Uhh, no, they wouldn't lose their coverage, there just wouldn't be any tax credit since they didn't buy it through a state exchange as is required for the tax credit.
The Republicans will ride in with a “fix” to save Obamacare from itself.
I wish we had an opposition party.
Nearly 87 percent of all Obamacare enrollees qualify for a subsidy, depending on their annual household income.///
Good Lord!! 87 percent? Why not just make subsidies mandatory. Along with the three meals in school, and make it weekends too. Have Subway or McDonalds deliver to the houses. /s Incredible.
How much is the subsidy for a brain transplant?
Or is hollow cranium the wave of the political future?
I can’t see Roberts contributing to the dismantling of obamacare. He is not on our side any more. Hussein ovbviously got to him on the first ruling and once bought it is hard to become unbought. The threatened information dump could be indeed, dumped, or the payments exposed, or the relatives could be the victims of a series of not quite explainable accidents or muggings as perhaps had been suggested.
The other states didn’t decide to “rely” on the Federal exchanges, they decided to exercise their right to opt out of them.
The states that did set up their own exchanges are, generally, finding out the hard way just how suck-a** ObamaCare really is. It’s going to be interesting to see what other states among the 34 end up being pressured into following that route. If SCOTUS rules against the subsidies.
I have seen posts elsewhere for awhile now from posters glad that their maximum out of pocket was $6,000.
I don’t know many procedures that are $6,000 from start to finish anymore.
At work one time, a person in a town hall meeting was upset, wondering who would pay for an upcoming heart surgery. I ALMOST asked out loud, “So you expect me to?” I didn’t....need to keep the job while I can.
Congress did step in originally, to remove it intentionally to get the law passed.
Democrats were forced to set up the exchanges this way.
Wikipedia actually has a decent description of the negotiation that led the intended compromise.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Senate:
The Senate began work on its own proposals while the House was still working on the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Senate took up H.R. 3590, a bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members. As the United States Constitution requires all revenue-related bills to originate in the House, the Senate took up this bill since it was first passed by the House as a revenue-related modification to the Internal Revenue Code. The bill was then used as the Senate's vehicle for their healthcare reform proposal, completely revising the content of the bill. The bill as amended would ultimately incorporate elements of proposals that were reported favorably by the Senate Health and Finance committees. With the Republican minority in the Senate vowing to filibuster any bill they did not support, requiring a cloture vote to end debate, 60 votes would be necessary to get passage in the Senate. At the start of the 111th Congress, Democrats had only 58 votes; the Senate seat in Minnesota ultimately won by Al Franken was still undergoing a recount, and Arlen Specter was still a Republican.To reach 60 votes, negotiations were undertaken to satisfy the demands of moderate Democrats, and to try to bring several Republican senators aboard; particular attention was given to Bob Bennett, Mike Enzi, Chuck Grassley, and Olympia Snowe. Negotiations continued even after July 7 — when Franken was sworn into office, and by which time Specter had switched parties — due to disagreements over the substance of the bill, which was still being drafted in committee, and because moderate Democrats hoped to win bipartisan support. Then, on August 25, before the bill could come up for a vote, Ted Kennedy—a longtime healthcare reform advocate—died, depriving Democrats of their 60th vote. Before Kennedy's seat was filled, attention was drawn to Snowe because of her vote in favor of the draft bill in the Finance Committee on October 15, but she explicitly stated that this did not mean she would support the final bill. Paul Kirk was appointed as Senator Kennedy's temporary replacement on September 24.
After the Finance Committee vote, negotiations turned to the demands of moderate Democrats, whose votes would be necessary to break the anticipated Republican filibuster. Majority leader Harry Reid focused on satisfying the Democratic caucus's centrist members until the holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat, representing Nebraska. Lieberman, despite intense negotiations with Reid in search of a compromise, refused to support a public option, agreeing to vote for the bill only if the provision were not included, although it had majority support in Congress. His demand was met. There was debate among the bill's supporters over the importance of the public option, although the vast majority of supporters concluded it was a minor part of the reform overall, and Congressional Democrats' fight for it won various concessions, including conditional waivers allowing states to set up state-based public options such as Vermont's Green Mountain Care.
It's clear that the removal of federal exchanges (the "public option") was the result of compromises made to get the bill passed. Now, Democrats want the Court to say that they always intended for all states to get federal subsidies.
This case will came down to what the DEMOCRATS intended vs. what they were forced to compromise as a combined legislature after the election of Scott Brown as the Republican "40th vote."
The question is whether Roberts will give back to Democrats what they intentionally gave away now that Brown is no longer in the Senate to complain?
Will Roberts undermine the concept of good-faith negotiation by giving the Democrats what they really wanted all along but were politically unable to attain?
Republicans intended things, too, but were only able to politically attain the few concessions that they received, such as no federal subsidies in stat es with no state exchanges. If Roberts takes that away, we might as well have a new amendment that Legislative intent is only what Democrats say it is at any given time.
-PJ
"...some states are preparing contingency plans to avert a disaster if the court strikes down access to federally subsidized health care for their residents."
The writer has it backwards. The premise of the claim is false. Obamacare itself is the disaster that was not averted. Striking it down would be the first step of recovery.
Cordially,
Once again, the Republican’s stupidity is on display for all to see.
The Democrats - if they win, they win big. If they lose, their story - that it was a drafting error - has been told over and over and over since the case was first accepted for review.
The truth - which is that state-funded exchanges were a necessary compromise to pass the bill, and that that fact is well documented in floor debates and in the press - how many times have McConnell and Boehner said that? Have they EVER said it?
So, when “emergency legislation” is introduced to “correct the drafting error”, what will the Republicans do then?
I prefer Plan M
Obamacare must go. Period. Full stop. End of story.
I was medically retired from active service in February, and I’ve been blessed that I’ve never had to pay a dime out-of-pocket for my family’s healthcare since 18. My wife, who at 26 has the lung capacity of a long distance runner, still would pay $280 every other week in premiums just for a “bronze” plan.
Health care is broken in this country.
Nearly 87 percent of all Obamacare enrollees qualify for a subsidy
Listen up you stupid Governors of the 34 States, WHO CARES if a bunch of people lose their Welfare Health Insurance, give them all a One Way ticket to another State that has Welfare Health Insurance. it will be way cheaper in the long run.