High Court To Hear Challenge To Health Law Subsidies

[kgmom219]

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.

NPF Blues....
Illinois
Texas
New Mexico
Montana
Oklahoma
Florida

There might be others, but those I know for sure

 

[houcoogster]

8 Reasons to Stop Freaking Out About The Supreme Court's Next Obamacare Case.

King v Burwell Supreme Court Case Shouldn't Worry Liberals

 

[tonyisme]

The carrier will term a class of members or a plan when it is losing money. To protect the insurer against adverse selection. This applied before ACA and will apply today and next year no matter who gets elected.

 

[bobson]

8 Reasons to Stop Freaking Out About The Supreme Court's Next Obamacare Case.

King v Burwell Supreme Court Case Shouldn't Worry Liberals

The logic in that article is frightening.

 

[djs]

The logic in that article is frightening.

There was no logic used in that article. It was simply wishful thinking.

 

[houcoogster]

There was no logic used in that article. It was simply wishful thinking.

The conservative lawyer next door to my office said number 3 was the best argument.

 

[djs]

Actually, its not hypocritical at all. They said without subsidies it falls apart.
That doesn't have anything to do with ruling whether subsidies are legal or not based on the current wording.

So, if your lawyer friend is correct that this is the best argument and its not a valid argument, it tells you the whole thing is in trouble.

Like I said, no logic was harmed in the making of that article.

 

[houcoogster]

Actually, its not hypocritical at all. They said without subsidies it falls apart.
That doesn't have anything to do with ruling whether subsidies are legal or not based on the current wording.

So, if your lawyer friend is correct that this is the best argument and its not a valid argument, it tells you the whole thing is in trouble.

Like I said, no logic was harmed in the making of that article.

Where does it say in the law you are excluded from subsidies if your state does not create their own exchange?

Are you are lawyer djs?

 

[tonyisme]

In the 36 states which do not have their own exchanges, where are all the new insurance companies ? If this is so great this ACA of course new insurance companies would be taking advantage of this opportunity. But who on earth would start a business where they can only sell their product 3 months out of the year? And an unafordable product?
If anyone thinks insurance companies are going to do well living by this ridiculous law and thrive and prosper then they should lay off smoking that weed.

 

[houcoogster]

In the 36 states which do not have their own exchanges, where are all the new insurance companies ? If this is so great this ACA of course new insurance companies would be taking advantage of this opportunity. But who on earth would start a business where they can only sell their product 3 months out of the year? And an unafordable product?
If anyone thinks insurance companies are going to do well living by this ridiculous law and thrive and prosper then they should lay off smoking that weed.

Tony I think you need to lay off the weed. Look no further than MA companies how many of those are there (AEP)?

We added 3 new companies to the exc here.

It's affordable for my clients.