As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Supreme Court to Hear Deadly Challenge to Obamacare

The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will hear a case that could gut the Affordable Care Act, agreeing to decide whether consumers can receive subsidies if they bought insurance on the federal exchanges.

Arguments are not expected until early spring 2015, with a decision possible by mid-summer.

The problem for Obamacare is that it only authorizes subsidies for those who bought insurance on a state exchange, which is the venue that was expected to serve as the point of purchase for enrollees. But – uh oh – many states refused to set up their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government. Currently, only 14 states and the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges.

The subsidies are central to the law. If they end for the federal exchanges, the law would be in tatters as millions would no longer qualify for federal assistance to buy insurance, the cornerstone of Obamacare.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Supreme Court to Hear Deadly Challenge to Obamacare

  1. Justice ”Roberts” will probably stick up for ”Odumbo”, since he will probably receive THREATS from the Administration, just like happened with another part of the Law… Don’t count on this law being ”wiped out”, as much damage as it has done to many, the Courts will see to it that OBAMACARE doesn’t go away, and we’re supposed to KNOW that those bureaucrats were thinking, so the courts will get out their ”Crystal Ball” to set the Public Straight!

    • I agree that Roberts will uphold the intentions of Ovomit even though they’re not written in the law. Vote for a Republican POTUS to get rid of this law.
      The law as written clearly states that subsidies will be paid to persons in states that set up their own exchanges. The administration says (and we’re to believe them) that they though that all states would jump on the chance to set up their own exchanges. Wrong! The administration is now paying subsidies to persons in states that did not set up their own exchanges and that is not what is written in the law that was passed. Big Boo Boo

  2. The Supremes responsibility is not to determine what the writers of the ACA meant to say, but what it actually means. If what it means is constitutionally compliant, then it is what it says it is and the subsidies may only be given to the clients of the State exchanges.
    Period.
    No lefty meaning, no righty thoughts, just the words as written.

    When JusticeRoberts, and the others, allowed the act to continue under the constitutional right of Congress to enact taxes, they didn’t give other constitutional rights enough weight. They chose to call the ACA a tax, but ignored the basic rights of the people by refusing to allow that Congress can’t force anyone to buy the thing that’s being taxed.
    If the Supremes uphold their oaths of office, and the ethics of their profession, they will enforce the law as written.
    If Congress wants the ACA to subsidize all the insured regardless of where or how the insurance is purchased, then it’s up to them to amend the law.

  3. Question: when an enrollee gets a subsidy, I ass-ume that does not reduce the actual insurance premium. So our fed tax dollars fund this portion of the premium, correct? And all states fund this while only 14 can reap the reward of a subsidy. This is what makes this part of the ACA unconstitutional. We simply cannot have taxpayers in all 50 states paying a benefit for those in only 14 states.

    But i ask everyone, where does the fed find this money for the subsidy? Something like 80% on new enrollees qualified for a subsidy, which also means 80% of these enrollees are from only 14 states?

    • Money comes from the general fund. For example FICA taxes today from a young worker are not used for future oayments of social secuity. FICA taxes today are used as “revenue” to he spent anyway the federal governement chooses in the current fical year.

      What you point out is that the exchange math does not work and can’t work…EVER!

      BTW, I’m a big fan for a law that says named taxes must be used soley for the purpose of the name. Highway tax must be used fhe highway etc. This will make managment and spending more transparent.

  4. Perspective on the UNAffordable Care Act and ***diatribe warning***

    My dear and sweet mother is having some medical issues. The most recent series of which required her to have a wheelchair for any and all activity. No problem since the insurance will cover this. Then the wonderful young man comes for physical therapy (PT). He thinks mom can be up and around in 4-6 weeks. Guess how long the wait is for a wheel chair? About six weeks.

    Meaning the thing she needs will be provided about the time she no longer needs it. Wait…there is more. For $30-$60 month we can and did rent one. New chairs are $350 and up. Quite a bit more when factoring in all the tranactions costs at the hosp and ins co to provide one. For about $100 we can satisfy the need. I assume there will be no reimbursement since the ins is eventually going to provide.a chair so won’t pay twice. Net result is the healthcare industry is going to provide something 4x more expensive when it is no longer needed. What is a person who doesnt have the $100 to do? Lay in bed and forgo the critical opportunity to rehabilitate effectively?

    Still not done…there is more. The wonderful home for her care is a small 4 bed “home” run by legal (and thankfully) conservative immigrates. In a bit of good news, the stomach upset caused by all the meds has subsided. She can now take a common store bought antiacid like Tums as needed. However, the people at the nice care facility cannot giver her ANYTHING without a dr order because of state regs. A.N.Y.thing! Not even a foot cream. Mom is a retired nurse and picked a great dr with a spectacular well run back office. Thankfully there is no issue getting orders for cough drops and foot cream. The issue is more time to process anything, more paperwork, and higher costs for the dr which naturally is reflected in the bill somewhere.

    Just two of many examples of gvmt regulations and ineptitude keeping us safe from ourselves.

    • Guillermo Grande, Best wishes for your mom. I read your comment, than read it again. It is a perfect example of things being turned into a jigsaw puzzle. Made more complicated, expensive, time comsuming than it could. This is just one fine person out of thousands. Now I will bring up the good ole’ MSM. I feel they owe they citizens of America this type of news as well.
      Show what is going on over and over and over again. Instead of it being brushed under a rug with everything else. Again, Best wishes to your mom.

    • Still, and I have gone through each of these with Mom, a small care home is often a great alternative to a big place. Good for you finding it. Yes, they are cautious about breaking state rules–but overall, this is a good thing. It also sounds like you are on top of it–even with a small place, you need to do the pop-in visits, read and sign the quarterly assessments, question everything, state your wishes (we did not want Mom to have that liquid shake supplement stuff, just nutritious food).

    • I have read that the future of his two adopted children is at stake…he and they would be better eternally if he would admit the truth.
      Public sympathy for his plight could – and I believe, would – sway public opinion in the favor of his family.

  5. Just emailed today with a friend facing a hysto. She is trying to decide whether to switch from Silver to Gold–but the kicker is her yearly premium, not to mention a high deductible–is $20K! This whole mess has jumped the rails.