Jump to content

What do you know about King v. Burwell?


MDM4AU

Recommended Posts

King v. Burwell (formerly known as King v. Sebelius) challenges an IRS regulation imposed under ACA that allows subsidies on both state and federally-established health insurance exchanges. The IRS regulation violates the plain language of the law enacted by Congress, which gave states the choice to either set up such exchanges themselves or stay out of the program. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we get a ruling next Monday on this.

Below is a good opinion piece on King v. Burwell. I know it is slanted so please save the predictable responses that really don't address this post. Polls are all over the place, it seems, and no one really knows much about it. I don't know that the media "doesn't want Americans to know.." but I think the media is unable to really cover this and keep the attention of their audience. This doesn't fit into a 15-second segment. They can fan the flames of their audience with blaming the other side and move on without having to really lay out the facts. Ratings are secured and life is good...

What I think this article misses is, does the government have the ability to enforce a law differently than it was written? What other laws could be bent based on "what we meant to say was..." to fit an agenda?

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and how congress reacts. The spin from all sides will give many a headache.

The Media Doesn’t Want Americans To Know Anything About King v. Burwell

According to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 7 in 10 Americans have heard little or nothing about King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will, any day now, decide the fate of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. Yet 63 percent of those surveyed also say that if the court rules against the government, Congress should act to keep those subsidies in place.

Got that? The vast majority of Americans know almost nothing about this case, but 63 percent have an opinion about what Congress should do in response to a ruling that carries certain policy implications. How can this be?

Other recent polls about Burwell and Obamacare also appear to be contradictory, as David Harsanyi noted about the recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, in which the conflicting results stemmed from how pollsters framed the question:

Continue reading here: http://thefederalist.../#disqus_thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites





The law was intentionally written that way to get the states to set up their own exchanges. Now they want to claim otherwise.

I think, this particular part of the law, was written so that individuals would not be held hostage by partisan politics at the state level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the rest of the industrialized world has decoupled health insurance from employment, are we at a competitive disadvantage by not doing the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law was intentionally written that way to get the states to set up their own exchanges. Now they want to claim otherwise.

I think, this particular part of the law, was written so that individuals would not be held hostage by partisan politics at the state level.

But ok at the Federal level? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to being ignorant about the ACA but just from my view, if the law was written and meant to be carried out one way, then it is unconstitutional for the government to change the law just because 34 states refused to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACA was designed to wreck our traditional health delivery system and seems to be working. One part was to bribe states into establishing state run exchanges but most of the states understood that they would eventually have to shoulder the entire burden of expenses and opted not to. Medicaid is already a major expense in the states and they didn't need more. (Remember the deals made with the Senators from Nebraska and Louisiana to delay implementation and thus defer costs to those states)

The plain language of the law says that subsidies are for state exchanges, not federal exchanges. Obama instructed the IRS to bypass that restriction and subsidize federal exchanges. Now the question is, will SCOTUS follow the law or create law again. In my opinion, SCOTUS should follow the law and force congress to fix it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACA was designed to wreck our traditional health delivery system and seems to be working. One part was to bribe states into establishing state run exchanges but most of the states understood that they would eventually have to shoulder the entire burden of expenses and opted not to. Medicaid is already a major expense in the states and they didn't need more. (Remember the deals made with the Senators from Nebraska and Louisiana to delay implementation and thus defer costs to those states)

The plain language of the law says that subsidies are for state exchanges, not federal exchanges. Obama instructed the IRS to bypass that restriction and subsidize federal exchanges. Now the question is, will SCOTUS follow the law or create law again. In my opinion, SCOTUS should follow the law and force congress to fix it.

IMO, that is purely political and, purely dumb. It smacks of the "evil, liberal" conspiracy rhetoric of talk radio politics. Food for the clownsheep.

CBO opinion:

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/19/8812911/obamacare-cbo-dynamic-scoring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying doctors less than the cost of care is not saving money. It will create a shortage of doctors seeing medicaid patients. VOX is not a reputable source for research. VOX invents facts and is routinely contradicted.

My statement above stands on its merits regardless of your unhinged rantings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unhinged Rant: "The ACA was designed to wreck our traditional health delivery system and seems to be working."

Description of Unhinged Rant: "IMO, that is purely political and, purely dumb. It smacks of the "evil, liberal" conspiracy rhetoric of talk radio politics. Food for the clownsheep."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unhinged Rant: "The ACA was designed to wreck our traditional health delivery system and seems to be working."

Description of Unhinged Rant: "IMO, that is purely political and, purely dumb. It smacks of the "evil, liberal" conspiracy rhetoric of talk radio politics. Food for the clownsheep."

Truth is not a rant.

Harry Reid is telling the truth about Obamacare. According to The Las Vegas Sun:

Reid said he thinks the country has to ‘work our way past’ insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program ‘Nevada Week in Review.’ ‘What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,’ Reid said. When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: ‘Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.'”

My statement stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing how people have forgotten so quickly how the democrats in Congress had to payoff their own members and then protect the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry to get the ACA passed. Which is why the ACA is such a complicated mess.

The insurance companies thought they would make money by selling government subsidized healthcare policies, but many of them have lost money on these ACA exchange policies for various reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a ticking bomb for the GOP.

I understand why you say that but it depends on what happens and then depending on what the GGOP does after that.

1st Option Supreme Court Rules in favor of Federal Government GOP is neither hurt or helped it is status quo.

2nd Option Supreme Court Rules in Favor of complainants - two Options here also.

1st Option GOP does nothing many people are hurt with big bills GOP is blamed and you are correct

2nd Option GOP does some type of stopgap to protect these people and make it appear they are the saviors and later use that to help them repeal the current ACA once they have a GOP President and a different plan to replace it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP did not pass ACA and is not part of the suit and should not take any blame. The GOP may well take the blame just as it did when Obama rejected budgets passed by Congress and closed government. The media will make sure of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying doctors less than the cost of care is not saving money. It will create a shortage of doctors seeing medicaid patients. VOX is not a reputable source for research. VOX invents facts and is routinely contradicted.

My statement above stands on its merits regardless of your unhinged rantings.

You may not care for VOX however, the opinion and data expressed, came from the CBO. The "merits" of your statement seem rather weak according to their calculations. Perhaps your statement is more about partisan rhetoric than you care to believe? Maybe, just a little?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying doctors less than the cost of care is not saving money. It will create a shortage of doctors seeing medicaid patients. VOX is not a reputable source for research. VOX invents facts and is routinely contradicted.

My statement above stands on its merits regardless of your unhinged rantings.

You may not care for VOX however, the opinion and data expressed, came from the CBO. The "merits" of your statement seem rather weak according to their calculations. Perhaps your statement is more about partisan rhetoric than you care to believe? Maybe, just a little?

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying doctors less than the cost of care is not saving money. It will create a shortage of doctors seeing medicaid patients. VOX is not a reputable source for research. VOX invents facts and is routinely contradicted.

My statement above stands on its merits regardless of your unhinged rantings.

You may not care for VOX however, the opinion and data expressed, came from the CBO. The "merits" of your statement seem rather weak according to their calculations. Perhaps your statement is more about partisan rhetoric than you care to believe? Maybe, just a little?

No.

Then perhaps you have figures that contradict the CBO?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unhinged Rant: "The ACA was designed to wreck our traditional health delivery system and seems to be working."

Description of Unhinged Rant: "IMO, that is purely political and, purely dumb. It smacks of the "evil, liberal" conspiracy rhetoric of talk radio politics. Food for the clownsheep."

Truth is not a rant.

Harry Reid is telling the truth about Obamacare. According to The Las Vegas Sun:

Reid said he thinks the country has to ‘work our way past’ insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program ‘Nevada Week in Review.’ ‘What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,’ Reid said. When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: ‘Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.'”

My statement stands.

Well, if you want to sustain the involvement of private insurers then you should be for preserving the present system.

So what's your position - keep and preserve the current system or restart the entire discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a ticking bomb for the GOP.

I understand why you say that but it depends on what happens and then depending on what the GGOP does after that.

1st Option Supreme Court Rules in favor of Federal Government GOP is neither hurt or helped it is status quo.

2nd Option Supreme Court Rules in Favor of complainants - two Options here also.

1st Option GOP does nothing many people are hurt with big bills GOP is blamed and you are correct

2nd Option GOP does some type of stopgap to protect these people and make it appear they are the saviors and later use that to help them repeal the current ACA once they have a GOP President and a different plan to replace it.

A "stopgap measure" to make it appear they are the saviors? Yeah, like that's gonna happen. :-\

But if it does, can we call it "Bushcare" ? ;D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...