If I'm Understanding The Supreme Court Challenge For Obamacare Right....

[global1]

I read the following: The Repub backed plaintiffs argue that because the law says these tax credits are to be distributed through a health care exchange "established by the state," residents of the 36 states that declined to set up their own exchanges - leaving the federal government to run them instead - should not be eligibile.

Those 36 states in question are Repub states - aren't they? Aren't those the states with the Repub governors that didn't cooperate with the law?

If so - wouldn't a ruling for the plaintiffs (Repub backed) hurt people in those 36 states? Wouldn't the Repubs be responsible for those people in those states that received "federal" subsidies to be able to afford health insurance then be pissed at the Repubs should SCOTUS rule in the favor of the Repub backed plaintiffs?

Am I missing something here?

Seems like the thing the Repubs should have done is bring language to the House and Senate to correct the sloppy wording in the current law. Wouldn't that have made them look better?

[pkdu]

1. You are correct , but don't go applying logic where it doesn't belong!...nt

[littlewolf]

2. since it is signed law

you would have to redo the entire thing.
resubmit thru committee etc .. bring to the floor of
the HoR (it is a tax bill it must orig in the house)
and go thru the senate ..and everyone gets to make
what ever changes they want.

[sakabatou]

4. It would die in committee

Or die within the House or Senate. I don't see it any other way.

[jeff47]

20. No, you wouldn't have to redo the whole thing.

The theoretical bill could just contain "state exchange also means exchange run by the Federal government when the state refuses to run it".

But as you said, that bill would have to go through the regular lawmaking process, and it would be subject to amendments.

[elleng]

3. Yes, as pkdu said.

[Liberal Lolita]

5. Then they will use it as an excuse to get rid of it.

After all their motto seems to be: "If you aren't rich, you might as well die."

[Hoyt]

6. The Court will surprise us and rule that the intent of the law was not to deny subsidies to folks in

states that used federal exchange as substitute for states developing their own website. Bet money on it.. In unlikely event SC decides to play stupid, most states will adopt federal template under their state name.

[Rstrstx]

10. I agree

I'll even go one step further and say it won't be because of a technical reading of "established by the State" like the appellate courts have been duped into believing, it will be because the law didn't explicitly make it clear what the repercussions would be should a state fail to set up their own exchange. There is case precedence for this and Roberts knows about it - he cited it when he struck down the medicaid expansion.

[world wide wally]

7. The SC will do whatever they deem is best for the Republican agenda and the vote will be 5-4

any bets?

[brooklynite]

12. Like the 5-4 vote upholding the law in the first place?

[Kablooie]

8. When does hurting people concern Republicans?

and if Fox News tells their viewers that it is a godsend that they can't afford healthcare, problem solved. The people that lose healthcare will feel relieved and vote Republican again next time because they were saved from Obamacare by the wonderful Republicans.

Yes they are that stupid.

[jtuck004]

9. Yeah, like the 10 million people that have entered poverty during this administration.

Darn republicans.

[jwirr]

14. When it is in their political interest to not. This bill will not only hurt people in these R states

it will also take money away from those states. Their economies will get worse and their people who lose the coverage will be angry and all the states might end up looking like Kansas.

[Silent3]

17. Kansas, a state where they just re-elected Sam Brownback...

...despite the huge economic mess he helped make their, along with the rest of the Republicans in that state.

Republicans know very well they can cause all the pain and misery they want, yet successfully convince most of their voters that it's somehow all Obama's fault.

[jwirr]

22. BUT Obama will not be there to blame on the 2016 ticket. And you are right. But sooner or latter

even Rs start voting their pocketbook. When it is empty it is time to change. That did not hold true because of the hate for Obama thing this time. And maybe they truly do not care if they are finally hurting themselves. Usually that is what it takes to get Rs to either stay at home or vote for a Democrat. What it will take to get Democrats to come out and vote is another question.

[alc]

11. mandates go too if the tax credits go

At least that's the explanation I've read. If the citizens of those states aren't eligible for subsides they also won't be mandated to buy insurance.

It would still hurt many people in those states. It would also make many people in those states happy - they can now buy the catastrophic coverage or other non-ACA plans they prefer, or not pay for any insurance at all and not be subject to the fine/tax/penalty/whatever.

[badtoworse]

13. IIRC, Pelosi did not allow any Republican amendments to the bill.

And that assumes the problem with the wording was known at the time - "you have to pass it to find out what's in it".

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. I believe this is a right-wing meme

It's not true

[badtoworse]

18. It almost certainly is true, but I shouldn't have limited it to just Republican amendments.

The House had to pass the exact bill that the Senate passed, i.e. with no amendments, or another Senate vote would have been required. By the time the House vote was to occur, the Democrats no longer had 60 seats in the Senate and a revised bill would have died there. The ACA was passed without a single Republican vote.

ETA: I believe that when the Senate passed its bill, sloppy drafting did not get the scrutiny it should have because there was an expectation that the House would pass a different bill and any errors would get fixed in conference. No one expected that Ted Kennedy would pass away in the interim and Scott Brown would be appointed to his seat.

[B Calm]

16. Hell the whole bill is republican.

[Jim Lane]

19. One respect in which your understanding MIGHT be wrong

I have a vague feeling of having read something that might or might not be accurate (have I hedged this enough?) along these lines: If the Court rules for the plaintiffs, then people in states using the federal exchange wouldn't be eligible for subsidies and wouldn't be subject to the mandate. Guaranteed issue would still apply, though (no refusal of coverage for pre-existing conditions). People in those states might go without insurance but then sign up after getting a cancer diagnosis or the like. The consequence is that the risk pool has a disproportionate number of people who incur high medical bills. That affects the rate calculation for everyone, nationwide, so premiums go way up even for people in states with their own exchanges.

Presumably, that creates political pressure to repeal the individual mandate. The insurance companies point out, with some justice, that guaranteed issue is tied to the mandate, and if the mandate is repealed then guaranteed issue must go, as well. Then all that's left of the ACA is some comparatively minor health-insurance reform provisions.

I'd be grateful if some knowledgeable DUer would address this point.

[librechik]

21. will the insurance companies lose money or gain money if the plaintiffs win?

That is the question that needs to be asked.

My opinion is it looks like they are going to get their money no matter what. So they don't care.

Who does care? The Repub governors whose rabid base is telling them "we don't want poor people (i,e,.minorites) to have the same privileges us good people get. And they won't even be paying for it. In fact, I will be paying the entire millions of dollars out of my personal salary! Your career is over if you don't stand up to those big spending (on black) LIBERALS in WASHINGTON!!!

and then they all bite down on bullets and perform their own appendectomies. That's the way we do things in The South! (apologies liberal Southerners you are all saints!)