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.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in King v. Burwell, the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the justices upheld it as constitutional almost three years ago.
The lawsuit hinges on four words in the law regarding the government subsidies : "established by the state."
"The IRS said that in the context of the entire law, that applied to exchanges in the state set up by the federal government. But challengers say that language means subsidies don’t apply to those exchanges set up by the federal government."
Roughly eight million Americans who purchased their health insurance through the federal exchange in the 34 states that did not set up their own exchanges are at risk of losing their health insurance should the SC rule for the plaintiffs.
Here is a summary of the impact a ruling for the plaintiffs would have.
It's interesting to note that the highest percentage of people who would lose their insurance are likely to be predominantly white, Southern and employed full-time.
I must admit, when Obamacare was coming down, it seemed that everyone assumed that those insurance plans set up by the Federal government for those States that declined to do so, would receive the subsidies. At least, I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed.
I must admit, when Obamacare was coming down, it seemed that everyone assumed that those insurance plans set up by the Federal government for those States that declined to do so, would receive the subsidies. At least, I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed.
You're right, in all of the arguments against the ACA, this was never brought up. The government has argued this falls under the Chevron deference, which is "a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable." But it remains to be seen whether the SC will be persuaded by this argument.
I must admit, when Obamacare was coming down, it seemed that everyone assumed that those insurance plans set up by the Federal government for those States that declined to do so, would receive the subsidies. At least, I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed.
Well, that's what happens when you don't get to review the bill prior to passing it....
I must admit, when Obamacare was coming down, it seemed that everyone assumed that those insurance plans set up by the Federal government for those States that declined to do so, would receive the subsidies. At least, I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed.
"I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed'
What a short memory. "We have to pass it to find out what is in it". NOBODY READ IT.
"I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed'
What a short memory. "We have to pass it to find out what is in it". NOBODY READ IT.
Actually, many such laws (such as the original law establishing Social Security) are not 'read' in full by any individual member of Congress. They are simply too big. Such laws are composed in sections, by different committees.
For instance, the 2001 "No Child Left Behind Act", sponsored by Representative John Boehner, was 274,559 words long (the ACA was 314,900 words). I doubt very much that Mr. Boehner 'read' the Act, although he was familiar with the intent of the Act.
I myself work for Social Security, and I have certainly not 'read' the whole Act, but only read those portions that affect my work.
Again, I do not recall any member of Congress standing up and saying "The subsidies only exist for those people in the States that create their own exchange".
I must admit, when Obamacare was coming down, it seemed that everyone assumed that those insurance plans set up by the Federal government for those States that declined to do so, would receive the subsidies. At least, I don't recall any politician or commentator raising this objection back when Obamacare was passed.
It certainly was.. Your media didn't nor your politicians because they had no clue what was in it. No I'm not researching this for you.
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.
