Jump to content

108 posts in this topic

Posted

3 other simular cases are in the pipeline.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-challenge-obamacare-subsidies-halbig-v-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.
>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

We live in hope.

 

The government does a poor job of running most things.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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...
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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 fuck us over and protect their own asses before the whole system collapses. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From an outsiders perspective, most US citizens are extremely unwilling to change in any way. The standard they grew up with is what they believe is the "true and right way" for whatever the subject is be it guns, religion, whatever.  I am not saying I agree/disagree with obamacare since i am not an expert on the matter, but the old way is broken even if it seemed to work for you. Why not try to make something better, offer ways to make it better instead of offering lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From an outsiders perspective, most US citizens are extremely unwilling to change in any way. The standard they grew up with is what they believe is the "true and right way" for whatever the subject is be it guns, religion, whatever.  I am not saying I agree/disagree with obamacare since i am not an expert on the matter, but the old way is broken even if it seemed to work for you. Why not try to make something better, offer ways to make it better instead of offering lawsuits.

From an insider's perspective, you are right when it causes me to have to pay more for the same thing.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From an insider's perspective, you are right when it causes me to have to pay more for the same thing.

 

Perception can be a good and bad thing. What if you were paying too little before and now the price has been adjusted to the correct value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Perception can be a good and bad thing. What if you were paying too little before and now the price has been adjusted to the correct value?

Also, the biggest benefit from the ACA is the 80% requirement to reinvest in services provided. This really won't affect prices until the second year where the rates of all the new sign ups will get added into the mix and lower everything for everyone even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So the GOP solution to healthcare is to undermine the ACA subsidies and make healthcare obscenely expensive? Great. Glad to see conservatives looking out for the best interests of Americans.

 

You know what, I hope they succeed. Because if conservatives think they'll ever win an election again after pulling a move like this they've got another thing coming. You couldn't ask for a more obvious example of the GOP's contempt for America than this.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Perception can be a good and bad thing. What if you were paying too little before and now the price has been adjusted to the correct value?

Interesting theory until you realize that health insurance costs are artificially inflated.

 

Until hospital and insurance costs are brought under control, these problems will exist.

 

AMA doesn't address enough of either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The theory behind Obamacare was to get care for 35-40% of Americans without insurance, a good goal. It's the execution where they screwed up.

The KISS way would first identify the demographics of that group, which had already been done.

Over 1/3 were upper income folks who self insure (out of pocket, concierge medicine), use medical savings accounts etc. They are not a problem the govt. needed to address.

A great many are illegals who shouldn't be here to begin with. Send them back by cracking down hard on their employers, and make for a better guest worker program for those who come here properly. Reform how doing it properly works. Lock down the border too, which is possible. Don't encourage their coming here (r u listening Barry?)

The rest are the low income working folks not eligible for Medicaid or poorly insured. These should have been the primary target group, not the whole fracking nation. They could have easily been covered by simply expanding Medicaid eligibility. Provide for coverage overlaps so Medicare only picks up for what their employers coverage doesn't cover. A short law with indexing for inflation.

Poof. Problem solved, but not the Democrats way of doing things. They like BIG and EXPENSIVE.

Funding for Medicaid expansion AND expanding Medicare benefits could have been funded by removing the cap on Medicare taxes, which under current law is only paid on the first $106,000 of ones income - a very regressive tax.

Instead they blew up everyone's insurance coverage, reducing it for a great many including Social Security recipients, just so they could also sneak in a laundry list of other "social reforms" and invasions of privacy.

Now employers are dropping or reducing people insurance because Obamacare encourages them to do so. It actually heavily taxes them if they offer employees good insurance coverage, which leads to increased costs for those employees.

Nice shootin' Tex /s

BTW: Republicans have proposed the above many times over the last 20 years. Some Democrats supported this as well, but their leadership would have no part of it. They prefer BIG, EXPENSIVE, INTRUSIVE and all that rot.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A great many are illegals who shouldn't be here to begin with. Send them back by cracking down hard on their employers, and make for a better guest worker program for those who come here properly. Reform how doing it properly works. Lock down the border too, which is possible. Don't encourage their coming here (r u listening Barry?)

Do you expect to be taken seriously when referring to birther nonsense? It only undermines your credibility as an objective and reasonable individual.

 

As for your other points:

1) Obama has tried to address immigration but the GOP has blocked it at every opportunity.

2) Higher earners who self-insure should be expected to pay into the system in order to support those less well off, so of course they shouldn't be exempt - the issue with US healthcare was never about the wealthy not getting the treatment they need.

3) Deporting immigrants does nothing to improve healthcare for the millions of Americans without health insurance.

4) Employers shouldn't have any involvement in healthcare, let alone be decided what coverage their employees get (see: birth control).

 

The GOP should have worked with Obama to improve the healthcare system. Instead it has sabotaged it at every opportunity, punishing the American people and increasing healthcare costs. Now we're talking about the GOP deliberately sabotaging the healthcare system in order to make a political point, something that does nothing to improve healthcare but in fact substantially damages it.

 

How can anyone think this is reasonable? Nobody in their right might should vote for such a disgusting political party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Do you expect to be taken seriously when referring to birther nonsense? It only undermines your credibility as an objective and reasonable individual.

 

Only he wasn't talking about 'birther nonsense'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Only he wasn't talking about 'birther nonsense'

Calling Barack Obama 'Barry' absolutely is referring to the birther movement.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.