Obamacare upheld as constitutional....

[_Darth J]

But probably the biggest driver in the upward costs of premiums will be the new rule requiring that experimental drugs and treatments be covered just as FDA-approved ones are. These experimental drugs and treatments come at tremendous costs compared to the true-and-tried ones that have FDA approval.

And that's probably going to lead to some serious products liability litigation, too, because more people will be taking experimental drugs, and more malpractice litigation as more people undergo experimental treatment. (A major problem is also going to be establishing the standard of care in experimental treatments that insurance is required to pay for.)

[_sock puppet]

But probably the biggest driver in the upward costs of premiums will be the new rule requiring that experimental drugs and treatments be covered just as FDA-approved ones are. These experimental drugs and treatments come at tremendous costs compared to the true-and-tried ones that have FDA approval.

And that's probably going to lead to some serious products liability litigation, too, because more people will be taking experimental drugs, and more malpractice litigation as more people undergo experimental treatment. (A major problem is also going to be establishing the standard of care in experimental treatments that insurance is required to pay for.)

Good point, but hey, Obama's a lawyer by trade, isn't he? As he will yet be a young man when he leaves office, maybe he's feathering a nest.

[_sock puppet]

(A major problem is also going to be establishing the standard of care in experimental treatments that insurance is required to pay for.)

Without the bright line that FDA approval provided, it does open up a new grey area--or is it simply going to be anything the doctor recommends the insurance company must pay for? It's so good to know that money does grow on trees around the corporate offices of insurance companies. Otherwise, Americans might be forced to consider where the $ has to come from for the insurance companies to have it to pay for high-priced medical care.

[_Darth J]

Another aspect to the Act is how it's going to affect investing. Insurance companies don't make money from premiums. They make money from investing premiums and earning returns on those investments. While insurance companies and the politicians to whom they give money like to blame rising insurance costs on malpractice lawsuits, the reality is that insurance premiums tend to rise to make up the difference when investments are not paying off sufficiently.

So what's going to happen when health insurers have a much larger risk pool, and have to pay for riskier treatments and medications? They will need to make increasing amounts of money from their investments to make a profit, since they will be paying out more money in claims. This may necessitate investing in riskier areas to earn a greater return. I wonder how much money insurance companies invested in things like collateralized debt obligations, before the housing market collapsed.

But you know, one place insurance companies could invest seeking larger returns in is commodities. I'm sure it will not affect the price of things like food or gas for your car when lots and lots of multi-billion dollar companies have to throw tons of money into a market to make larger returns to make up for the increased risks they have been forced to accept.

And you know those experimental drugs and treatments insurance now has to cover? I wonder what that will do to doctors' malpractice premiums.

[_moksha]

Does any of this affect Mitt Romney's pledge to eliminate heath care for the huddled masses?

If I am correctly judging the pulse of Utah, the people don't want or need health care and this will be a red hot issue for them in November. Even more so with the Supreme Court upholding the current plan.

[_bcspace]

The mandate’s opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate’s supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism’s agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government’s ambitions.
.........................

Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.” When Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed, “Are you serious? Are you serious?,” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’s culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html

[_bcspace]

Not as many as we might like, because of having to give up on the "public option" to get enough support. But that is certainly the goal and the expectation.

Well yes. Cutting healthcare costs was never the goal for the mandate's supporters and now it will be harder to do so without repealing the mandate or cutting off health care in targeted ways (death panels). The goal was merely to control healthcare and who get's it. Hint; not the poor.....

[_Bret Ripley]

[_Milesius]

...a partisan hack like Thomas.

I so agree with that characterization of Thomas.

I don't.

[_Milesius]

Much of the ACA won't take effect until 2014, but there are reportedly already six million young adults who are insured now because of the law's requirement to allow kids up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies.

Being able to remain on your parents insurance until age 26 seems a little gratuitous to me.