<p>
Why would the DC Circuit take the case en banc, and not the 4th Circuit? </p>
<p>Early morning read,</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.yahoo.com/news/agents-subsidized-obamacare-using-fake-ids-071714059--finance.html”>http://finance.yahoo.com/news/agents-subsidized-obamacare-using-fake-ids-071714059--finance.html</a></p>
<p>Dietz199, the federal subsidies to run the exchanges…these subsidies have a shelf life.</p>
<p>The subsidies for health insurance premiums are not shifting to the states. </p>
<p>CF addressed medicaid. The medicaid expansion makes sense economically and mathematically. The states that dont expand are losing money while seeing more uninsured. </p>
<p>We are almost into August now…
The vast majority of people that signed up for ACA like it.</p>
<p>The uninsured rate dropped how much in California?</p>
<p>
Because 9 of the 16 judges on the 4th Circuit were appointed by Democrats. So they will not likely take the case en banc (unless, maybe, they want to delay it getting to the Supreme Court). If they do take it en banc, they won’t reverse the panel. In the D.C.Circuit, a majority of the judges are also Democratic nominees, so they will most likely take the case and then reverse the panel. After that happens, there will no longer be a split in the circuits (unless there’s another decision going the other way elsewhere). The Supreme Court might still take the case, but it will be somewhat less likely for them to do so, and then to reverse the lower decisions.</p>
<p>By the way, in my possibly biased opinion, as a legal matter the 4th Circuit decision is clearly the correct one based on the structure and legislative history of the law. To rule the other way would be so clearly political that the Supreme Court might prefer just to not take the case if it doesn’t have to.</p>
<p>The law has been consistently unpopular. </p>
<p><a href=“RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html</a></p>
<p>The fake id problem and potential for fraud shown by the GAO investigation looks like a way for illegal immigrants to get taxpayer subsidized insurance. </p>
<p>I don’t understand the fake ID issue. You don’t show ID to purchase insurance on the exchange. At least, neither my H nor my D had to.</p>
<p>TatinG,</p>
<p><a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/10/3458577/even-republicans-are-satisfied-with-the-new-obamacare-coverage-poll-finds/”>http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/07/10/3458577/even-republicans-are-satisfied-with-the-new-obamacare-coverage-poll-finds/</a></p>
<p>Also, didn’t we discuss before that any seeming initial approval is still subject to further, ongoing verification? Ie, what happened yesterday, last week, last month is not the final. In my own case, we were approved, the verification of different points continued on its own and I had to respond.</p>
<p>Dstark: Americans, as a whole, who still count in this country and vote, dislike this law by a margin of 15%. Most of the people getting ACA insurance are getting money from taxpayers to pay for it, so of course they like it. You have to look at American citizens views overall. </p>
<p>So the idea is that someone uses a fake ID and also fake income documentation to get insurance, and then they present that fake ID again to get the health care? I suppose the idea is that a person who is either an undocumented immigrant, or who has an income to high to qualify for subsidies, would then get subsidized insurance?</p>
<p>Is there evidence that this is happening on a significant scale? This situation seems to argue for increased enforcement, if indeed fraud is a significant problem, rather than throwing out the entire law. </p>
<p>After all, people try to fraudulently claim state residence to get in-state tuition, but we don’t say that therefore no student should get in-state tuition. We don’t seek to throw out the entire program. Instead, we say that universities should verify claims, and we realize that some cheaters might nevertheless sneak through. </p>
<p>TatinG, The majority of people are in favor of the law or think the law does not go far enough. Check out the latest CNN poll that just came out.</p>
<p>The vast majority of people that have actually purchased health insurance with the new ACA coverage are satisfied.
The political leanings of those that signed up dont matter. Conservative. Liberal. Middle of the road. The actual purchasers are satisfied with their ACA coverage. </p>
<p>Is ACA working? I am looking at people that actually are using the product and they are saying yes.</p>
<p>My son got a job in NY. I no longer have to pay for his health insurance in two states. (Coverage in two states was my bs. I pissed away a few bucks there). </p>
<p>My expenses just dropped $600 a month. :)</p>
<p>I talked to somebody with ties to one of the major insurers in the United States. They are happy with ACA. They are going to expand. Their revenues are increasing quite a bit.</p>
<p>When you read the retirement thread, there are several posts from people that may not like ACA politically, but are glad that it exists personally because of the end of preconditions. People can now plan for their retirement without the concern of growing broke because of the lack of health insurance. They are using ACA as part of their financial decision making.</p>
<p>Dstark: Look at the actual poll and not the CNN write-up of the results. Question 15: Is your family better off or worse off (regarding ACA)?</p>
<p>Nearly twice as many said ‘worse off’. 35% are worse off. 18% said better off. (The rest said about the same). </p>
<p>And those people who are about the same, are more likely to know people who are worse off than better off (since there are twice as many of them). </p>
<p>CF and LasMas: My info came from an NPR program I was listening to in the car. Very possible I got partial info…my brain goes a bit loopy in traffic…anyway…sorry if I interjected confusion.</p>
<p>If it’s a case of Medicaid subsidies going away…then the problem with CA still stands. </p>
<p>In other news…looks like a particular hard drive containing particularly interesting material is not actually ‘lost’ but merely ‘scratched’. </p>
<p>Yeah…read 16. </p>
<p>Those worse off arent using ACA. They are worse off because of political leanings. :)</p>
<p>Everyone is affected by ACA one way or another. Either because the bill will come due on their tax dollar or because their hours have been cut or because they worry about the entire system collapsing. You forget that pre-ACA, the vast majority of Americans were satisfied with the way things were. I think the number was 85% or so. </p>
<p>And if lack of insurance was the only thing preventing some set of people from retiring early, and those people now CAN retire early, that opens up jobs. That’s a good thing.</p>
<p>ETA–re polling, dstark is absolutely correct. Part of the “disapprove” numbers is people who don’t think the law goes far enough. And when people are asked if the law should be repealed, that gets a big No.</p>
<p>
LOL. Scratched with an intent to render unreadable. (Wonder how that will be spun?)</p>
<p>The effect of ACA is extremely small on most people.</p>
<p>I dont know if 85 percent is the number but most people in this country get their insurance from employer backed coverage, medicare and medicaid. Most of these people are happy with their coverage. </p>
<p>The individual market is a different story. A majority of people in that market went without coverage. That is changing. We live in Calif. The uninsured rate dropped 50 percent in less than a year. Incredible!!!</p>
<p>There are more people that are no longer uninsured during the first year of ACA in Cal than had individual health insurance previously. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Medicaid subsidies are only going away by 5% in 2017, and another 5% in 2020. At those points, I guess CA will have to decide if it wants to continue providing coverage to its poor, despite the small drop in funding. Of course, it loses more than it gains if it makes that decision, so I’m guessing it will continue to cover its poor. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this number is true then 15% of the population was unhappy with their coverage prior to ACA.</p>
<p>There were either 30 M or 50 M uninsured prior to ACA. (depending on the info source)</p>
<p>At 30 M uninsured - 9% were unhappy
at 50 M uninsured 15% were unhappy</p>
<p>So… at best our unhappiness has remained the same, at worst it has increased by 6%. So, it’s just a more politically advantageous group that is now more happy.</p>
<p>And round and round and round it goes.</p>