Developments in Florida Health care

So if freedom from government intervention means swallowing a 20% rate hike in business health insurance, is that acceptable?

Florida rejects money for rate-hike review

Golden State Meets Sunshine State

Here is a thorough analysis of Judge Vinson's opinion by Judge Jost:

Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s 78-page opinion in State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services is a remarkable piece of work.  This decision, concluding a case brought by twenty-six state governors or attorneys general (in addition to two private parties and a business association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses), strikes down in its entirety the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. 

Read more here! 

Another Approach to the Mandate?

Noted healthcare blogger Alan  Katz, a long time insurance broker and consultant, has made a proposal that seems pragmatic and will allow insurers to be protected from higher claims while making it incentivizing the public to buy in to private health insurance before they need it.


Writing on February 7, Katz proposes:

The PPACA imposes a fee (or a tax, depending on whom you ask and when) if an individual fails to obtain health insurance. This is the constitutional weak-link in the law. Those asking the courts to overturn the law describe this approach as Congress forcing Americans to engage in an economic activity or pay the equivalent of a fine to the government.

Instead of this government-centric approach, I proposed replacing the fine with alternatives enabling carriers to protect themselves from consumers who have waited until they are on their way to a hospital before seeking coverage. As has happened in New York and New Jersey, without such protections premiums skyrocket even faster and higher than medical inflation would normally require. Creating an open enrollment period (perhaps the applicant’s birth month) would counteract this dynamic. Allowing carriers to set premiums higher for those who have gone without coverage and to exclude pre-existing condition for some period of time, would help keep the cost of insurance lower, too. (These are financial disincentives imposed on individuals who fail to maintain medical insurance. Fairness would dictate that these disincentives should be commensurate with how long the individual went without coverage, thus the limited time during which a premium surcharge or benefit exclusion would be permitted).

Carriers would not be obliged to impose these penalties. If they were commanded to do so by law some would argue they are simply agents of the government and the Administration would be back defending the constitutionality of a government-imposed individual mandate. By allowing, but not forcing, carriers to use an open enrollment period, increase premiums, or exclude coverage for existing conditions, the government is out of the equation. And so are constitutional challenges – at least to this provision.

The impact of this approach on other provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is minimal. In fact, by shifting the enforcement of personal responsibility from the IRS to private carriers this alternative might even save money overall.

Florida Cheers Healthcare Ruling

Will everyone getting healthcare make people healthier? Or are people healthier because of the way they live? Studies have shown that lifestyle improvement makes a huge difference in cost of care, longevity and even happiness.

Even if Florida Judge Vinson's ruling stands and destroys Obamacare, will that somehow make people sick (literally speaking)?

We want to invite your comments on this question!

Free Care Does Not Guarantee Health

Is it enough to have health insurance, no matter how much it costs, even if it's free? Is good health guaranteed when you have access to health care- doctors, drugs, and hospitals?

According to a study in Health Affairs, it's not enough.

People of high income and education live healthier and longer than people of low socioeconomic status. What do you think is the reason for that?

This should make Judge Vinson and all the anti-mandate folks happy.