<p>@Flossy “This was never about cost for either side.”</p>
<p>Right is it about whether a religious believe excludes a company from having to follow the law. I sincerely hope so, because it is my sincerely held belief that God does not want me to pay income tax any more.</p>
<p>Lol. I wanna join your church. But then who would pay for the healthcare? ;)</p>
<p>" It doesn’t exclude birth control, it excludes 2 morning after pills and 2 IUD’s."</p>
<p>IUD’s are birth control. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court decision covers all forms of birth control, as the court clarified last Tuesday.</p>
<p>The decision turns on whether corporations can have religious beliefs. (Yes, apparently.) Now corporations can have the same protections human people have concerning religious beliefs. Humans don’t get to evade taxes because of religious beliefs, so corporations can’t evade taxes using that trick either.</p>
<p>Although corporations with religious beliefs can deduct their health insurance premiums, where real people with religious beliefs can’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All corporations, even atheist corporations, could already deduct their health insurance premiums. And AFAIK no real people can deduct their health insurance premiums. The decision changed nothing about deductibility of premiums. </p>
<p>At issue with this ruling (which I do not defend) is what rights corporations have that they weren’t previously recognized as having. Evidently, corporations now have the right to ignore certain laws if the owners of the corporation say the laws conflict with the owners’ religious beliefs. Which laws can be ignored (other than the contraceptive mandate of the ACA) is yet to be determined.</p>
<p>Oh I know, Fang. I was just pointing out the injustice and inconsistency. Seems to me that if corporations are so anxious to be people, they should get the whole package, including non-deductible premiums. Not on this court’s watch, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congress writes the ‘inconsistent’ tax laws. It is not a court’s responsibility to “fix” them; that’s what the Legislators get paid for.</p>
<p>The contraception mandate is not even in the law, you guys. It’s in the HHS regulations which could always change anyway.</p>
<p>Don’t blame this one on legislators. When they passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, they didn’t think it would mean that corporations get to have religious beliefs, and evade laws based on “their” religious beliefs. That right was created by the courts.</p>
<p>It;s the Court’s responsibility to interpret the laws the Legislative branch writes and approves.</p>
<p>A new Commonwealth survey says the large majority of people who bought insurance on the exchanges or who newly enrolled in Medicaid are satisfied with their new insurance. By party ID, 85% of Democrats and 74% of Republicans are satisfied. </p>
<p>Also, 60% of people with new exchange or Medicaid coverage have used it already, for medical care or prescription drugs.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/issue-brief/2014/jul/1760_collins_gaining_ground_tracking_survey.pdf”>http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/issue-brief/2014/jul/1760_collins_gaining_ground_tracking_survey.pdf</a> (the survey writeup)</p>
<p><a href=“Newest Health Insurance Customers Are Generally Happy - The New York Times”>Newest Health Insurance Customers Are Generally Happy - The New York Times; (NY Times article summarizing the survey)</p>
<p>I can’t tell if the survey included people who newly purchased individual insurance outside the exchanges. I think it didn’t, but they use the term “marketplace” and I’m not positive they mean the exchanges.</p>
<p>I think that “marketplace” is technically the correct title for the exchange. Though I am not sure that people answering a phone survey would necessarily know the difference. </p>
<p>Looks like the squeaky wheels are getting some assistance…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/health/ci_26127670/obamacare-little-known-provision-allows-californians-stuck-bad”>PG&E boss says company wasn’t fully ready for California outages – Santa Cruz Sentinel;
<p>That’s excellent. Subscribers are allowed to switch insurance if the subscriber was presented with “incorrect plan data.” And some insurers’ provider lists were seriously inaccurate. So subscribers are being allowed to switch to a different plan.</p>
<p>I’m glad that some subscribers can switch, but I hope that insurers get more sanctions than just a few subscribers switching. They need to face serious bad consequences so they stop giving bad provider lists.</p>
<p>That’s great. I hope the state throws the book at Anthem, and I hope they get socked big time in the class action suit. </p>
<p>The first Halbig vs. Burwell decision came today. This is the case concerning whether people in states that didn’t establish their own exchanges will still get insurance subsidies.</p>
<p>The three-judge panel in the DC Court of Appeals ruled for the plaintiffs, saying that only people with state exchanges are eligible for subsidies. The two Republican-appointed judges on the panel ruled for the plaintiffs, and the lone Democrat-appointed judge ruled for the Administration. The case will now go to an en banc panel of all the judges on the DC Court, four Rs and seven Ds. It will then most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, who may or may not decide to hear it.
<a href=“Halbig Obamacare Ruling | PDF”>http://www.scribd.com/doc/234771636/Halbig-Obamacare-ruling</a></p>
<p>Meanwhile over at the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Virginia and other states), a three-judge panel ruled the opposite way on the same situation, in King vs. Burwell.
<a href=“http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf”>http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/king_usca4_20140722.pdf</a></p>
<p>Thanks, Cardinal – I was wondering what the next steps will be. Sigh. This hasn’t been easy, has it…?</p>
<p>If the Supreme Court takes this issue, there likely won’t be a ruling until June, 2016. </p>
<p>Any lawyers out there? Could you explain why the cases are in two different courts (Fourth Circuit and DC Court of Appeals)? The decisions should bind the IRS, which has to implement the subsidies and must determine whether people in Oklahoma get subsidized insurance. If the Fourth Circuit says they must act one way, and the DC Court of Appeals says they must act the opposite way, how are they to reconcile these decisions?</p>