<p>“The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.”</p>
<p>Emilybee,
I am about to win our bet.</p>
<p>CF, I am going to win our bet too . ;)</p>
<p>I would prefer that the administration wait before any extension. Maybe wait until the weekend. Looks like the administration wont wait. Some states have been pushing for an extension. </p>
<p>That case points out how sloppily drafted the law was. </p>
<p>The case argued today, the Hobby Lobby case, is actually pretty narrow since Hobby Lobby has no problem supply insurance that provides for birth control so long as the birth control does not prevent implantation or is an abortifacient. So they are okay with BC pills, but not IUDs. </p>
<p>Who here read the law, read it with some sense of how legal docs are structured? Now who only read what’s out in the media or reported by advocacy groups? C’mon. </p>
<p>Around 17 million people are going to be insured because of the law this year. Let 's see this group of people, many of whom are voters, get the finger. </p>
<p>“Whatever the Court of Appeals’ decision is, the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case. That would mean the Court of Appeals’ decision would hold.”</p>
<p>It is a possibility but based on what they have been accepting thus far which seem to be far more trivial in nature related to the law, this one would be monumental.</p>
<p>The law was a comprehensive one with very specific structure to it. Supremes broke it by saying States can choose not to do whatever. So essentially they created this specific issue which means they will need to address it. </p>
<p>I have a personal stake in this at this point since we have no exchange and I moved 10 families onto the exchange. I can’t see the supremes not getting involved in the end unless they agree with whatever appeals court says but that is some hoping on my part.</p>
<p>I dont know why you say that 6.3 million wont happen. I would never bet on that unless it was going to exceed 6.3 million. Healthcare.gov received 197,000 calls on March 16 which was the 4th most ever.</p>
<p>On March 23rd, 350,000 calls. :)</p>
<p>Covered California could not answer half their calls last week. I wonder how this week is going to go, </p>
<p>Charlie Gaba is very conservative and he is up to 6.26 million. :)</p>
<p>Actually, it was always true that states didn’t have to create exchanges, and if they didn’t, the federal government would create an exchange for the state. That was not a result of the Supreme Court action, but of the initial law.</p>
<p>If the three judges rule for the plaintiffs, the government can and will ask for the case to be heard en banc (with all the judges on the court). The handicappers say that the full court is likely to rule for the government and the Supremes are likely to decline to take the case. </p>
<p>The reason why the govt is now faced with this litigation is because of how the law was originally enacted. After the Senate bill had been approved, the Senate lost its filibuster-proof majority because of an interim election in Ma to replace Sen. Kennedy. At this point they were unable to go to conference with the House because not one Republican supported the bill. So the House voted on the Senate bill which avoided the need for another vote in the Senate. However, there were many problems with the Senate bill but our elected representatives chose to ignore them so they could pass the bill. Now they are paying the price for being sloppy and choosing to make this a partisan vote.</p>
<p>As Nancy Pelosi said, we will find out what is in the bill after we pass it.</p>
<p>I like Charles Gaba’s site-- in fact, I had a couple of email exchanges with him today. But I think he’s being optimistic on this one. I’m betting with my head, not my heart.</p>
<p>"Actually, it was always true that states didn’t have to create exchanges, and if they didn’t, the federal government would create an exchange for the state. "</p>
<p>So did someone forget to say ALL exchanges?</p>
<p>“I don’t think the surge is big enough. But I’d be happy to be wrong.”</p>
<p>Well…when I made the bet, I said the sign up number was looking like 6.25 million. I see Gaba is at 6.26 million. So I am going to need a little extra push. :)</p>
<p>So I was wondering who is this guy, Charlie Gaba, that dstark is constantly referring to. I did a google search and guess what: he is affiliated with the Daily Kos website. Enough said.</p>
I still don’t think you will, but signups have been going great this week.</p>