Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Supreme Court ruling due in a few weeks could wipe out health insurance for millions of people covered by President Barack Obama's health care law. But it's Republicans — not White House officials — who have been talking about damage control.
A likely reason: Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be most affected by the ruling have Republican governors, and 22 of the 24 GOP Senate seats up in 2016 are in those states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people without access to it on the job. In the court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the federal government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets.
Most states have not done so, because of the intense partisanship over "Obamacare" and in some cases because of technical problems. Instead, they rely on the federal HealthCare.gov website.
If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, an estimated 8 million people could lose coverage. The results would be "ugly," said Sandy Praeger, a former Kansas insurance commissioner.
"People who are reasonably healthy would just drop coverage," she said. "Only the unhealthy would keep buying health care. It would really exacerbate the problem of the cost of health insurance."
Praeger, a Republican who retired this year, called it "a classic death spiral," using a term for market collapse.
Read more at...
I wouldn't worry. Whatever blackmail they used to get Roberts to uphold the Obamacare tax/penalty in the last case will work again in this case. Somebody's got him by the short hairs and they're making him dance.
At the end of the day this is a war republicans can not win. The question is how many battles will republicans loose before they start treating it like medicare.
At the end of the day this is a war republicans can not win. The question is how many battles will republicans loose before they start treating it like medicare.
I've always had the feeling that the GOP want to kill the ACA more to make the President look bad, rather than they think it's a bad law for the country. I wouldn't be surprised if their efforts to kill it fade away after he's no longer in office. But I guess that could depend on who's elected in 2016.
Do you think that is why they opposed it back when the Clinton's started to chase universal coverage in the 90's?
Yes, I would think it is probable that it was at least in the back of their minds that it would be to their political advantage to have the (opposing) administration fail in that effort.
I don't know. For me Obama Care already amounted to a 60% bump in insurance cost. It's part of why so few of the people in my demographic were signing up for coverage. If it just went back to the status quo, I'd expect that would mean a drop in cost for me. That probably isn't what would happen though, rather you'd just have the people who are getting subsidized insurance in states without an exchange lose their subsidies. It's not really clear to me what effect that would have. Are subsidized people in states without their own exchange healthier than unsubsidized people? I'm thinking no. I realize that the cohort receiving subsidies is the majority of people covered under Obama Care policies so it's big, but it's not clear at all to me that they're healthier. Those who lost their subsidies might find some way of paying for their health insurance if it was worth it (eg, they had a preexisting condition) is the argument whereas others would just let the insurance drop. That's the argument. I don't know how true that is though. Largely poor people are less healthy and more expensive than richer people.
I've always had the feeling that the GOP want to kill the ACA more to make the President look bad, rather than they think it's a bad law for the country. I wouldn't be surprised if their efforts to kill it fade away after he's no longer in office. But I guess that could depend on who's elected in 2016.
Yes, especially considering Romney actually did it first, and it worked quite well in his state. Now they are against it?
I don't know. For me Obama Care already amounted to a 60% bump in insurance cost. It's part of why so few of the people in my demographic were signing up for coverage. If it just went back to the status quo, I'd expect that would mean a drop in cost for me. That probably isn't what would happen though, rather you'd just have the people who are getting subsidized insurance in states without an exchange lose their subsidies. It's not really clear to me what effect that would have. Are subsidized people in states without their own exchange healthier than unsubsidized people? I'm thinking no. I realize that the cohort receiving subsidies is the majority of people covered under Obama Care policies so it's big, but it's not clear at all to me that they're healthier. Those who lost their subsidies might find some way of paying for their health insurance if it was worth it (eg, they had a preexisting condition) is the argument whereas others would just let the insurance drop. That's the argument. I don't know how true that is though. Largely poor people are less healthy and more expensive than richer people.
It didn't actually cause your policy to go up, it caused your insurance company to have to stop selling you the policy you had that was not ACA compliant. I had the same thing, my own policy used to be $399 a month now it's $617, but it is a much better policy. To me everyone in a first world country should have access to insurance and health care. To me that is one of the things that makes a country "first world". Yes, it hurts, the increase, but again we would both have more options if the Repubs had allowed the public option that Obama wanted.
Yes, I would think it is probable that it was at least in the back of their minds that it would be to their political advantage to have the (opposing) administration fail in that effort.
In that regard, you would content that the Republicans would vote against EVERY piece of legislation put forward by a Democrat administration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
Yes, especially considering Romney actually did it first, and it worked quite well in his state. Now they are against it?
You don't understand the relevance of a state plan and a federal one?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
