SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled 6 - 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the President. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in January 2017.
Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia, referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law (SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States).
Original Submission
(Score: 1) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:09PM
3. Insurance companies can and do have leverage to negotiate with health care providers to keep prices down in a way that individuals do not. That helps the price of the initial health care no longer spiral out of control.
Have you ever actually gone to a doctor before?
Have you ever seen the price difference between paying yourself and paying through insurance?
Anecdotally speaking (based on my own experience and experiences friends have shared with me), the same care seems to cost 2-3x more when the insurance company is paying than when you pay out of pocket. You're saying that's them keeping the price of healthcare from spiraling out of control?
(Score: 5, Informative) by vux984 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:29PM
Anecdotally speaking (based on my own experience and experiences friends have shared with me), the same care seems to cost 2-3x more when the insurance company is paying than when you pay out of pocket.
Meanwhile...
http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2007/anderson-hospital-charges.html [jhsph.edu]
So it clearly goes both ways.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:34PM
This is the thing. It *depends* on where you go.
Most of the people I have been dealing with are willing to give me a break if I do 3 things. I pay up front with cash (or something close), no credit card, and no insurance. If you are dealing with a conglomerate company their prices are determined by the head office (meaning no breaks). But if you are dealing with a 'mom and pop' practice you can get some good discounts. They *reallllllly* do not like dealing with insurance. You think you hate it? They deal with it day in and day out.
(Score: 1) by enigma32 on Thursday June 25 2015, @05:34PM
Touché.
That's very interesting. I wish there was a link to the research.
It's not entirely clear whether he means the total cost of care is less with insurance or the out-of-pocket cost is less, though presumably he means the former, since otherwise it's useless drivel.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 25 2015, @07:22PM
Yes, in the last year.
Yes. And I've seen both the insured and uninsured prices for the same procedures. The prices were somewhat lower with insurance, even factoring in the costs of insurance.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.