Florida Judges Rejects Motion to Dismiss

[Crabcake Johnny]

...still suing over the Patriot Act provisions. Let's see how that's going...

Supreme Court upholds Patriot Act's 'material support' provision - National Legal News | Examiner.com

 

[Evan]

Gun Control

In 1997 the Court threw out a major provision of a federal gun control law—called the Brady Act— requiring state or local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on prospective gun purchasers (Printz v. United States). The Court said Congress had no power to require states to implement federal regulatory programs.

Internet Indecency

Also in 1997 the Court threw out a new federal law aimed at limiting access by minors to sexually oriented material on the Internet (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union). The Court said that the Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment by suppressing constitutionally protected speech for adults. In 2002, a divided court did not rule whether another law that attempted to restrict access to pornographic materials being sold on the Internet was constitutional, instead sending the case back to a circuit court for a rehearing on such questions as whether the statute was too broad or vague. The same year, justices agreed to hear a case in 2003 on whether a 2000 law that requires public libraries to obtain screening software for public computer terminals as a condition for receiving certain federal funds was constitutional.

Line-Item Veto

The Court in 1998 struck down a law giving the president the power to cancel individual spending items and certain tax benefits contained in laws passed by Congress (Clinton v. City of New York). The Court said that the line-item veto—a goal long sought by presidents of both parties—unconstitutionally gave the president the power to unilaterally change the text of duly enacted laws.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This won't get repelled though.

Evan

 

[TXINSURANCE]

Those of you supporting the courts ruling the bill is unconstitutional - be careful what you ask for.

This will unlikely void the bill in it's entirety, and will certainly re open the "public option" and eventual single payor (which may be coming back regardless...)

This will lead to what I have said all along - GI with NO mandate, which is essentially what the bill is anyhow since the mandate penalty is so low and unlikely to be enforced.

If you want to see what GI and no mandate looks like, look no further than NY or NJ, however it is 10X worse since in NY and NJ they do have pre ex provisions for no prior coverage, the health bill does not allow for such pre ex waiting periods - which is why you will see terms like "open enrollment" or 30 to 90 day delays in effective dates, to prevent those from enrolling only when sick.

This is nothing more than a shell game.

If you do not agree with the health bill the best bet would be to defund as much as possible and pray for a radical repeal in 2012, but even that is a huge stretch. In the meantime take it day by day identifying pockets of opportunity and running with it. The market is far from dead pre 2014, post 2014 we need to wait and see what plays out.

 

[Dave020]

California may well have exchanges operating much earlier than 2014 (thanks, Arnold). When I type in NYS choices for health plans in my old home town zip, I get one plan of dubious quality (C+ rating) that is not from known carrier (outside of NYS).

I have a strong suspicion, mandates or not, that in California (initially) it will look something like this.................

Enter Zip Code: 95111

Enter Age: 40

"There are currently no plans available in the specified zip code area".

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I'm extremely interested to see the carriers reaction to the mandate to issue child only GI policies by 1/1/11 or sit out for 5 years.

Also, in full agreement with TX. The court decision regarding the health reform law will be irrelevant regarding our careers.

We are heading to some version of single payer - period. It's only a matter of how many more years.

 

[Dave020]

Currently at least Blue Shield CA and KP are still issuing kid-only coverage plans, so they will likely do business as usual and work with the enrollment period for GI (AB 2244 specifies first 60 days of each year from 1/1/11 on an annual basis).

Anthem BC CA and Health Net CA are both sitting out of kiddie policies right now. I would assume they would have to get back in by 1/1/11 or face a 5-year blackout penalty for all IFP products. When I (or others in CA) hear about it, we'll post.

I am not sure that carriers selling plans to 6% of the total market really care to provide plans to an exchange.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

I posted this yesterday but MD has reached an agreement with Carefirst and Kaiser to sell child-only. I'll also post all the details when they're available.

 

[Dave020]

Watch California very carefully over the next few months. You may see some major s**t going down.

None of the pooled programs work in CA without at least one of the Blues propping it up. Shield currently still has kid-only, but for how long?

Shield blew up HIPC/PacAdvantage (the state exchange) a few years ago by bringing in rates deemed too high. They bailed and the exchange collapsed.

Shield dropped out of MRMIP (state risk pool) for the same reason after dumping PPO in favor of HMO. Anthem BC remains (with Kaiser) to prop it up.

Shield left CalChoice (private exchange) this year and was replaced by Anthem Blue Cross (the bigger Blue).

Word on the street from inside sources indicates that Anthem may not be able to deliver acceptable rates to CalChoice for 2011. If Anthem bounces, the private exchange will collapse since the puny carriers can't prop it up without a Blue in there to run it.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

And to add more fuel to the fire, the government is watching rate increases though 2013 and any carrier deemed to have "excessive" rate increases may not be eligible to participate in the exchange.

 

[Dave020]

And to add more fuel to the fire, the government is watching rate increases though 2013 and any carrier deemed to have "excessive" rate increases may not be eligible to participate in the exchange.

Anthem BC is still pending approval by the DOI of 75% or more of their product portfolio in CA. It has to do with independent rate review. Cue crickets.