Posted on 02/26/2015 12:16:15 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
There’s no shortage of dire predictions about what would happen if the Supreme Court strikes down the system for awarding subsidies to people seeking insurance under the 2010 health care law.
Millions more could be added to the ranks of the uninsured, the cost of coverage could rise dramatically and insurance markets could be thrown into chaos, or at least temporary instability.
For all those hypotheticals, though, the only thing that’s certain is the country will be more divided than ever over President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, with many states forced to quickly decide what new steps, if any, to take to reach out to those losing their subsidies.
The political and financial stakes lend high drama to the March 4 oral arguments in the third major legal challenge to the health law, a lawsuit that attacks nothing less than the financial underpinnings of its coverage expansion.
The case — King v. Burwell — focuses on whether the financial help that low- and middle-income Americans receive under the law to help cover the cost of their health coverage is contingent upon what type of insurance marketplace, or exchange, exists in their state. Challengers argue that wording in the overhaul limits the subsidies to residents of states that created their own exchanges, not the 34 that defaulted to the federal government marketplace healthcare.gov. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate an IRS rule the Obama administration issued interpreting the law as providing subsidies in all states.
If the majority of justices agree with the plaintiffs, billions of dollars of subsidies would evaporate unless states, the administration or Congress respond with plans that fit the contours of the changed market.
Precisely what a response would entail depends on how broadly the court rules, making demands to craft contingency plans an iffy proposition.
Leading voices on both sides of the challenge think it’s unlikely the subsidies will disappear on day one, but they’re also skeptical that Congress will act promptly to avoid a major disruption in coverage.
Instead, experts predict the administration will ease the process for states currently using the federal exchange to convert to their own marketplaces so the financial aid can continue to reach their residents.
Even that would leave the country divided. Democratic-controlled states and some GOP-controlled ones would likely cast the widest safety net by taking steps to keep subsidies flowing while participating in the law’s simultaneous expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor. Other states will pick one option and provide a partial extension of coverage. And holdouts would do nothing, leaving their residents without the options available in other areas.
There would be some executive action creating a new law that should bring about impeachment, but since the Republicans have a majority that is castrated there will be no action.
I checked into an el paso,tx hospital yesterday, since being here one day, I have heard large families of illegals in my shared room telling the patient from their family, dont tell the hospital you have any money. No one has to pay for service anymore..the hospital is run over..I also heard a hospital administrator say they could not afford this onslaught of patients.. OUr country is gone..
Be aware of the campaign of manipulation being waged.
Watch for references to Obama’s “signature health law”. This is to personalize it, to make it about Obama. This is preparation to leveling charges of “hating Obama” and of course “racism”. Whether or not it is any person’s “signature” law is utterly irrelevant. Irrelevant except for those who wish to set the stage for attacking the motives of the plaintiffs.
Another tactic is claiming that a ruling for the plaintiffs would “could cost states billions and billions of dollars”. The subsidies are not a cost to the state or to the recipients of the subsidy. The cost is to federal taxpayers who are funding the illegal subsidy. A ruling for the plaintiffs would save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.
These are both to generate a political climate, to intimidate the court.
This case is the most black and white case to hit the Supremes in the last decade.
Does the law mean what the words of the law say? Or, does the law have to be re-interpreted by the SC to say what it does not say?
I have long felt that we are past the turning point, and that from here there is no recovery of our nation - and daily the new news on what O and his mind-numbed robots are doing only confirm this, drop-by-drop-by-drop.
But if the SC re-writes this law as our Chief Justice did the last one, it is indeed over.
The only question left is to leave the land. Or something I dare not say..........
Obama will ignore any court ruling. Who’s going to stop him?
The question is whether or not Roberts is bought and paid for again like he was in the one defining the penalty as a tax when they kept saying it was not a tax until it went to court.
I’m afraid the corruption is on par with Mexico’s corruption now. This president and his administration has brought the country to its knees.
I guess we will soon find out what we are made of nowadays.
If they do not find for the plaintiffs, if words have no meaning, it will be the destruction of the Supreme Court.
Well I am not effing leaving. Others are gonna leave.
The root cause is popular election of senator rather than each states representative s.
The SC will not focus on what the law says, it will look at how the country would be harmed financially if they don’t rule in favor of O-Ahole. They won’t care about how the country will be harmed Constitutionally. They have already proven that with their first ruling on Obamacare.
That will be their primary concern and hence, they will rule to change the law. It’s a given.
But if were to get rid of ObamaCare, and go back to the way it was...
It will be a disaster for our country!
Can someone please explain this logic???
‘Cause as in so many corners of American life and economy this administration has thrown in a wrench (or a poison pill), crippling the nation’s economy, laws and freedoms, and undermined the trust of our allies.
Yet Obama wants the hospitals to give even more away. He’ll be after doctors next if he isn’t already.
Think of the consequences if they rule that words have no meaning. There can no longer be any censorship. You can testify falsely. You can yell “Fire” in a theater. You can call out “Hi Jack” in an airport. In other words, anarchy.
Now we’re “finding out what is in it”, thanks to the Fools on the Hill who passed it. We are also finding out how many holes it takes to fill the U.S. Congress and Senate. I hope that one day there will be a day of reckoning for those who are turning this country into a banana republic.
It would set us on a course having dreadful consequences, there would be no law. No certainty. Destruction.
Well we know all the illegals will be getting refund checks from the IRS to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars so the hospitals should do some collecting
The soap box failed to stop Obamacare. The ballot box failed to stop Obamacare. The Supreme Court represents the jury box, and I pray it will stop Obamacare. I’ve heard there is a fourth option. I hope the Supremes will rule in accordance with the law and we will not have to find out how that final option goes.
What happened to equal treatment under the law. Is it okay to now pick favorites and punish the unwashed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.