If SCOTUS Guts Obamacare, Mississippi Will See 650% Increase

[Synthaholic]

That's just MS. Each state's rise is in the chart at the link.


State-by-State Effects of a Ruling for the Challengers in King v. Burwell


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the legality of health insurance subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the insurance Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. The map and table below show for each state:

• The number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers.
• The total amount of federal subsidy dollars.
• The average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for.
• The average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.

Estimates do not reflect the substantial premium increases that would likely result in 2016 and beyond if subsidies are eliminated, triggering healthy enrollees to drop coverage and a deterioration in the insurance risk pool.

 

[rdean]

GOP: Let them die.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not what we need away. Might as well crash the whole system, all of it, and start fresh.

 

[Obiwan]

GOP: Let them die.

Congress has already said they will look out for them (possibly by extending the tax credits until after 2016).

Gee, I wonder if Obama will veto that measure and let all those poor people die?

 

[PixieStix]

I have 1 apple and 8 kids, 7 of which could go get a job but they are too busy being lazy. What the hell s a mother to do?

 

[whitehall]

So....the argument is that the Supreme Court should sanction an unconstitutional law because it might cost too much to fix it?

 

[Sonny Clark]

That's just MS. Each state's rise is in the chart at the link.


State-by-State Effects of a Ruling for the Challengers in King v. Burwell


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the legality of health insurance subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the insurance Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. The map and table below show for each state:

• The number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers.
• The total amount of federal subsidy dollars.
• The average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for.
• The average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.

Estimates do not reflect the substantial premium increases that would likely result in 2016 and beyond if subsidies are eliminated, triggering healthy enrollees to drop coverage and a deterioration in the insurance risk pool.

Well, where are your charts showing the other side of the coin? I believe that you failed to mention the additional cost to many as a direct result of Obamacare. I really don't see where it's fair to show where some will have to pay more should they not be allowed to take advantage of what Obamacare offers some people, and not what it's already cost many taxpayers and policy holders.

Yes, some have been helped financially through Obamacare, but an equal number have been financially harmed by it also. This is akin to punishing some for the benefit of others.

HERE ARE THE NEGATIVES:
(1) Increased premium cost
(2) Decreased coverage
(3) Increased deductible
(4) Increased co-pays
(5) The availability of doctors
(6) Doctors leaving this country to practice medicine abroad ( Australia )
(7) The poor quality of care
(8) Price gouging by doctors, hospitals, labs, clinics, insurance companies, and pharmaceuticals
(9) Unnecessary tests ( mainly associated with seniors )

THE BENEFIT:
(1) Subsidized health care for some

WHO PAYS:
(1) Every single taxpayer
(2) Those that have seen their premiums, co-pays, and deductibles increase. And those that have also seen their coverage decrease.

NET BENEFIT:
(1) NONE !!!!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's just MS. Each state's rise is in the chart at the link.


State-by-State Effects of a Ruling for the Challengers in King v. Burwell


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the legality of health insurance subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the insurance Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. The map and table below show for each state:

• The number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers.
• The total amount of federal subsidy dollars.
• The average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for.
• The average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.

Estimates do not reflect the substantial premium increases that would likely result in 2016 and beyond if subsidies are eliminated, triggering healthy enrollees to drop coverage and a deterioration in the insurance risk pool.

That's what happens when the government half-assedly writes an inane law which forces people to become dependent on the government for their means of compliance

Any ill-effect here lies directly at the feet of those who wrote, supported and voted for the ACA -- and no one else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So....the argument is that the Supreme Court should sanction an unconstitutional law because it might cost too much to fix it?

Yes -- and blame the GOP if it doesn't.
Mindless partisan bigotry at its finest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

GOP: Let them die.

rdean:
1: Lie.
2: Lie some more
3: Lie a third time.
4: Run away from the lies.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Socialized medicine has never been shown to be better health care system, just because Obama wants it to be. The 1%ers that you revile will have access to the best care this country has to offer. The rest will stand in line at Walmart and CVS health "clinics". And the real damage is yet to come. The astronomical price of this tax won't hit its stride until Obama is out of office. He fixed what wasn't broken and it is going to cost us dearly.

 

[peach174]

So....the argument is that the Supreme Court should sanction an unconstitutional law because it might cost too much to fix it?

If Justice Roberts had not changed mandate to tax, we would not have the unconstitutional law in the 1st place.

 

[bendog]

Perhaps the GOP really does have a better approach. Imo they do, overall

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

 

[Obiwan]

Perhaps the GOP really does have a better approach. Imo they do, overall

An Obamacare Replacement That Works - Bloomberg View

As long as it gives people a choice.... There are actually people that are forgoing medical treatment now because of the high deductibles (equivalent to having no health insurance for routine visits until the deductible is met, along with a financial drain due to the high premiums).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And if ObamaCare had never been passed in the first place we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So....the argument is that the Supreme Court should sanction an unconstitutional law because it might cost too much to fix it?

Do a little research and you'll find the same nonsense was said about Medicare.

Medicare was mess, expensive and didn't work. Rs and Ds worked together for the good of the country and its now efficient and within budget.

As for SCOTUS and "unconstitutional laws" = learn what SCOTUS does.

 

[Synthaholic]

HERE ARE THE NEGATIVES:
(1) Increased premium cost
(2) Decreased coverage
(3) Increased deductible
(4) Increased co-pays

How do you know these things wouldn't have happened without the ACA? There were no laws restricting insurance companies from doing any of this.

 

[Sonny Clark]

HERE ARE THE NEGATIVES:
(1) Increased premium cost
(2) Decreased coverage
(3) Increased deductible
(4) Increased co-pays

How do you know these things wouldn't have happened without the ACA? There were no laws restricting insurance companies from doing any of this.

No one has a crystal ball. We could play the guessing game all day and night. I stated what DID happen. Of course, everything increases in price eventually, and always has. Bread was 5 for a dollar when I was a teenager 50 years ago. Gas was $.19 a gallon in 1956. But, as soon as it looked like there was a good chance that the ACA was going to become law, prices soared. I have Cigna as my major medical coverage, and it went way up three years ago. What may have happened is anyone's guess. But, we all know what DID happen.

 

[hipeter924]

Doesn't affect me, as I don't qualify for a subsidy, nor does anyone in my immediate or extended family. Only effects lower to middle middle class, and the few poor that still have full time jobs.

 

[Publius1787]

That's just MS. Each state's rise is in the chart at the link.


State-by-State Effects of a Ruling for the Challengers in King v. Burwell


The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the legality of health insurance subsidies provided to low- and middle-income people in the 34 states where the federal government is operating the insurance Marketplace under the Affordable Care Act. The map and table below show for each state:

• The number of people now receiving premium subsidies who would lose them if the Court finds for the challengers.
• The total amount of federal subsidy dollars.
• The average subsidy (or average premium tax credit) that subsidized enrollees have qualified for.
• The average increase in premiums that subsidized enrollees would face if the subsidies are disallowed.

Estimates do not reflect the substantial premium increases that would likely result in 2016 and beyond if subsidies are eliminated, triggering healthy enrollees to drop coverage and a deterioration in the insurance risk pool.

The op suggests that we should interpret the laws of this nation by the perceived effect they will have, not what the law actually says.