Obamacare Threat? Someone please explain....

[busterbrown]

Sorry about not posting a link the first time..

I really am having trouble understanding this article and it’s implications..

Huff Post: Also sorry about linking a what seems to be an unpopular site around here..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/federal-appeals-obamacare_n_5030583.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. Basically, there was an error made in the drafting of the final law.

The final version of the ACA indicates that only people buying insurance through an exchange run by one
of the states can get subsides to reduce the amount they actually have to pay for the insurance.

So if you are buying insurance through the Federal exchange there is actually no provision in the law for you
to get a subsidy (you'd have to pay full price).

The Obama administration is ignoring the exact wording of the law and allowing tax subsidies for people
buying insurance on the Federal exchange.

See also the New Republic article linked to in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101688975

[busterbrown]

3. Thanks for the summary...

I read the link but had trouble connecting to the link which the original link linked.

So does this mean that if the two Rethugs on the court agree with the fact that subsidies through Federal Exchange were never spelled out in the original law, that this part of the law could be repealed?

[PoliticAverse]

5. Actually it wouldn't be 'repealing' the law so much as enforcing it as written.

But any such decision would likely be delayed in implementation until the Supreme Court
decided whether to take up the matter or not.

[busterbrown]

7. This is exactly what is scaring me..

Roberts took a lot of shit for his vote in the first decision.. My feelings is that he will cower out if given the opportunity again..

[Hoyt]

2. Jeebus. The people who brought this suit are right wing idiots who ignore Congressional intent.

Being RWNJs, they certainly wouldn't interpret the 2nd Amendment so literally.

[busterbrown]

4. So in the long run will the “intent” be enough...to derail?

[PoliticAverse]

6. The 'intent' issue isn't so clear in this case...

Because there were several draft bills, some which allowed subsidies for insurance
purchased at the federal exchange, some which didn't.

[busterbrown]

8. So where do you think this is all heading?

[PoliticAverse]

10. Since this problem was found I've always thought the issue would be decided by the courts,

but if the appeals court decides against the petitioners it will be a moot issue for now.

I won't speculate as to what I think their decision will be as my opinion/guess doesn't matter.

[busterbrown]

11. 2 out of 3 are republicans and i don’t like them odds...Thanks again!!!

[Hoyt]

9. Seems clear that ACA did not intend to deny subsidies because of who ran the computer site where

insurance products available in the state are listed.

I think they will rule that the exchange -- if run by the feds -- is merely a substitute for a state that did not have the money, capability, or compassion for its citizens to maintain a web site.

The wording is a pretty flimsy basis for denying subsidies to a citizen of the USA. The folks that brought the challenge should be tarred-and-feathered.

[busterbrown]

12. Feathered and forced to where a button “ I don’t give a shit about the 99%

[Hoyt]

13. Perfect.

[okaawhatever]

14. I think the original ACA plan, before the state medicaid expansion was struck down by scotus, was to

have each state set up a website. Since Medicaid is generally a state administered program they calculated most states would opt for that provision. (States that set up their own websites were given money to create and market it). Once the medicaid expansion was dropped the benefit for states not expanding their medicaid program was reduced. I also believe there was a good deal of pressure put on Republican governors and state legislators to not create a website to help the ACA fail. That is one of the reasons there are/were problems with the Federal website. It was originally only planned to be a generic portal that directed traffic to each state's website. That is also why you hear a ridiculous number for the cost overruns. The cost increases weren't overruns per se, but a massive increase in the scope of the job and functions of the site.