Yes, that was the closely argued point and final interpretation by the Supreme Court that allowed it to stay at the time. Since the tax was subsequently removed, the argument was it was no longer legal. It may still be illegal, but apparently a different group needs standing to sue for that.
2 Likes
An interesting sidenote to the SCOTUS interpretation in this case.
SCOTUS found that being forced to do something you otherwise wouldnât do, by a law that has no enforcement mechanism, isnât an injury. Thatâs how SCOTUS was able to say that the people suing in this case had no standing. The claimants said they had to buy expensive insurance because the law told them they had to. They claimed that was their injury because without the law, they wouldnât have bought the expensive insurance. By SCOTUS saying that wasnât an injury is essentially giving everyone carte blanche to not follow laws that donât have an enforcement mechanism.
What SCOTUS said with this decision is that if you follow a law that you believe is unconstitutional, you CANNOT sue and claim what the law forced you to do was injurious IF the law had no way to actually force you to follow it.
I personally donât know many laws on the books that have no enforcement mechanism. But at the moment, there are a lot of emergency laws not on the books. I would venture to guess, several of them have no codified enforcement mechanism. What SCOTUS unintentionally just did was tell people that if your state or locality has a masking/capacity/COVID whatever mandate and the agency that setup that mandate didnât put in an enforcement mechanism into the law, you donât have to follow that law. That is because, if you do follow it, and claim that following it caused injury, and you think it was unconstitutional (at this point, any COVID law that wasnât passed by the legislature is unconstitutional IMO), SCOTUS said you werenât actually injured. So donât injure yourself if you donât want to - SCOTUS said so!
3 Likes
Seems like a logical interpretation/extrapolation.
Government by executive order continues. Thereâs a lot in this latest batch of edicts but for this topic it looks like there will be soon fewer choices on the Obamacare markets as they try to make plans offered âsimplerâ and more comparable (last item below). anti trust scrutiny is heightened generally, and healthcare sector specifically, and some measures about prescription drugs are also included.
In the Order, the President:
- Directs the Food and Drug Administration to work with states and tribes to safely import prescription drugs from Canada , pursuant to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
- Directs the Health and Human Services Administration (HHS) to increase support for generic and biosimilar drugs , which provide low-cost options for patients.
- Directs HHS to issue a comprehensive plan within 45 days to combat high prescription drug prices and price gouging .
- Encourages the FTC to ban â pay for delay â and similar agreements by rule.
- Directs HHS to consider issuing proposed rules within 120 days for allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter
- Underscores that hospital mergers can be harmful to patients and encourages the Justice Department and FTC to review and revise their merger guidelines to ensure patients are not harmed by such mergers.
- Directs HHS to support existing hospital price transparency rules and to finish implementing bipartisan federal legislation to address surprise hospital billing .
- Directs HHS to standardize plan options in the National Health Insurance Marketplace so people can comparison shop more easily.
1 Like
One of those religious medical cost sharing programs, used by some as a voluntary and cheaper alternative to traditional health insurance, is facing bankruptcy. The fact they didnât explicitly promise to pay your medical bills (members would be asked to make larger voluntary contributions if a large expense was incurred by someone sick) may leave them out cold as non-creditors in the bankruptcy process.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/christian-health-nonprofit-sharity-seeks-bankruptcy-after-state-probes-11625865789
https://www.wsj.com/articles/christian-health-nonprofit-sharity-ministries-plans-bankruptcy-liquidation-11626907141
SharÂity MinÂistries Inc., a medÂical-cost-sharÂing nonÂprofit for ChrisÂtians, has filed for bank-ruptcy proÂtecÂtion in an efÂfort to keep opÂerÂatÂing amid acÂcuÂsaÂtions by state auÂthorÂiÂties that it deÂceived conÂsumers by runÂning a sham health-inÂsurÂance busiÂness.
The nonÂprofit said it would use bankÂruptcy to break many of its conÂtracts with Aliera Cos., which proÂvides adÂminÂisÂtraÂtive, marÂketÂing, sales and other serÂvices to SharÂity, acÂcordÂing to paÂpers filed ThursÂday in the U.S. BankÂruptcy Court in WilmÂingÂton, Del.
In OcÂtoÂber, New York state acÂcused Aliera and SharÂity of runÂning a sham inÂsurÂance busiÂness in a manÂner deÂsigned to evade regÂuÂlaÂtion. AlÂthough Aliera and SharÂity say they arenât health inÂsurÂers and donât guarÂanÂtee the payÂment of claims, they adÂverÂtise in New York as healthÂcare alÂterÂnaÂtives, state ofÂfiÂcials said. A hearÂing on the New York matÂter is schedÂuled for this fall.
ChrisÂtÂian nonÂprofit SharÂity MinÂistries Inc. is takÂing steps to wind down its opÂerÂaÂtions as the medÂical-cost-sharÂing group faces inÂtenÂsiÂfyÂing scruÂtiny from JusÂtice DeÂpartÂment bankÂruptcy monÂiÂtors over how its memÂbers will be treated.
SharÂity said it makes no promÂise that a memÂberâs medÂical exÂpenses will be paid and thereÂfore doesnât conÂsider those inÂdiÂvidÂuÂals to be credÂiÂtors. MemÂbers wonât be proÂhibÂited from filÂing claims in the bank-ruptcy, but SharÂity said it exÂpects to obÂject to such claims.
Mr. Luria said in court paÂpers that SharÂity is inÂvesÂtiÂgatÂing whether Aliera owes money to healthÂcare providers. An Aliera spokesman said FriÂday that Aliera emÂphatÂiÂcally disÂagrees with the asÂserÂtions made by SharÂity. Aliera afÂfilÂiÂates, as serÂvice providers, arenât reÂsponÂsiÂble for any amounts to healthÂcare providers who serve SharÂity memÂbers unÂder any conÂtract, the spokesman said.
1 Like
The ones Iâve heard of are pretty clear that when you sign up, other members will âgiftâ you money for medical expenses, and you agree to gift others money for theirs. Itâs essentially a gofundme clearinghouse with reciprocity for medical expenses. If you did not understnad this, itâs because youâve bought into the new-age âmake up your own definition for wordsâ philosophy.
4 Likes
I donât think the NY regulators are doing this because some customers might have been mislead. You can tell they just donât like people having a choice other than comprehensive full coverage super expensive health insurance plans regulated by the state, and anything else, in their words is âjunkâ. Typical âgovernment knows bestâ approach, as expected from NY.
4 Likes
Thereâs something missing here. This doesnât make sense. If they donât continue to pay âclaimsâ of its members and use bankruptcy to get out of paying those in addition to its main reason (getting out of bed with Aliera), they wonât emerge from bankruptcy - because they wonât have any customers. Every single current member will leave and never return and only people living under a rock without the ability to google would ever join in the future.
Sharity isnt trying to emerge from bankruptcy, and they arent using bankruptcy to get out of paying claims.
The article says they are in the process of winding down their operations. And their position is that the âclaimsâ are not debts that need discharged in bankruptcy.
Theyâre just trying to conserve company assets to pay other creditors, by minimizing how many hands are taking a piece of the remaining pie.
3 Likes
I have not read the articles, so this is all guesswork, but from the @xertmanâs quotes, it seems more that they are not going to throw money at fighting insurance regulators. It doesnât seem that theyâve defaulted on anything, or absconded with any funds. It does seem that NYS has a h̶a̶r̶d̶ problem with them. Itâs not clear from the quotes whether that problem is from complaints.
1 Like
Sorry if my quotes were a bit unclear. There were two articles, and the source is hard to quote from and paywalled. As I understand it, the health sharing ministry Sharity / Trinity Healthcare has a 5 year term contract with their claims admin Aleria and due to legal harassment by various states like NY, Sharity lost the ability to advertise in some areas and had their reputation damaged leading to a drop by about 75% in revenues.
the original point of the BK was to break the administration contract with Aleria and pick a smaller, more affordable vendor and continue their business⊠half way through they seem to have given up on that and are now in liquidation (2nd article, quotes were a mix from each which may have added to the confusion). You can see the BK filing here
https://pdf.courtdrive.com/pacer/debke/185773/dockets/5.00000/1-3942DE60-E0B3-11EB-87EE-7133B5677B47
The unpaid claims in question are some that apparently the admin Aleria may not have paid even though theyâre supposed to (ie that Sharity paid them to), or that they didnât yet tell Sharity about, with the goal of paying those people before winding down operations. This is why there are comments about maybe Aleria being on the hook for some claims.
So itâs a mess, but itâs mainly a âwe sued you out of existenceâ situation rather than a âweâre stiffing our customers in BKâ situation. Sounds like the customers are probably getting paid but I guess if it takes too long, the lawyers and settlements might steal money that would have gone to paying member claims.
3 Likes
The first line that xerty quoted after posting the links says âSharÂity⊠has filed for bankruptcy proÂtecÂtion in an efÂfort to keep opÂerÂatÂing.â My mistake for not realizing that had changed.
Okay, I suppose thatâs technically true that they arenât trying to get out of paying past claims. But Sharity isnât stopping members from filing claims that they just incurred, AND doesnât plan to pay them. So they arenât going into bankruptcy in order to get out of paying claims, but it just so happens thatâs exactly what the result will be. Seems like a difference without a distinction.
Kinda sort of? If theyâre claiming the claims are not debt obligations, the bankruptcy is irrelevant to them being paid.
Iâd guess this is a rather key detail in the fraud claims calling them a scam. They cant accept that the claims are debt obligations without also accepting that they were selling insurance illegally. Insisting that all âclaimsâ were submitted merely with the hope that other plan members would voluntarily contribute to share the cost is what makes their operation not subject to insurance regulations.
3 Likes
Yeah, I get it. They have to say that there is no guarantee your bills will be paid in order to not be considered insurance, but at the same time, they have to make sure all bills get paid or else no one would be their customer.
1 Like
Obamacare recap 12 years in. Promises made, promises broken.
Higher premiums, higher costs, lower choices, and the only people who take it are paid to.
âIf you think healthcareâs expensive now, wait til you see what it costs when itâs freeâ
3 Likes
I imagine the republicans didnât intend to give early retirees with assets but low taxable income a massive subsidy. Iâve personally saved just over 100k on premiums since the ACA began. So, thanks Obama!
7 Likes
Despite itâs shortcomings, just remember ⊠If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Itâs a promise made, promise âŠ
1 Like
I did indeed keep my Drs.
1 Like
Wait, which Republicans? 
True. I meant the Dems. The Republicans didnât want it at all.
Xertys point is apt. The happiest people with the ACA are those getting the subsidy. Although god help you if you get sick on a bronze plan only making 40k/year and no assets 
2 Likes