Saturday, March 28, 2015

High Court vs. Low-income People With Subsidies for Healthcare

Shield for the Poor and Uninsured and Needy in America, or Hazard???
(Waiting on ACA Subsidy Ruling)

vs. this

Call it "Us" Against "Them"

My reading on this fine article from Why is this ACA-USSC case such a big deal? 

A very good analysis from the article, here in part:

(I did some editing to fit the blog): King v. Burwell is arguably the Affordable Care Act's greatest existential threat since the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in 2012.

The lawsuit, if successful, would rip the subsidies out of 36 of the law's state insurance exchanges — effectively destroying much of Obama-care in those 36 states and effectively ending health care for over 7 million now enrolled (many with health care for the first time in their lives).

According to the challengers, the plain text of the ACA limits its financial assistance to states that established their own insurance exchanges. In the ACA’s first year, only 14 states and the District of Columbia did that. They further argue that the part of the ACA that authorizes the subsidies specifies that those subsidies are available to people who enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311” That section sets up state-based exchanges.

Because it's written that way, the plaintiffs hold that subsidies are only available on state-based exchanges, not on the exchanges used by the majority of states.

The staffers who wrote the law say that is ridiculous since it was always intended that the federal fallback exchange would do everything that the statute told the states to do, which includes delivering the subsidies, otherwise Congress via that law would have been setting ACA up to fail and I’m pretty sure no one except the hateful GOP believes that was their intent. Their actions since day one to get rid of the ACA prove that point.

So, without ACA subsidies, private insurance would become unaffordable for many people who have already enrolled and that surely cannot be a good thing as I said for the over 7 million enrolled with decent care they can count. But, for how long – that is the $64,000 question. 

Will the high court just abandon 7 million people and take their health care away willy-nilly?

Speaking of subsidies: How about for gas, oil, energy, farmers, and many others is usually not a big problem. Why for them? Or more simply - why them vs. the needy?

No comments: