ABA Journal

A lawsuit there well may be, but I doubt it will be free for anyone.

By B. McLeod on 2010 03 22, 8:51 am CDT

The state attorneys general and governors supporting this tomfoolery well know it will be futile.  But they want their aggressive support on the record for when they run for re-election.  This is just about politics, not righteous outrage.

By AndytheLawyer on 2010 03 22, 8:58 am CDT

Legal theatre with little substance.  I can’t wait to read the complaints.  Odds are these suits and resolutions will go nowhere.  Fun to watch.

-P
www.whoneedslawyers.com

By Pedro on 2010 03 22, 10:29 am CDT

This reminds me of the hypocrite-Republicans who voted against the stimulus bill but lobbied the Executive Branch for money under it and then show up at the ribbon cutting.
When everyone will see that the health care reforms work, those yokels will quietly drop their tantrums.

By JR on 2010 03 22, 11:14 am CDT

Actually, this is about both politics and righteous outrage.  Well, outrage at least.  Many of us really do not like this bill.  In fact, the latest CNN poll says the country is against (59/39).  And lest I be labeled a hypocrite, I do not think this health care reform will work.  At least, it will not make health care better and more affordable, and it will not reduce the deficit.  This yokel is not going to quietly drop his tantrum any time soon.

By Jay7 on 2010 03 22, 11:56 am CDT

@ #6:  It is nothing more than a sweetheart deal for insurance companies mandating that all Americans are now required to purchase their product.  There were no provisions about the minimum services that have to be covered, or providing restrictions on rate increases.

By Esq. on 2010 03 22, 1:19 pm CDT

AndytheLawyer@2: I suspect you are right—particularly in the case of the more conservative states’ AGs. However there are some legitimate issues that should have been worked out long before this bill was initially voted on.

For example: the bill in its current state seems to anticipate that we will all purchase healthcare coverage contracts based on the current ERISA model. However, some states currently require that small businesses provide continuation coverage under their plans for less than the minimum 18 months now required by ERISA. This could lead to some states becoming the choice of incorporation for small businesses, in much the same way that favorable legislation allowing creditors to charge increased interest rates and penalty fees made states such as SD a principal place of incorporation for Bank Card corporations.

And if a person with a preexisting condition does not have 18 months of combined continuous coverage under his employer’s plan and his employer’s continuation coverage, does this mean that the insurer can put him through underwriting and charge him extra for his conversion coverage/individual insurance—despite the new plan?

No one on FOX NEWS bothered to answer questions like this because they were too busy b*tching about incipient Socialism.

By BMF on 2010 03 22, 4:53 pm CDT

Correction: “—despite the new plan?” in third paragraph @7 should read “—despite the healthcare reform legislation?”

By BMF on 2010 03 22, 4:57 pm CDT

The problem is, these yahoos passed this piece of crap just to prove they could pass something, because they had all this “political capital” invested in a “major initiative.”  The substance of the bill ceased to matter to most of them months ago, as the argument came to be about who was for and against Obama and who was for or against abortion.  What a clutch of morons.

By B. McLeod on 2010 03 22, 6:57 pm CDT

McLeod—No doubt the bill would have been far better had it created a national health system once and for all.  But the one thing that would have been worse than the bill as passed would have been to let the insurers continue to rape the US public unimpeded.  Anthem Blue Cross’s 39% premium spike past month proved that.

By AndytheLawyer on 2010 03 23, 7:31 am CDT

Gosh yes.  Of course the way to get prices down is to force more people to buy the product.

By B. McLeod on 2010 03 24, 12:04 am CDT

Hate to disagree with McLeod, but Anthem Blue Cross states that the reason for the 39% premium increase is because smaller pool of insured = “not enough people buying the product.” 

The basic of an insurance is that you need the healthy (or healthier) insured’s premium to pay for claims. 

Ever smaller pool of insured and ever increasing premium is not the solution, if continued, we will go to “no insurance.”  Everyone (uninsured) just pay their doctors and healthcare provider directly, and if they cannot afford to pay = no healthcare.  Heck, if the uninsured become the majority of the population, we may not need any insurance company - way to get rid of the middle person.

By Bean Counter on 2010 03 25, 1:07 pm CDT

THIS JUST IN….
But Waxman, the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and subcommittee chair Bart Stupak (D-Michigan), pointed out in a letter they sent Thursday to WellPoint Chief Executive Angela Braly that, according to data the company submitted to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, in 2009 “membership did not decrease, but increased significantly – by over 7%.”

“According to this data, enrollment in Anthem Blue Cross in California increased from 583,967 individual policyholders at the end of 2008 to 627,082 individual policyholders at the end of the third quarter of 2009,” the letter to Braly states. “We request that you explain why you have asserted that declining enrollment caused by the recession justifies your exceptionally large rate increases when your own data appears to show that your enrollment is growing.
  *  *  *

N.B. The 39% increase in CA was postponed until May.

By BMF on 2010 03 25, 4:27 pm CDT