Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[Fresno Bob]

I think every member of congress and every federal employee should have to get their healthcare through the VA

[Lucky]

Well, I just talked to my wife and she updated me as to what has been happening since I had any involvement with the VA. She said that in recent years (since our wars in the Mideast) that veterans needing care have flooded the system, and that the system has failed miserably to keep up with them. Even worse, the VA hospitals have been falsifying data on the issue.

It may actually be a scandal, and certainly is a massive problem which needs to be addressed today.

[Lucky]

I think every member of congress and every federal employee should have to get their healthcare through the VA

That would get things moving in a hurry.

[Judge Jude]

coming soon to a theater near you: "Office Space 2: The VA"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/05/30/how-the-va-developed-its-culture-of-coverups/

"This is how the system was failing: As the VA’s patient load grew, new layers of middle management slowly reappeared. And all the way at the bottom of the VA’s 12-level chain of command were the schedulers — the ones who actually had to match veterans with doctors.

There were too many of the veterans. There were too few of the doctors.

So what should they do?

One choice was to tell the truth — tell the computer how long veterans were actually waiting for an appointment. That was what Shinseki said he wanted, 12 levels up and miles away in Washington.

But, according to people with experience in scheduling, it was often the opposite of what lower-level bureaucrats wanted. In some cases, local officials’ bonuses depended on the numbers looking good. So, at some point years ago, they began asking clerks to change the numbers — with practices like “zeroing it out.” Cheating was made easier by the VA’s ancient computer systems, designed decades ago."

[In the Corn]

Hobby Lobby wins their court case regarding them being mandated to provide contraceptives for employees. I figured this thread would have been lit up by now.

Clearly, a win for Obama and the advancement of single-payer.

[Judge Jude]

link to the opinion here

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

being a boring guy in these matters, I tend to look to Kennedy concurrences or dissents:

"It seems to me appropriate, in joining the Court’s opinion, to add these few remarks. At the outset it should be said that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent. The Court and the dissent disagree on the proper interpretation of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), but do agree on the purpose of that statute. 42 U. S. C. §2000bbet seq. It is to ensure that interests in religious freedom are protected."

"The Government must demonstrate that the application of a substantial burden to a person’s exercise of religion “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”.... But the Government has not made the second showing required by RFRA, that the means it uses to regulate is the least restrictive way to further its interest. As the Court’s opinion explains, the record in these cases shows that there is an existing, recognized, workable, and already-implemented framework to provide coverage. That framework is one that HHS has itself devised, that the plaintiffs have not criticized with a specific objection that has been considered in detail by the courts in this litigation, and that is less restrictive than the means challenged by the plaintiffs in these cases...... RFRA is inconsistent with the insistence of an agency such as HHS on distinguishing between different religious believers — burdening one while accommodating the other — when it may treat both equally by offering both of them the same accommodation."

so that's the rationale, anyway

...........................

this is the other big ruling today by SCOTUS

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/11-681_j426.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/business/supreme-court-ruling-on-public-workers-and-union-fees.html

"The Supreme Court ruled narrowly on Monday that some government employees did not have to pay any fees to labor unions representing them, but the court decision declined to strike down a decades-old precedent that required many public-sector workers to pay union fees.

Writing the majority 5-4 opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concluded that there was a category of government employee — a partial public employee — who can opt out of joining a union and not be required to contribute dues to that labor group.

Justice Alito wrote that home-care aides who are typically employed by an ill or disabled person with Medicaid’s paying their wages would be classified as partial public employees, which would not be the same as public-school teachers or police officers who work directly for the government."

[mjl]

There is a bunch of good clarification at http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Liv...30_2014?Page=2.

[onejayhawk]

The dissent is claiming this is a sweeping decision. Is it?

J

[mjl]

The dissent is claiming this is a sweeping decision. Is it?

J

It sounds like the majority didn't mean it to be (especially Chief Justice Kennedy's opinion) but the dissent is pointing out that it could easily be interpreted that way.

There's a good "Plain English" writeup at http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/co...plain-english/

[B-Fly]

Hobby Lobby wins their court case regarding them being mandated to provide contraceptives for employees. I figured this thread would have been lit up by now.

Clearly, a win for Obama and the advancement of single-payer.

Not sure if you were joking, but I do believe this is the underlying issue far more than religious freedom. Tying health insurance and care to employment and employers rather than the government is bad for individuals, bad for business and bad for the country. It is a tremendously strong argument for a single-payer government-based system.

[Moonlight J]

Not sure if you were joking, but I do believe this is the underlying issue far more than religious freedom. Tying health insurance and care to employment and employers rather than the government is bad for individuals, bad for business and bad for the country. It is a tremendously strong argument for a single-payer government-based system.

yup

Serious question -- can prospective employees now ask questions about employer's religion during the interview process. Or, rather, can women ask these questions since vasectomies and Viagra are still kosher? If employees can, then I'm guessing employers can which then opens up the discriminatory section of Pandora's box.

[B-Fly]

Serious question -- can prospective employees now ask questions about employer's religion during the interview process. Or, rather, can women ask these questions since vasectomies and Viagra are still kosher? If employees can, then I'm guessing employers can which then opens up the discriminatory section of Pandora's box.

Any prospective employee should be able to ask (or better yet, get clear written information about) what is or isn't covered under the available health insurance plan options that the employer offers, without any need to ask specifically about the employer's religious beliefs.

[In the Corn]

Not sure if you were joking, but I do believe this is the underlying issue far more than religious freedom. Tying health insurance and care to employment and employers rather than the government is bad for individuals, bad for business and bad for the country. It is a tremendously strong argument for a single-payer government-based system.

Not joking at all.

Health insurance from multiple platforms: i.e. employer, ACA, private insurance, isn't an even playing field. That is what makes single-payer the way to go.

The SCOTUS' decision, IMO, wasn't unexpected. Probably the right decision, as well. This will spur people toward wanting an even playing field and not having to ask their employer/potential employer about health insurance. That opens up the opportunity for an employer to potentially rescind an offer based on what a candidate asks about in the health insurance policy. It's a mess, and as I said, this ruling is a total win for Obama and liberals in the long run.

[Erik]

this ruling is a total win for Obama and liberals in the long run.

In the very long run. The way Congress is constituted now, a movement toward single payer isn't going to happen any time soon.

[onejayhawk]

I have never understood how anyone would consider this law an advance over 10 years ago.

J