Affordable Care Act Scene 2 - Insurance Premiums

[awcntdb]

<p>^^ Agreed. And the law, as written and passed, reflects exactly what the architect of Obamacare said in his remarks. Therefore, all Malkin and others are saying is it is clearly not a drafting error or a typo. </p>

[lookingforward]

<p>Well, I personally find calmom’s references quite clear. Nothing more to say on that.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>^^ I notice you have never addressed what the guy said about his own law. That tells everything. </p>

[lookingforward]

<p>Baiting? The law says it. Or doesn’t. I defer to that. </p>

[LasMa]

<p>Calmom, here’s a potential work-around for states who can’t or don’t want to build their own exchange from the ground up:</p>

<p>

Obamacare has some rules about who the state can delegate exchange duties to, and those rules would forbid states from contracting directly with Healthcare.gov, but it doesn’t foreclose use of the website altogether.</p>

<p>“A state could, for example, establish an exchange and appoint a state-incorporated entity to oversee and manage it. That state-incorporated entity could then contract with Healthcare.gov to operate the exchange,” writes Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “On the ground, nothing would change. But tax credits would be available where they weren’t before.”

</p>

<p><a href=“How states could get around yesterday's Obamacare ruling - Vox”>How states could get around yesterday's Obamacare ruling - Vox;

[TatinG]

<p>If the non-exchange states lost the subsidies, most of those people would not be required to have insurance. The individual mandate escape clause for ‘unaffordability’ would apply. </p>

<p>If the Supreme Court upheld Halbig, then a new bill would have to be drafted and many changes in the law would result, given the likely make-up of the next Congress. </p>

[Flossy]

<p>This is a pretty good explanation from the Halbig attorneys.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cnbc.com/id/101853569”>http://www.cnbc.com/id/101853569&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[CTTC]

<p>

@dietz199

anyone employed by or receiving pay from or covered by someone employed by or receiving pay from the federal government or one if it’s issues should be forced into an Obama Care exchange plan. Period!

I would go even further. Anyone in any federal, state, or local/municipal health insurance plan should be forced onto the Obamacare exchange to bolster the entire program. Years and years ago states and municipalities were allowed to opt their employees out of Social Security. (To this day there are grandfathered states and I believe municipalities whose employees still don’t contribute to SS.) There was such a stampede to leave the SS system that the opt-out had to be stopped or the entire SS system would collapse. I see this the same way. Let’s have all those taxpayer-funded civil servant health insurance plans be forced to participate in this great national health insurance experiment and not let them have their separate segregated pool. </p>

<p>It’s easy to sing praises about a system that one can smugly know one will never have to participate in. A case of NIMBY or NIMHI (Not In My Health Insurance). </p>

[dietz199]

<p>This 2013 law review article gives a solid basis for Halbig </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-25/the-surprise-obamacare-ruling-that-wasn-t”>http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-25/the-surprise-obamacare-ruling-that-wasn-t&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

The language in Sections 1401 and 1402 restricting credits and subsidies to state-created Exchanges is more than just consistent with the rest of the Act. It is integral to Section 1311’s directive that states ‘‘shall’’ create an Exchange. Because it likely creates a larger financial incentive than the Medicaid ‘‘maintenance of effort’’ requirement, it is the primary sanction imposed on states that do not establish Exchanges. It thus animates Section 1311’s ‘‘shall.’’ To ignore it as the IRS has would sap that directive of most of its force.</p>

<p>As noted above, the federal government cannot actually force states to create Exchanges, as this would constitute unconstitutional commandeering. The federal government can, however, utilize a combination of positive and negative incentives to induce state cooperation – in this case, subsidies for creating Exchanges and the threat of a federally run Exchange if a state does not create its own.</p>

<p>Such incentives are common. Various federal programs, including Medicaid, condition the receipt of federal funding on state acceptance of the federal government’s conditions. In this context, limiting the availability of tax credits to insurance purchased in state-run Exchanges can be seen as just one more inducement for state cooperation: the PPACA threatens states with the loss of tax credits for state residents if they do not create an Exchange.

</p>

[tom1944]

<p>CTTC- I am a long term public sector employee and I agree with you. I believe that would finally lead to true universal care.</p>

[dstark]

<p>I agree with CTTC too. :)</p>

[dstark]

<p>And…although there would be short term pain, I want to see the Supreme Court disallow the subsidies…</p>

[tom1944]

<p>I agree with that also. It would hopefully force our legislatures to work together.</p>

[actingmt]

<p>This thread is getting interesting again.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Tom1944, the legislatures wont work together but that wont be necessary. :)</p>

[dstark]

<p>This episode reminds me of the Brady Show episode where Greg Brady wanted to live by exact words. Do you remember that episode? </p>

<p>Didnt work out too well for Greg Brady. :)</p>

[tom1944]

<p>What do you think when one side figures out they are not bringing the bacon home they will want their piece?</p>

[dstark]

<p>Tom1944, We are moving in that direction.</p>

<p>Just need a little push from the Supreme Court. </p>

[TatinG]

<p>Regardless of one’s politics, everyone should be concerned when the IRS feels free to interpret words as they like (or rather as a particular administration wants). Apparently the first draft of the IRS regulations regarding ACA did not use the current interpretation but would have denied subsidies to states that didn’t have exchanges. (See an article by Kimberly Strassel citing the first draft). Then realizing the political implications, once 36 states decided not to set up their own exchanges, the IRS redrafted the regs. The executive branch is overstepping its powers. </p>

[TatinG]

<p>Excerpt from the WSJ (which requires a subscription). IRS officials were even concerned that they did not have the statutory authority to give subsidies to those not on state exchanges.
<a href=“Instapundit » Blog Archive » KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The ObamaCare/IRS Nexus: The supposedly independent agency harassed the admini…”>Instapundit » Blog Archive » KIMBERLEY STRASSEL: The ObamaCare/IRS Nexus: The supposedly independent agency harassed the admini…;