What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (4 Viewers)

Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You're going to ride those studies until the wheels fall off, aren't you? The cost of insurance for the average American has not gone up 40%. And you're comparing previous coverage with new coverage that now meets all ACA standards. By definition, new coverage is far more comprehensive.
Yes, until anyone can post anything showing something other than their conclusions. I've asked for this quite a few times, haven't had anything posted. The underlying cost of the insurance has done up, you can't dispute that.

Also, these new coverage requirements are good things (all those men now have their pregnancies covered, right?; as do all those adults with their pediatric dental needs)- but are they worth the reduction in network size available? Here in VA, the largest carrier is ONLY offering an HMO style product with a vastly trimmed down network. You want to go to Johns Hopkins right across the state line? Too bad, they aren't in network and you're paying cash. Your home state of California actually has a legal battle going on right now about the same thing (vastly trimmed down networks on these new plans).
I'm fine with a small portion of my insurance coverage going to ensure women have their pregnancies covered. I realize it's a funny bumper sticker, but the underlying reason for the policy is sound.

And yeah, overall small network sizes are worth the compromise for more comprehensive coverage. Nothing sucks worse than having a health related incident and then realizing that the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event. That was happening too often.
That's what's happening now, though, with smaller networks! You have a health related incident, go to the hospital or doctor, and then realize that the service you just had was from an out of network provider and you're left paying the entire bill on your own. So "the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event". It's the exact same thing.
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.

 
It is quite amusing how you lie about the costs of insurance and constantly imply that they are attributable to Obamacare when the reality is that healthcare insurance company premiums have been going up every year at high rates for a long long time, and really no more now overall than before Obamacare really started recently (in fact, in the last couple of years overall healthcare costs have grown at the slowest rate in a long time).
Yes, health care costs have slowed since Obamacare took effect (although there doesn't seem to be a cause-and-effect relationship there).
I certainly dont know why they have slowed down.

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You are a hilarious shill for the healthcare insurance companies. It is quite amusing how you lie about the costs of insurance and constantly imply that they are attributable to Obamacare when the reality is that healthcare insurance company premiums have been going up every year at high rates for a long long time, and really no more now overall than before Obamacare really started recently (in fact, in the last couple of years overall healthcare costs have grown at the slowest rate in a long time).

Oh look!! Healthcare insurance policy premiums almost tripled between 1999 and 2011--damn you OBAmA!!

You keep on keeping on with your advocacy, though, as it is excellent comedy.
Your link doesn't say what you think it says.

Also, individual premiums before 2010 (when the ACA first set certain rules in place) went up on average about 7%. This has been shown here, many times, and was linked back to by KFF (who you just linked to yourself). Recent news has said that the average individual premium in the 3 years prior to the exchanges (which were still affected by the ACA mind you) went up on average 10%. I absolutely love how they say "in the three years before the ACA" as if no other data was available. New studies show the pre-ACA and new ACA plans differ in total cost by 39% or 41%. Nothing posted here has refuted that. Yes, some people obtain subsidies (paid for by others), but the cost of the actual insurance has gone up by a staggering amount. Moreover, early indications are that 2015 premiums will be 10%+ higher than 2014 rates, some up to and over 20% more.

So, on average 7% increases before any part of the ACA. Then 10% for the first 3 years of many ACA policies. Then 39/41% in the first year of "ACA compliant plans" and looking forward to "double digit plus increases" going forward. Affordable my butt.

 
Can someone explain for me, in simple language, how the recent court decision will affect the future of Obamacare? I don't understand. Thank you in advance.
if you get rid of the tax breaks, the full costs of the federal plans are the responsibility of the enrollees. It's politically disadvantageous for the President, so it's bad.

 
Can someone explain for me, in simple language, how the recent court decision will affect the future of Obamacare? I don't understand. Thank you in advance.
In simple language, the ACA text reads that subsidies can only be paid to or via exchanges set up by "the State". What some people think that means is that if a state doesn't set up their own exchange (as I think 36 did not), then anyone buying individual coverage through them wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy. So they will have to pay the full amount of the coverage, unsubsidized.

Personally, I think that's a bunch of BS as it's obvious what the meant. It would be a shame if that little typo (or however you want to describe it) is what unhinges the ACA. Having people actually pay for the coverage......that wouldn't work, people can't afford coverage priced like this.

 
Can someone explain for me, in simple language, how the recent court decision will affect the future of Obamacare? I don't understand. Thank you in advance.
The recent court decision may be temporary, in which case not much. It'll probably be reheard en banc. After that, it will probably go to the Supreme Court. Either way, there's a decent chance that the administration will end up winning the case ultimately.

If the administration loses, things are uncertain. It's possible that the 36 states that opted out of doing the exchanges will reverse course and opt in.

If they don't, the likely result is a complete collapse of health insurance in those states for individuals who don't get health care from their employers. Without subsidies, health insurance will be too expensive, especially for young, healthy people. And without them joining in, health insurance becomes too expensive for everybody. (In which case the individual penalty for foregoing health insurance is waived, meaning that even fewer people will buy insurance.) So people who don't get health care from their employers will just be screwed.

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You are a hilarious shill for the healthcare insurance companies. It is quite amusing how you lie about the costs of insurance and constantly imply that they are attributable to Obamacare when the reality is that healthcare insurance company premiums have been going up every year at high rates for a long long time, and really no more now overall than before Obamacare really started recently (in fact, in the last couple of years overall healthcare costs have grown at the slowest rate in a long time).

Oh look!! Healthcare insurance policy premiums almost tripled between 1999 and 2011--damn you OBAmA!!

You keep on keeping on with your advocacy, though, as it is excellent comedy.
Your link doesn't say what you think it says.

Also, individual premiums before 2010 (when the ACA first set certain rules in place) went up on average about 7%. This has been shown here, many times, and was linked back to by KFF (who you just linked to yourself). Recent news has said that the average individual premium in the 3 years prior to the exchanges (which were still affected by the ACA mind you) went up on average 10%. I absolutely love how they say "in the three years before the ACA" as if no other data was available. New studies show the pre-ACA and new ACA plans differ in total cost by 39% or 41%. Nothing posted here has refuted that. Yes, some people obtain subsidies (paid for by others), but the cost of the actual insurance has gone up by a staggering amount. Moreover, early indications are that 2015 premiums will be 10%+ higher than 2014 rates, some up to and over 20% more.

So, on average 7% increases before any part of the ACA. Then 10% for the first 3 years of many ACA policies. Then 39/41% in the first year of "ACA compliant plans" and looking forward to "double digit plus increases" going forward. Affordable my butt.
OH NOOE!1 Insurance companies are raising premiums!! It is unprecedented!!1 They never did that before and always have our best interests at heart!

Damn you OBaMA!!!1

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You're going to ride those studies until the wheels fall off, aren't you? The cost of insurance for the average American has not gone up 40%. And you're comparing previous coverage with new coverage that now meets all ACA standards. By definition, new coverage is far more comprehensive.
Yes, until anyone can post anything showing something other than their conclusions. I've asked for this quite a few times, haven't had anything posted. The underlying cost of the insurance has done up, you can't dispute that.

Also, these new coverage requirements are good things (all those men now have their pregnancies covered, right?; as do all those adults with their pediatric dental needs)- but are they worth the reduction in network size available? Here in VA, the largest carrier is ONLY offering an HMO style product with a vastly trimmed down network. You want to go to Johns Hopkins right across the state line? Too bad, they aren't in network and you're paying cash. Your home state of California actually has a legal battle going on right now about the same thing (vastly trimmed down networks on these new plans).
I'm fine with a small portion of my insurance coverage going to ensure women have their pregnancies covered. I realize it's a funny bumper sticker, but the underlying reason for the policy is sound.

And yeah, overall small network sizes are worth the compromise for more comprehensive coverage. Nothing sucks worse than having a health related incident and then realizing that the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event. That was happening too often.
That's what's happening now, though, with smaller networks! You have a health related incident, go to the hospital or doctor, and then realize that the service you just had was from an out of network provider and you're left paying the entire bill on your own. So "the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event". It's the exact same thing.
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.
I've had quite a few people call me and complain that the doctor visit they just had wasn't covered as the Dr. or provider they just saw wasn't in the network provided by these new plans. Doctors and providers that they may have been seeing for years without issue, are no longer in their network because their old plan wasn't "compliant" and was canceled and replaced with this new "compliant" one where their doctor is no longer participating. My entire county has two participating OBs.

 
Can someone explain for me, in simple language, how the recent court decision will affect the future of Obamacare? I don't understand. Thank you in advance.
In simple language, the ACA text reads that subsidies can only be paid to or via exchanges set up by "the State". What some people think that means is that if a state doesn't set up their own exchange (as I think 36 did not), then anyone buying individual coverage through them wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy. So they will have to pay the full amount of the coverage, unsubsidized.

Personally, I think that's a bunch of BS as it's obvious what the meant. It would be a shame if that little typo (or however you want to describe it) is what unhinges the ACA. Having people actually pay for the coverage......that wouldn't work, people can't afford coverage priced like this.
It's not a "typo", every draft of the act, ever, had that language in it. It's there on purpose. It is obvious what they meant--subsidies go to state enrollees only. It's just unfortunate for the administration so few states played ball.

To me, Intent is clear in the text. It also seems the Obama administration's legal position is that "Congress intended to create a health-care system that works, therefore, anything the administration does make the system work is de facto justified," which I don't buy.

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You're going to ride those studies until the wheels fall off, aren't you? The cost of insurance for the average American has not gone up 40%. And you're comparing previous coverage with new coverage that now meets all ACA standards. By definition, new coverage is far more comprehensive.
Yes, until anyone can post anything showing something other than their conclusions. I've asked for this quite a few times, haven't had anything posted. The underlying cost of the insurance has done up, you can't dispute that.

Also, these new coverage requirements are good things (all those men now have their pregnancies covered, right?; as do all those adults with their pediatric dental needs)- but are they worth the reduction in network size available? Here in VA, the largest carrier is ONLY offering an HMO style product with a vastly trimmed down network. You want to go to Johns Hopkins right across the state line? Too bad, they aren't in network and you're paying cash. Your home state of California actually has a legal battle going on right now about the same thing (vastly trimmed down networks on these new plans).
I'm fine with a small portion of my insurance coverage going to ensure women have their pregnancies covered. I realize it's a funny bumper sticker, but the underlying reason for the policy is sound.

And yeah, overall small network sizes are worth the compromise for more comprehensive coverage. Nothing sucks worse than having a health related incident and then realizing that the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event. That was happening too often.
That's what's happening now, though, with smaller networks! You have a health related incident, go to the hospital or doctor, and then realize that the service you just had was from an out of network provider and you're left paying the entire bill on your own. So "the insurance you've been paying for for years doesn't cover that event". It's the exact same thing.
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.
I've had quite a few people call me and complain that the doctor visit they just had wasn't covered as the Dr. or provider they just saw wasn't in the network provided by these new plans. Doctors and providers that they may have been seeing for years without issue, are no longer in their network because their old plan wasn't "compliant" and was canceled and replaced with this new "compliant" one where their doctor is no longer participating. My entire county has two participating OBs.
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.

 
Thanks for the explanations. It will be interesting to see whether the courts do as MT predicts, and rule in favor of Obama, or as Sarnoff predicts, and uphold this current ruling, which I take it might completely unravel Obamacare.

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You are a hilarious shill for the healthcare insurance companies. It is quite amusing how you lie about the costs of insurance and constantly imply that they are attributable to Obamacare when the reality is that healthcare insurance company premiums have been going up every year at high rates for a long long time, and really no more now overall than before Obamacare really started recently (in fact, in the last couple of years overall healthcare costs have grown at the slowest rate in a long time).

Oh look!! Healthcare insurance policy premiums almost tripled between 1999 and 2011--damn you OBAmA!!

You keep on keeping on with your advocacy, though, as it is excellent comedy.
Your link doesn't say what you think it says.

Also, individual premiums before 2010 (when the ACA first set certain rules in place) went up on average about 7%. This has been shown here, many times, and was linked back to by KFF (who you just linked to yourself). Recent news has said that the average individual premium in the 3 years prior to the exchanges (which were still affected by the ACA mind you) went up on average 10%. I absolutely love how they say "in the three years before the ACA" as if no other data was available. New studies show the pre-ACA and new ACA plans differ in total cost by 39% or 41%. Nothing posted here has refuted that. Yes, some people obtain subsidies (paid for by others), but the cost of the actual insurance has gone up by a staggering amount. Moreover, early indications are that 2015 premiums will be 10%+ higher than 2014 rates, some up to and over 20% more.

So, on average 7% increases before any part of the ACA. Then 10% for the first 3 years of many ACA policies. Then 39/41% in the first year of "ACA compliant plans" and looking forward to "double digit plus increases" going forward. Affordable my butt.
OH NOOE!1 Insurance companies are raising premiums!! It is unprecedented!!1 They never did that before and always have our best interests at heart!

Damn you OBaMA!!!1
Just like the 1925 Ford Model T "Runabout" cost $260 brand new. The cost of everything has gone up, including health care. 50 years ago the "heart transplant" procedure didn't exist, or really any organ transplant for that matter. Today we have over 30,000 organ transplants a year, which can run easily into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's just one example. Health insurance rates have to go up to compensate.

 
It's not a "typo", every draft of the act, ever, had that language in it.
It's not technically a typo, but it's the same idea. It's a drafting error. Like writing "linebacker" when you meant "safety" due to a brain fart.

I guess two people could look at the ACA as a whole and come to different conclusions about that, but the idea that it's an unintended error is certainly not far-fetched.

 
Reducing the cost of insurance so that a lot of folks who couldn't afford it previously could get insured was what the "A" stood for, per my understanding.

Since the number of uninsured has been reduced by 10-12M, I'd say that goal was accomplished. :shrug:
But they didn't do that. Not at all, not even close. The cost of the insurance has gone up, studies show anywhere from 39% to 41%. Yes, the subsidized cost for many may have gone down, but that subsidy money is just coming from other people (mainly people on fully insured group health insurance plans).

So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
You are a hilarious shill for the healthcare insurance companies. It is quite amusing how you lie about the costs of insurance and constantly imply that they are attributable to Obamacare when the reality is that healthcare insurance company premiums have been going up every year at high rates for a long long time, and really no more now overall than before Obamacare really started recently (in fact, in the last couple of years overall healthcare costs have grown at the slowest rate in a long time).

Oh look!! Healthcare insurance policy premiums almost tripled between 1999 and 2011--damn you OBAmA!!

You keep on keeping on with your advocacy, though, as it is excellent comedy.
Your link doesn't say what you think it says.

Also, individual premiums before 2010 (when the ACA first set certain rules in place) went up on average about 7%. This has been shown here, many times, and was linked back to by KFF (who you just linked to yourself). Recent news has said that the average individual premium in the 3 years prior to the exchanges (which were still affected by the ACA mind you) went up on average 10%. I absolutely love how they say "in the three years before the ACA" as if no other data was available. New studies show the pre-ACA and new ACA plans differ in total cost by 39% or 41%. Nothing posted here has refuted that. Yes, some people obtain subsidies (paid for by others), but the cost of the actual insurance has gone up by a staggering amount. Moreover, early indications are that 2015 premiums will be 10%+ higher than 2014 rates, some up to and over 20% more.

So, on average 7% increases before any part of the ACA. Then 10% for the first 3 years of many ACA policies. Then 39/41% in the first year of "ACA compliant plans" and looking forward to "double digit plus increases" going forward. Affordable my butt.
FWIW, a recent NEBR study suggests the average increase is more like 14-28% before subsidies.

 
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.
I've had quite a few people call me and complain that the doctor visit they just had wasn't covered as the Dr. or provider they just saw wasn't in the network provided by these new plans. Doctors and providers that they may have been seeing for years without issue, are no longer in their network because their old plan wasn't "compliant" and was canceled and replaced with this new "compliant" one where their doctor is no longer participating. My entire county has two participating OBs.
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
They walk into a medical providers office that they've been in many times before over the years, and find out right there that their new insurance isn't accepted anymore. Sometimes they don't realize it, or the doctors office doesn't discover it until after the Dr. visit has happened. They file the claim, and it comes back unpaid. Sorry, I guess you can't "keep your doctor if you like them."

I actually went to the dentist this morning, a dentist I've been seeing my entire life. I'd go there no matter if they took my insurance or not kinda relationship. They didn't ask for my insurance information until I was leaving.

Apparently it's happening so much in your own home state that they are changing the rules because of it...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_26127671

 
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.
I've had quite a few people call me and complain that the doctor visit they just had wasn't covered as the Dr. or provider they just saw wasn't in the network provided by these new plans. Doctors and providers that they may have been seeing for years without issue, are no longer in their network because their old plan wasn't "compliant" and was canceled and replaced with this new "compliant" one where their doctor is no longer participating. My entire county has two participating OBs.
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
They walk into a medical providers office that they've been in many times before over the years, and find out right there that their new insurance isn't accepted anymore. Sometimes they don't realize it, or the doctors office doesn't discover it until after the Dr. visit has happened. They file the claim, and it comes back unpaid. Sorry, I guess you can't "keep your doctor if you like them."

I actually went to the dentist this morning, a dentist I've been seeing my entire life. I'd go there no matter if they took my insurance or not kinda relationship. They didn't ask for my insurance information until I was leaving.

Apparently it's happening so much in your own home state that they are changing the rules because of it...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_26127671
You should read the article. There is absolutely no mention of people getting treated and receiving massive bills afterward b/c the doctors who treated them were out of network. These people went to their medical care providers, and were told up front that the doctor they were there to see was not in network.

Basically, just as I suggested.

ETA: Just further proof that you're making #### up, then googling for articles to support your bull####, and not even bothering to read the articles you're linking to ensure that they support the point you're trying to make. Pretty much a waste of time reading your posts at this point. You couldn't have been more wrong on this issue the entire time. Perhaps you should change your username.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
My primary care doctor accepts my insurance. However, he can't tell me when I show up whether everything will be covered. He doesn't know until he submits it to the insurance company. When I started seeing him I had to sign a form acknowledging I was responsible for all fees. If my insurance doesn't cover it I get a bill from him, which I'm responsible for. My dental insurance works the same way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's another way to redistribute wealth, with the long standing goal of everyone equal regardless of personal initiative.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
Negative. It's actually decreasing. Maybe you need to stop spouting party talking points.

The message from groups like Occupy Wall Street and TGunz Socialist Party has been that inequality is up and that capitalism is failing us. A more correct and nuanced message is this: Although significant economic problems remain, we have been living in equalizing times for the world — a change that has been largely for the good. That may not make for convincing sloganeering, but it’s the truth.
I know the truth hurts. I'm here for you if you need me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone explain for me, in simple language, how the recent court decision will affect the future of Obamacare? I don't understand. Thank you in advance.
In simple language, the ACA text reads that subsidies can only be paid to or via exchanges set up by "the State". What some people think that means is that if a state doesn't set up their own exchange (as I think 36 did not), then anyone buying individual coverage through them wouldn't be eligible for a subsidy. So they will have to pay the full amount of the coverage, unsubsidized.

Personally, I think that's a bunch of BS as it's obvious what the meant. It would be a shame if that little typo (or however you want to describe it) is what unhinges the ACA. Having people actually pay for the coverage......that wouldn't work, people can't afford coverage priced like this.
It's not a "typo", every draft of the act, ever, had that language in it. It's there on purpose. It is obvious what they meant--subsidies go to state enrollees only. It's just unfortunate for the administration so few states played ball.

To me, Intent is clear in the text. It also seems the Obama administration's legal position is that "Congress intended to create a health-care system that works, therefore, anything the administration does make the system work is de facto justified," which I don't buy.
That isnt really accurate, although typo isnt really an accurate way to describe the language at issue, either. The statute language clearly says subsidies are for enrollees through "State" setup exchanges, but the statute also then provides that states dont have to set up a "State" exchange and that in that case the federal government can do it and stand in the shoes of the state that decides not to set one up. Clearly, in that scenario, the fed set up exchange would act as the "State" exchange and thus give out the subsidies, which so far is how the federal government and the Fourth Circuit interpret the statute. You are purposefully trying to find the "intent" in narrowly selected language which ignores the entirety of the statute and context, just like the two DC Circuit judges did in their hyperliteral silly decision (thats my characterization of it). I am pretty sure that it will be reversed by the entire panel and I doubt if it ever goes to the Supreme Court because if it is reversed en banc there wont be a circuit split. Although there are two more cases out there pending on the same issue in different courts....

One of the reasons that the statute language is sloppy is because Ted Kennedy died after the first full draft of ACA was done (which was the one voted into law) and it didnt get hammered out because Scott Brown was coming in to vote against it. So it was voted on in the current form and a lot of the textual finetuning which would smoothed this type of dumb issue out would have taken place.

 
Really? Every time I go to a hospital or a dentist or any medical care provider, I'm asked for my insurance info up front.
I've had quite a few people call me and complain that the doctor visit they just had wasn't covered as the Dr. or provider they just saw wasn't in the network provided by these new plans. Doctors and providers that they may have been seeing for years without issue, are no longer in their network because their old plan wasn't "compliant" and was canceled and replaced with this new "compliant" one where their doctor is no longer participating. My entire county has two participating OBs.
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
They walk into a medical providers office that they've been in many times before over the years, and find out right there that their new insurance isn't accepted anymore. Sometimes they don't realize it, or the doctors office doesn't discover it until after the Dr. visit has happened. They file the claim, and it comes back unpaid. Sorry, I guess you can't "keep your doctor if you like them."

I actually went to the dentist this morning, a dentist I've been seeing my entire life. I'd go there no matter if they took my insurance or not kinda relationship. They didn't ask for my insurance information until I was leaving.

Apparently it's happening so much in your own home state that they are changing the rules because of it...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_26127671
You should read the article. There is absolutely no mention of people getting treated and receiving massive bills afterward b/c they weren't treated. These people went to their medical care providers, and were told up front that the doctor they were there to see was not in network.

Basically, just as I suggested.
Yes, the medical procedure that they wanted wouldn't be covered, just as I said.

 
Thanks for the explanations. It will be interesting to see whether the courts do as MT predicts, and rule in favor of Obama, or as Sarnoff predicts, and uphold this current ruling, which I take it might completely unravel Obamacare.
Even if the current DC Circuit ruling is upheld all the way through the USSC, it probably wont do anything at all to Obamacare in the long run. If it isnt addressed legislatively over the years between now and a possible USSC decision, it will have an impact on people who got subsidies through federal exchanges but it wont strike down ACA or impact the millions of people who got subsidies through State exchanges. But just like Medicaid, eventually every state will participate in Obamacare and have an exchange. There is just too much money at stake for them not to. Over the long run, politicians who oppose setting up the State exchanges will be voted out by taxpayers who want expanded healthcare benefits and options and the subsidies. What you are seeing now is short term political stuff going on which has to do with the short term political goals of the parties and players involved. Long term, every state will have an exchange.

But like I said above, I doubt it even goes to the USSC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
My primary care doctor accepts my insurance. However, he can't tell me when I show up whether everything will be covered. He doesn't know until he submits it to the insurance company. When I started seeing him I had to sign a form acknowledging I was responsible for all fees. If my insurance doesn't cover it I get a bill from him, which I'm responsible for. My dental insurance works the same way.
Ditto. I was under the impression this was standard (and really crappy for the consumer).

 
So they walk into medical providers and don't have to provide proof of insurance? I've literally never heard of that happening. Ever.
My primary care doctor accepts my insurance. However, he can't tell me when I show up whether everything will be covered. He doesn't know until he submits it to the insurance company. When I started seeing him I had to sign a form acknowledging I was responsible for all fees. If my insurance doesn't cover it I get a bill from him, which I'm responsible for. My dental insurance works the same way.
Ditto. I was under the impression this was standard (and really crappy for the consumer).
It is a horrible system. And then add into that procedure the fact that doctors, knowing they wont get all or even most of what they bill, have been increasing their own costs/fees (I call it "inflating") in an effort to capture more back from the insurance companies. That is why our fictitious health care costs are so high compared to the same drugs and the same procedures in other industrialized nations.

The amazing thing Americans dont realize is that something like 60% of the lawyers in the country work directly or indirectly for insurance companies, and many as insurance coverage lawyers. What other industry or service provider will take your on time payments for decades and then, the minute you file your first claim, send your claim to their lawyers with instructions to figure out how to avoid covering it (obviously, the majority of claims are small and coverage is obvious so they dont go to insurance coverage lawyers). It is a crazy racket.

 
It's another way to redistribute wealth, with the long standing goal of everyone equal regardless of personal initiative.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
The spread is really due to the ultra rich getting richer. The ACA doesn't impact them at all. The middle class, by and large, is shouldering this increased cost of insurance mandates and subsidies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's another way to redistribute wealth, with the long standing goal of everyone equal regardless of personal initiative.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
The spread is really due to the ultra rich getting richer. The ACA doesn't impact them at all. The middle class, by and large, is shouldering this increased cost of insurance mandates and subsidies.
Not really, unless you consider workers earning 200k+ "middle class". Which is pretty absurd.

 
It's another way to redistribute wealth, with the long standing goal of everyone equal regardless of personal initiative.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
Negative. It's actually decreasing. Maybe you need to stop spouting party talking points.

The message from groups like Occupy Wall Street and TGunz Socialist Party has been that inequality is up and that capitalism is failing us. A more correct and nuanced message is this: Although significant economic problems remain, we have been living in equalizing times for the world — a change that has been largely for the good. That may not make for convincing sloganeering, but it’s the truth.
I know the truth hurts. I'm here for you if you need me.
And here I thought we were talking about the United States.

 
It's another way to redistribute wealth, with the long standing goal of everyone equal regardless of personal initiative.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
The spread is really due to the ultra rich getting richer. The ACA doesn't impact them at all. The middle class, by and large, is shouldering this increased cost of insurance mandates and subsidies.
Not really, unless you consider workers earning 200k+ "middle class". Which is pretty absurd.
So then you admit that this is a wealth transfer. You just said it. And it goes much further down than just 200k - anyone with employer provided health care is now paying ACA reinsurance fees and such.

 
Well, that didn't last long—roughly two hours after a D.C. circuit court panel ruled that Obamacare does not allow subsidies in federally-run exchanges, a panel in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Virginia, has unanimously ruled that Obamacare does allow such subsidies.

If you're keeping score at home, that means three courts have ruled that Obamacare does allow subsidies in federally-run exchanges and one has not.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/22/1315782/-Second-Obamacare-ruling-of-day-upholds-exchanges

But seriously. This is why they have been packing conservatives on the bench for. 5-4 wins at the Supreme court. Supreme court will bat their eyes and say its up to congress to fix the legislation. KNOWING the wingbats in the house will never let it happen.

Millions get abandoned from the health care system. Conservatives have themselves a nice chuckle over a brandy during the holidays.

I haven't met one conservative that can even FAKE giving a crap about people without healthcare. Even conservatives without healthcare will vote against it. It's amazing. They renamed it Kynnect in Kentucky and all of a sudden it was awesome.

I admit it. It's hard not to admire their hardcoreness a little bit. They must be made of stone.
There's definitely some judicial editorializing there.

What they may not do is rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately - needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction of a federal statute whose manifest purpose, as revealed by the wholeness and coherence of its text and structure, could not be more clear.
This reminds me of Edwards' dissent in the DC case, basically saying they supported the bill therefore it must survive no matter the letter of the law.

Out of curiosity what are the other two decisions?

The DC case ensures this goes to the USSC, so you're right on that.
It is very possible it isnt going to the USSC. It is going to the full DC panel first.
Well just to be clear I was harking back to this article posted by Jackstraw which suggested that the DC en banc panel would reverse but that based on recent decisions it would still reach the USSC. I'm not sure if that's correct, because I thought there needed to be a split, but maybe not.

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Two key moderates – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) – have favored the state-based exchanges over national exchanges. The question now is whether it will prove make-or-break for either.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31294.html

Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
So I'm guessing that when this goes to the USSC the lawyer for the lawsuit shows him these documents and says, "Yeah, 'The State' actually does mean individual States because that's EXACTLY what was determined during the crafting of the ACA in the first place".

Seems like a slam-dunk based on this.

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Two key moderates – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) – have favored the state-based exchanges over national exchanges. The question now is whether it will prove make-or-break for either.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31294.html

Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
Cool! The vast majority of states have clearly reject the need for federalism and would prefer to take the step towards nationalizing the industry! Including those that are the most adamant about "state rights". Why do Congressional Republicans sit on their hands when they could easily cut off the silly state run exchanges and align the ACA with the will of the people's state representatives?

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
So I'm guessing that when this goes to the USSC the lawyer for the lawsuit shows him these documents and says, "Yeah, 'The State' actually does mean individual States because that's EXACTLY what was determined during the crafting of the ACA in the first place".

Seems like a slam-dunk based on this.
I think the key timing is October 2009 when the bill was in the Senate Finance Committee.

The bill when it came out of Finance can be pointed to as consistent with the law as finally "passed."

However before that there were two basic concepts being argued about, the single federal exchange and the state run exchanges. The Yellow Dog Democrats did not want to go back to their moderate states and be accused of creating a single federal market, this was a big deal, that was why they held out.

I get the point about administrative law. Presidents get to make all kinds of rules. It just doesn't seem right to me that the Executive Branch should get to alter laws in such a way that the law takes a form under which it was specifically never going to gain passage as in the first place. It just seems inherently undemocratic.

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Two key moderates – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) – have favored the state-based exchanges over national exchanges. The question now is whether it will prove make-or-break for either.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31294.html

Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
Cool! The vast majority of states have clearly reject the need for federalism and would prefer to take the step towards nationalizing the industry! Including those that are the most adamant about "state rights". Why do Congressional Republicans sit on their hands when they could easily cut off the silly state run exchanges and align the ACA with the will of the people's state representatives?
Are you asking why they don't just vote for it that way?

I don't know, you have a point, but I think the important thing is that they do vote on it in the first place. Not specifically vote against it and then have the law implemented the opposite way in the end result anyway.

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
So I'm guessing that when this goes to the USSC the lawyer for the lawsuit shows him these documents and says, "Yeah, 'The State' actually does mean individual States because that's EXACTLY what was determined during the crafting of the ACA in the first place".

Seems like a slam-dunk based on this.
I think the key timing is October 2009 when the bill was in the Senate Finance Committee.

The bill when it came out of Finance can be pointed to as consistent with the law as finally "passed."

However before that there were two basic concepts being argued about, the single federal exchange and the state run exchanges. The Yellow Dog Democrats did not want to go back to their moderate states and be accused of creating a single federal market, this was a big deal, that was why they held out.

I get the point about administrative law. Presidents get to make all kinds of rules. It just doesn't seem right to me that the Executive Branch should get to alter laws in such a way that the law takes a form under which it was specifically never going to gain passage as in the first place. It just seems inherently undemocratic.
But how is this particular reasoning relevant to to the legislative intent that the citizens of states that opted to use the federal exchanges would be cut off from the subsidies benefits that those in states that rolled their own exchanges would be eligible to receive? I don't think any of your posted items support the argument that the legislative intent of the subsidies were to be incentives to encourage the states to create their own exchange. Which is the standard claim.

 
If you can download this paper it is a real eye opener.

Advocates of state-established Exchanges prevailed in the Finance Committee and later in both chambers of Congress. It is unlikely that the PPACA would have passed the Senate without this provision.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2106789

And Senator Nelson of Nebraska, whose vote was critical to the Act’s passage, called the “national exchange” approach a “dealbreaker,” expressing concern that it would “start us down the road of … a single-payer plan.”
Ultimately, then, Congress enacted a bill that called for the states to establish and operate these Exchanges—a feature emphasized by proponents of the bill, who thereby sought to downplay opponents’ charges that the Act would nationalize the health care industry. See, e.g., SENATE DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMM., Fact Check: Responding to Opponents of Health Insurance Reform (Sept. 21, 2009)
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/reform/reform-factcheck-092109.pdf

This thing would not have passed if the federal/national exchange was the law of the land, the single federal exchange proponents lost in committee, that's clear.
So I'm guessing that when this goes to the USSC the lawyer for the lawsuit shows him these documents and says, "Yeah, 'The State' actually does mean individual States because that's EXACTLY what was determined during the crafting of the ACA in the first place".

Seems like a slam-dunk based on this.
I think the key timing is October 2009 when the bill was in the Senate Finance Committee.

The bill when it came out of Finance can be pointed to as consistent with the law as finally "passed."

However before that there were two basic concepts being argued about, the single federal exchange and the state run exchanges. The Yellow Dog Democrats did not want to go back to their moderate states and be accused of creating a single federal market, this was a big deal, that was why they held out.

I get the point about administrative law. Presidents get to make all kinds of rules. It just doesn't seem right to me that the Executive Branch should get to alter laws in such a way that the law takes a form under which it was specifically never going to gain passage as in the first place. It just seems inherently undemocratic.
But how is this particular reasoning relevant to to the legislative intent that the citizens of states that opted to use the federal exchanges would be cut off from the subsidies benefits that those in states that rolled their own exchanges would be eligible to receive? I don't think any of your posted items support the argument that the legislative intent of the subsidies were to be incentives to encourage the states to create their own exchange. Which is the standard claim.
Well one reason is that it happens in other instances. It has happened before, I think it may even be pretty common practice to condition benefits on state participation, that's where the incentive comes from, the benefits.

But that's only half of it. The other half is that the objecting Senators would not have agreed to a provision that would just create a de facto single federal exchange regime which they were objecting to in the first place.

 
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.

 
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.
Well I thought it was clear.

Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange. If there is no substantive difference between a state exchange and a federal one beyond the URL source then essentially you have just established a federal exchange, which was clearly not desired by certain Democratic Senators.

And subsidies were not intended to be rewarded to citizens in such states which would delegate because then that would remove the incentive to participate as a state and not as a federal exchange.

Finally it has been done in other instances. Tying subsidies or other benefits to encourage or require state participation is something that is done elsewhere.

Clearly these Democratic Reps were concerned, at the time, before passage. Read the letter to see that this very concern was before them at that time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.
Well I thought it was clear.

Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange. If there is no substantive difference between a state exchange and a federal one beyond the URL source then essentially you have just established a federal exchange, which was clearly not desired by certain Democratic Senators.

And subsidies were not intended to be rewarded to citizens in such states which would delegate because then that would remove the incentive to participate as a state and not as a federal exchange.

Finally it has been done in other instances. Tying subsidies or other benefits to encourage or require state participation is something that is done elsewhere.

Clearly these Democratic Reps were concerned, at the time, before passage. Read the letter to see that this very concern was before them at that time.
How do you get that a letter that insists that the state exchanges in the Senate bill be scraped for a federal exchange in the House bill is evidence that either bill only intended subsidies for states that operated their own exchanges?

 
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.
Well I thought it was clear.

Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange. If there is no substantive difference between a state exchange and a federal one beyond the URL source then essentially you have just established a federal exchange, which was clearly not desired by certain Democratic Senators.

And subsidies were not intended to be rewarded to citizens in such states which would delegate because then that would remove the incentive to participate as a state and not as a federal exchange.

Finally it has been done in other instances. Tying subsidies or other benefits to encourage or require state participation is something that is done elsewhere.

Clearly these Democratic Reps were concerned, at the time, before passage. Read the letter to see that this very concern was before them at that time.
How do you get that a letter that insists that the state exchanges in the Senate bill be scraped for a federal exchange in the House bill is evidence that either bill only intended subsidies for states that operated their own exchanges?
Because in the example they mention, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), benefits had been denied to Texas children because Texas did not participate. They were clearly warning that benefits could be denied to non-participating states.

 
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.
Well I thought it was clear.

Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange. If there is no substantive difference between a state exchange and a federal one beyond the URL source then essentially you have just established a federal exchange, which was clearly not desired by certain Democratic Senators.

And subsidies were not intended to be rewarded to citizens in such states which would delegate because then that would remove the incentive to participate as a state and not as a federal exchange.

Finally it has been done in other instances. Tying subsidies or other benefits to encourage or require state participation is something that is done elsewhere.

Clearly these Democratic Reps were concerned, at the time, before passage. Read the letter to see that this very concern was before them at that time.
How do you get that a letter that insists that the state exchanges in the Senate bill be scraped for a federal exchange in the House bill is evidence that either bill only intended subsidies for states that operated their own exchanges?
Because in the example they mention, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), benefits had been denied to Texas children because Texas did not participate. They were clearly warning that benefits could be denied to non-participating states.
Not even close!

 
In Texas, we know from experience that the dangers to the uninsured from greater State authority are real. Not one Texas child has yet received any benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), which we all championed, since Texas declined to expand eligibility or adopt best practices for enrollment. We also know that when states face difficult budget years, among the first programs to see reductions is Medicaid. The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted.
This is a letter from House Democrats to Pres. Obama begging him before passage of the ACA to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

http://www.myharlingennews.com/?p=6426

They were fully conscious of what was about to happen and the deal that had been made in the Senate with the Yellow Dogs on the Finance Committee. They had seen it happen in Texas, and they were right.
Which again you have not tied in any way how this is relevant in to whether subsidies were only intended for exchanges explicitly set up by the states and were never intended for those where the state decided to leave the job to the federal government.
Well I thought it was clear.

Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange. If there is no substantive difference between a state exchange and a federal one beyond the URL source then essentially you have just established a federal exchange, which was clearly not desired by certain Democratic Senators.

And subsidies were not intended to be rewarded to citizens in such states which would delegate because then that would remove the incentive to participate as a state and not as a federal exchange.

Finally it has been done in other instances. Tying subsidies or other benefits to encourage or require state participation is something that is done elsewhere.

Clearly these Democratic Reps were concerned, at the time, before passage. Read the letter to see that this very concern was before them at that time.
How do you get that a letter that insists that the state exchanges in the Senate bill be scraped for a federal exchange in the House bill is evidence that either bill only intended subsidies for states that operated their own exchanges?
Because in the example they mention, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), benefits had been denied to Texas children because Texas did not participate. They were clearly warning that benefits could be denied to non-participating states.
Not even close!
So when they said, "The Senate approach would produce the same result — millions of people will be left no better off than before Congress acted." They meant.... what, exactly? That the citizens would be better off, how, exactly?

Were they just wrong, they were operating under the wrong assumption that Texas citizens would "be no better off", and that's it?

 
Leaving it to the federal government, or delegating it, is essentially the same as creating a federal single exchange.
Good thing we didn't do that. There are state exchanges.
Right, because those states met or exceeded the minimal standards for receiving the federal benefits, typically if not always exceeded. Which was the point.

And then there are states that "delegated" to the feds, which is what the subsidies cases are about.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top