Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

Dittohead not! said:

The ACA has been a small baby step in the right direction. Soaring costs is the biggest problem, and, while the ACA didn't stop soaring costs, it at least slowed it down a bit. More people are covered than before. Of course, we need to have everyone covered and have access to health care, but that goal hasn't yet been achieved. All of the doom and gloom predictions of doctors leaving medical practice and hospitals closing their doors didn't happen.

There is a lot of work to be done before the US has a truly affordable health care system, but the ACA is not to blame for that.

Click to expand...

Huh ?

How is deliberately targeting and reducing the discretionary income of Middle class Americans a step in the right direction ?

Obamcare has no impact on the Rich or the poor.

How is a piece of legislation that forces Businesses to cut back hours, hire more part time positions, cut back employee dependant benefits a step in the right direction ?

It was such a step in the right direction that Obama had to step in and unilaterally put off the Business mandates because he knew it would lead to huge losses in the Mid-terms.

Yes, there were STILL huge losses ( Obama and the Democrats have serioulsy screwed things up )

And allot of " doom and gloom " has happened even before the law was implemented 100 percent.

There was nothing " affordable " about the ACA. It was sold on a long list of lies.

Fenton said:

Huh ?

How is deliberately targeting and reducing the discretionary income of Middle class Americans a step in the right direction ?

Obamcare has no impact on the Rich or the poor.

How is a piece of legislation that forces Businesses to cut back hours, hire more part time positions, cut back employee dependant benefits a step in the right direction ?

It was such a step in the right direction that Obama had to step in and unilaterally put off the Business mandates because he knew it would lead to huge losses in the Mid-terms.

Yes, there were STILL huge losses ( Obama and the Democrats have serioulsy screwed things up )

And allot of " doom and gloom " has happened even before the law was implemented 100 percent.

There was nothing " affordable " about the ACA. It was sold on a long list of lies.

Click to expand...

and yet, overall spending on health care has leveled off since the ACA was passed. How do you account for that?

tres borrachos said:

A Supreme Court decision against the Obama administration would essentially trigger huge price increases for the health insurance held by millions of consumers, but the consequences wouldn't stop there.

Absent financial assistance, many fewer people would be able to afford coverage and likely would drop their insurance or never purchase it. Higher prices also would discourage healthy people who are cheaper to insure from buying policies, leaving a sicker pool of customers on insurers' books. That, in turn, would force health insurance companies to raise rates further, driving even more people out of the market. The industry term for this phenomenon is "death spiral."


:shock:

Click to expand...

How very melodramatic. If the Supreme Court decides that the states whose residents are on the federal exchange do not get a subsidy, then the Republicans will pass legislation retroactively saving people from being screwed, make some substantive changes in the process like removing the mandatory purchase requirement, expand funding for states to pursue other alternatives than the federal exchange/PPACA system, and Obama will sign it and both sides will claim victory out of it. Not that big of a deal.

Kobie said:

There's no such thing as the "Democrat party."

The Democrats are dickless chicken****s. Of course they won't support single payer.

Click to expand...

:shrug: of course they won't. They want to retain some kind of relevancy as a party.

• Latest Challenge Sows Uncertainty
  
  The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to take up another ObamaCare challenge is the latest headache for a healthcare industry that has already struggled for years with complicated legal challenges to the law.
  
  The court’s ruling in King v. Burwell threatens to dismantle a core provision of the healthcare law that provides subsidies for nearly 5 million people. While that decision won’t come until next spring, experts say that waiting period could throw ObamaCare in flux ahead of its second full year of implementation.
  
  

“I think it does create a cloud of uncertainty,” Elizabeth Carpenter, director of the healthcare consulting firm Avalere Health, told The Hill. “In some ways, stakeholders and key industry groups were beginning to kind of settle into some of the rhythms of the [Affordable Care Act], and certainly, this adds just another unknown variable.”
  
  

The court’s announcement came as a surprise to lawmakers who helped craft the law, many of whom dismissed the GOP-driven legal challenge as a partisan attack. 


  
  
• The Supreme Court Really Might Destroy Obamacare This Time

November 7, 2014 The Supreme Court is taking up another Obamacare case—one that could devastate the health care law's coverage expansion.

The justices on Friday agreed to hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the insurance subsidies at the heart of the Affordable Care Act. The suit argues that the subsidies—which roughly 80 percent of Obamacare enrollees received—should only be available in a handful of states.

If the challenge succeeds, the consequences for Obamacare would be dramatic: Costs would skyrocket for millions of consumers, likely causing many of them to drop their coverage. The law's central goal—expanding health insurance to low-income Americans—would be severely set back, and at least some of the law's new insurance markets could become unsustainable.

"This lawsuit reflects just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act and to strip millions of American families of tax credits that Congress intended for them to have," White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement Friday.

Just the fact that the high court decided to take the case—and the timing of that decision—is a bad sign for the administration. The Justice Department had asked the Court to hold off on King while a similar case works its way through the appeals process. If the Court had gone along with that request, the administration's hand almost certainly would have been stronger once the issue finally reached the Supreme Court.

Declan said:

How very melodramatic. If the Supreme Court decides that the states whose residents are on the federal exchange do not get a subsidy, then the Republicans will pass legislation retroactively saving people from being screwed, make some substantive changes in the process like removing the mandatory purchase requirement, expand funding for states to pursue other alternatives than the federal exchange/PPACA system, and Obama will sign it and both sides will claim victory out of it. Not that big of a deal.

Click to expand...

You are kidding right? You really believe that a Republican congress will fix the law to allow the federal government offer subsidies in federal exchanges?

Unless that mandate is ordered by the 4th court of appeals or the Supreme court...then there is no incentive for the GOP Congress to do any such thing.

1750Texan said:

You are kidding right? You really believe that a Republican congress will fix the law to allow the federal government offer subsidies in federal exchanges?

Unless that mandate is ordered by the 4th court of appeals or the Supreme court...then there is no incentive for the GOP Congress to do any such thing.

Click to expand...

Yes. They are fresh off knowing what it is like to be in the political dog house and are not going to chance losing both houses and the WH in 2 years which would happen if millions of people who were forced into a system by the government only to have to shell thousands they do not have out of their own pockets because of it. They won't take it out on the democrats--they will take it out on the incumbents.

Declan said:

Yes. They are fresh off knowing what it is like to be in the political dog house and are not going to chance losing both houses and the WH in 2 years which would happen if millions of people who were forced into a system by the government only to have to shell thousands they do not have out of their own pockets because of it. They won't take it out on the democrats--they will take it out on the incumbents.

Click to expand...

I think you may not understand. If the feds can not offer subsidies, it will not cause low and middle income folk to pay more...it will end the exchanges. ACA may only exist in the states that have their exchanges set up.

In the long run, this would put such a strain on ACA that it could cause the state exchanges to close and effectively end ACA.

The ACA is not going away.

It will no doubt undergo changes along the way. It is a long way from perfect.

It might change its name. If the voters decide they like it, then the Republicans will quit calling it Obamacare.

1750Texan said:

That is not correct. The President[Executive branch] is delegated the power by congress to administrate rules and regulations to carry out the application of the laws written. Obama is head of HHS, ICE, and The Border Patrol and can direct each as he sees fit. That is Constitutional.

Congress has oversight and can change directives ordered by the President. Congress has not exercised that prerogative. Congress has allowed Obama's EOs to stand.

Click to expand...

I see. Are you arguing that those things written in the Constitution count for nothing?

The president has no authority to establish rules involving immigration. Obama is not yet a dictator although that is what you are implying.

Dittohead not! said:

and yet, overall spending on health care has leveled off since the ACA was passed. How do you account for that?

Click to expand...

ObamaCare hasn't been in effect since it was passed.

The spending is easily explained by the increase in HSEs and deductables.

When people pay higher deductibles, when they have to pay for health care they put off going to the Doctor.

ObamaCare is a Law that's forced businesses to cut their workforce and or cut their employees hours down to 30 hours a week.

That incentivized them to invest in machines that take the place of the worker.

It creates a poverty trap for people who are absolutely dependant on health care.

It removes even more discretionary income from Middle class Americans.

It is in everyway detrimental to economy. It was avoided like the plague during the midterms for a good reason.

No one but the White House openly supports that idiotic law and all the White House does is just lie repeatedly about how greatit isn

1750Texan said:

I think you may not understand. If the feds can not offer subsidies, it will not cause low and middle income folk to pay more...it will end the exchanges. ACA may only exist in the states that have their exchanges set up.

In the long run, this would put such a strain on ACA that it could cause the state exchanges to close and effectively end ACA.

Click to expand...

And that would be a major improvement. Killing this law completely is the only option.

Its a disastrous and destructive piece of legislation that was sold on a mountain of lies.

Fenton said:

And that would be a major improvement. Killing this law completely is the only option.

Its a disastrous and destructive piece of legislation that was sold on a mountain of lies.

Click to expand...

""Killing the law is option, but not a probable outcome from the GOP Congress. It is highly unlikely the Court will simply find the exact wording of section 1321 invalidates the law.

I predict that the Court returns the case to the 4th court of appeals for consideration in the expectation that the 4th court sends the law back to Congress for a fix.

The Court can not force Congress to fix the law. The Court can not force the President to sign a bill into a law.

1750Texan said:

""Killing the law is option, but not a probable outcome from the GOP Congress. It is highly unlikely the Court will simply find the exact wording of section 1321 invalidates the law.

I predict that the Court returns the case to the 4th court of appeals for consideration in the expectation that the 4th court sends the law back to Congress for a fix.

The Court can not force Congress to fix the law. The Court can not force the President to sign a bill into a law.

Click to expand...

1. I agree that the GOP won't try to repeal Obamacare...at least not yet.

2. I think this prediction won't happen. If this were likely, the Supremes wouldn't have agreed to take the case in the first place.

3. Correct, the Court cannot force Congress to fix the law or force the President to sign a bill into law. They can only rule that an existing law or part of it...as in this case...is unconstitutional.

matchlight said:

I don't understand that. It certainly does not stand as implemented if the Supreme Court holds the federal government had no authority to set up these exchanges.

Click to expand...

Federal exchanges aren't at issue. What's at issue is whether the IRS can offer subsidies to states where Federal exchanges are set up.

Gaius46 said:

Federal exchanges aren't at issue. What's at issue is whether the IRS can offer subsidies to states where Federal exchanges are set up.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's more exact.