This just in . . . Obamacare WINS!!!!!

[Lord Jim]

The other reason I thought that a vote against Obamacare on this was very unlikely, is that since there had already been a 5-4 majority not to chuck the whole thing as Unconstitutional, (and there haven't been any personnel changes on the court since that vote) it would have been very odd for any of the five who voted to uphold it, (including Roberts) to now turn around and vote to sabotage a major component of it.

If you had that level of hostility to the program, why not just vote against the whole thing in the first place when you had the chance?

[Big RR]

I get to keep my healthcare,

Your health care would still be there, only the subsidy you might receive would be eliminated.
you can thank me later if you do receive any subsidy

No, some would not be able to obtain it; and some would find access to policies, but not be able to cover preexisting conditions. Part of what the law does is assure healthcare is available for all by promising the insurance company a bog base of persons (like employer group policies do.

[Lord Jim]

Some would have lost their insurance because even it was available, without the subsides, they wouldn't be able to afford the premiums.

[Big RR]

That's true, and the shrinking pool of potential insureds would eventually cause insurers to drop out as well because they would fear losses if they insured those who were high risks.

[Gob]

Can't you lot get anything decided without having a three ring circus, a major court case, and a dog and pony show?

[Lord Jim]

It's the raucous nature of our Separation Of Powers democracy...

[Gob]

"Separation of powers"? Between lunacy and the long way around?

[Lord Jim]

With something as sweeping as Obamacare, you've had the President, the Senate, the House, the federal courts and the state governments and state courts, all with a right to some input ...As Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, "Democracy is untidy"...

[Gob]

This explains it. Well it explains what happened, not why it took such a lunatic process to produce it.

[rubato]

Yet another defeat of the Republican "let them die" health care plan.

fuck you Scalia.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

It is not too big a stretch to conclude that this is a big win for the Republicans running for Congress and the White House next year.

Had the decision gone the other way, they would be scrambling to restore the subsidies for people who would effectively have lost their coverage, and this would have made them look like fools for "fighting" SCOTUS-care for the past few years. It would have given all Lefties concerned a small mountain of talking points for the coming election.

But the fact is that ACA is, for most middle-class Americans a mini-disaster, but they don't realize it yet.

The removal of "pre-existing condition" exclusions and lifetime caps will cost the insurance companies (rate-payers) billions more than the supposed tidal wave of new revenues from healthy young people who presumably would not cost as much to insure. So the insurance companies are now busily raising their new rates, increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket annual caps, to compensate for these additional costs. Early in 2016 EVERYONE will be seeing their employers' coverages deteriorate, their premiums going up, and their after tax dollars going more and more into medical care that used to be covered by insurance.

To be personal for a moment, I get my health insurance through my wife's employer, which has always provided outstanding coverage. This year we are faced with a $5 thousand max out-of-pocket for each of us. Almost nothing is covered. It will come in handy if something major happens, but for practical purposes it is near worthless.

The Republicans need to develop a coherent narrative for 2016 that points out these developments and lays the blame squarely on Our Beloved President that the Democrat Congress that passed this abomination.

It also gives the R's a good talking point about future judicial appointments. We now have 5 or 6 members of the USSC who literally do not care what the Constitution or the laws say, which is easily demonstrated and illustrated. Outside of committed Lefties, most Americans will see this as a problem.

[oldr_n_wsr]

No, some would not be able to obtain it; and some would find access to policies, but not be able to cover preexisting conditions. Part of what the law does is assure healthcare is available for all by promising the insurance company a bog base of persons (like employer group policies do.

The ruling only addressed subsidies and who would get them (and that was what I was refering to) All other parts of obamacare would not have changed. As LJ pointed out, only those who no longer could afford Obamacare would have lost their coverage had the court gone the other way.

[Big RR]

Immediately , you are right. But the entire system is predicated on obtaining broad based coverage, and the insurers would bail if that were not included. Driving people away because of the end of the subsidies would have been the beginning of the end of the system.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Understood.
I think letting it collapse would be better anyway. What with pretty high premiums (and going higher all the time) and insane deductables, I can't wait til the employer provisions start in 2016.

And I heard Obama doubling down on how the average person (or family) is paying $1800 less now than if there was no Obamacare. Can't find a source but I know I heard it on the radio (and not on Rush/Hannity, it was on 1010 wins or 880)