Supreme Court Will Hear New Challenge to Obamacare

Don't have to. It's partisan AND out of date.

You consider a 7.5% annual increase "skyrocketing"? You do know that's well below the historic average of health-care price increases, right?

Perhaps he's hiding a giant increase.

On the other hand, Since you consider a 7.5% increase to be massive, it's pretty clear Republicans would have tried to make a big deal of ANY increase, no matter how big. And since an increase is inevitable (as health-care costs have risen substantially every year for decades), it made sense to remove it as mindless fodder for the Republican noise machine.

 

How is it a lie? Right now, people in 38 states (or so) get their insurance through a federal exchange. A large percentage of them get subsidies. If the lawsuit succeeds, all those people will lose the subsidies -- hence, their insurance will become unaffordable, since the subsidies are keyed to income. The whole POINT of the subsidies is to make insurance affordable to people who otherwise couldn't afford it.

I think that's just raw fact.

 

What I find ridiculous is that in over 2,000 crap filled pages of the ACA designed by their countless writers and lawyers that these same writers and lawyers weren't smart enough to dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.

Sounds to me like the law was purposefully set up to force the states into actions they may not agree with and when the force couldn't be leveraged, if (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the whole ACA.

 

Anonymous anecdots aren't worth much, but where do you get your insurance (employer, exchange), what was the insurer, etc.?

 

2017 and 2018 is when the citizens rise up with the torches and pitchforks if this pig isn't slaughtered and buried.

 

That sentence makes no sense.

First you note that it was a complex bill with 2,000 pages. Then you "find it ridiculous" that in those 2,000 complicated pages, there were errors.

WTF?

 

The ACA has made their insurance more unaffordable than before that piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) legislation was written. It get worse in 2015 and it goes ballistic in 2017 and 2018.

That, is fact.

You make it sound as if it has gotten better. It hasn't.

 

The actual data disagrees with you.

Wow! You're clairvoyant! Meanwhile, actual experts looking at actual data expect modest increases this year.

No, it's delusion. There is nothing factual about your statement.

 

Neither are your opinions. That knife slices both ways.

 

Again, you're not making any sense. I was not providing an opinion; I was asking for data so I could check it.

 

Oh... okay.
You wouldn't be the first disingenuous leftist to think facts aren't something you need counter. That's what makes your contentions so...ummm...
"reliable".

I know you don't bother with facts but go back and check my claim. I said many have found their health care costs to be considerably more expensive since Obama Care became a blight on the land.
What was it Obama said? Oh, yeah...that's right, "You can keep your doctor, you can keep your health plan and we'll lower health costs for a typical family by $2,500 per year".

I'm not sure how he plans to do that when the typical health plan is going to be higher by 7.5% per year. I'm sure you can answer that riddle though.

Duhhh!

Yes. When Obama promised his health scam would SAVE the average family money and instead it's COSTING them more I consider that a massive change...or at least a massive betrayal of trust.

 

One of the primary jobs of the new Congress will be to start peeling away the layers of Obama Care. Let Obama and the new democrat presidential candidate defend Obama Care when Obama starts vetoing the reforms sent as laws to his desk for signature.
That should be about as popular with a nation that has never accepted Obama Care as Ebola.

 

One reason I keep coming to this site is that it's fun to read the conservative fantasy du jour.

 

It's all factual.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/obamacare-bad-now-it-will-be-far-worse-later
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-a...urance-Program/Reinsurance-Contributions.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/22/explaining-risk-corridors-the-next-obamacare-issue/

When those two programs end, the insured will pay for all that temporary government money that disappears.

Hint: The insurance companies will raise rates across the board. they're not going to close their doors.

 

Of course.
The prospect of Obama and most likely Hillary defending Obama Care all over again, now that everyone has seen the blatant lies behind it and felt the pain in their pocketbook, just amuses you so! So very convincing.

 

Poor wording? If dems would have read the bill before they passed it, maybe they could have corrected it.

[video=youtube;KoE1R-xH5To]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To[/video]

 

An opinion piece by an advisor to John McCain's 2008 campaign;

A link to the Medicare reinsurance program information page, which says nothing to support your point;

A blog about risk corridors. As it notes, the point of risk corridors was to protect insurers from the uncertainties of the new insurance markets. It phases out after a couple of years once they've had enough experience in the markets to price their products properly.

It is not expected to result in massive rate increases when it expires, except among conservatives attempting to fearmonger about Obamacare.

 

So you have nothing. You can go away now.

 

Because it's just so hard to believe that people have experienced increases in their premiums? Are you living under a rock?

I had Coventry before and now am with Louisiana Co-op. Policy is bought privately through an agent, not employer.

 

The facts are that the law as written says STATE EXCHANGES can subsidize. The law was written that way because other parts of the ACA stated that IF a state did not set up a state exchange and expanded Mediciad, they would lose their regular Medicaid funding.

When the ACA was tested by the SCOTUS, only the individual mandate penalty, and the state exchange coercion sections were argued before the SCOTUS.

BOTH LOST.

The penalty was ILLEGALLY rewritten by the SCOTUS as a TAX.

And the forced set up of state exchanges was declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The SCOTUS called it extortion by the federal govt.

Once that was decided, 34 states decided they would NOT set up obamascam exchanges.

 

No, the "obvious intent" of the subsidy portion of the ACA was to use the carrot/stick approach. Subsidies were offered to STATES that set up their own exchanges -- because that is what the Dems wanted and expected -- to force states to set up their own exchanges. They were SHOCKED that so many states flat out refused to set up exchanges and the federal government had to step in and do so in order to "save" the law......but the language is clear, the subsidies were intended for STATES, not the federal government.

 

From a NY Times editorial today:

Because one subsection of the law says these subsidies are available on an exchange “established by the State,” the plaintiffs claim there can be no subsidies for anyone living in the 36 states where the federal government established a health exchange after state officials did not.

It is a superficially simple argument, which most federal judges who have considered the claim have rejected. That is because it runs counter to the explicit purpose and structure of the Affordable Care Act. As everyone involved in the law’s creation understood at the time, its success depends on making coverage both required and available to as many people as possible. As a Senate staff member told Vox.com recently, “We certainly wanted every individual in every state, regardless of their federal or state exchange status, to receive the same subsidies.”

In cases where there is a dispute over statutory wording, a well-established legal principle requires courts to defer to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of the language at issue. In fact, the plaintiffs concede that their strained reading of the law could render several other provisions nonsensical.

The Supreme Court itself has said repeatedly that when construing laws, “we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but look to the provisions of the whole law, and to its object and policy.”

 

This case can be looked at in two different ways. The Liberal Judges will want to look at this case in a vacuum, and the Conservative Judges will want to look at it in the context of statements made by key members of the Administration and the Legislature. The question will be where the middle of the road Judges will fall.

If the SCOTUS views the case in a vacuum, then you are right. There is no expressed intent to exclude the Federal Exchange from the subsidies. The Democrats in Congress has issued a brief that states that there was no intent to exclude states covered by the Federal Exchanges. But contrary to what the Constitutional Ambulance Chaser In Chief might think, the court system can not rewrite a law. As such, it should stand as a good example of why a bill of this complexity and magnitude should not be hammered through the legislature process in the manner that the ACA was. I think Judge Randolph made a very good point in his ruling:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/07/02/by-the-way-the-d-c-circuit-might-nuke-obamacare-tomorrow/

The fact is that if the Democrats want to extend the subsidies to states covered under the Federal Exchange, then the bill needs to be amended by Congress. Of course that would require that the Democrats and Republicans would have to work together. It would also mean a quid pro quo trade-off. You know, like the system used to work before the Democrats took control. This would be the perfect issue for the DNC to start repairing their rejected public image. But for that to happen, Reid, Pelosi and Obama will have to publicly eat crow.

Now, if this case is taken in context, then the case gets messy. I am sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's, “You have to pass it to see what's in it.” Well, the law was passed, and we see that states that refused to set-up their own exchanges did not qualify for the subsidies. Then there is Harry Reid claiming that the purpose of the ACA is to move the country closer to a Single Payer Healthcare System. Now, ask this question. If the ACA works as advertised, then how could it lead closer to socialized medicine? The fact is it wouldn't. The only way it would is if the ACA failed so completely that it caused a collapse of the Healthcare Industry, and the Federal Government had to step-in. There is no easier way to bring this about then to have individuals enrolled through the Federal Exchanges suddenly have their insurance costs go through the roof. Individuals and families will not be able to afford their policies, and their policies get canceled. The ACA gives the Insurance companies a safety net in the form of a bailout, but as usual, there is no bailout for the individuals or families. Who will end up paying for their healthcare costs?

Those statements damage the DNC's claim of no intent. That was the statement in 2012 by Jonathan Gruber. If you are not familiar with the name, he is a MIT economist that was hired by the Obama Administration to help design the ACA. He also consulted with states on whether or not to operate their own exchanges. Jonathan Gruber's statement came after the ACA was passed:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

You have an individual that is a paid consultant for the both the Federal Government, and the states stating that the law clearly exempted those covered by the Federal Exchanges from the subsidies.

 

No, it's just that anyone can claim anything on an anonymous forum. It's hard to treat it is actual evidence of anything.

Okay, so you're solely on the individual market. Why did you buy through a private agent instead of an exchange? Do you earn too much to qualify for a subsidy?

 

You've got that reversed. The point was you have nothing. You gave three links -- one a partisan opinion piece, and two informational links that don't actually support your claim.

Try to provide actual credible evidence to support your claims that the expiration of either the re-insurance or risk corridors are expected to make premiums skyrocket.