democratic order, not an oligarchy, which is just a form of dictatorship.

So, pie-in-the-sky, then?
I was an anarchist once... and will be again, as soon as somebody articulates an anarchist setup that can actually be attained. The anarchists I know today can't do that, and only say "you can;'t refer to an anarchist system because anarchism is LACK of system by definition". I can't get through to them that "lack of system" IS a system. Anything that applies to a population at large is a system.

Anarchism is at it's core merely an attitude.

It is the attitude that power, any power, has to prove it is legitimate.

If democratic power can easily replace top down dictatorial power then the dictatorial power is illegitimate.

Whether it is in the government or at work.

 

[Rhea]

Dome interesting reading..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4195078/

Reflections on the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid
Wilbur J. Cohen
Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:
Abstract
Wilbur J. Cohen has been a Professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin since 1980. He served as Chairman of President John F. Kennedy's Task Force on Health and Social Security (1960-61). Between 1961 and 1968, he served as Assistant Secretary, Under Secretary, and Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the only person ever to hold all three positions. He was one of the principal architects of Medicare and Medicaid and had primary responsibility for piloting the legislation through Congress, and for its initial implementation.

Summary
As I look back on the 45 years I worked on health policy issues, programs, and policies (1940-85) and, especially, the Medicare-Medicaid period (1950-68), I see the Medicare and Medicaid legislation of 1965 as part of a long-time process—a continuation from the past, a creation in a particular moment of time, an incremental evolution for the future. There have been some improvements since 1965, some setbacks, and some changes whose eventual impact is still unclear. We have learned much in the ensuing 20 years.12

I do not see the 1965 legislation in terms of good or bad, right or wrong, or in terms of an expanded or restricted role of the Federal Government. The Federal Government's intervention was necessary and desirable in 1965. It was not the only form that intervention could have taken. If the States had taken action during the period 1912-60, the roles of the Federal and State governments in health and medical care economics might have been different today. But individual States were unable to take up the opportunity in the face of the competitive costs to the employers in those States which enacted laws before others did. If the private insurance industry had supported specific proposals, which both the Republicans and Democrats offered during 1945-60, the current situation might be different. But they did not. They waited. They postponed action. They argued for delay. Time was running out.

Today, Medicare and Medicaid are part of a nationwide safety net. What their role will be in the future depends on many factors. But I am happy to have played a role in bringing these programs into being and giving a challenge to the health delivery sector of our economy to do better for present and future

 

[dismal]

I can't help but think that President Obama knew exactly what he was doing and was playing the long game. What are the Republicans going to do now? Take insurance away from people? Or allow a public option?

What does the "public option" solve?

The introduction of a party willing to lose unlimited amounts of money?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I can't help but think that President Obama knew exactly what he was doing and was playing the long game. What are the Republicans going to do now? Take insurance away from people? Or allow a public option?

What does the "public option" solve?

The introduction of a party willing to lose unlimited amounts of money?

Ya, health care expenses should operate at a loss. It's not something one should make a profit on.

 

[dismal]

What does the "public option" solve?

The introduction of a party willing to lose unlimited amounts of money?

Ya, health care expenses should operate at a loss. It's not something one should make a profit on.

Yeah, this is why the government should have a monopoly on food too. Logic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You're a weird country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I thought the courts had already come to this conclusion. Why is the GAO involved?

In any event, if the billions are repaid, it won't be coming out of President Obama's pocket. The insurance companies will presumab.y be on the hook.

No. They were acting in good faith on the word of the government, if the government tries to claw back the money they'll just get sued for the amount.

All this can do is kill the subsidies going forward.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Illegally gave insurers $Billions. With a B.

I can't wait to see Elizabeth Warren call Obama on the carpet and tell him to resign over this.

It is not a surprise. The ACA was a proposal originally from the libertarian Heritage Foundation with few changes. It goes without saying that it would be an untenable proposal, libertarians are delusional and don't concern themselves with the real world, only with a fantasy world of self-regulating free markets, invisible hands and benign, even beneficial anarchism.

The ACA is nothing like a Libertarian proposal.

The community option is the government or non-profit company run, community rate based entity which the private, for profit insurance admitted that they couldn't compete against without the provision in the ACA that outlawed them if more than one private company was in the exchange. And of course, without the government subsidy being paid to the private companies.

Which will render the insurance unaffordable for those in the lower income brackets.

We already have government run health insurance for the largest portion of the seriously ill in the country, Medicare and Medicaid. But even with these being taken out of the population that the private insurers would have to cover, they couldn't provide medical coverage at a low cost. Which is now as it always has been, easily predictable. Unless you are laboring under the same delusions that the libertarians and the other free marketers and market fundamentalists are.

Of course it can't be made cheap enough for the working poor. That's why the subsidies were put in the system in the first place!

 

[dismal]

It is not a surprise. The ACA was a proposal originally from the libertarian Heritage Foundation with few changes. It goes without saying that it would be an untenable proposal, libertarians are delusional and don't concern themselves with the real world, only with a fantasy world of self-regulating free markets, invisible hands and benign, even beneficial anarchism.

Yes, who can forget Obama and the Democrats selling it exactly this way before passing it on party line votes, and the peanut gallery here cheering them on because they wanted to see more libertarianism in our healthcare system.

Or, perhaps this is clumsy revisionism.

It's a tough call.

If only there were some way to go back and see what people were actually saying at the time it passed.

 

[dismal]

I thought the courts had already come to this conclusion. Why is the GAO involved?

In any event, if the billions are repaid, it won't be coming out of President Obama's pocket. The insurance companies will presumab.y be on the hook.

No. They were acting in good faith on the word of the government, if the government tries to claw back the money they'll just get sued for the amount.

All this can do is kill the subsidies going forward.

If the government illegally distributed money I would think the government is legally obligated to take steps to get it back.

The real question is what additional penalties should apply to the law breakers. Perhaps if they show no remorse and show limited interest in recovering the taxpayers funds the jail sentences should be increased.

Elizabeth Warren will sort this out when she calls them before congress, I'm sure.

 

[KeepTalking]

It is not a surprise. The ACA was a proposal originally from the libertarian Heritage Foundation with few changes. It goes without saying that it would be an untenable proposal, libertarians are delusional and don't concern themselves with the real world, only with a fantasy world of self-regulating free markets, invisible hands and benign, even beneficial anarchism.

Yes, who can forget Obama and the Democrats selling it exactly this way before passing it on party line votes, and the peanut gallery here cheering them on because they wanted to see more libertarianism in our healthcare system.

Or, perhaps this is clumsy revisionism.

It's a tough call.

If only there were some way to go back and see what people were actually saying at the time it passed.

Well, you are the one calling it revisionism, so I expect you will be back directly with posts from the archive showing exactly how revisionist we are all being. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. They were acting in good faith on the word of the government, if the government tries to claw back the money they'll just get sued for the amount.

All this can do is kill the subsidies going forward.

If the government illegally distributed money I would think the government is legally obligated to take steps to get it back.

The real question is what additional penalties should apply to the law breakers. Perhaps if they show no remorse and show limited interest in recovering the taxpayers funds the jail sentences should be increased.

Elizabeth Warren will sort this out when she calls them before congress, I'm sure.

You're utterly missing the point here.

The insurance companies took actions (selling policies) based on the government promise of those subsidies. If the government claws back the money they leave those insurance companies in a position to sue to recover the money they lost due to relying on the government.

If the government claws it back with one hand they'll just have to pay it (plus legal fees) out with the other.

 

[dismal]

If the government illegally distributed money I would think the government is legally obligated to take steps to get it back.

The real question is what additional penalties should apply to the law breakers. Perhaps if they show no remorse and show limited interest in recovering the taxpayers funds the jail sentences should be increased.

Elizabeth Warren will sort this out when she calls them before congress, I'm sure.

You're utterly missing the point here.

The insurance companies took actions (selling policies) based on the government promise of those subsidies. If the government claws back the money they leave those insurance companies in a position to sue to recover the money they lost due to relying on the government.

If the government claws it back with one hand they'll just have to pay it (plus legal fees) out with the other.

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers. If you illegally receive money that did not belong to you, I don't think you don't just get to keep it.

If they have some other gripe against the government for reneging on some deal they can pursue that elsewhere.

eta: speaking of which:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/299036-feds-move-to-throw-out-obamacare-lawsuits

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're utterly missing the point here.

The insurance companies took actions (selling policies) based on the government promise of those subsidies. If the government claws back the money they leave those insurance companies in a position to sue to recover the money they lost due to relying on the government.

If the government claws it back with one hand they'll just have to pay it (plus legal fees) out with the other.

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers. If you illegally receive money that did not belong to you, I don't think you don't just get to keep it.

If they have some other gripe against the government for reneging on some deal they can pursue that elsewhere.

eta: speaking of which:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/299036-feds-move-to-throw-out-obamacare-lawsuits

The point is the insurance companies aren't the ones in the wrong here and aren't going to lose out in the end.

You want to bring back the bad old days where the sick simply died.

 

[dismal]

The reality is that the CMS prioritized payments to insurance companies over payments to the US Treasury when the law gave it no authority to do so. This prioritization resulted in insurance companies getting money that legally belonged to the taxpayers. If you illegally receive money that did not belong to you, I don't think you don't just get to keep it.

If they have some other gripe against the government for reneging on some deal they can pursue that elsewhere.

eta: speaking of which:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/299036-feds-move-to-throw-out-obamacare-lawsuits

The point is the insurance companies aren't the ones in the wrong here and aren't going to lose out in the end.

You want to bring back the bad old days where the sick simply died.

No, they're not in the wrong for taking the money the government illegally gave them, but that doesn't mean it's OK for them to keep it.