Will Obamacare Survive?

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Have you heard that the Appeals Court in D.C. (3 judge panel) ruled against the ACA subsidies in those states without an Exchange of their own?

Will Justice Roberts do the right thing and hear this case against the subsidies? Will he correct his hideous ruling from before allowing the ACA to stand as law?

Honestly, I don't know but the USA has shifted far to the left over the past 5 years. Hence, I'm not counting on the death of the ACA... not until SCOTUS rules 5-4 against the Obama Administration on the illegal subsidies in 36 states.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/36929385...rulings-on-obamacare-subsidies/#sp=show-clips

 

[BLADEMDA]

Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that "ObamaCare is over" if a court ruling that said health care subsidies may be given only to residents of states that set up their own insurance exchanges is upheld.

But he said it's up to Congress to fix errors in the law -- not President Obama.

"A drafting error in a bill is still part of the bill," the syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor said. "And the only instrument in the constitutional system we have that can change an error, drafting or otherwise, is the Congress.

"It is not in the power of the executive to fix what's written in the legislation," he added


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/krauthammer-only-congress-can-fix-obamacare-flaws/

 

[BLADEMDA]

Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...6dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

In brief, these cases claim the IRS has exceeded its statutory authority in authorizing tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies on federal exchanges because the PPACA only authorizes tax credits for the purchase of insurance on an exchange “established by the State under Section 1311.” Section 1311 instructs states to create exchanges. Federal exchanges are established under Section 1321 of the Act.

At one level these cases present a straightforward statutory interpretation question. The text is clear and does not contradict any other provisions in the Act. That would seem to settle the matter. On the other hand, the PPACA is a complicated and poorly drafted statute and, because over 30 states refused to set up their own exchanges, invalidation of the IRS rule could have a significant effect on its implementation. So the federal government has pushed back hard and has sought to argue that what the statute says cannot be what it means.

 

[deleted171991]

Don't hold your breath, Blade. The full (Democrat) court will reverse the decision of the 3 (Republican) judge-panel, on appeal.

I can't see their argument stand in the Supreme Court either, given that the latter has already ruled that the government can impose ACA "taxes" in all states; so why wouldn't they be allowed to offer subsidies, which is the reverse, in all of them?

 

[deleted126335]

Depends how you spin it. Agree with FFP. The judges can rationalize anything depending on their politics. Obamacare is a done deal. Some appellate court will find a way to make it stick.

From Nobel Laureate Krugman:

Obamacare Must Fail

So Chris Christie says that Obamacare is “a failure on a number of levels”. Which levels, exactly?

I mean, first-year enrollment is above projections. The number of Americans without insurance has dropped sharply. Costs appear to be lower than expected, and more broadly cost control on healthseems to be doing remarkably well:

Photo

Credit
To some extent I suspect that Christie is living in the bubble; I keep remembering how Rand Paul was shocked and disbelieving at the proposition that government employment had fallen under Obama, even though all it takes to know that is a quick look at public data.

But it’s not just misinformation; the reality doesn’t matter for Christie, or Republicans in general. Just as tax cuts can never fail, programs that help the unlucky can never succeed.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Politics aside the LAW is clear that the subsidies are meant for those states with a health care exchange. I agree you can read "intent" into the law but the law itself seems crystal clear to me.

In addition, one can argue that the framers of the law intended to put pressure on all 50 states to create their own exchanges. Those states failing to do so would not receive a subsidy for their citizens.

 

[BuzzPhreed]

So Chris Christie says that Obamacare is “a failure on a number of levels”. Which levels, exactly?

I mean, first-year enrollment is above projections.

Well, there's this. You've got to look at what "enrollment" means.

As many as 1.2 million of them could have received subsidies higher than what they were actually eligible for. If so, they would be required to repay the difference. That means a lot of Americans are going to get a bill from the government sometime this fall that will surprise them.

... even if people provide further proof of their eligibility, the government currently lacks the ability to match that proof with the original application, because that part of the HealthCare.gov website still has not been built.

There was also bad news from the Congressional Budget Office, which announced that, in part because there had been so many changes, postponements, and waivers to the law, they could no longer provide an accurate estimate of its cost or impact on the deficit.

Perhaps the worst news is coming from states where next year’s insurance premiums have already been announced. This will undoubtedly come as a big shock to anyone who hasn’t been paying attention, but the premiums are going up. A handful of small and niche insurers are requesting smaller increases, and a few have lowered rates, news eagerly seized upon by Obamacare supporters. But, in reality, most of the major insurers are calling for double-digit increases next year.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380074/obamacare-still-failing-michael-tanner

The Rand study also estimates that, through March 28, 3.9 million people were covered through the federal and state Obamacare exchanges. That’s not exactly 7.1 million.

... the Congressional Budget Office, in its original estimates, predicted that the vast majority of those eligible for subsidies on the exchanges would be previously uninsured individuals. Instead, the vast majority are previously insured people.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-obamacare-s-true-numbers-reveal-failure

And, of course, read this recent story to frame what happens if you leave your job and elect COBRA coverage to, say, start your own business (along with this writer's summary)...

I’ve known for a long time that the Affordable Care Act all but ignored the pressing cost concerns of the self-employed. I’ve written and talked about it as a professional for years. But I’ve just discovered the hard way that the perspective of an entrepreneur must have been completely, 100 percent missing from both the legislative debate and the regulatory process surrounding this law. The president likes to say that the Affordable Care Act helps entrepreneurs and small-business owners. I can tell you plainly: He is lying.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...screwed-up-my-small-business-health-insurance

In other words, don't confuse the number of people signing-up for healthcare with those actually having healthcare.