Posted on 07/22/2014 7:30:07 AM PDT by gwjack
This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates. In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
-— I won’t believe it’s dead until its been dismemembered, stomped, beheaded, driven over, and lit on fire. And even then its probably not dead. But one can always hope. -—
I’m with you. How many near death’s can this thing have. I’m convinced that it’s got demonic assistance.
If that is so, is it feasible for those who felt forced to signed up for federal subsidies to quit the system now, without penalty? It seems a wise move considering that there is no guarantee that their subsidy actually exists!
Even without this, there was the question of excess subsidies and people having to pay them back, except that the fed gov still can't calculate the correct subsidy.
People will probably just keep paying what they've been paying, until they get their next year's premium notice, and who knows then.
I don't expect this to shake out by next year's income tax due date, so there's no telling what and how the penalty will be handled.
Borders first. O-bomb-a care to be disassembled in spare moments not taken up with protecting the border from invasion.
Who needs a link from healthcare.gov? Just go to the insurer or insurers’ website(s), pick your plan and get an estimate of the subsidy (at least BCBS worked this way), then they send (sent) one to the healthcare.gov site to formally apply for the subsidy.
If one wants the policy but not the subsidy, it is (or at least was) perfectly fine to not apply for the subsidy — except that the premium would devastate most people.
If you’re in a state with an active, working exchange there’s no way to apply for a subsidy on healthcare.gov.
I tried to find a way to squirm out of it until the very end, but, in the end, I could not NOT purchase health care coverage for my family, esp. my young daughter who has some problems that could turn serious... I’ve never cursed so much in my life.
Well, I’m in a state with a state exchange and my description is how it worked.
To clarify, the state exchange was open and working, but the only thing we did there was see which insurers were available. The idea was originally to deal only with the insurer, but one could only get an estimate of the subsidy, from the insurer we chose. (It seems to me we did not find this on one of the other insurer’s sites, but maybe we did not look hard enough.) The insurer we chose sent one straight over to healthcare.gov (”hot link”) to apply for a subsidy if desired, after a policy was chosen.
yea.. and another thing I have not seen many people talking about, is that if the subsidies are not available then the mandate is not enforceable in those states for the large majority of people because it is no longer affordable under the statute. If it is not longer affordable then there is no longer the requirement to purchase insurance.
If I were in your situation, I would have done the same. A political statement is not worth risking your daughter’s health. Those who could have avoided it should have and let the chips fall where they may.
I think the main reason we find ourselves in this situation is we have not stood up to these bullies. I have high hopes that is starting to turn of late. Brute, raw force is the only thing these people understand, sooner we suit up and show up the better.
Sorry, still doesn't make any sense. A resident of any state can either purchase from the state exchange (and subsidy will be applied if applicable), or purchase from the federal healthcare website (and subsidy will be applied if applicable) if the resident does not have a state exchange. It simply is not possible to "apply for a subsidy" on the federal exchange if your state has an exchange. In fact, "apply for a subsidy" doesn't have any meaning separate from the purchase of an insurance policy.
Which state?
Thanks. That clears it up for me.
Looking at the exact times associated with our posts, you thought about it for about 3 minutes.
Recommended reading ... "The Supreme Court" by William Rehnquist.
In that book, Rehnquist writes (on page 279)...
"If the Supreme Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is constitutional, it has made a mistake, but the result of it's mistake is only to leave the nation with a law duly enacted by the popularly chosen members of the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by the popularly chosen president. But if the Court wrongly decides that a law enacted by Congress is not constitutional, it has made a mistake of considerably greater consequence; it has struck down a law duly enacted by the popularly elected branches of government, not because of any principle in the Constitution but because of the indidual views of desirable policy held by a majority of the nine justices at that time."
That my friend, is brilliant thinking.
Can my post be corrected? I spelt the word individual as indidual.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.