High Court To Hear Challenge To Health Law Subsidies

obamacare is here to stay keep calm and rock on!!!

It will not make it if you have alternative Major Med market and you are not penalized through tax for using the alternative underwritten market. It is called competition and Obamacare can not win against it.:yes:
 
Even though they disagree with the law, this is pretty cold-hearted...

"At least six states have said they don't want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn't get the subsidies."

Ref: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/arti...3&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=chicagobusiness
 
FWIW they have had alternatives that never saw the light of day..[/URL][/B]

This is true but the climate was different when Obama came into power. Even John McLame proposed some simpler fixes but he is not a good messenger or any messenger I guess. And Obama and Hillary hyped everyone up to really have an appetite for major change (so they could make their mark on history) which translated into "let's make this thing as complicated as we actually can and call that major change. So complicated that not even the dems understand what they are promoting.) And the pubs never marketed anything with a tone that it was needed and good for the country. Only that it would fend off Obamacare. That's a pretty flaccid approach.

Even the pubs were supporting guaranteed issue for all and subsidies or tax credits for people to go out on to the open market with their subsidies rather than the exchange fiasco. There is a real demand now, even by demotards for some major fix to Obamacare where the new plan would fit on an envelope and even a congressional rep could understand it, most of em anyway. The timing is right but any talk that looks like the pubs do not have the plan already leaves me cold. This is no time for "lets see if we get elected then we will start working on an issue that is six years old now. I am not saying they will not start rolling it out, I am just saying I need to see it. If I dont see it, then it is deja vu all over again and hello Hillary. Also, I have no interest in any bullshiite about how they need to see what the court is going to do before doing X,Y,Z. Start leading from the front- not your behind.
 
More like 28M if you include the 8M off exchange QHPs, 11M medicaid/chip and 2M assorted others...(7.1M on the marketplace was the latest number from HHS as of 10/15)

Can you explain why we needed a trillion dollar tax increase to expand Medicaid?

The other 8M (your figures) off exchange didn't eat the govt cheese. The business I wrote in 2014 was all off the exchange. Most of my new clients were losing the GA equivalent of a risk pool, and most paid more than they did for the risk pool coverage.

The risk pool would still be around if not for Obamacare.

The rest of my clients were losing (or about to lose) COBRA.

There is no doubt some people benefited from the GI portion but it was mostly by default since what they had was going away.

Screwing 250M to "help" less than 10% of the population doesn't make good sense no matter how you spin it.
 
Even though they disagree with the law, this is pretty cold-hearted...

"At least six states have said they don't want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn't get the subsidies."


Explain to me why you think this is cold-hearted???:err:
 
Even though they disagree with the law, this is pretty cold-hearted...

"At least six states have said they don't want the subsidies for their citizens. Republican officials in Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, West Virginia, Nebraska and South Carolina filed a brief in the related case arguing that people in states with federally run exchanges, including theirs, shouldn't get the subsidies."


Explain to me why you think this is cold-hearted???:err:

Taking subsidies away will in many cases dramatically increase the premiums of residents of these states who are currently receiving the subsidies. Do you think otherwise? If so, why Newt?
ac
 
Blue, I don't see anything about NFP plans but I do recall reading some of the early post-mortem's on Ocare and there were references to not-for-profit organizations. This was made mostly on the assumption that for-profit companies charged higher premiums than NFP.

I don't know how many NFP Blue's are still around but some of the HMO's are NFP and I believe some ACO's also were set up as NFP.
 
Back
Top