Jump to content


Todd Andrews

Member Since 16 Nov 2006
Offline Last Active Today, 11:57 AM
*----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Gov't Ineptness & Obamacare: Real life example of folly of go

Today, 11:57 AM

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 too. 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. 


In Topic: Gov't Ineptness & Obamacare: Real life example of folly of go

Today, 11:52 AM

 

 

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.


In Topic: Gov't Ineptness & Obamacare: Real life example of folly of go

Today, 11:20 AM

 

 

 

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


In Topic: Gov't Ineptness & Obamacare: Real life example of folly of go

Today, 11:14 AM

 

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.


In Topic: Gov't Ineptness & Obamacare: Real life example of folly of go

Today, 10:55 AM

 

 

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.  

 

You honestly don't see this as a huge redistribution of wealth scheme?  Really?  Where do you think the billions of dollars needed for these subsidies are coming from?

 

 

Yeah, it is a redistribution of taxpayer money to healthcare insurance companies.