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.
Sure. The judge didn't catch anything, Republicans have been trying to take health care subsidies away from the poor for years. Since Republicans used the courts to take it away, they should fully support states using the courts to help the poor receive them.
The House GOP argued that the administration’s decision to subsidize deductibles, co-pays and other “cost-sharing” measures was unconstitutional because Congress rejected an administration request for funding in 2014. Obama officials said they withdrew the request and spent the money, arguing that the subsidies were covered by an earlier, permanent appropriation.
House Republicans have tried repeatedly, without much success, to repeal parts or all of the health-care law, holding dozens of votes on the matter over the past five years. Thursday’s ruling may represent their most significant victory in trying to dismantle the ACA.
But what I'm saying is... even if the rates will be lower for an AZ plan, whether it's because it's just lower or they offer additional incentives to out of staters, it will still be tied to the local network. That's just how insurance works. How could an insurance company charge a person in NYC the same as it charges a person in AZ (or less) when they have to reimburse the much more expensive NYC cost of services? I just don't see it happening, and some insurance CEOs have already pointed out that it doesn't really make sense.
My point with the Medicare Advantage plans is that, even as interstate plans, they are dictated by local networks. As in a New Yorker buying an AZ-based Medicare Advantage plan is only covered for doctors in the AZ market. Of course more competition will always lower prices but because the nature of the product is local, it's just not going to be useful even if the price is lower. Like with anything... you can go get a babysitter in AZ right now for much cheaper than one in NY, but what good is that going to do you if you live in NY.
once again you dont get it, any local networks would be set up locally even thought he company is based in another state. but it would also expand the networks for each company as well in other states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jstarling
The subsidies were not put in place by executive order. They were put in place with the original "legislation"
We have seen no meaningful legislation since January.
if that was truly the case, then why did a federal court rule the subsidies were illegal?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 10-13-2017 at 07:22 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
It was being appealed, and I would have liked to have seen it go to the Supreme Court. If ruled unconstitutional, sure, it would have to be stopped. That had not happened, though.
All of this, as I have just said above, is more reason why our Congress needs to learn to work together on this to find a legislative solution. It is more important than partisan bickering. Real people are going to get hurt very soon. That is not cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Sure. The judge didn't catch anything, Republicans have been trying to take health care subsidies away from the poor for years. Since Republicans used the courts to take it away, they should fully support states using the courts to help the poor receive them.
The House GOP argued that the administration’s decision to subsidize deductibles, co-pays and other “cost-sharing” measures was unconstitutional because Congress rejected an administration request for funding in 2014. Obama officials said they withdrew the request and spent the money, arguing that the subsidies were covered by an earlier, permanent appropriation.
House Republicans have tried repeatedly, without much success, to repeal parts or all of the health-care law, holding dozens of votes on the matter over the past five years. Thursday’s ruling may represent their most significant victory in trying to dismantle the ACA.
Yes. The argument that decided the judgement in thier favor...
when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.
How is Section 1402 being paid? How was it funded, if Congress didn't appropriate funds???Unconstitutionally, that's how.
The judge didn't "catch anything", the Republican House challenged them on it and the case was being appealed. How many times has Trump appealed rulings in the past ten months? Multiple times. Trump chose to end the appeal because he wanted to take away health care coverage from millions. Now states are suing and guess what? If the states win, Trump will - appeal.
Republicans aren't going to help them, they will let them lose the subsidies and scream "free markets" which was fine for some and terrible for others. To say Republicans will now rush to help people get health coverage now that Trump has taken subsidies away? Not a chance. Their last plan would taken hundreds of billions away from Medicaid so that is likely the next target. Nothing makes a Republican happier than seeing people lose their health coverage.
The judge didn't "catch anything", the Republican House challenged them on it and the case was being appealed. How many times has Trump appealed rulings in the past ten months? Multiple times. Trump chose to end the appeal because he wanted to take away health care coverage from millions. Now states are suing and guess what? If the states win, Trump will - appeal.
Why would Republicans challenge a ruling in their favor? It has already been challenged and the Democrats lost.
Did I mention? Trump has been busy filling the courts with Constitutional Textualists. You think Gorsuch was far right...... Trump has loaded the courts while you were not looking, with some far far right, religious nutz.
Looks like a bunch of states are going to throw a monkey wrench into the Donald's MAGA healthcare plan! I guess it will go the way of Obama's Clean Air EOs.
So health coverage for the poor is authoritarian fascism? Funny - Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and the Heritage Foundation called it personal responsibility when they were selling Obamacare as Romneycare in 2006. The same plan that Republicans claimed with their answer to health coverage is authoritarian fascism because Obama put it in place. And now the Republican Party will try to hurt people and blue states will sue. 2018 can't come fast enough.
once again you dont get it, any local networks would be set up locally even thought he company is based in another state. but it would also expand the networks for each company as well in other states.
That's not going to happen... Like I mentioned, Medicare Advantage plans are an example of interstate commerce... and yet they do not have these expanded networks you mention so as to allow someone from NY to buy an AZ health plan (or "set up locally" in AZ), and see NY doctors. I don't know what would actually make you think the insurer would WANT to do this. I don't think you understand that regulations are not the reason insurers are not doing this today. From a business standpoint, it doesn't make sense and isn't profitable. That's why they don't.
BTW, currently, pretty much all the major insurers are based in one state and sell insurance in that state plus others. What is the difference in what you are proposing and what is happening now?
Why would Republicans challenge a ruling in their favor? It has already been challenged and the Democrats lost.
Did I mention? Trump has been busy filling the courts with Constitutional Textualists. You think Gorsuch was far right...... Trump has loaded the courts while you were not looking, with some far far right, religious nutz.
How exciting! Republicans can bring us The Handmaid's Tale!
We know how much Republicans hate people getting health care coverage, birth control pills or caring for children after they are born. We know Republicans are thrilled that Trump has turned into the most anti-LGBT president in history. Ironic considering Trump has no problem disposing of wives that bore him but that never stopped evangelicals who will twist themselves into pretzels to support a sinning Trump if it means they get to go after gays. Trump has fallen in love with EOs but he will have to get used to getting sued by states, hopefully stalling his mess until the 2018 and 2020 elections.
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.
