Jump to content



Photo

Lawsuit Could Destroy Obamacare In These 36 States


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#1 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,756 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 20 July 2014 - 06:42

3 other simular cases are in the pipeline.

http://www.businessi...-burwell-2014-7

A Lawsuit Could Destroy Obamacare In These 36 States

A lawsuit challenging Obamacare subsidies has the potential to skyrocket the health insurance costs of 5.4 million Americans.

The decision lies on the shoulders of three federal judges, who will decide the legality of subsidies served through the federal health insurance marketplaces, a decision that impacts residents of 36 states. The decision could come as early as July 21.

The Affordable Care Act, colloquially called Obamacare, established what are known as health insurance marketplaces or exchanges, where consumers can buy health insurance plans. So far around 8 million people have signed up. Sixteen states operate their own marketplaces, and the remaining two-thirds of states use the federal marketplace, Healthcare.gov.

Under the ACA, Individuals who make less than $46,075 are eligible to receive subsidies, or tax credits, towards their premiums, which means they do not pay the full monthly cost of their health insurance. Without these subsidies their costs would quadruple.

On average, premiums in the federal exchanges are $82 per month for individuals who are receiving subsidies. The average cost without subsidies is almost four times that at $346 per month, according to a report from HHS.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to rule on Halbig v. Burwell, which challenges these subsidies. As Business Insider's Brett LoGiurato reported, the Affordable Care Act was designed with the expectation that each state would run its own exchange, and part of the law notes that subsidies may be provided "through an Exchange established by the State." The challengers to the law argue that this means that, technically, the subsidies should only be available to the state-run marketplaces.

That means more than 5 million people in 36 states who are currently receiving health insurance subsidies through the federal marketplaces could potentially be shut out, as the graphic below shows.

heres-where-people-could-lose-their-heal

The case will be decided by three federal judges. One supports the challengers and one doesn't. So it seems the decision will come down to the swing vote of Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee. From the oral arguments heard in March, it's not entirely clear whose side he is on.
>




#2 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,865 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 20 July 2014 - 06:46

We live in hope.

 

The government does a poor job of running most things.



#3 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,187 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 20 July 2014 - 07:04

So... this is horribly stupid...
If anything just pass a clarification that is nation wide, not state level... I am sure that congress could d.. oh...

#4 The_Observer

The_Observer

    Apples, Bananas, Rhinoceros!

  • 3,907 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 05
  • Location: New Zealand
  • OS: OS X 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone5s

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:02

I dont understand this, how is this a bad thing to get better heath care for people. Not looking for anti-obama, more the facts of why this is such a bad thing. BTW keep it simple and ELI5.



#5 thekim

thekim

    Neowinian

  • 533 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 10
  • Location: DE/Berlin

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:13

I dont understand this, how is this a bad thing to get better heath care for people. Not looking for anti-obama, more the facts of why this is such a bad thing. BTW keep it simple and ELI5.

People in US don't think social. They just want to pay what they need for them self. A government grant health insurance is too "red", too socialistic.



#6 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:16

I dont understand this, how is this a bad thing to get better heath care for people. Not looking for anti-obama, more the facts of why this is such a bad thing. BTW keep it simple and ELI5.

Good idea, bad implementation.  The middle class ends up paying for those subsidies the lower class enjoys.

 

I've no problem with subsidized health care, just that we get footed with the bill.

 

I am sure there are those who do not believe me, but my doubled insurance premium speaks for itself.



#7 bryanseventh

bryanseventh

    Neowinian

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: 30-January 14
  • Location: Eastern Coast
  • OS: Windows
  • Phone: Windows

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:23

If I'm comprehending the end, this seems to be a technical issue with the way it was written. I've heard for too long that big bills such as this one are mostly ignored, too much homework for congress.

 

The title is creating a bias, I just think some lawyers are finally getting their homework done and making their salary. Americans are selfish but most will agree that our standard of living hasn't increased enough. We're a spoiled bunch.



#8 OP DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,756 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 20 July 2014 - 08:31

This is what happens when big laws are passed in a hurry without going through the regular order; committee hearings, amendments, language refinement etc. Then this was passed using procedures not intended for regular legislation.

In aerospace they call it 'launch fever' and it usually causes a disaster.

#9 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,865 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 20 July 2014 - 14:59

I don't understand this, how is this a bad thing to get better heath care for people. Not looking for anti-obama, more the facts of why this is such a bad thing. BTW keep it simple and ELI5.

Health care for everyone is not really a bad thing, in theory.

 

The problem is the USA can not afford unlimited care for everyone.

 

This will be trillions of dollars on top of food assistance, social security and other pensions, foreign aid, etc.

 

You can not just keep raising taxes, especially when so few are working, and only working part-time.

 

And there is an ever increasing population, including illegals flooding the country.

 

The USA is going to go broke trying to take care of all the people.

 

Something has to give.



#10 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,580 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise & Server 2012R2/08R2 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 20 July 2014 - 15:32

This is what happens when big laws are passed in a hurry without going through the regular order; committee hearings, amendments, language refinement etc. Then this was passed using procedures not intended for regular legislation.

In aerospace they call it 'launch fever' and it usually causes a disaster.

Exactly its not as if its stood the test of time, Hey! DocM what's the failed repeal attempt count up to now ? 40 or 50 ? I lost count.



#11 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,077 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 20 July 2014 - 15:55

I dont understand this, how is this a bad thing to get better heath care for people. Not looking for anti-obama, more the facts of why this is such a bad thing. BTW keep it simple and ELI5.

as others have mentioned, it's fine in theory. but theory never translates into reality. Truth is, Obama claimed that this law would actually lower health care premiums even though a myriad of economists and analysts said otherwise. Obama was wrong, of course. Health insurance premiums are going up across the board.

 

The ACA is scheduled to put the US another $1T futher in debt within 10 years. Keep in mind that this is no top of our current $17T+ debt.

 

Now with all these new regulations, Dr's have to buy more malpractice insurance, costs for care and tests goes way up, and Dr's are required to perform more tests on a patient than what is necessary. This takes more manpower, more time, and more money.

 

The ACA was created in order to help the vast minority of people in this country. Obama wanted to help the 15% of americans that struggle w/ healthcare. That means that he's screwing over the other 85% that get along just fine. How is that fare?

 

The US already has the highest cost of healthcare in the world. We dont need even higher rates. ACA has to end.



#12 Joe User

Joe User

    Lazy Joe's

  • 667 posts
  • Joined: 29-May 07
  • Location: Somewhere in the US
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Update 1
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 20 July 2014 - 16:26

Proper healthcare in the US would require having sensible tax policies, sensible tariff policies and sensible regulations, not something we are going to do anytime soon.  

 

Hopefully the ACA will force the government to enact some sensible policies, but I doubt it. Congress is far too dysfunctional at the moment, the President can't do much, and the Supreme Court doesn't seem to be doing a great job following the constitution.



#13 COKid

COKid

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,001 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 10
  • Location: Loveland, CO

Posted 20 July 2014 - 17:03

Yawn :sleep:

 

And if the ACA had been passed under Romney, the OP would think it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Boringly predictable, as usual. As it is, this suit will likely be another one that goes nowhere.

 

No law ever passed has been perfect, and the ACA definitely needs some major adjustments. But it's far better than what we had before.

 

I find it laughable and a bit sad how so many people just want Obama to fail in every way possible. All that seems to matter to them is their hatred of the "other side". It makes no difference if a given law would be good for the country or not. Thankfully, there are many of us who look at issues from more than one rigid angle, because solutions to a given problem are rarely that cut-and-dry.

 

Sure, we could go back to the way things used to be before ObamaCare. But folks without insurance would once again flood the emergency rooms and the rest of us still pay for that in the end anyway. We would be no further ahead. Of course, some people couldn't care less about the less fortunate. They have theirs. The rest of the people can die in the gutters for all they care.



#14 Reverend Spam

Reverend Spam

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined: 16-April 05
  • Location: Providence, RI, US
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: Droid Bionic

Posted 20 July 2014 - 17:21

Yawn :sleep:

 

And if the ACA had been passed under Romney, the OP would think it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Boringly predictable, as usual. As it is, this suit will likely be another one that goes nowhere.

 

No law ever passed has been perfect, and the ACA definitely needs some major adjustments. But it's far better than what we had before.

 

I find it laughable and a bit sad how so many people just want Obama to fail in every way possible. All that seems to matter to them is their hatred of the "other side". It makes no difference if a given law would be good for the country or not. Thankfully, there are many of us who look at issues from more than one rigid angle, because solutions to a given problem are rarely that cut-and-dry.

 

Sure, we could go back to the way things used to be before ObamaCare. But folks without insurance would once again flood the emergency rooms and the rest of us still pay for that in the end anyway. We would be no further ahead. Of course, some people couldn't care less about the less fortunate. They have theirs. The rest of the people can die in the gutters for all they care.

 

I agree with everything you said.  I tell my parents, avid Faux News Channel viewers, that they are demonizing a president simply because they don't like his party.  They disagree.  My father calls him a F*****G N****R... My mother says he's a "stupid, stupid man."  Apparently, she was in a coma for all of George Dubya's presidency.

 

They don't realize they're mindless sheep regurgitating whatever Faux News tells them, proclaiming that that BS is actually independently gained views rather than brainwashing.  I love my parents, but they are cult followers.  So blinded that they refuse to step outside themselves and see what both parties are trying to do to them. 

 

Don't get me wrong... I don't like Obama either....  But I'm smart enough to realize that, be they republican or democrat, our leaders are all working together to ###### us over and protect their own asses before the whole system collapses. 



#15 adrynalyne

adrynalyne

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,434 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 09

Posted 20 July 2014 - 17:35

Sure, we could go back to the way things used to be before ObamaCare. But folks without insurance would once again flood the emergency rooms and the rest of us still pay for that in the end anyway.

 

 

Hmm, my monthly costs on health insurance doubled since Obamacare, and my taxes haven't gone down.  So how is it I was paying for them before Obamacare?  If it was via taxes, I must still be paying for them...

 

The only difference if Romney had passed it instead, is I would be calling it Romneycare.