Posted on 02/16/2015 8:24:57 PM PST by Libloather
**SNIP**
Meredith is one of about 6 million people whose subsidized insurance hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court takes up a case that poses the most serious challenge to the Affordable Care Act since the court found the law constitutional more than two years ago.
The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell insist that people who buy coverage on the federal exchange are not entitled to subsidies, noting that the law says financial help is available for those who enroll through exchanges established by the State. The Obama administration argues that Congress clearly intended to help everyone who qualifies for it. The oral arguments are scheduled for March 4.
About the only thing both sides agree on is that the subsidies are critical to the health-care law, whose second open enrollment season ended Sunday. If the Supreme Court bars subsidies for people in 34 states, some say the law will unravel and the number of uninsured will soar. Others say the White House and Congress may come up with a solution. And still others say that at least some states will rush to set up exchanges. But any alternative would raise a host of legal and practical questions and could be difficult to implement.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Sheez, I messed that post up. LOL, just noticed. I meant “into office back in 2008”. I need sleep.
And/or hefty penalties the following tax year if they cannot afford the "new" improved premiums.
The floggings will continue until morale improves.
Regards,
“Hey, you said you’d gibsmedat!”
LOL!
I blame low life harpies like you who have no other agenda other than to heap scorn upon those who do not subscribe to your personal beliefs and wishes.
You are no better than any scum bag lefty, IMO.
Federal Government may have given illegal subsidies to millions in Supreme Court health law case
(headline from an alternative universe)
Screw you.
Me, too.
The bill was over 2,000 pages thick. Are you telling me that in a 2,000 page long document they couldn't take a paragraph or two to "clearly intend..." something as straight forward as the difference between State exchanges and Federal exchanges which should have been included in the 2,000 page bill if Congress wanted it. If it's not there Congress clearly intended to distinguish between the two types of exchanges. Eat it Soetoro.
By the way, the Constitution "clearly intended" that a person holding the office of president should have a valid birth certificate and be born in the United States and apply for a Social Security card in a state where they lived for the amount of time it takes to fill out the form.
Go Eff yourself.
“If the SCOTUS rules that only state exchanges can qualify for subsidies, then each state will either set up a subsidy, pronto, or have tens of thousands of angry people beating the statehouse doors down because without it they cant afford the insurance. It doesnt automatically mean Obamacare is dead, and puts the issue in the states lap.”
The problem BB with your “solution” is that the states don’t have the money to front the subsidies, and the ratio of gibbsmedats to taxpayers in states w/o State Exchanges makes your argument less plausible. Because the vast majority of the taxpaying voters of those states will tell their leaders: “Tell those freeloaders it’s tough $hit,” which will handily trump those who “yell they are being screwed.” Very nearly all the state exchanges are in blue states where the subsidies are not an issue (until FUBOCare goes under).
I told you first. Hope you enjoy it.
Why are your britches bunched up?
You should chill out.
“Screw you.”
Why would you use such language here? The guy’s first three sentences made sense. Are you leaked off because he sees civil war as a needed outcome?
I think you’re going to be proven wrong on that because my understanding is that by not setting up an exchange a state will automatically exempt all of its citizens who have employer-paid plans from being subject to the employer mandate. This will enable them to keep their current plans because their employers will not be under pressure to drop their plans. That group is a hell of a lot bigger than the group that will lose subsidies, subsidies that they weren’t entitled to in the first place.
Furthermore, most of those states are GOP-run and some provisions will likely be made to fold Obamacare recipients into other state-run plans.
All Hail Group Think!
see 34
You should put the cork back in the bottle and go to bed.
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.