General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHealth Insurers: We'll Push to Deny Coverage for Pre-Exisiting Conditions if Idiv.Mandate Overturned
Health insurers and supporters of the Obama administrations health-care reform law are currently in the midst of drawing up possible contingency plans in case the Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Acts individual mandate.
The insurance industry argues that premiums are likely to skyrocket without the individual mandate in place to aid in pushing millions of new enrollees into the marketplace, as healthy people will be less likely to buy insurance, while insurers will still be required to sell policies to all applicants. In fact, a repeal of the individual mandate would increase insurance premiums by 25 percent, according to a study released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The insurance reforms would have to change if the mandate were struck, said Justine Handelman, vice president of legislative and regulatory policy for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association trade group.
Health-insurance officials say that if the mandate is repealed, their first priority would be persuading members of Congress to repeal two of the laws major insurance changes: a requirement to cover everyone regardless of his or her medical history, and limits on how much insurers can vary premiums based on age. Their next step would be to set rewards for people who purchase insurance voluntarily and sanction those who dont.
continue reading at: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/19/447157/health-insurers-well-deny-coverage-for-pre-existing-conditions-if-health-mandate-is-repealed/
Gman
(24,780 posts)The SCOTUS decision is a coin flip. Between Roberts, a corporate lawyer and Scalia, who likes to stir the pot, and Kenedy who actually has been known to think in occasion, I tend to think they'll uphold it.
RyanPsych
(402 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)because the insurance companies want the mandate. Without it they are forced to cover people who wait until they need insurance to buy insurance.
As the article says, they will need to pass a new law which repeals those two portions of the reform. This seems unlikely to me. I don't see how they get 60 in the Senate and I doubt Pres. Obama (assuming he wins a second term) signs it even if they did.
If we assume that the mandate is overturned as a stand alone clause and no law can be passed and signed to repeal those portions of the reform then where are we?
The insurance companies will want some kind of waiting period between when people purchase insurance and when they can start to be payed benefits. Evan that doesn't solve their problem and again there is no guarantee it will be passed.
I think once the insurance companies are properly screwed then they will demand that "Big Government" steps in to cover these people and their lapdog (R)s will take up the cause. IMO this is the only viable path to the public option that we should have had in the first place. It is going to take some doing to get there but the possibility still exists.