Most of the people answering this have no idea what they are talking about. It is a meaningless poll.
I have been saying all along that this is exactly what congress would do in the most unlikely event that the USSC upholds the law. It won’t matter because Boehner will be leading the way to change the law so that the subsidies will be payed to all.
The only way we get rid of Obama care is in the coming economic collapse when the US can no longer pay the bills.
Screw KFF. Obamacare hacks.
BREAKING NEWS: People like “free stuff” from their government! Film at 11.
“...If SCOTUS sides with conservatives and ends up nuking subsidies for millions of federal exchange consumers, this hot potato will land squarely in their (i.e., Boehner’s and McConnell’s laps...”
*****************************************************************************************************
this should be revised to say “if SCOTUS sides with the ACTUAL LANGUAGE & MEANING OF THE LAW...”
It’s beginning to look as if the ‘RATS and the media are expecting the Supreme Court to side with the plaintiffs and hand Obama and his minions a major defeat. I expect the plaintiffs to prevail also. The media is beginning its campaign to get the RINOs to rescue Obamacare. And the STUPID PARTY’s “leadership” (in both Congress and in the States) may be just dumb enough to do that.
My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that excluding people who buy from the federal exchange from getting subsidies violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Folks, please remember that, in the Federal Exchange Only states, the subsidies are tightly “linked” to the Obamacare penalties. If the SC rules the subsidies aren’t covered by the law (as I expect) than the various tied in employee taxes and penalties also WILL NOT BE PART OF THE LAW. This lack of Obamacare related penalties will be yet another reason for people and businesses to ‘un-ass” the blue states that have a state exchange (and hence Obamacare taxes and penalties) and move to a red state. This will be add substantial “gravitational” pull to these red states to attract wealth.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has been one of the biggest proponents and supporters of Obamacare, and Kaiser is one of the biggest beneficiaries. So anything coming from them on this topic must be viewed with skepticism.
> “an Exchange established by the State.” But that phrase is vaguely worded
It’s explicitly worded.
It would be ONLY an adjustment, not a “repeal” (which we should eventually get), but the GOP could use the occasion to
(1) lower the max income level any subsidy is available for;
(2) remove any formula tie-in between the amount of premium and the amount of a subsidy (as of now, a higher premium can obtain a higher subsidy), limiting any subsidy to a flat amount depending on income and single or “family” coverage;
(3) remove all requirements for any plan to meet any coverage mandates by the federal government in order for someone to get a subsidy for it;
(4) remove the federal mandate that anyone must obtain health insurance or face a penalty;
(5) disallow any subsidy for any plan required by any state to meet any state mandated coverages;
(6) allow the subsidies for plans sold anywhere (any state) and made available anywhere across state lines (to any state) without any state insurance restrictions.
With those changes, the health insurance marketplace would have a better chance and any safety net subsidies could be opened to all exchanges.
Democrats OWN PPACA. It's 100% theirs.
This article is full of BS.
drivel
the upside for the many far out weighs the downside for a very few
It’s all about how the questions are framed.
We’ll have to see the court decision, but it may make the individual mandate invalid in federal exchange states. These states could allow for the creation of non-conforming plans or people could go without insurance. This would be a good deal for most people because most 0-care policies have high deductibles.
Well then that 64% can elect a socialist Congress.
The Kaiser Family Foundation IS ObamaCare. I guess you have to expect these goofy, twisted results. This is BS.
BS
Poll methodology:
http://kff.org/report-section/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-january-2015-methodology/
“For the landline sample, respondents were selected by asking for the youngest adult male or female currently at home based on a random rotation. If no one of that gender was available, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest adult of the opposite gender. For the cell phone sample, interviews were conducted with the adult who answered the phone. “
The youngest? LOL!
Didn’t find any breakdown of respondents by age, race, etc.