Supreme Court rules- INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS LEGAL, AND IS A TAX

[Mapper]

What could the markets, or we as a nation, possibly gain from denying access to necessary medical treatment?

Having an open market or "exchange" for service providers seems like a excellent way to harness the efficiency we get from marketplace competition. Furthermore a marketplace for services should encourage innovation as part of the competition for subscribers and subscriber dollars. The healthcare system is broken and now we have the opportunity to let the competitive market start fixing it.

As such, the equities component will depend on which companies can be successful at innovating and staying ahead of the curve. Some will rise some will fall. Picking a winner and ditching a loser will require research. What has become a bloated, stagnant industry will hopefully start showing signs of life.

Currently my car insurance companies are much more innovative, nimble and competitive than my health insurance companies. I'd like to see some change on the health front. Nothing disgusts me more than going to the open enrollment fair and seeing the ways companies try to outdo eachother by offering trinkets.

 

[SkyPilot]

Actually, they ruled that it is not a mandate, but rather a tax. And if people were exhausted, then of course no one would be participating in this discussion. Rather, it seems people are quite exercised.

Fortuneately, for the sake of the Affordable Care Act, this is just a technicality. The Individual Mandate was ruled Constitutional, no matter what the justfication by Roberts et al.

The only hope for those against the Act is to repeal. That is unlikely given the Senate, even if Romney wins. Once the provisions go into place, the rest of them, it will be extremely hard to undo. People are exhausted with this subject anyway.

 

[Birchtree]

It will all be history come December and the markets will rally on a sure thing.

 

[kam]

Actually, they ruled that it is not a mandate, but rather a tax. And if people were exhausted, then of course no one would be participating in this discussion. Rather, it seems people are quite exercised.

Four justices upheld the mandate under the Commerce clause. Roberts upheld the mandate as a tax. Nobody "ruled it a tax." (Maybe Fox news will.) Call it what you want, the only meaningful thing in the ruling is the outcome - the mandate is Constitutional.

For the life of me, I understand Tsptalk is about 80-20 Conservative-Liberal, but a) Obamacare is basically a Republican plan and b) Why do Republicans want to subsidize people who use our medical care system, that can afford health insurance themselves, with higher premiums and higher medical costs to themselves? Not to mention all of the other benefits about limiting admin costs by insurance companies, pre-existing conditions, etc. etc. Really, Obamacare was the only plan to help the "private" health insurance industry survive in the long term. Americans can no longer tolerate the continual rise in healthcare costs or not being able to get health insurance. It's a very pro-insurance plan.

As far as health insurance stock going down...great. Maybe they'll stop paying the CEO of United Healthcare, Bill McGuire, $124 million a year in salary, or the other 100 CEO's at United Healthcare can take a cut in their multi-million $ salaries and return some of that to the people paying premiums or shareholders.

 

[tsptalk]

www.beltwaytalk.com/forum.php