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.
Under the clear language of Obamacare, there are NO federal insurance subsidies or employer mandates in those states but Democrats forgot about this language. Overwhelming evidence has emerged that the language attempting to force states to set up Obamacare exchanges. 36 states didn't set them up and will depend on federal money.
Right after the election there was an announcement that the Supremes decided to rule on the Obamacare subsidies cases.
Under the clear language of Obamacare, there are NO federal insurance subsidies or employer mandates in those states but Democrats forgot about this language. Overwhelming evidence has emerged that the language attempting to force states to set up Obamacare exchanges. 36 states didn't set them up and will depend on federal money.
Right after the election there was an announcement that the Supremes decided to rule on the Obamacare subsidies cases.
Guess they should have read it before it became law....
Guess they should have read it before it became law....
It does feel good to see the gross incompetence and carelessness with which the law was drafted come back to potentially bite the authors in the face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
It helps keep the cost down if the healthier also have insurance.
No it does not. If the healthier have insurance and pay more than their fair share to subsidize other people it reduces the price-tag - but not the underlying cost of care - for those people being subsidized. There is also a relatively small effect of spreading out administrative costs over a larger base. Having healthy people go to the doctor doesn't magically make it cost less to send a sick person there, but if you force healthy people to buy insurance and then force insurers to charge them more than it costs while at the same time forcing them to charge sicker people less, that lowers premiums for the sicker people but it does nothing at all to reduce actual medical expenditures.
It's redistribution through an indirect form of taxation, not cost savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Its interesting how many people don't recognize that the cost of keeping the things they like, is in fact based upon doing many of the things they don't like. It was those things that made it so we could afford it.
You and the other people who say this paint a false dichotomy. The choice is not between the ACA guaranteed-issue < mandate < subsidies for people who can't afford the mandate < forced rates above value for young people to keep rates (and thus subsidies) more affordable for older people setup and guaranteed-issue with no support.
You can do other things that make guaranteed issue work. For example, you could make the guaranteed issue privilege dependent on not lapsing for more than three months so people don't go without insurance until they are sick, and create a mandatory open enrollment period where all plans have to allow people to leave and enter, and rates have to be the same as the rest of the year, so that people don't change to a richer plan the moment they get sick. BAM, you have a system that makes guaranteed issue work without a death spiral and without needing a mandate or the absolutely massive expansion in government spending or the age/gender/geographic rate-setting restrictions in the ACA.
Of course, in many ways the ACA structure was an excuse to do an incredible amount of spending and outside-the-budget redistribution of financial and health resources -- the Democrats structured the ACA that way because they wanted that, not because it was needed to make guaranteed issue work -- it is not.
What you won't see from a GOP majority, however, is a push to tout a health care reform bill of their own. Though some conservatives activists want the party to launch their own comprehensive bill, the political calculus makes that extremely unlikely. All health care policies have trade-offs, including ones that are difficult to stomach: more coverage means higher premiums, lower premiums mean higher out-of-pocket costs, and so on.
At the end of the day, Republicans don't actually create anything to move the country forward. They just try to makes sure no one else does either.
At the end of the day...the same chit spewed from the left....
You lost, had 6 years...2 years owned by the dem congress....
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.
