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.
This is a case of a Federally regulated mandated program.
And as all such Federal programs the costs grew exponentially.
Health insurance ceased being "free market" the day Obamacare got signed into law.
Except that there is no parity from state to state with regard to how, or which, plans are offered.
If there was, we would not be seeing the great disparities between costs and deductibles that get reported by posters every day.
The Feds clearly have little to no say as to how states actually administer each plan.
As I noted in the deductible thread, I could purchase a $0 deductible/$20 co-pay Gold plan for less than $700.00 per month, not subsidized, if I wanted to pay for it.
Is something similar offered in every state?
If not, why?
I think that's the question people should be asking.
Except that there is no parity from state to state with regard to how, or which, plans are offered.
If there was, we would not be seeing the great disparities between costs and deductibles that get reported by posters every day.
The Feds clearly have little to no say as to how states actually administer each plan.
As I noted in the deductible thread, I could purchase a $0 deductible/$20 co-pay Gold plan for less than $700.00 per month, not subsidized, if I wanted to pay for it.
Is something similar offered in every state?
If not, why?
I think that's the question people should be asking.
There never was and Obamacare never addressed that.
There's this pesky little document called the Commerce Clause which kept Congress at bay.
Obamacare ONLY addressed subsidized insurance and expanded medicaid.
How many Americans really know how this government works ?
Outside this forum I run into very few people that have an inkling as to what is going on either in the world or in politics. They just don't care. Apathy seems to be rampant.
It wasn't, why does the GOP have to turn everything into a conspiracy? Congress didn't want subsidies to be state-exchange-only, and SCOTUS agreed.
It was. Dems said it wasn't intended though.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/36B
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or....
And the Supreme Court said they had to deviate from the natural reading of the law to interpret it differently.
Forbes Welcome
Chief Justice Roberts held that the context of the ACA required the court to deviate from “the most natural reading†of the clause at issue (restricting subsidies to those “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311â€).
Well then maybe we should expand the program that works really well (Medicare) and not the one that doesn't (VA). Nobody is proposing "VA for everyone".
No, I'm assuming that pre-seniors are healthier than seniors. Young people won't cost zero, but they sure as heck aren't going to cost as much as seniors.
To the extent this is true, it's because Republicans are religiously opposed to taxing the rich.
This isn't true; States were mandated to expand Medicaid, not to create exchanges, that's why the Federal exchange exists. It's the (mostly-Federally-funded) Medicaid expansion that States sued to avoid.
I'm just baffled that you actually believe Medicare "works really well." Amazing.
I'm just baffled that you actually believe Medicare "works really well." Amazing.
I've never met a senior who wanted to repeal Medicare. I doubt it's perfect but it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Spin all you want..the words are in the bill.
Your theory doesn't make any sense. If Democrats are pro-subsidy, why are they plotting to withhold them? If Democrats intended that interpretation, why did they go to court to prevent the bill being read that way?
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.
