tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post2058788724170501845..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Attention Alito, Roberts, Scalia: the ACA has a catastrophic coverage optionAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-81203444983619360012012-04-10T14:59:24.322-04:002012-04-10T14:59:24.322-04:00yes, and it *must* have been spurred in part by yo...yes, and it *must* have been spurred in part by your arguments. kudos.<br /><br />This from Carvin at the end:<br />"It's got all the minimum essential benefits in it," he added. "It's got to have wellness, preventive, contraceptives — all kinds of things a 30-year old would never need. It's not remotely catastrophic."<br /><br />Noooo, never need those! Those won't contribute to better health--and increased economic security--one bit! Nothing to see here!andrew longnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-29849201442188099742012-04-10T14:08:56.302-04:002012-04-10T14:08:56.302-04:00Many thanks for flagging this, Andrew. I actually ...Many thanks for flagging this, Andrew. I actually emailed two AP reporters about this issue on April 1, albeit not Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, author of the story you cite above (full version here http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/supreme-court-misunderstanding-health-overhaul-16108948#.T4RxGPWnchx ). Glad to see the issue out there, in any case.Andrew Sprunghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-11728658827295821612012-04-10T13:07:58.225-04:002012-04-10T13:07:58.225-04:00Hmmm, someone at the AP reads you. Yay!
http://ww...Hmmm, someone at the AP reads you. Yay!<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/04/10/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-health-care-misunderstanding.html?_r=1&hp<br /><br />Supreme Court Misunderstanding on Health Overhaul?<br />By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS<br />Published: April 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM ET <br /><br />WASHINGTON (AP) — Insurance experts say there may be a misunderstanding about President Barack Obama's health care law among members of the Supreme Court.<br /><br />It could cloud the courts' deliberations, leaving the impression that the law's insurance mandate is more burdensome than it actually is.<br /><br />The recent oral arguments left the impression that some of the justices and the lawyers appearing before them believe the law does not allow consumers to buy lower-cost, stripped-down coverage to satisfy its controversial requirement that most people carry health insurance.<br /><br />In fact, the law provides for a "bronze" plan that costs less than comprehensive coverage. Several insurance experts said that the bronze plan is analogous to catastrophic insurance sold today.andrew longnoreply@blogger.com