Obamacare cost...

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Out of curiosity if the President did not mislead anyone but just failed to speak precise enough, why are so many Democrats moving to support a bill that ensures "you can keep your insurance?"

I'm not sure if you really intended this as a response to my post.

But if you look at the actual statute about what plans are grandfathered in, the statue is fairly inclusive. So the law as passed by Congress, by itself, would have allowed almost all plans that people had prior to March 2010 to be grandfathered in. After the law was passed, however, regulations came pouring in that made it so a huge portion, if not a majority, of plans will not be grandfathered in. That means the Obama Administration sold a bill of goods to Congress and the voters and then deliberately pulled the rug out from under that promise.

The Democrats in Congress and the Senate, unless they're in Pelosi like districts/states, have to get on board with this "you can keep your insurance" act because it will be toxic to them if they don't. The problem, however, is that insurance companies have been counting on peeling off a significant portion of their customers already in the individual market and putting them into these new pools in order to prop up all the sick/old/injured people in there. I imagine that is why the regulations were promulgated in the first place -- to make these risk pools more feasible.

But I can't imagine that the Obama Administration and potentially Congress didn't understand this all along. They would pass one law but essentially regulate the "you can keep your health insurance plan, period" promise out of existence. Then again, I might be giving these people too much credit because they haven't proven to be very adept at understanding economic incentives to rational decision makers let alone the actuarial work that goes into insurance pools.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Apparently there is a question whether subsidies can be applied to people who buy insurance on the federal exchange, and in fact there are some lawsuits pending right now regarding this issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...hut-it-down/2/

This is important because only 14 states have their own exchanges. Without the subsidies, Obamacare goes from being only kind of politically toxic to something causing people to grab their pitchforks and start rioting (I'm kidding of course, but it would multiply the effects of the political disaster).

[Moliere]

I'm curious.
A. Did the coverage broaden? If so,
B. Did the coverage broaden in ways that benefit your family?
C. Did costs (not premiums, but deductibles and copays) go down?

TIA

No to A and B.

I'm not sure on C but will find out.

I'm in a very large company, which I guess has a deferral to implement?

[VirginiaCougar]

Obama lies. RMoney lies. I feel better now for wasting my vote on Gary Johnson. Thanks VC.

Doesn't Gary Johnson represent the biggest of these so-called "lies?" As far as lying goes, that is a nasty term and oversimplifies. Its another part of that false Black & White view of things being pushed by so many today.

[imanihonjin]

Apparently there is a question whether subsidies can be applied to people who buy insurance on the federal exchange, and in fact there are some lawsuits pending right now regarding this issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...hut-it-down/2/

This is important because only 14 states have their own exchanges. Without the subsidies, Obamacare goes from being only kind of politically toxic to something causing people to grab their pitchforks and start rioting (I'm kidding of course, but it would multiply the effects of the political disaster).

According to the plain meaning of the statute, this is correct. Those who don't purchase through a state exchange but only purchase through the federal exchange would not be eligible to receive the subsidy. This won't stand up in court though. Chief Justice Roberts and his minions have already shown that they are not willing to overturn this law.

[imanihonjin]

Doesn't Gary Johnson represent the biggest of these so-called "lies?" As far as lying goes, that is a nasty term and oversimplifies. Its another part of that false Black & White view of things being pushed by so many today.

Say what? If Romney says "My first day of office I will overturn Obamacare" when he had no intention of doing so, is this something other than a lie? (please note: I am not saying Romney had no intention of doing so, VC stated as much).

Somethings are black and white and stating that you will do something when you have no intention of doing said thing is nothing other than a lie. So you can call it nasty and an oversimplification, but under your worldview, nothing is ever really a lie and therefore one has to wonder if there are really truths or untruths.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

According to the plain meaning of the statute, this is correct. Those who don't purchase through a state exchange but only purchase through the federal exchange would not be eligible to receive the subsidy. This won't stand up in court though. Chief Justice Roberts and his minions have already shown that they are not willing to overturn this law.

I think you're misreading John Roberts on this. John Roberts didn't want the Court to have to overturn a massive piece of legislation that was passed into law by the other two branches of government. Unless something is passed that is outside Congress's enumerated powers or is in violation of an amendment, Roberts doesn't think it should be ruled as unconstitutional. The throw-away argument presented by the Obama Administration was that the law was passed under Congress's taxing power. That provided an escape clause to John Roberts who is always going to look for one. I don't particularly fault him for looking for an escape in something like this, he's a true judicial conservative and even though I didn't like the position, it did enhance the stature of the court.

We're presented here with a wholly different argument. This doesn't deal with whether the statute is constitutional, it deals with how the statute is written and how it has to be implemented. The clear language of the statute says that only people buying insurance on a state exchange can get a subsidy. The IRS has tried to paper over the problem with regulations, but regulations can't reach beyond the language of the statute -- and that's what the fight is about. It is absolutely within the federal courts power to interpret statutory language and figure out whether the relevant government authorities are violating the statute.

The reason why this happened is because they rushed this shit sandwich through. This is what happens when you do this -- you have an imperfect statute with glaring deficiencies. I almost wonder in hindsight if Roberts was sitting there reading this statute and knew damn well that this thing would collapse. If he's looking particularly at the mandate part of it and sees that the mandate is totally unenforceable unless someone gets a tax refund, then he knows that in all actuality it really isn't much of a mandate and the Obama Administration is therefore going to count on peoples' ignorance or charity on the mandate. For someone who doesn't already have insurance, if they know the IRS can't lien or garnish their property then they still won't sign up for insurance.

I believe this stuff about the subsidies may have also been floating around out there when the Supreme Court was deciding this matter. If you combine an individual mandate which isn't really much of a mandate with no subsidies for citizens in 36 states -- then you have a law that simply will not be able to function.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Here's Sean Trende's column on this matter and I think it does a pretty good job and laying things out:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...acks_up-2.html

I also agree that there's some risk involved to Republicans if the subsidies are overturned. Though I think the argument can be just as easily be made that Obamacare created the mess and not Republicans in state legislators.

[All-American]

Apparently there is a question whether subsidies can be applied to people who buy insurance on the federal exchange, and in fact there are some lawsuits pending right now regarding this issue:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt...hut-it-down/2/

This is important because only 14 states have their own exchanges. Without the subsidies, Obamacare goes from being only kind of politically toxic to something causing people to grab their pitchforks and start rioting (I'm kidding of course, but it would multiply the effects of the political disaster).

If it were so big and important, somebody would have mentioned it in this thread by now.

[imanihonjin]

I think you're misreading John Roberts on this. John Roberts didn't want the Court to have to overturn a massive piece of legislation that was passed into law by the other two branches of government. Unless something is passed that is outside Congress's enumerated powers or is in violation of an amendment, Roberts doesn't think it should be ruled as unconstitutional. The throw-away argument presented by the Obama Administration was that the law was passed under Congress's taxing power. That provided an escape clause to John Roberts who is always going to look for one. I don't particularly fault him for looking for an escape in something like this, he's a true judicial conservative and even though I didn't like the position, it did enhance the stature of the court.

We're presented here with a wholly different argument. This doesn't deal with whether the statute is constitutional, it deals with how the statute is written and how it has to be implemented. The clear language of the statute says that only people buying insurance on a state exchange can get a subsidy. The IRS has tried to paper over the problem with regulations, but regulations can't reach beyond the language of the statute -- and that's what the fight is about. It is absolutely within the federal courts power to interpret statutory language and figure out whether the relevant government authorities are violating the statute.

The reason why this happened is because they rushed this shit sandwich through. This is what happens when you do this -- you have an imperfect statute with glaring deficiencies. I almost wonder in hindsight if Roberts was sitting there reading this statute and knew damn well that this thing would collapse. If he's looking particularly at the mandate part of it and sees that the mandate is totally unenforceable unless someone gets a tax refund, then he knows that in all actuality it really isn't much of a mandate and the Obama Administration is therefore going to count on peoples' ignorance or charity on the mandate. For someone who doesn't already have insurance, if they know the IRS can't lien or garnish their property then they still won't sign up for insurance.

I believe this stuff about the subsidies may have also been floating around out there when the Supreme Court was deciding this matter. If you combine an individual mandate which isn't really much of a mandate with no subsidies for citizens in 36 states -- then you have a law that simply will not be able to function.

Statutory construction is the biggest crap shoot when it comes to judicial review. You are correct that the statute language is clear. However, it isn't an exact science and the Roberts court isn't going to jump on the land mine this time either. All the court has to do is say that the statute is unclear and they they can almost decide the language means whatever the court wants it to mean as they interpret the legislative intent of the statute. Again, I agree they shouldn't even consider legislative intent, but they will.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If it were so big and important, somebody would have mentioned it in this thread by now.

Damn it All the Right Moves, just link your post already.

[All-American]

Damn it All the Right Moves, just link your post already.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1038827
http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1038907

[Uncle Ted]

Doesn't Gary Johnson represent the biggest of these so-called "lies?" As far as lying goes, that is a nasty term and oversimplifies. Its another part of that false Black & White view of things being pushed by so many today.

Gary Johnson lies?!? How about the Green Party guy? Does he lie?

[VirginiaCougar]

Gary Johnson lies?!? How about the Green Party guy? Does he lie?

There is a Green Party guy? I thought we hated the environment in America?


Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[All-American]

Paging Mr. Godwin . . . .