"How Many Americans Will Die If The Supreme Court Chooses To Gut Obamacare?"

[Dwight42]

A brief filed on behalf of multiple public health scholars and the American Public Health Association, estimates that “over 9,800 additional Americans” will die if the justices side with the King plaintiffs. It reaches this conclusion by starting with an Urban Institute study showing that 8.2 million people will become uninsured in this scenario. As other research examining Obamacare-like reforms in the state of Massachusetts found that “for every 830 adults gaining insurance coverage there was one fewer death per year,” that translates to between 9,800 and 9,900 deaths if the justices back the plaintiffs in King.

Another method produces slightly less grim numbers, although it still indicates that thousands will die unnecessarily if the Supreme Court does not uphold the tax credits at issue in King. The Harvard study mentioned above concludes that there were “approximately 44,789 deaths among Americans aged 18 to 64 years in 2005 associated with lack of health insurance.” It also states that, at the time of the study, “46 million Americans lack health coverage.” The 8.2 million people who will lose health care according to the Urban Institute equals just under 18 percent of 46 million. Thus, assuming that the pool of 8.2 million people who could lose health insurance in King has a similar mix of healthy and sick individuals as the 46 million examined by the Harvard study, that suggests that approximately 8,000 people will die every year if the King plaintiffs prevail.

(Snip)

The other factor is that approximately 8.4 million children are enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the justices could take insurance away from 5 million of these children as well in King. That’s because a provision ensuring that CHIP beneficiaries remain insured even if Congress failed to extend CHIP funding beyond this September uses very similar language to the language at issue in King. So if the justices decide to cut off tax credits, they are likely to cut off CHIP funds as well for millions of children unless Congress intervenes by the deadline.

That means that, should the justices side with the King plaintiffs, the fate of 5 million children rests with a Republican-controlled Congress.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/24/3626080/many-americans-will-die-supreme-court-chooses-gut-obamacare/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3&elq=~~eloqua..type--emailfield..syntax--recipientid~~&elqCampaignId=~~eloqua..type--campaign..campaignid--0..fieldname--id~~

[Stargazer99]

1. Apparently mostly the poor who this nation despite its so called morality

run by money and the lack of basic human decency is perfectly happy that the poor disappear.....but you who are comfortable think you are not next...use your logic and critical thinking...someone has to be at the bottom for the well off to be on top...you are next

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. 2016 is a line drawn in the sand. A Democrat must be elected.

Or Republicans will sweep it away.

[quadrature]

3. how did this happen?

nobodies fault?

what committee wrote the bad law?
does anyone know?

[GusFring]

4. Im confused, I thought this case was bs. Isnt only 1line ambiguous, but Congress' intent

Is written throughout the bill. Can 1 sentence or even a paragraph bring down this law? I know 4 of the justices will rule to kill it, but Roberts can't be this crazy,can he? This is scary.

[quadrature]

5. the one section about subsidies, is very specific

if there are implications(from Congress) that
the '???" applies to both state and
federal exchanges...
perhaps you could point that out

[GusFring]

6. Specific how? What are u saying?

This comment in the story was refreshing

MJ Swindler
Kathy Anderson - I agree with everything you said, but I predict that SCOTUS will uphold the subsidies. This case is transparently flimsy. It hinges on pretending that the entire law consists of one single sentence, and ignores all the rest of the 906 pages that repeatedly make it clear the subsidies are to go to everyone who qualifies. The court will have to look at the entire bill, and is also required to look at legislative intent. The intent was perfectly clear.

Chief Justice Roberts mused aloud during oral arguments that if the court struck down the ACA, it would be another 20 years before this country could again try to deal with our broken health care system. I predicted then that they'd vote to uphold the ACA.

My final reason for believing they'll uphold the subsidies is withdrawing the subsidies takes millions of customers away from the insurance companies. Not just the 85% of people on the exchanges who currently get subsidies, but the other 15% on the exchanges in those states, since no state exchange will continue to exist with only 15% of the current number of customers. It makes the insurance pool too small to offer affordable rates, and the insurance companies will drop out of the exchanges. This court has never once ruled in a way that would go against corporate wishes, and I'd be shocked if they did so this time.

[quadrature]

7. all that is hearsay.

perhaps someone could post a link that
cites part of the ACA, where it is clear
that subsidies should
go to everyone. thanks in advance

[appalachiablue]

10. That's what I thought Re the ins. corps.; hope you're right. What a serious major mess-

[cheapdate]

8. The phrase “Exchange established by a state under Section 1311”

leaves nothing to the IRS’s imagination (see section 13b). This court has been extremely loathe to entertain "congressional intent" arguments in the past and I highly doubt that they'll start now.

I expect the court to rule against the IRS's rule making authority based on the clear text of the act.

[area51]

9. How many Americans will die

if we don't transition to single-payer?