A Supreme Court decision against Obamacare could cost states billions and billions of dollars

Washington Post ^ | February 19, 2015 | By Greg Sargent

[RetiredTexasVet]

Actually, the states would lose nothing except headaches. The moochers and the insurance companies will lose billions. The states would net out the same because doctors will not take the moochers as patients and they will use the emergency rooms as they always have which the state pays for.

[txhurl]

Well, RATS, you broke it, you BUY it.

[Jane Long]

Spot on...although, I’m sure they really mean it would cost billions in lost kickbacks and votes. Ha!

[flaglady47]

Oh, I see, the States will lose money while the people that live in them get screwed if Obamacare continues to exist. Right....

[Jane Long]

?

Not sure how your post relates to mine. Thanks.

[hawkaw]

Quit being so negative. This case has a really good shot.

[Dr.Deth]

A Supreme Court decision against Obamacare could cost states billions and billions of dollars

You mean, save the taxpayer billions and billions of dollars, right, comPost?

[sarasmom]

All the accounting lies about the ACA are about to catch up with the Feds.
This particular “story” is just one of many.
The numbers of people who are supposedly eligible for tax subsidies on the illegal exchanges are inflated based upon one simple qualifier:
Does your employer offer you a chance to participate in an employer negotiated/provided insurance policy?
If yes,Stop.
You are not eligible for federal subsidies or exchange rates.
If no, go on to the next question.

Do your exchange insurance premiums exceed 8% of your income?
Stop.
You are exempt from the ACA penalties.

BTW, The government/IRS is no longer providing free tax instruction pamphlets to local libraries, or automatically mailing them to taxpayers.

It's a government money saving measure...LOL!

You can request one from the IRS.
I advise everyone to do so.

[Deagle]

What! You mean that the crazy push through Congress by the Democrats was stupid and causing us problems? Tell me that is not so! (History is a horrible problem for Democrats).

[mtrott]

I don’t understand how the STATES would be losing any money. From what I understand, it would be the individuals policy holders who are receiving subsidies who would be losing money. Is this not correct?

[stylin19a]

what a breathtakinly crappy lying article.

[funfan]

And whose money is it really? It is the peoples money that the government took from them. So the states may lose but the people will gain.

[flaglady47]

“Not sure how your post relates to mine. Thanks.”

It doesn’t. You were just the last post so I clicked on i to post mine. Sorry, no offense to you at all, just convenience on my part to post my comment. I should be more careful in the future.

[VerySadAmerican]

If there were to be a revolution, and I don’t believe there ever will be, the SC is the first that should be tried and 5 should be convicted. After a fair trial, of course.

[montag813]

Quit being so negative. This case has a really good shot.

The previous lawsuit did too - Roberts shot it down.
Arizona's SB1070 had merit - Kennedy shot it down

Hard to be positive when Statist traitors are all around us.

[houeto]

The SCOTUS will rule in favor of subsidies, 6-3 (Roberts, Kennedy).

I call it exactly the opposite way. 6-3 subsidies illegal.