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.
All lies, of course.Disaster? It's come in under budget, and more people signed up than expected.Good. Let's get rid of this ####### disaster.Exchanges ruling just came down.
Subsidies through federal exchanges just struck down by circuit court.
Keep in mind Roberts - and a majority of the rest of the court - said it failed to meet the Commerce Clause but upheld it as a tax. I think Roberts, Kennedy, and maybe even Breyer, reel it back on this one. Technically they won't be overturning the ACA just cutting it back.
In fairness, haven't you struggled with administrative law and how it works for years now?
Seems like Obama and his puppets in the Senate and House screwed everyone. Probably should have paid more attention to what was written and make sure to cross your "T"s and dot your "i"s instead of ramming it thru in the middle of the night.
Ha, yes, that's possible. I'm not real thrilled with the rule making process in general. Granted.
So basically it's not to be enforced because Congress never would have put something in which would gut the program. They believed that the states would be setting up the exchanges not the feds, the fact that it ended up the opposite should not stop the bill from taking effect - despite the letter of the law.
Obamacare, wait...Exchanges ruling just came down.
Subsidies through federal exchanges just struck down by circuit court.
Or is it on the Gov of the states that refuse to put the plan in action? The states that do have it seem to be doing well. An example of that liberal state of Kentucky and how well ACA is doing in that state?
Nope. Squarely on the Democrats. The language was there for States to opt out. Hence all the incentives by Obama to coerce states to implement this colossal failure. The smart states didn't take the stinky bait.
Giving them an option seems to be the fatal flaw here
Given what we've seen from this Congress the last 8 years, I find it hard to believe that "trust them to do the right thing" was really the approach they thought would work, but it seems I was wrong.
You serious? That's some drama-queen, hyperbole spewing nonsense you got going on here.
And I think this is why the Senate Democrats who needed to be persuaded wanted this language in. So they could go back and say hey no one forced anything on you (or 'us' as a country). If they had to go back and say it would be thrust on their state they may have never voted for it.
There's definitely some judicial editorializing there.
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.
I don't think that's what anybody's saying.
I was being a little sarcastic there. I do read the arguments in both cases (dissent in DC and majority in 4th) to say that Congress never would have created a poison pill that would kill their own law.
Careful celebrating the Fourth's Appellate decision too quickly. Many have dismissed the entire subsidy question as nonsensical, and I believe they are incorrect in that position. This is not to say that the courts should/will not ultimately uphold the IRS regulations. But, the question is very legitimate due to the ambiguity in the ACA's wording and the decision celebrated in this diary seems to support this.The decision states:
Having examined the plain language and context of the most relevant statutory sections, the context and structure of related provisions, and the legislative history of the Act, we are unable to say definitively that Congress limited the premium tax credits to individuals living in states with state-run Exchanges. We note again that, on the whole, the defendants have the better of the statutory construction arguments, but that they fail to carry the day. Simply put, the statute is ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations. As a result, we are unable to resolve the case in either party's favor at the first step of the Chevron analysis.
and
As explained, we cannot discern whether Congress intended one way or another to make the tax credits available on HHS facilitated Exchanges.
I.e., this is not an "open and shut" case as many have purported over the months. This court found it necessary to move to the second test of Chevron because (and I'm paraphrasing herethe ACA is ####ed up in the details.
Also, note that earlier this opinion includes:
Additionally, we note that the Supreme Court has recently reiterated the admonition that courts avoid revising ambiguously drafted legislation out of an effort to avoid "apparent anomal[ies]" within a statute. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., No. 12-515, 572 U.S. _, _, slip op. at 10 (May 27, 2014).
(BTW, this was a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Kagen with Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito dissenting and was only issued recently so hasn't had much exposure to interpretation.) I've not looked at this case, but I assume this court correctly quoted and summarized that aspect of it.
The second Cheveron test requires the court deciding if they should defer to an agencies interpretation of an ambiguous statute because such an interpretation is "permissible" under the statute. This decision makes a good argument for such deference, but decisions on granting such deference is much more subject to interpretation of a particular court or panel.
Interestingly, although little discussed, if even ONE Senator who agreed not to filibuster the ACA did so relying on the interpretation that a state could opt out -- including from penalties on employers not offering compliant insurance and residents not buying such insurance -- simply by not establishing an exchange, the bill would not have succeeded. It's not relevant if the other 59 failed to spot or base their decision on the opt-out clause.
If forced to make a bet, I'd make an even money wager that SCOTUS will strike down the IRS's interpretation on the theory that the legislative process is free to amend the ACA to match the IRS's interpretation but as currently enacted, the IRS's regulations don't conform to the ACA and are not permissible under it. This is not a case, as far as I can tell, where the SCOTUS is compelled to make a decision on which of two conflicting statutes is overriding (where disruptive ambiguity would remain if the legislative process doesn't resolve it) or because it's a Constitutional issue (which, of course, the legislative process can't override via statute). But, like most people betting on Supreme Court decisions, if I actually made such wagers I'd probably be penniless.
I stand by this.
too much and energize them. Beyond that I'd guess at least half of those 34 states would find a quick, legal way to "establish state exchanges" by "outsourcing" them to the federal government to get around any decision that potentially wakes up those unmotivated working poor voters that have sought out and purchased subsidized health policies. Leaving the poorest of the poor states even further behind. Then again, these state government exist to begin with by large portions of the population routinely voting against their own best interest, so maybe it doesn't matter at all.
You are correct. a mind-numbing large proportion of them vote Democrat.I stand by this.
Democrats sleeping through the midterms is a given, unless possibly you go
It is very possible it isnt going to the USSC. It is going to the full DC panel first.SaintsInDome2006 said:
An honest guess - 6 to 7 million (and still growing now). The reason is because it's the only option on the individual market. If you don't sign up via the website, or via a broker, or directly with a carrier, there are no other options. Every year people buy individual coverage, this year the only coverage that's available are ACA compliant plans. And if you're eligible for a subsidy (as apparently 85% of the individual on exchange market is), then why wouldn't you obtain it?
So it's back to roughly what it was two quarters before Obama took office?
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).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.
I fully understand that this will be the largest redistribution of money/wealth that this country has ever seen. I get that. I'm not sure the left want to admit that, though.
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.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).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.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
Nah, but you're welcome to keep thinking that. Income inequality is increasing, not decreasing.
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.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.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).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.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
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?
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.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.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.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).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.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
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).
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).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).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.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
No, I don't see it as a "huge redistribution of wealth scheme". I see it as society altering the rules of the social contract that we all adhere to in order to help the less fortunate get basic medical coverage so that 40k+ people aren't dying needlessly due to not getting adequate medical coverage each year.
Yes, health care costs have slowed since Obamacare took effect (although there doesn't seem to be a cause-and-effect relationship there).
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.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.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.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.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).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.
So "taxing" the haves to give something to the have nots in this case is considered a "goal accomplished"? Honest question there.
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).
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.
