- ‘Tis the Season: London florist creates $4.6 million Christmas wreath
- No tailgating allowed at Super Bowl XLVIII
- Pentagon to transport African troops to Central African Republic
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend’s shopping jumps to his death
- Ukraine leader to talk with protesters; Washington urges caution
- Pope Francis: A nun saved my life
- Israeli P.M. Netanyahu backs out of Mandela funeral
- Elian Gonzalez makes first trip outside Cuba since custody battle
- U.S., British intelligence agents enter online sci-fi world to spy on gamers
- Sarah Palin to host the outdoors show ‘Amazing America’
Supreme Court misunderstanding on health overhaul?
WASHINGTON (AP) - A possible misunderstanding about President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul could cloud Supreme Court deliberations on its fate, leaving the impression that the law’s insurance requirement is more onerous than it actually is.
During the recent oral arguments some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them seemed to be under the impression that the law does not allow most consumers to buy low-cost, stripped-down insurance to satisfy its controversial coverage requirement.
In fact, the law provides for a cheaper “bronze” plan that is broadly similar to today’s so-called catastrophic coverage policies for individuals, several insurance experts said.
“I think there is confusion,” said Paul Keckley, health research chief for Deloitte, a major benefits consultant. “I found myself wondering how much they understood the Affordable Care Act. Several times the questions led me to wonder how much (the justices’) clerks had gone back into the law in advance of the arguments.”
Monthly premiums for the bronze plan would be lower, and it would cover a much smaller share of medical expenses than a typical employer plan.
“Bronze is a very skinny product,” said Keckley.
Starting in 2014, the health care law requires most Americans to obtain health insurance, either through an employer, a government program, or by buying their own policies. In return, insurance companies would be prohibited from turning away the sick. Government would subsidize premiums for millions now uninsured.
The law’s opponents argue that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by issuing the mandate, while the administration says the requirement is permissible because it serves to regulate interstate commerce. The scope of the mandate was one of several key issues argued before the court.
“If I understand the law, the policies that you’re requiring people to purchase … must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services and substance use treatment,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need … substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.”
That may be true, but the law’s bronze plan isn’t exactly robust coverage. It would require policyholders to spend thousands of dollars of their own money before insurance kicks in. That’s how catastrophic coverage works now.
It means anyone _ particularly younger, healthy people _ can satisfy the health care law’s insurance requirement without paying full freight for comprehensive coverage they may not need.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did not highlight the bronze plan in his defense of the law, an omission that may prove significant.
“I would definitely say that if you listen to the court proceedings it would be easy to come away with the impression that the health care reform law was requiring people to buy Cadillac insurance, which is certainly not the case,” said Larry Levitt, head of the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Initiative on Health Reform and Private Insurance. The foundation is a nonpartisan information clearinghouse.
The health care law does impose a minimum set of “essential health benefits” for most insurance plans. Those benefits have yet to be specified, but are expected to reflect what a typical small-business plan now offers, with added preventive, mental health and other services.
On the surface, the minimum benefits requirement does seem to mandate comprehensive coverage. But another provision of the law works in the opposite direction, and the two have to be weighed together.
By Tom Fitton
New photos confirm the attack's coordination and its cover-up
- Chinese man fed up with his girlfriend's shopping jumps to his death
- Lawmakers see 'false narrative' of Obama as a terrorist fighter
- CURL: Obama tells a whopper on IRS scandal
- Ted Cruz sees legal landmines ahead for Obamacare
- WOLF: The president's other Obamacare lies
- Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, 'cherry-picked' intelligence: report
- MSNBC host: Obamacare a 'wealthy white men' racist word
- Israeli P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu backs out of Nelson Mandela funeral
- MILLER: Brady Campaign says Colorado recalls due to NRA, not grassroots opposition to gun control
- Satanists petition for statue at Oklahoma Statehouse
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Crystal Wright is a black conservative woman living in Washington, D.C.
All of the world’s problems, solved on your back porch
Why can’t humans just be free to be humans?
Richard Ivory, editor-in-chief of Hip Hop Republicans and HHR at Communities Digital News, turns his interests, and pen, to the people making news today.
White House pets gone wild!
Let it snow