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.
Sometime before month's end the Supreme Court ruling in King v Burwell will be announced.
This is a challenge to Obamacare which says in essence that the admin is violating its own law. The law clearly says that Obamacare subsidies be provided only through state health care exchanges. The problem was that 36 states declined to create an exchange, so the admin decided that the subsidies would also be provided via the federal exchange. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says that ALL legislative powers belong to the Congress. The executive branch (Obama) has no power to legislate.
If the ruling goes against the admin, as I believe it should and will, the ball is now in the court of the GOP-controlled Congress. The question then is, how should they respond?
I see three basic options. One is to do nothing. Obamacare as we know it would be thrown into chaos. Estimates are that about 6-7 million Americans would lose their insurance overnight.
Another option that has been suggested by several GOP senators is to extend the federal exchange subsidies until sometime in 2017, when we'll have a new prez, and the whole question of Obamacare can be revisited. Tea Party favorite Ron Johnson (R, WI) is among those leading the charge on this.
The last option would be complete capitulation to the admin and enacting a permanent change to the language such that the fed. exchange can offer subsidies. This will probably not happen, but still it is an option. There is really a fourth option, which is to enact a change, whether temporary or permanent, in exchange for concessions from the admin on items that might not otherwise survive the veto pen.
What do you think the GOP-controlled Congress should do?
True story, from inside DHHS while the law was being prepared:
I remember when this was briefed in the Department. We all said it wasn't legal at the time. The administration was trying to push some recalcitrant republican governors into the program by threatening to withhold subsidies for their states' citizens if they didn't sign up for the program (by creating an exchange for their state). There were some other provisions that the governors were really balking at - some Medicaid expansions and some other things I have since forgotten - but their response was they weren't going to play.
About two weeks into this game of chicken, it became apparent the governors were not going to capitulate. That's when the Secretary's office came out with an internal message that the federal side would go ahead and give subsidies to the citizens of states that did not form an exchange.
Apparently, that message never made it to the people who were writing the final version of the law, because they left the arm-twisting language in there. Oooops!
This is an easy answer, temporarily extend the subsidies until the Democrats give in.
Show the public what the true cost of the exchange premiums are (compared to pre 2014 ACA mandates).
You know, people like me who have COMPREHENSIVE health care plans pre 2014 who have had their premiums jacked up 40% on the self employed/individual market.
Working class self employed Americans making more than 400% of poverty paying either roughly $750/month (family of 4) exposed to a potential $12700 max out of pocket in network yearly cost (or $1200/month with a $6000 yearly in network costs).
Expose how UNAFFORDABLE the exchanges are once you remove these subsidies. The "Affordable Care Act" needs to be renamed the "UNAFFORDABLE HealthCare ACT" for those paying real federal income taxes (Plus Alternative Min taxes)
If Obama touts the exchanges as providing affordable coverage, remove those subsidies. Let the public see what the true subsidies are. The health, and younger and sorry but I don't think someone making around $100K a year is "rich" by any means (especially in high cost area). These people bare the brunt of the burden.
If if you think 6-7 million people may lose health insurance, it's also another 6-7 million paying more on the exchanges (or out side the exchanges) than they would have pre ACA.
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.
