<p>The insurance companies won’t have to pay up. The insurance companies are not a party to this. They charge a certain premium for each subscriber; it’s immaterial to them who pays it.</p>
<p><a href=“Insurers' Demand For A 'Halbig' Contingency Plan Demonstrates Need For Immediate SCOTUS Review”>http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/10/21/insurers-demand-for-a-halbig-contingency-plan-demonstrates-need-for-immediate-scotus-review/</a></p>
<p>This article has a point of view but apparently the insurance companies have already negotiated with the government that they can cancel policies if this case succeeds. It also indicates that the subsidies are paid to the insurance company by the government. </p>
<p>I read the link. The insurance companies want to protect themselves if the subsidies are eliminated. They don’t want to sell insurance without the subsidies. </p>
<p>That is different than the insurance companies having to pay back the subsidies. Not going to happen.</p>
<p>Well of course the subsidies are paid to the insurance company by the government. Who disputed that? </p>
<p>Moreover, the insurance companies will surely be able to cancel policies if they are not paid for-- that also should be uncontroversial. </p>
<p>I’m surprised that we’re allowed to link to articles with such a political slant. </p>
<p>" It also indicates that the subsidies are paid to the insurance company by the government."</p>
<p>Well duh. Who did you think was paying the subsidies to the insurance company? </p>
<p>The insurance companies are going to cancel people’s subsidized policies if SCOTUS rules that states without their own marketplace aren’t eligible. They will either stay in those markets and sell unsubsidized plans or get out of those markets completely. I think they will pull out completely because it just won’t be worth it to them to be in business in those states, so there will be much less choice in those states, too. But the tax payers in those states will still be contributing $$ to subsidize marketplace plans in states which have their own. The lawsuits only deal with states that don’t have their own marketplace. States that do aren’t effected at all. </p>
<p>So, the people in those states will have tax $$ going to other states for subsidized health insurance (just like non expansion states are paying for other states medicaid subscribers) and have to pick up the tab for all their uninsured citizens medical expenses through higher medical costs. </p>
<p>Why would anyone in those states be happy about this? </p>
<p>I don’t think there would be clawbacks or payups. But let’s see if the supremes want to be the ones to take insurance away from millions of poor people.</p>
<p>There is zero chance the insurance companies will have to pay back the subsidies in my opinion.</p>
<p>Agree, tom, and zero chance the insured will have to pay back the subsidies either. It would be a “from this day forward” ruling. Then when premiums were due the first of the following month, without subsidies, we’d have millions of newly uninsured low-income Americans. </p>
<p>Some states without state-run exchanges: Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey. </p>
<p>If the court rules no subsidies for Federal exchanges the NJ legislature will pass legislation creating a State exchange in less than a second. It will pass with an overwhelming number of republican votes</p>
<p>Will it be signed into law is another question. </p>
<p>There are 30 states without their own exchanges. It’ll be very interesting to say the least. </p>
<p>
Well, I spent a few days in law school, and it’s clear to me from the law as a whole and from its legislative history that the subsidies were intended to be provided where there was no state marketplace. I’d be surprised if the Supreme Court were to rule otherwise, but I suppose it’s possible that they will.</p>
<p>agree with hunt, despite what Jonathan Gruber said previously. The Chief Justice had an earlier chance to overturn the ACA but chose not to; it’s unlikely that he will this time either.</p>
<p><a href=“Health care law debate heats up - The Boston Globe”>Health care law debate heats up - The Boston Globe;
<p>If the Court does overturn the subsidies for people on the federal exchange, then most of the people who are now subsidized will be exempt from the individual mandate because they will be deemed not to be able to afford insurance. But this case does nothing to remove guaranteed issue, so that anyone who wants to buy insurance will be still able to buy it, and all people of the same age will be charged the same price for particular plan, no matter their state of health.</p>
<p>So we can expect that formerly subsidized people who are healthy will not buy insurance; they won’t be able to afford it. But people who are sick will continue to want insurance, since buying insurance will be cheaper for them than getting their needed treatment without insurance. </p>
<p>Recall that under the ACA, individual policies bought on the exchange and individual policies bought off the exchange are in the same risk pool. If the Court overturns subsidies, we should expect that individual insurance policies will increase sharply in price, as healthy people flee the risk pool and sick people remain.</p>
<p>Some articles were saying that the employer mandate would also fall in those states, but I’m not sure about that.</p>
<p>New York State admitted that the problem when they went to guaranteed issue was that they didn’t mandate everyone have coverage. </p>
<p>My sister & her H - who are both healthy but not stupid - bit the bullet and were paying approx $2000/month for the two of them. Now, of course, she is paying half that. But only about 15,000 in NYS had ind. insurance then because most people cannot afford $2000+ a month for health insurance. </p>
<p>If the subsidies go away in states without a marketplace the people who purchase ind. polcies now without a subsidy are going to be in for a huge surprise. </p>
<p>Hate to say it but I am quite looking forward to it. </p>
<p>For a couple, is there any reason to by a family policy vs. each buying individual policies if the family deductible is 2 the individual deductible? (There does not seem to be a net price difference.)</p>
<p>It would bring us closer to the only real solution to this mess. But it would be rough for a lot of people in the meantime. </p>
<p>Hunt, based on legislative intent, there should be no question of the court overturning. But why did they reach out for this case when there is no disagreement among the circuit courts? That’s what’s ominous about this. Somehow i don’t see this particular court going out of its way to affirm a subsidy.</p>
<p>@emilybee - as someone who has no choice but to purchase an ind. policy, this is no amusing matter to me.
I have no idea what you mean by “I am quite looking forward to it.”</p>
<p>I’m in NJ and I don’t know if my state has a marketplace. I simpy went to the Marketplace website (healthcare.gov) and saw what I was able to purchase. My previous plan (which we were spending around 2,000 a month for) was discontinued thanks to ACA, so we were forced to find a new plan. We had few choices. </p>
<p>Mark Gruber, MIT professor who functioned as technical consultant during the drafting of the bill said the following
.</p>
<p>The lack of transparency and the not knowing what was in it has brought the issue to the Supreme Court. </p>