Medicare Disruptions Seen If Health Law Is Struck Down By Supreme Court

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Medicare's payment system, the unseen but vital network that handles 100 million monthly claims, could freeze up if President Barack Obama's health care law is summarily overturned, the administration has quietly informed the courts.

Although Obama's overhaul made significant cuts to providers and improved prescription and preventive benefits, Medicare was overlooked in Supreme Court arguments that focused on the law's controversial requirement that individuals carry health insurance.

Yet havoc for Medicare could have repercussions as both parties avidly court seniors in this election year and as hospitals and doctors increasingly complain the program doesn't pay enough.

In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers have warned of "extraordinary disruption" if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/medicare-disruptions-seen-health-law-struck-063952856--finance.html

[ingac70]

1. As if 5 of those assholes even care. n/t

[JDPriestly]

9. Some of them are seniors, and they probably rely on Medicare.

[ingac70]

14. they aren't on Medicare....

they get gold plated insurance courtesy of us...

[JDPriestly]

16. Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer and Kennedy would qualify for Medicare.

http://www.congress.org/news/will-justices-personal-health-issues-sway-ruling/

Whether they chose to take it is another question, but I bet they did.

[ingac70]

17. Why would they take it when they get insurance throught their employer?

The best insurance anyone has in this country. Next you'll tell me Dick Cheney is on it.

[expatriate2mex]

18. I have the insurance they have and it's far from the best in this country.

When we were still in the us my wife had better coverage at butterball working on an assembly line. It cost her about 40.00 a year and copay for a dr visit. (blue cross). It was her first job in the us.

I have federal blue cross. It costs 400.00 a month premiums, deductible, percentage pay (our copay version disappeared long ago). I'm not complaining about having insurance, but the best the us has to offer? Not even close.

I also have medicare. Most dr's stopped taking it where we lived, especially specialists. Out of 6 Rhumatologists they all dropped it. Medicare is primary, makes it tough.

So the federal insurance plans are tough anyway. It's one of the reasons we came back to Mexico (I was born here, went to school in the us, dual citizen). I just had a root canal here for 1000 pesos (13 to a dollar) which is far less than it would have cost me there with insurance.with federal and medicare. I can make it cheaper here without insurance than there. Just have to stay away from the tourist and "gringo" areas.

[joeglow3]

2. This is not good (in more ways than one)

While it is obvious this is true, it makes me nervous that Obama feels the needs to communicate this. It is as if they have thrown in the towel on the mandate and are fighting to keep the rest. Does not make me feel confident with the upcoming decision.

[Swede Atlanta]

3. I'm not sure I see this as a sign of throwing in the towel........

The administration has clearly communicated to the court both in its court presentation, the President's public comments, etc. its position and view on the constitutionality of the law.

I think this is just bolstering the case that there will also be significant tactical issues if they pull the plug. I have never seen this in a court decision but it could suggest to the court they provide a transition period so as to not completely up-end things - not that the conservatives on the Court care about anyone other than themselves and their rich buddies.

[AndyTiedye]

6. Everybody and their Dog Knows the Supreme Court will Overturn It

How could the most partisan Supreme Court in history possibly pass up the opportunity to undo the only significant act that Obama was able to get past the Roadblock Repiglickins?

They will overturn the whole thing, since the insurance companies REALLY don't like having to cover pre-existing conditions.

That will create a horrible mess with Medicare and Medicaid, and Obama is calling that out now, to try to neutralize the
upcoming efforts by the Repiglickins and the media to blame the mess on him.

[freshwest]

8. +1

[Denninmi]

4. I thought this was already a done deal.

I thought the Justices voted the day after the hearing, and it's all just a matter of writing the opinions now and waiting until June to announce the decision.

[joeglow3]

5. They can and do change their minds while writing the opinions.

But you are correct that they did a preliminary vote at the end of the week of the hearing.

[Bandit]

7. This is even more reason for the highly partisan Court to overturn the ACA.

Republicans have hated Medicare from day one and they would like nothing better than to have the Extreme Court scrap the entire lot...So this is far less a threat than an enticement...

[JDPriestly]

10. There are elderly justices on the Supreme Court.

They no doubt rely on Medicare. Perhaps this will cause them to stop and think.

[HeiressofBickworth]

11. I doubt they rely on Medicare, and never will

They have health insurance through their employment with the federal government, just like congress and former elected officials (think Cheney's new heart). So, don't rely on their personal experiences to give them empathy for medicare users.

[du_grad]

12. Medicare is always the primary payer

If you are over 65 and have Medicare and other medical insurance, Medicare is primary and pays first.

[HeiressofBickworth]

13. I understand that

but they will never RELY on medicare alone, like most people. Do you think Cheney paid 20% of his heart transplant costs? It's because they don't RELY on medicare that they don't care about people who must, people who don't have supplemental insurance available to them due to cost. If medicare didn't exist, the judges wouldn't bat an eyelash as it would make no difference to them. It's the empathy factor that's missing.

[happyslug]

15. If something is unconsitutional, we should keep it to avoid disruptions?

That is the argument being made, it is like saying in 1954, Segregation is unconstitutional, but to end segregation would be disruptive, so we are NOT ending segregation...

The Supreme Court has made ruling as to the constitutionality of laws, that were disruptive of on-going situation in the US. That such a ruling would be disruptive has NEVER been grounds to hold a unconstitutional law constitutional. When the court ruled the death penalty as practice was unconstitutional in the 1970s, it did not also say that ruling the death penalty unconstitutional would have been to disruptive, so we are going to leave the states carry out the unconstitutional death penalties. When the Court ruled it was unconstitutional for police to use illegally obtain evidence, it did not rule that such a ruling was so disruptive, that the court would make convictions using such evidence as constitutional. When the court ruled it was unconstitutional to perform prays in Public Schools, it did not rule such prays were also constitutional for it would be disruptive of how schools are operated.

Going back to desegregation, the Court in 1954 did say desegregation should go on at a "Deliberate speed" given the impact the ruling had, but still ruled Segregation unconstitutional.

I am ignoring the constitutionality of Heath Care Reform in the above comments, for the simple reason the argument here is NOT that health care is constitutional or unconstitutional, but if the law is unconstitutional the court should still rule it constitutional for it would be so disruptive for the court to rule the law unconstitutional. i.e. as if in 1954 the Court had found segregation unconstitutional, but also ruled that making desegregation unconstitutional would have been to disruptive so segregation was constitutional

This is the WRONG argument to make, the court will NEVER give it much weight for the simple reason it is saying the Constitution is meaningless if the Government says to follow the Constitution is to disruptive. Both the liberal wing and the Conservative wing of the Court will refuse to uphold such a position (Through some of the reactionaries on the court may agree with the argument, i.e. if the Government wants something, even if it is unconstitutional, the government should get it if the government say NOT to give it the power would be to disruptive.

Bushes Appointees may actually like such a ruling, it permits the court to make things constitutional even if it clearly violates the Constitution (This is a position popular with such reactionaries, upholding laws that the right wants, even if unconstitutional).

On the other hand, most liberals and conservatives will see the danger in such a position and hopefully attack it, such a ruling makes the whole constitution nothing more then a piece of paper. This is just a bad argument to make.