SCOTUS rules: ACA subsidies apply to ALL states

[DCal430]

what company only offers health insurance for the worker but not their family?!

sure way to NOT to attract talent that have families

Before the ACA Republican run companies often provided no heath benefit for the real labour workers. Today many only provide the minimum required by law. Remember Republican run companies don't value their employees

 

[DCal430]

Link some reputable sources to convince me. I'm not sure that's true at all.

At this point, I'm on Medicare & the family is on an exchange plan. My income counts towards family income & subsidy calculation so I doubt that's different where only one family member has employer sponsored coverage.

It is different. Because the law States a family can only get subsidiary if a plan offered by an employee isn't affordable. The problem is the affordabily test is at the individual level. So if 1 family member had affordable healthcare through their employee, everyone is disqualified.

 

[DCal430]

It is different. Because the law States a family can only get subsidiary if a plan offered by an employee isn't affordable. The problem is the affordabily test is at the individual level. So if 1 family member had affordable healthcare through their employee, everyone is disqualified.

Link about the affordabily glitch.
http://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/no-family-left-behind-by-obamacare/

 

[shira]

This is the argument that the plaintiffs put forward, and that argument was found to be wrong. As the ruling said, phrases in a law must be read within the context of the statute they are in, not in isolation, and within the context of the context of the law, the meaning is clear. Scalia has himself made this argument many times in the past, but in holding with his recent descent into blatant partisanship and hypocrisy only applies that reasoning to laws he likes.

What's even more notable is that SCOTUS used a 'plain language' reason for upholding the law, which in legal-speak basically means "the plaintiffs failed at reading".

Burn.

In fact, Roberts in his opinion directly quoted Scalia's own words from the 2013 decision in UAR Group vs. EPA et.al.:

"The WORDS of a statute MUST be read in CONTEXT and with view to their place in the overall statutory scheme."

But Scalia doesn't like "liberal" decisions, so his prior "principle" was abandoned so that he could arrive at an opinion he preferred.

 

[OutHouse]

Before the ACA Republican run companies often provided no heath benefit for the real labour workers. Today many only provide the minimum required by law. Remember Republican run companies don't value their employees

Mine does.

 

[Jhhnn]

One issue with the ACA is people who jobs provide healthcare for them but not their spouse or children. Their spouse and children are disqualified from any subsidiary. So if their spouse or kids don't get insurance they have to pay a large fine. Regardless of how low income they are.

It is different. Because the law States a family can only get subsidiary if a plan offered by an employee isn't affordable. The problem is the affordabily test is at the individual level. So if 1 family member had affordable healthcare through their employee, everyone is disqualified.

Your own link shows it's not that simple.

 

[emperus]

Good lines from the ruling

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—"to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.

...

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress's plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

 

[DCal430]

Your own link shows it's not that simple.

No it doesn't . The rule is very clear, if your employee offers affordable healthcare for you, then your entire family is disqualified from subsidies, as long as they offer any plan to your other family members, no mater how high the premium. This is regardless if they offer affordable healthcare for your spouse or children.

 

[bozack]

Sure is, & you win the Freedumb! Award.

Everybody pays when & what they can afford & everybody gets taken care of. People aren't flocking to the exchanges because there's a gun to their heads, but rather because it's a good deal they couldn't otherwise afford.

Um no, we are giving insurance away to the majority, eg those who don't make enough to pay for it, and the minority who produce, or those who don't take advantage of care are the ones who are truly paying for it.

As for ACA working I would figure it depends....if you don't make much money and didn't have a good job and didn't get coverage then sure its great...if you work for a solid company that provides good benefits then chances are you don't notice much of a difference, but if you turn a profit and buy your own then chances are you pay more to cover those subsidies we love to hand out.

My own experience is that it now takes upwards of a year just to get in to see a new PCP and the level of service has greatly declined, and I live in arguably one of the states with the reported best heath care network in the nation.

I figure this will only get "worse" as the system is put under greater load...physician pay will continue to go down, and we will see a decrease in top quality healthcare providers...but hey who knows, maybe everything will be all rainbows and unicorns pooping golden nuggets

the only good that comes out of this so far is that hopefully many are staying out of emergency rooms and instead going to get a check up, would explain why it now takes over a year to get in to see a Dr. in my area at least.

 

[bozack]

wait.. who pays for these subsidies?
I thought it was from a surcharge on those that made $200k+?

if not..?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

 

[shira]

This is going to make drafting legislation a whole lot easier. The out-of-context words that are contrary to the clear intent embodied in the entire text of the law no longer mean anything, the intent as communicated by the full text of the law is what matters. :thumbsup:

This is a very interesting country to live in right now and I expect it's going to get much more interesting.

FTFY

Also, see post 129. Scalia disagrees with you.

 

[sportage]

I truly doubt it takes a full "year" to see a doctor.
That seems a bit radical.
Unless you live in some area in the middle of nowhere.
And refuse to drive to the next populated town.
And even if that were true, how would ACA have anything to do with that?
ACA is simply private healthcare insurance, i.e. Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana, etc etc.
Since healthcare is healthcare and employers that offer healthcare directly to employees, the providers listed above are the very same healthcare providers offered by private employers.
ACA is not some government healthcare plan where you get a card with Obama's photo on it.
If you joined Aetna thru an ACA exchange, or joined Aetna thru your employer, Aetne is Aetna. One in the same.
If your doctor doesn't take one Aetna, he will not take the other Aetna either.
Obviously, that doctor does not take Aetna at all.
In other words, you doctor operates on a cash only basis.
And in that case, I'd find another doctor.

Any doctor too busy to see a patient for one full year, again something is up with that doctor. Probably he loves his golf outings and European vacations over seeing those icky "sick" people.

 

[Blackjack200]

In fact, Roberts in his opinion directly quoted Scalia's own words from the 2013 decision in UAR Group vs. EPA et.al.:

But Scalia doesn't like "liberal" decisions, so his prior "principle" was abandoned so that he could arrive at an opinion he preferred.

He didn't stop there:

Yeah, he used Scalia's own words from the last challenge to the ACA Scalia actually argued the opposite point when it was convenient.

Has there ever been a worse or more nakedly political jurist? The guy is completely out of his mind.

Roberts, by any measure, is a hideously conservative justice, and looks like Thurgood Marshall next to Scalia.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That collective whoosh you hear is almost all Republicans in Washington exhaling at once. Dismantling Obamacare is nothing more than baseless rhetoric they throw at their simple minded constituents. I bet most were terrified at the prospect of actually having to live up to their empty campaign promises, especially after the real human costs were tabulated in the media.

Exactly. If Obamacare were overturned, the Republicans would instantly be assigned ownership of our nation's health care problems, not that they shouldn't already have ownership of them since they're the ones standing in the way of real socialized medicine.

 

[woolfe9998]

Actually, Scalia didn't repudiate that doctrine, at least not on the surface, which is why it's so amusing that conservatives are maligning it. Scalia says in the dissent that of course a provision must be viewed in context, but he implies without directly stating it that this is only appropriate where the language of the provision in question isn't entirely clear. He only implies it because he knows that this was never a requirement in past precedents - in fact, all provisions must be read in context.

In any event, Scalia does go on to examine the broader statute. He just cherry picks from it to find portions to support his view, though the provisions he sites are generally off point, while he ignores or hand waves some of the contextual analysis of the majority. The most important contextual points here are several provisions which clearly suggest that subsidies were intended for the federal exchange, like a requirement that the federal exchange inform the public about the availability of subsidies, a requirement which would never have been in the bill had Congress intended that subsidies not be available through the federal exchange.

In any event, the bulk of both opinions are about context, and it plays more as a disagreement about the context itself than about whether the context is relevant.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Any doctor too busy to see a patient for one full year, again something is up with that doctor. Probably he loves his golf outings and European vacations over seeing those icky "sick" people.

Doctors have limited time.
PCP Doctors often have a maximum patient load (e.g., specified by their malpractice insurance).
Doctors frequently work harder than most people.
Whether a doctor can or can't see a patient for a year often has nothing to do with that doctor's ability.
Writing arguments in one off sentences is fun and easy.
See?
I can do that too.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I haven't read the full opinion yet, but for those of you blasting Scalia you should understand that he has a history of being a strict constructionist and a real ball buster when it comes to constitutional/statutory interpretation. Most of his opinions advocate for following long standing canons of statutory/constitutional construction, with a very heavy emphasis on the textual canons. Once you understand that his opinions are almost entirely predictable.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Does this mean we'll finally get the Death Panels conservatives (again, it is not just ONE crazy bitch from Alaska) have been 'warning' us about?

 

[fskimospy]

My own experience is that it now takes upwards of a year just to get in to see a new PCP and the level of service has greatly declined, and I live in arguably one of the states with the reported best heath care network in the nation.

I figure this will only get "worse" as the system is put under greater load...physician pay will continue to go down, and we will see a decrease in top quality healthcare providers...but hey who knows, maybe everything will be all rainbows and unicorns pooping golden nuggets

the only good that comes out of this so far is that hopefully many are staying out of emergency rooms and instead going to get a check up, would explain why it now takes over a year to get in to see a Dr. in my area at least.

What area is that? A year wait for a new PCP patient? Let me be the first to call bullshit.

While I have an employer plan, if I want to I could go see one of half a dozen new PCPs today if I wanted to. Like, I could pick up my phone and make an appointment for this afternoon. I know people with ACA plans who use them quite frequently and nobody has even come close to describing what you are.

Also, polling has been done on people with ACA plans and they rate their plans about as positively (in some cases more positively) than people with employer insurance or pre-ACA private insurance. Additionally, people with those other insurances haven't seen their approval decline.

 

[fskimospy]

I haven't read the full opinion yet, but for those of you blasting Scalia you should understand that he has a history of being a strict constructionist and a real ball buster when it comes to constitutional/statutory interpretation. Most of his opinions advocate for following long standing canons of statutory/constitutional construction, with a very heavy emphasis on the textual canons. Once you understand that his opinions are almost entirely predictable.

Scalia's reverence for what the text says as compared to the larger context waxes and wanes with the outcome that he wants to see.

 

[bozack]

umm yup about a year, made the appointment with a new PCP last September and first available appointment was July, had to reschedule and next available appointment is December 24th (they cut me a break cause I tried once)

I live 20 minutes north of Boston in Massachusetts so not really east bumble

And it has everything to do with ACA, at least that is what the office says every time I check for a closer appointment, more people seeing the doctor with already limited resources equals longer wait time

It would be one thing if I was trying to see a first rate physician but this was my 6th choice, the rest weren't taking new patients

I am also on an exceptionally generous employer plan with virtually no out of pocket expenses, problem by me is just no doctors are taking new patients or so it seems from the 20 or so I called

I truly doubt it takes a full "year" to see a doctor.
That seems a bit radical.
Unless you live in some area in the middle of nowhere.
And refuse to drive to the next populated town.
And even if that were true, how would ACA have anything to do with that?
ACA is simply private healthcare insurance, i.e. Blue Cross, Aetna, United, Humana, etc etc.
Since healthcare is healthcare and employers that offer healthcare directly to employees, the providers listed above are the very same healthcare providers offered by private employers.
ACA is not some government healthcare plan where you get a card with Obama's photo on it.
If you joined Aetna thru an ACA exchange, or joined Aetna thru your employer, Aetne is Aetna. One in the same.
If your doctor doesn't take one Aetna, he will not take the other Aetna either.
Obviously, that doctor does not take Aetna at all.
In other words, you doctor operates on a cash only basis.
And in that case, I'd find another doctor.

Any doctor too busy to see a patient for one full year, again something is up with that doctor. Probably he loves his golf outings and European vacations over seeing those icky "sick" people.

 

[werepossum]

Heh. That's like Colbert's mythical Rick Parry, I suppose.

There are edge cases, I'm sure, so few & far between as to comprise an insignificant % of the electorate, basically an electoral pimple on the ass of the greater achievement. Those who have been induced to believe that it harms them are obviously much greater in number, of course, right wing propaganda being what it is.

Nope, there are a lot of people with individual policies they liked whose costs skyrocketed, including several on these boards. Then there are many more like myself, who were forced from an essentially silver tier plan into a cheaper essentially bronze tier plan because the costs jumped so much.

Personally I'm okay with that as an acceptable price for insuring the previously uninsurable, but that doesn't invalidate the opinions of those who consider their own personal cost to be an unacceptable price for insuring the previously uninsurable.

You keep repeating this nonsense. And just like Scalia tries to do, Gruber only says that if you take his phrase out of context. Again, noone believed that the subsidies were meant only for the state exchanges, and as Roberts points out even SCalia didn't believe that when arguing against the case last year.

Nope, completely within context. http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube

Gruber himself has simply fallen back on "I misspoke", as it's impossible to say with any integrity that his remarks were taken out of context. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118851/jonathan-gruber-halbig-says-quote-exchanges-was-mistake

Actually, Scalia didn't repudiate that doctrine, at least not on the surface, which is why it's so amusing that conservatives are maligning it. Scalia says in the dissent that of course a provision must be viewed in context, but he implies without directly stating it that this is only appropriate where the language of the provision in question isn't entirely clear. He only implies it because he knows that this was never a requirement in past precedents - in fact, all provisions must be read in context.

In any event, Scalia does go on to examine the broader statute. He just cherry picks from it to find portions to support his view, though the provisions he sites are generally off point, while he ignores or hand waves some of the contextual analysis of the majority. The most important contextual points here are several provisions which clearly suggest that subsidies were intended for the federal exchange, like a requirement that the federal exchange inform the public about the availability of subsidies, a requirement which would never have been in the bill had Congress intended that subsidies not be available through the federal exchange.

In any event, the bulk of both opinions are about context, and it plays more as a disagreement about the context itself than about whether the context is relevant.

Good points. I agree with Scalia except that where the language of the provision in question is entirely clear but other parts of the law are entirely clear and in conflict, then the law as a whole is unclear and needs interpretation.

 

[theeedude]

Does this mean we'll finally get the Death Panels conservatives (again, it is not just ONE crazy bitch from Alaska) have been 'warning' us about?

Conservatives ARE the death panels. They sued and voted 50+ times to deny insurance to millions of Americans, and are still denying it to millions of poor people in their own states by blocking Medicaid expansion.

 

[werepossum]

umm yup about a year, made the appointment with a new PCP last September and first available appointment was July, had to reschedule and next available appointment is December 24th (they cut me a break cause I tried once)

I live 20 minutes north of Boston in Massachusetts so not really east bumble

And it has everything to do with ACA, at least that is what the office says every time I check for a closer appointment, more people seeing the doctor with already limited resources equals longer wait time

It would be one thing if I was trying to see a first rate physician but this was my 6th choice, the rest weren't taking new patients

I am also on an exceptionally generous employer plan with virtually no out of pocket expenses, problem by me is just no doctors are taking new patients or so it seems from the 20 or so I called

That's weird since Massachusetts already had Romneycare, which we're told is the same thing, and good pre-'Bama coverage levels. So there shouldn't have been a huge influx of new patients. Is there something else depressing the available number of physicians, some unique tax or especially high insurance costs making the place an undesirable locale to set up shop?

 

[Jhhnn]

In fact, Roberts in his opinion directly quoted Scalia's own words from the 2013 decision in UAR Group vs. EPA et.al.:



But Scalia doesn't like "liberal" decisions, so his prior "principle" was abandoned so that he could arrive at an opinion he preferred.

Scalia has no principles other than toadying up to power.

Memo from Roberts to Scalia- "Choke on it, two-faced biatch!"