Supreme Court misunderstanding on health overhaul?

Mandatory coverage » The law doesn’t require the priciest insurance, providing for a cheaper “bronze” plan close to today’s “catastrophic” coverage policies.

< Previous Page

Such nuances were seemingly lost before the Supreme Court. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, Michael Carvin, asserted during the arguments that "Congress prohibits anyone over 30 from buying any kind of catastrophic health insurance."

Verrilli did not challenge Carvin’s characterization, but it is raising eyebrows among insurance professionals.

"I don’t think that’s exactly right," said benefits lawyer Mark Holloway of the Lockton Companies, a major insurance broker serving mid-size companies. "It depends on what you call catastrophic coverage."

Carvin says he stands by his statement in court that the law prohibits anyone over 30 from buying any kind of catastrophic insurance.

"The bronze plan is not catastrophic coverage," said Carvin, who represents the National Federation of Independent Business.

"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."

Copyright 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

About Reader Comments

---

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.