Supreme Court sides with healthcare corporations against consumers

[nichomachus]

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-supreme-court-made-healthcare-comparison-harder-20160304-column.html

Go figure. Just when you thought the Supreme Court's new lineup might turn it more consumer-friendly, the eight-member court went and blew a hole in one of the most promising new approaches to healthcare cost transparency.

And it was a 6-2 decision to screw you over. So Scalia would only have made it 7-2.

Thanks, Elena Kagan.

[haikugal]

1. So much for that other scare tactic....you have to have someone to get good people on the court.

We've got a lot of work to do...

[onecaliberal]

5. ^^THAT^^

[elleng]

2. 'At the heart of the split was not ideology but the Employee Retirement Income Security Act

of 1974, or ERISA, which governs retirement and health insurance benefits and involves perhaps the most far-reaching preemption of state law in the federal code. It's so broad, indeed, that the court has on occasion tried to place modest bounds on the preemption out of fear that otherwise "preemption would never run its course," as the court observed in a 1995 case. . .

There may be ways to get around the ruling. One suggestion came from Justice Breyer, in his concurring opinion. He said the secretary of Labor, who oversees ERISA, could issue rules allowing self-insured plans to provide data to the states. Congress could also amend the law.'

[TeddyR]

4. Yeah

This ruling simply recognizes that ERISA, a federal law, controls in this area.

[truedelphi]

3. All SCOTUS members are Corporate-Controlled pigs.

Now it is true that some of them are still for a woman's right to abortion, should that woman know of an abortion clinic within her locale.

But for the rest of it, they side with Corporations every day of the week. And rarely if ever decide in favor of the middle class or any "person" who resembles a human being.

And Kagen and Sotomayor got to their posts through their support of Monsanto.

[TeddyR]

8. You should read the opinion

ERISA is a federal law enacted by Congress that governs pension and health plans. The court simply ruled that what Vermont wanted to do was governed by ERISA. Congress can amend ERISA, or the DOL can issue regs addressing this issue, but this wasn't some sort of gift to corporations but rather the court apply the law.

[davidn3600]

10. It's not the Supreme Court's job to change bad laws

They won't do that. That's the job of Congress.

[truedelphi]

16. Perhaps in this case what you say applies. But when SCOTUS rules in favor of a friggin'

Country Club, giving that entity the right to seize low income people's homes through the use of eminent domain, I fear that all is lost. (And the case had nothing to do with bad law - it had to do with defining the term "eminent domain.&quot

And the Dems on the court were more in favor of that decision than the Republicans!

[ohnoyoudidnt]

6. I have a question maybe someone here can clear up.

Is that how it works?

If I go to the hospital and the bill says $1,000 and my copay is 20%, I pay the hospital $200, but the remaining $800 isn't what the insurance company is really paying. It could just be another $200, which in reality would mean my copay was 50%. Or is the $1,000 really accurate and an uninsured person would have paid 2 or 3 times that amount?

[annabanana]

12. That's a pretty good question.

I think that (in your example) we pay 20% of whatever they have decided to call "retail".. and if you were UNinsured, you bet your ass they'd be looking for the full $1000.

The insurance companies themselves have a completely different rate scale.

(I hope someone here will correct me if I'm wrong)

[Sgent]

13. Not quite

If you get an MRI, and the hospital charges $1500, your insurance company with negotiations has lowered the cost to $1000, so you pay $200 and the insurance company pays $800 and the hospital writes off $500.

The issue is that the agreed price to the hospital maybe $1000, but to an outpatient MRI facility might be $750, and there's no way to shop that before the procedure is done and insurance claim processed.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

14. So the hospital gets a tax write off off $500 for agreeing to give the insurance company a special

rate. A rate they knew they would charge them anyway?

[Sgent]

15. Its a tax write-off but its also income

you get the $500 deduction, but you have an extra $500 in income as well, it nets out to 0.

[davidn3600]

7. Most Supreme Court decisions are actually unanimous or near unanimous

The media only reports on the big controversial cases/issues. Vast majority of the time the justices are in near full agreement.

[spanone]

9. brings this to mind...

[Recursion]

11. Kagan seems to be accurately reading a badly-written ERISA law (nt)